I'm done here..

Yes, and while I've changed my mind and think Camoran and Ur are relatively the same intention wise, I still think Ur is way more dynamic and Camoran was just a poorly written character to emulate Ur.


Since I assume you're talking to me I would like to know how thinking one game has more depth storywise and the other is poorly written means I think the game is rubbish.

But yeah now I'm done here, since everybody likes to jump on me for my opinions and other people like to try and make me feel stupid.

Oblivion. The Daedra attacking was so cool.

Don't you just love these little semi-related arguments we get into

Anyways, I would say a tie between Daggerfall and Morrowind, I loved the alienated and shrouded story of Daggerfall, but the Morrowind experience is near-unbelieavble!

Dagoth Ur was in the game for just a couple minutes at the end, are we even sure he was the big evil of that game? I thought gameplay confirmed that the big evil was dark elf bureaucracy.

I think both villains are similar because they were created by the same writers probably. Neither were very creative, nor has any villain really been in the past 5000 years. So, I disagree that Camoran was created just to copy Ur.

I also don't think Ur himself is really that much more three-dimensional. Of course, the story surrounding him certainly is.


If you don't think it's rubbish, then obviously I'm not talking about you. There are people, though, who have nothing good to say about Oblivion despite the fact that they still regularly play it. :nope:

I personally think Oblivion was one of the best, if not the best action game I've ever played. However, as an RPG (choice, skill variety, openness) it was certainly rubbish and I never picked it up again after beating it for the first time.

Aw screw it I'll keep discussing this, as long as certain people leave me alone <_<

I guess I should be more clear, I don't think he was created to copy Ur, I just think Bethesda tacked Camoran on in order to have a villain that the fanbase of Morrowind would enjoy as an Ur-like character. If that makes sense.

Thats a good outlook. I think that in particular is what Camoran suffered from. Not being the big cheese in the story, he didn't require as much as Ur to flesh him out.


Oh my statement wasn't directed toward you, but to Hellmouth.


Thats pretty much the way I see it too.

But, see, that's where you lose me. Because Oblivion isn't as deep as Morrowind, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad RPG. It is a completely different gameplay experience if you're a thief/archer than if you're a warrior who prefers battleaxes. Any game where the choices you make in terms of specialization ultimately make a difference is a good RPG, in my opinion. Bioshock would be an example of the other side of the spectrum, because while it has RPG elements, by the end of the game you basically have every powerup and every weapon skill, so the only difference was the path you took to godlike strength. In all of the Elder Scrolls games, the path you take ultimately leads to very different characters, both in terms of the choices you make and the skills you earn. If the definition of "rubbish" is that there's something better than it, what does that make Morrowind? And if that's not the definition you're using, then how is Oblivion rubbish, looking at it without comparing it to the other games in the series. If Oblivion was instead based on the Forgotten Realms franchise, but its story and gameplay mechanics were identical, I wonder if people would like it more, just because that comparison to Morrowind wouldn't exist. :shrug:

@Sir-Stabs-a-Lot That's the same thing, you're just wording it differently. I think he's in the plot because Mehrunes Dagon kind of fails at plotting and scheming and couldn't have accomplished his goal without a more sophisticated mind to gain him supporters and actually enable him to go stompy stomp all over the Imperial City. I really don't think it has anything to do with a cynical attempt on the part of Bethesda to make an "Ur-like" character, since their motivations and personalities are wildly different.

Not exactly. There's a difference between copying a character and modeling a previous character.

They had similar intentions: Recreate the world in their own image, but they went about it differently. It just seems like Ur was much more fleshed out while Camoran just felt tacked on.

I actually think the plot of Oblivion was an homage to Arena. They went back to classic fantasy roots with ogres and goblins.

You start out in the dungeon and end in the city. You're fighting a crazy usurper who wishes to rule with evil magic.

The fact that Camoran can be anolyzed as maybe misunderstood is definitely reminiscent of Dagoth Ur, but I don't believe it was aimed at Morrowind's fanbase. I think it's just Bethesda's style. Now, Shivering Isles was definitely made with Morrowind's fanbase in mind.

@St. Jiub:
to each his own. Oblivion was not what I look for in an RPG for the following reasons:
-Certain areas were completely closed off or empty until you unlock them with a quest, like dungeons and the university (meaning it was not and open-ended sandbox game)
-there weren't nearly enough skills to make more than two truly unique character-builds, imo
-pretty much every quest plays out the same way each time and there were no non-combat options
-"idiot-proofing" like unkillable NPCs, unsellable quest items, and the pointer killed the challenge
-extreme scaling made leveling a novelty at best

If you can play Oblivion over and over and still be entertained, then more power to you. I'm not trying to bash the people who prefer it. But, I genuinely lost all interest in the game after my first playthrough and I'd like to let it be known, on the company's website that Oblivion is not what I look for in an RPG, the improvements it made were not worth the sacrifices, Bethesda is capable of so much more, as we saw with Fallout 3 and Morrowind and Daggerfall, and I am done purchasing Bethesda games without first reading the forums to make sure I'll enjoy it for more than a few months.

