Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Live 12-Hour Oblivion Marathon 106

HarvardFrankenstein writes "Gamespot's Greg Kasavin will be playing The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for 12 straight hours tonight (Monday, March 20th) and the entire marathon session will be broadcast live. Kasavin will be 'offering commentary about the experience as it transpires. Subscribers will see a picture-in-picture view of Kasavin as he spends an increasing number of successive hours playing the game, and they will be able to chat with each other over the course of the event.'" The event starts tonight at 6pm PST, if they get started on time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Live 12-Hour Oblivion Marathon

Comments Filter:
  • by Sp00nMan ( 199816 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @05:23PM (#14959915) Journal
    It's a sad, sad world when people will pay to watch someone else play a game over the internet.. ...unless of course it involves porn :)
  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArkonChakravanti ( 953458 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @05:25PM (#14959931)
    12 WHOLE hours? Wow what a hardcore gamer...

    But seriously, making this sound like an achievement is an achievement...
    • Not sure if there's no one else out there that'd agree, but on any given weekend, or time I have off work, I can put as much as 15-20 hours [Off and on] into WoW to bleed off the stress I pick up during the week.

      Granted, it's not an achievement, but sometimes that's as effective to me as a weekend at the beach might be for someone else. Or 20 hours of sleep. =) In today's society, twelve hours gaming doesn't seem like that much, at least to me. And to alot more on the web, I'd assume.

  • So what? Some guy plays for 12 hours, just like most gamers have done several times in their life. It's not exactly a difficult thing to do or anything.
    • Re:erm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday March 20, 2006 @06:17PM (#14960356) Homepage
      Wow, you and others are really bitter about this for some reason.

      I don't think the point is that playing for 12 hours is an achievement of note. I think the interest comes from the fact that a game reviewer is playing a game and, essentially, demoing it for folks for 12 hours live on the Internet. I can see where people might find that interesting, especially if they're one of the people - the many people if online talk means anything - who are considering buying an Xbox 360 or new PC components specifically for this game. For those people, the cost of a month's subscription to the site in order to watch the proceedings (perhaps not all 12 hours) might be well worth the money. It could also provide some insight into the thinking of a professional game reviewer while he's actually playing a game.

      Again, playing for 12 hours is no achievement at all. Like many, I've done 24+ hours stopping only to let caffeinated liquid out of my body. But that doesn't mean that this event isn't worthwhile or interesting.
      • I think a demo of the game would be much more useful that watching some 'professional' game reviewer play. Most 'professional' game reviews suck. Games get a 7 out of ten even if they are complete crap. Does anyone give any real credence to 'professional' game reviews anymore?
      • Re:erm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Reapy ( 688651 )
        I for one, have been looking forward to Oblivion since I heard it's annoucnment, and the only picture was that silly little picture of the name.

        I've been holding off watching videos because I remember running off the ship in morrowind and standing with my mouth agape looking at the fucking amazing water. I jumpped right in that, and ran around in it for a good 15 minutes watching it splash and move around different ways.

        Then I remember picking up and throwing silverware and forks and all the "junk" all ove
      • I've done 24+ hours stopping only to let caffeinated liquid out of my body
        Pff, hardcore gamers don't stop for such trifles.
  • by ZombieRoboNinja ( 905329 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @05:34PM (#14959997)
    David Cross has seen remarkable success in his business model of eating barbeque pork ribs and describing the experience to Orthodox Jews.

    "Mmm, this is delicious! Falling off the bone! Too bad your God won't let you eat this, mine doesn't give a crap!"

    Seriously. I want to PLAY THE GAME, not watch some media guy play the game (and almost certainly ruin the plot for me in the process). What kind of masochist would watch this?
  • Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @05:36PM (#14960026)
    We've been watching sports for ages. It's only logical that the same happens with games.

    Today it might seem strange. Watching someone play a game, I mean duuuuh? Can't do it yourself?

    This might change. Let's go into the realm of sports, let's go to American Football. Sure, you can play it yourself. But will you ever catch a 80 yards pass? Will you ever kick a 50 yards field goal? Or baseball, will you ever throw a ball in curves like the pros? Or hit for a killer homerun?

    Today's computer games don't really lend themselves well for "pro-gaming". They're too easy. Everyone can play them at a decent level. After all, that's what they're made for: For the general audience. They have to be playable for everyone, at a more or less decent level.