Yeah, I repeat the same argument a lot. But who knows how often the devs actually read these things. What's better, maybe a more independent developer will notice my points and agree. Then I won't have to rely on Bethesda for fun RPGs anymore.

Mount and Blade, for example, was a huge improvement over Oblivion because it improved combat, while at the same time, kept RPG elements like choice and customization and replay value as priorities.

You're right that I would have liked Oblivion a whole lot more if i weren't comparing it to Morrowind. However, not only are they both Bethesda games, but Morrowind is also my favorite RPG and I compare every RPG I play to it. And of course I'm going to judge the direct sequel more harshly.

FYI: If they call a game "The Elderscrolls IV" it's just silly for me not to expect it to be a sequel to "The Elderscrolls III."

I completely agree with both of these statements. People seem to not realise such obvious things...

Oblivion is an RPG with a high replay value that many of us enjoy(and quite naturally, we[humans] defend what we enjoy). It has freedom like Morrowind, just not in the exact same way(I can break out of jail now, move bodies/objects however I want now, design my own face now, move around the gameworld more freely, choose what factions I want to join instead and in what combination more freely, make poisons, block/have more control over what my character does, etc). People seem to not realize such obvious things...

P.S. It is Morrowind's sequel, and the closest game to Morrowind in existence, but it isn't Morrowind.

Freedom needs limits. Imagine if, in TESV, we where given a Daedric Claymore from the start. How much would that svck? While Oblivion is nowhere near that bad, it is still the same basic princible. While some amounts of freedom are good; Moving bodies/objects, designing faces (though these are poorly implemented, imo), and breaking out of jail. Some aren't. Like being able to do literally everything in one save game, and, in a lot of opinions, controlled blocking.

Freedom isn't what makes an RPG a great RPG. REALISTIC freedom, imo, makes a great RPG. (among many other things)



"Oblivion is an RPG with a high replay value". I didn't find that very obvious :shrug:. You shouldn't say something that loads of people compeltely disagree with is a hard, obvious, solid fact.

And before I get that "putting words into my mouth" thing I frequently seem to be the victim of; I was simply stating that ESIV is obviously the sequel to ESIII.



It seems I'm too late. I didn't say that. <_<

Before getting back to the plot part of the topic, I just have to question realism in any Elder Scrolls game. It's not really one of the series' greatest accomplishments. I will now connect it to the plots.

Dagoth Ur-immortal being who uses the heart of a dead god to keep his immortality

Mankar Camoran-old, powerful sorceror who believes the central continent of the mortal world was once the realm of the dead god mentioned previously(the unrealistic part, aside from being an old sorceror, is that in TES universe, his belief may be true)

Both are elves.

Blight/Corpus diseases-don't exist and Corprus isn't a disease caused by viruses/bacteria as diseases do in our world

Daedra who are under the command of the representation of destruction/change/revolution attacking and attempting to destroy the world-this is even unrealistic in TES universe, as stable gates to Oblivion from which Daedra can come out are not supposed to be possible, but towers maintaining a barrier between these two strange worlds and the fact that an invasion is possible with the fall of a few towers is a ridiculously unrealistic scenario

The most realistic plot would be Daggerfall's, but none of the games are really all that realistic.

Oh, if I had a penny for every one of these "realism" arguments. Sure, there's a limit to realism (I don't want to sprain my ankle when I'm running around), but there's also a limit to non realism. No realism in a game makes it awful. Do I really need to explain why?

Look at Bethesda's biggest, most reliable, target audience, the fanbase. How often do we create and praise realism mods? How many hunger mods are there? Tonnes of us WANT to eat, WANT to drink, WANT to sleep. Bethesda may want to reach out to mainstream gamers (shudder), hence there is no eating and drinking in the main game, but they wont go ridiculously far away from us. We made them. And, I may add, there is a lot of hype about Fallout: New Vegas' hardcoe mode. Apparently, the mainstream crowd likes realism. Pretty much everyone Bethesda is targetting now likes realism.

Why have I suddenly became the target of this flaming, anyway?

"I agree"
"FLAME HIM!!!"

@Hircine How is Oblivion anything like your example, in principle or otherwise? You're right, a game like that would svck. But Oblivion, I would argue, is actually at the other end of the spectrum, as you don't even have a chance to find a true Daedric claymore for much of the game. I will concede one point-- you shouldn't be able to master everything in one playthrough, but I'm curious, was Morrowind really any different (with the exception of the Fighters Guild/Thieves Guild)? Yes, the game made it clear that certain factions didn't like each other, but was there anything in terms of gameplay to stop the player from becoming master of the Fighters Guild, Mages Guild, Morag Tong, Tribunal Temple, Imperial Legion, Imperial Cult, and whichever Great House strikes your fancy? I always stick to the Temple and House Redoran, so I'm honestly asking.