    This might change, we might see the advent of "pro games". Games with a difficulty that scales up with the skill of the player, where the game doesn't "level off" at a certain point where more skill does not automatically mean better playing.

    And a more interesting game. Watching a game can be more interesting when you actually get to see something you won't see at home, because the pro player can do stunts you won't ever be able to copy. Current games don't offer this kind of experience.
    • by Tom ( 822 )
      Today's computer games don't really lend themselves well for "pro-gaming". They're too easy. Everyone can play them at a decent level.

      You've not played True Combat against me, or Descent (I, II, no matter) against a friend of mine. He practically ate us all for lunch, even when we banded together. In TC I used to go on servers without armour and only a pistol and still ruled. I've seen other people play RTS games at such a speed that I could barely follow what was going on.

      Skill's most definitely a factor.
      • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )
        Well, don't get me wrong but just because your friend ate you all at Descent doesn't mean that he's a one of a kind unique super pro player. I pretty much left my friends behind me at Grand Prix Legends on a regular base, with default settings and a full tank against tuned cars. No problem.

        Then I went online. Then I saw that I really, really suck and can't even remotely hold a candle to some others.

        But at some level, current games limit you. There is such a thing as a "perfect game" in today's games, where
        • "Sports are rarely in balance, if ever. One player has more stamina. Or more strength. Or he can run faster. Sports is not only a game of tactics and strategy, it's also a matter of your physical condition. That part has been eliminated in computer games." Games dont have perfect balance either. EG, FPS: 1v1 DM... both players start with same health and weapons (offence), but quickly the balance shifts, as players gather and lose health, armor and weapons. Soon 1 player may have more strength (weapons)
        • Id say this isn't the case...

          In sports both teams have the same distance to go (100 yards, full court, 4 bases, whatever). both teams use the same equipment. both teams follow the same set of rules...

          What differentiates teams are the people playing. that's where games ARE the same. same set of rules, same tools. the only difference is between the keyboard and the chair. The only difference in 'sports' is the person holding the 'ball'.

          That's why when you play starcraft, quake, descent, or whatever game there
          • I dare to disagree. Especially car races are a perfect example of unequal equipment making a difference (I don't know about Indy, I heard they all drive the same equipment, but it is VERY different in Formula 1). There are "weaker" teams and "stronger" ones, and even a perfect driver in an underdog car would never really stand a chance against a good driver in the perfect car. Though, usually, the best drivers are also sitting in the best cars.

            This could be a chance for games to be more interesting, where a
        • Its been done;

          Perfect balance, but individual ability factors in many times-- Being able to accurately time everything (when is this item going to respawn? when do I need to prefire this rocket based on the noise I just heard?), precision (try keeping a lightning shaft on someone.. It's hard. Or juggle someone with rockets, etc), and a form of stamina thats hard to explain -- Most games let you rest at some point, for example at the end/begining of a round, or after a wave of attacks. In deathmatch, if you
          • Actually, back when I used to play it a lot, I felt that Counter Strike was pretty well balanced, assuming you had an equal number of talented players on each team. There really weren't any of the "collect resources to deny the other team" tactics, but that could be solved by simply not getting killed. I can't tell you how many good matches of CS I had simply because I was matched with similarly skilled players. Oh, and one can't discount some of the great one on one battles you would occasionally get in
        • Did you even watch the olympics? Top competitors in timed events are seperated by 100ths of a second. These are humans competeing at peak physical condition where things like relative humidity and cloud cover have more impact on the outcome of the race than particiants' strategy. Computer games are a lot more similar to real world sports than you think.
    • Games will never make it to this level for quite a few reasons.

      1. Nobody cares - Basically, people only care about a small subsection of games that they play and can understand. If someone never played a game, or hasn't at least watched some one play it a lot, any feats that a super-awesome player manages to accomplish are meaningless to the watcher. You have to understand something to appreciate it...it's the same with real world sports as well. People who don't play or watch golf regularly don't apprec
      • I agree on 1 and 2, and they will most likely be the killer for "pro gaming".

        3, though, is a different matter. You can actually create games that are interesting to play at an "amateur" level, but where watching a "pro" play could be interesting. Think of sports. Everyone can hurl a baseball, everyone can kick a football and with a bit of training you can ski or snowboard. You might even be able to do a stunt or two in a halfpipe. It's fun.