EDIT: And maybe, as I mentioned to another person on this forum, the way you write has something to do with the tone people take with you. Though I haven't seen it in a while from you, things like :facepalm: don't really do anything to help your argument.

I pulled your name out of my hat of random flaming targets for the day.

I didn't mean to flame you in any way. Sorry about that. There's no point in arguing. I'm just going to go see how my stronghold's coming along.

Well there's the faction requirements, which help out a little so your stupid Orc Barbarian couldn't become Archmagister of Telvanni. Oblivion doesn't have anything like that, which is dumb. :shrug:


Neither do passive aggressive winky faces. <_<

And seti you still haven't responded to my damn post from like 4 pages back. Don't make me hunt you down. :toughninja:

Which post would that be?

Morrowind. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could ever possibly vote for Oblivion's storyline. It is just plain terrible. Even Arena had a better plot.

I said that Morrowind was a perfect game? Morrowind has flaws, you know. (psst, you can be head of both the Fighter's Guild and Thieves Guild in Morrowind, but I think it was a bug, it's kinda tricky)

Oh, btw; :facepalm:



http://www.amplify-interactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fistbump.jpg <--- Clicky.

Hang on lemme find it, it was the discussion about Morrowind and Oblivion having the same premise Main Quest wise, but Morrowind having more underlying detail. Just ignore any of the passive aggressiveness in that post because yesterday was a bad day.

I'll just copy and paste:

See, what I'm trying to say, is yes, both games have the same premise, but Morrowind had a lot more detail behind it. You are taking me completely out of turn. I never said the plots are any different. I'm saying Morrrowinds had so much behind it. Oblivion's MQ is one you can pick up and play while Morrowind's is slower and more deliberate with a lot more complexity. And you brought up two points, that I'll address separately to detail my point:

1) You mentioned earning the trust of the counts/countesses, and it's similarity to earning the trusts of the Great House councilors. That is an accurate statement, I completely agree. However, the difference is here, and perfectly highlights what I'm trying to say: In OB the quests were all close Oblivion gates, while in Morrrowind you had to get the votes, but there was always something else, that made things different, Sarethi's son, dealing with Dren diplomatically, all the bribes for the Hlaalu, getting the crazy Telvanni to vote you. And not to mention the Ashlanders all made you do something different. See what I'm saying is yes, on the surface the premise is identical, but under that surface in Morrowind is more depth.

2) You mentioned not being the "big good guy who was caught up in something beyond your comprehension and capabilities of achieving." Well thats not exactly accurate. Martin needed you, he couldn't have escaped Kvatch or went into Paradise by himself. He could have found someone else, just as the Empire could have released a different prisoner into Vvardenfell. But both times, the champions were chosen for a reason. The Nerevarine and CoC were both destined to be the Nerevarine and the CoC. You weren't caught up in something you shouldn't be a part of, because you were supposed to be a part. But anyway that wasn't my point. In Morrowind I don't believe you're the big good guy who is caught up in something within your comprehension, simply because yes, you are supposed to destroy Dagoth Ur and the false gods, but was it really a good thing to do, or were you just furthering Azura's agenda? Dagoth Ur had noble intentions, and the Tribunal always cared deeply for the Dunmer. Who were you to destroy them? They may or may not have murdered your previous life, but for their people. If it wasn't for them Akavir would've invaded and Mehrunes Dagon woulda destroyed Mournhold. Azura wanted them dead because she was selfish. I didn't feel like a good guy at the end, I felt like a pawn that had been coned into doing a Daedric Princes dirty work. And what of the Empire, they released you and wanted to use you as their pawn as well. The Morrowind main quest left a bad taste in my mouth at the end, in a good way because I felt as though I had no idea if what I had done was the right or wrong thing, in a way that Oblivion did not.

Now that's overly harsh. You must have played a different Arena than I did.

Actually, no. It is entirely possible, and completely not a bug to be the head of both the FG and TG. In fact, it's not hard at all for both, just as long as you follow the "good" path in the FG. A player could even be the head of Telvanni and Mages Guild, as long as you choose the "good" path in the Mages Guild. Now what is a bug and should not be possible is be the head of Redoran/Telvanni and Hlaalu.

Yeah Percius Mercius (what a weird name) helps to mediate the situation between the FG and TG, and helps you to find a different solution that last quest IIRC. I think future Elder Scroll games should have more situations like that, corrupt leaders of guilds, but other honest leaders with good intentions that will advise you through trouble.