        But you'll never ever do those perfect tricks that the pros do. You
    • You're absolutely right.

      Halo 2 really exemplifies this with their ranking system (players level 1-something with 1 being lowest skill and going up, changing based on match results in individual gametypes, in ranked matches). I have a friend who's a level 32, and believe me, seeing a bunch of people in the 30s duke it out on Live is just freaking amazing.

      Me and my other less-skilled friends even watch it like a sport. We get excited when the action gets really intense or when someone pulls off a bad-as

    • I take it you've never seen the Speed Demos Archive [speeddemosarchive.com]. An good number of people doing a lot of things you'll never be able to do at home without an awful lot of painful practice.

      If you like the game, it can be really interesting (and helpful to your gameplay) to see the kinds of tricks they pull off in order to blast through these games.
  • by Tom ( 822 )
    I've got the wrong job. 12 hours Oblivion? Before it's released? And being paid to do that? Where can I apply? :)

    Seriously, I guess it stops being fun when you have to do it, and can't go "'nough for tonight, I need some sleep" when you feel like it.

    errrr... not that 12 hours is that long. I think I've had longer sessions myself...
  • because there is nothing more frustrating then watching someone else play a game you'd love to be playing yourself. It's a frustration and anger that can be tied directly to road rage. You just want to take a tire iron to someone who just can't make a certain jump or keeps shooting the enemy in the feet instead of the head. I think I'll wait until I can pick up the game itself, save myself the consternation.
  • by Keith Russell ( 4440 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @06:08PM (#14960295) Journal

    Bethesda Nightmare Scenario #1:

    T + 1:00:00: Oblivion.exe has experienced a problem and needs to close.
    T + 2:20:54: Oblivion.exe has experienced a problem and needs to close.
    T + 3:54:29: Oblivion.exe has experienced a problem and needs to close.

    Bethesda Nightmare Scenario #2:

    T + 9:29:30: "Done!"

  • by dud83 ( 815304 ) <dud@dud3.1415926core.net minus pi> on Monday March 20, 2006 @06:21PM (#14960390) Homepage Journal
    12 hours?
    My grandmother could play 12 hours straight... Get back to me when you've played Elite for 2 days straight you damn toddler!
  • does anyone have a direct link? that site makes my eyes sore with content. i tried to look around for about 10 minutes but couldnt see any link to the video feed anywhere. Might be interesting to check out for 10 minutes or something.

    Anyone got a direct link or could point me in the direction of the video feed page?

  • Stupid idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sathias ( 884801 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @07:13PM (#14960729)
    I want to discover the first 12 hours of the game myself, not let some game media bozo do it for me.
  • Umm what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ClamIAm ( 926466 ) on Monday March 20, 2006 @07:55PM (#14960962)
    Subscribers will see a picture-in-picture view of Kasavin as he spends an increasing number of successive hours playing the game

    As opposed to what, a decreasing number of successive hours?

  • Huh? What's that?
  • Would have been nice to know from the summary that it's being broadcast to subscribers only.
  • Ok, I understand the NYTimes Free signup, but I'm not going to pay $4 just to watch this video. I think that this would be great if it was free, but forget it now.

    First, I haven't played a game for 12 hours in years, and I'm certainly not going to watch him play for 12 hours, just to get my appetite up to buy a 360 and a $70 game.

  • Yep, that's what I had last night - right after I purchased the game.
  • The 12 hours are up, and everything went perfectly. He hit a few difficult snags in gameplay here and there, but came up with some neat ways to solve the problems. The Xbox 360 hung up one time during loading, but it seems to have been the console's fault, after 10 hours of straight use.

    I have to say, I was not impressed with the game until I watched this marathon. Now I'm seriously considering buying it for PC.
  • I might watch this, for the same reason I'd watch an auto race. Not for the game, not for the sport. I just want to see the crashes. Looking at the history of the elder scrolls series, I don't think I'd have to wait 12 hours...

  • Now Bethesda can move on to full production of Fallout 3. Hopefully, it will retain the spirit of the Black Isle originals. The bleak setting, humor, nuanced characters, and option rich gameplay made the game remarkable.

    HINT: To please fans, all they have to do is add an OPTION for top down view of turn-based action. Yeah, sure, make it a tactical, story-rich FPS in the Fallout universe. That's fine, BUT include the OPTION for old school play.

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev