The same reason it provides enemies that can kill me, rather than roleplay swinging at me until I decide I'm "dead"?

He's not flaming. Everything he said was true. There are less quests, less towns, less skills, etc. The fact that there was arguably more detail in some of them does not change this. And the skills being improved on is a matter for debate. I think any skill under the Magic tree, for example, has been pretty widely panned for being disappointing. The new combat system, too, is also discussed a lot. Many of the Stealth skills went way downhill - Security, Speechcraft, and to some degree Mercantile are all worthless shadows of what they used to be. I can't think of more than two or three points in the game where someone's disposition was important, while in Morrowind getting someone to like you could be a huge simplifier to an otherwise difficult position on quite a number of occasions. Sneak was a big improvement, though, I'll give you that.

And I preferred the Morrowind towns. The way the different architecture gave you an immediate heads up as to which of the four political factions was dominant there was really cool, in my opinion, as opposed to Oblivion's "Each race has their own city" system. Which was nice, in many ways, just not as nice, IMHO.

And the rest of your post, the part about the quests, sounds more like an ad for Morrowind than anything.

There are a lot of great things about Oblivion, don't get me wrong, I'm just not really sure what you're getting at

2 different games in the same franchise. Very much related. One of them will always be better than the other, depending on who you ask.
The devil is in the details. Some of us like some of the details better than others.
The horse is dead. Why can't we let it's now pulverized remains rest?

Ah, heck! I can't resist. Morrowind was the superior game. Solely because of better writing.

I don't think I quite understand how that is similar to what I'm saying....

Let me clarify what I mean because maybe that got lost when you read my post:

To me it's as simple as the fast traveling argument:

If you don't want to use it then don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it and it's not immersion breaking unless you let it be

Same with the guild factions. If you don't think the head of the fighters guild should be the head of the thieves guild then don't become the head of the thieves guild

I hate it whenever I see this argument about fast travel. I don't want to fast travel, but I don't want to walk/ride a horse across Oblivion's boring landscape. There are no alternatives. Nothing like the mages guild teleports, mark and recall, Silt Striders, boats, etc that Morrowind had.

I've actually always kind of liked the ability to join opposing faction. At one point it's possible to be head of both the Thieves' Guild and the Cammona Tong, which I loved because it made me feel like a sly opportunist pitting two sides against each other. Whichever side triumphed, I profited. I do think it makes more sense with the Great Houses. Anyway, the way Morrowind did it, I was fine with.

The main issue I had with Oblivion were the skill requirements, or rather the lack thereof. I mean, sure, in Morrowind they were more just token than anything, but at least they were there. In Oblivion you could have 5s across the board in all your magic skills and still be Archmage, which just didn't make sense.

But horses were ever so fun to ride!

Especially when you had the most awesome DLC of them all: Horse Armor

Edit: Be that as it may for Fast traveling (and I suppose I can sympathize over few options of traveling besides fast travel)

But what would be the argument against being able to join all the guilds

That truly left you with the choice of how you wanted to play

That would be fine if the quest designers wouldn't assume I would use it and didn't make quests around this assumptions. In Oblivion, they did, thus the argument is invalid. Same for the quest markers, by the way.

As for not having any limitations on which guilds you can become the head of (... at level one, even), you're basically saying "I like my games' backgrounds to have no internal consistency at all, just like Oblivion!"

Its two different game from the same developer. Of course it would comparable. That said, I be a bit nikky picky on this:


"Prison Ship" =/= Actually Jail. Just saying.


This is assuming that these two game are still being made by the same developer. In that case, it is still comparable. When Fallout 3 came out, sure its a different game that Beth is use to making, but it show that it is still comparable to Oblivion in many, many things and people love to compare the performance of the making of these two games. If the game is from different Developer, unless it have the same title, then we would not really be talking about this comparison.


Made my life a bit easier on counting. Actually lets add in what ya forgot:
Ald'ruhn - 2
Sadrith Mora - 1
Ebonheart - 6
Ghostgate - 1
Gnisis - 2
Pelagiad - 4
Seyda Neen - 4
Suran -2
Buckmoth Legion Fort - 3
Moonmoth Legion Fort - 2
Tel Vos - 1
Ashlander Clan Quests - 5
Daedric - 7
Vampiric – 14

Thats 306 + 54 = 360 Quests total in vanilla.

Oblivion-wise, there 190 quests, not including buying a house, in Vanilla.


Except many of Oblivion's quest are ridiculous short (many of Morrowind's quest as well, but not as much as Oblivion). To me, Oblivion does not really felt like work as it also included a GPS tracking device rather then one finding his/her way of finishing the quest. Beside, I am the type that does not play all quests with one toon, as it feel a bit weird that my happy to go lucky assassin of the Dark Brotherhood become top mage of the Mage Guilds. With use roleplaying in mind, Oblivion offer a hell lot less for specific type of profession.

This is why confliction make sense in the past Elder Scrolls prior to Oblivion. It give it that feel that one have to replay the game again in a much different style.

Bethesda has stated many times that with each game in the series they start fresh. That's why Oblivion and Morrowind are so much different, in the same way that Morrowind and Daggerfall were different, I won't lie though, I feel that since Oblivion was the first "mainstream" ES title Bethesda will be more inclined to take a similar approach in the next installment.

Wow, that isn't an obvious bash at Oblivion. I barely even noticed how you seem to unanimously favor Morrowind based on this post.

The way I see it, each Elder Scrolls game is less of a sequel, and more of a reimagining of the series. Look at most video game sequels, and many are built on the same engine, with the same exact gameplay, with maybe a few new features. Each ES game though is almost nothing like it's predecessor, other than the whole open world fantasy idea.

Not really

They're all essentially, do quests, join guilds, kill things, maybe make some potions.

Each game is an open sandbox RPG, but each one has separate strengths and weaknesses. I really disagree with that notion that they're all independent from each other and I remember disagreeing when i first read that comment by the devs.

If you really take a look, you'll notice them not starting from a clean slate, but consciously addressing the concerns of the fans. The problem is that when they address the problems with the previous game, they forget the stuff that was good about it.

And so, these games shift focus.

Daggerfall- character customization

Morrowind- exploring and roleplaying

Oblivion- fighting

That's where the strengths and appeal lie with these three games, IMO. And I totally disagree that they are separate entities no matter who says so.

Ok bad example with the fast travel (didn't think it would ruffle so many feathers <_<)

As for the consistency argument I'm not quite sure what you're getting at (please specify I'm having a little trouble because of the grammar so stick with me until I figure it out)

If you wanted it to be consistent (as far as what guilds you could or couldn't join because of limitations) you could create the the consistency yourself. You didn't have to join a guild and become leader of it at level one, you could have waited til level 20 (or whatever level you wanted or thought it should be)

I'm just not sure why the developers would need to add something in the game mechanics that prevented you from doing so

We don't want it to be like a game, we want it to be like a world. For example, in the TES world, there's no way in hell a member of the Thieves' Guild could join the Morag Tong. (They're rivals)

You could choose one, but not both. It adds so much necessary realism.

So you're basically admitting the game world in Oblivion has no internal consistency regarding the guild quests. The player has to create it for himself or herself.



It's not about game mechanics - Morrowind's game mechanics didn't prevent me from becoming the guild master/head of the house of every single playable factions either, I could always open up the console and type the right player.setStage command for it. It's about game world design.

Ok I understand what you're saying about the Thieves guild and the Morag Tong

Even so I don't necessarily see why you have to have a game mechanic stating you can't join both factions

You yourself said the Morag Tong and the Thieves Guild are rivals and one would have to choose between them. If that's the case and you know it why would you join both fully aware that they are rivals and they don't get along?

There's already a barrier when you're in that mindset and you don't necessarily need a game mechanic telling you so.

In other words, Oblivion doesn't hold your hand as Morrowind does, in that aspect.

There are a few. The most immediate is the plausibility/immersion factor; some people just want these things to be more realistically presented, which is a personal preference not worth arguing over from either side.

A bit more substantial is the issue of balance. Factions are major sources of unique loot and resources, and as with immersion not everyone wants the player to have that kind of easy access to everything. If future games had a more involved, "alive" world, with things like a more balanced economy or faction relations affecting things more deeply than initial NPC influence, or other things like higher difficulty or more scarce items, this could become a bigger deal.

More significant is how they interact. Some faction quests in Morrowind could conflict; steal something from the thieves' guild, kill or protect the people in some outpost depending on the family you joined. Making it easy to join every faction pretty much requires that the designers not do this, but instead make each faction completely self-involved and essentially meaningless to the outside world so that they don't conflict in the middle of the road. Some people would rather join one group and interact with the others from that unique angle than join them all as their own solitary things.

But, that's all from me. I'd rather avoid the bickering these threads are always doomed to.

But otherwise it would be like playing Dungeons and Dragons without a dungeon master. You need the dungeon master there to tell you what is possible. Certain limitations are needed, or else it becomes a game (Oblivion) instead of a world (Morrowind).


:lmao: It's called realism, not hand holding. Hand holding is having a magic piece of pie telling you where to go.

When Oblivion got AI schedules and voice-acting, it became more of a world than Morrowind.

In the schedules aspect, yes. In the voice acting aspect, that's debatable. Some could say it's more world-like because it's more natural feeling, and some could say that it's less world-like because there's less to talk about. Either way, I feel that Morrowind overall felt more world-like than Oblivion.

Remember, the game telling you that you can't join rival factions isn't hand holding. It's realism. It's basically sending the message to the player that this is a real world, with real limitations. If you could join both, it would shout "FAKE!" I mean, even look at real life. You can't join both the Bloods and the Crips and say "I could add realism to this if I wanted to." You would have to join one or the other. That's what RPGs are about, role playing in a world. It's not really a world if it doesn't have realistic limitations.

I rather find the limits often championed on these forums like playing for a draconian DM who wants everything to be exactly by the book, even if it gets in the way of everyone else's enjoyment, personally.

If you want to not do everything with a single character, don't. Why stop someone else from being able to enjoy everything all at once? The personal weaknesses of a few forum denizens who can't impose limits on themselves is not a realistic reason to tell someone that we necessarily need to stop them from trying out a faction. End of story.

If someone would even want to do all that in one character I question why they play RPGs. I quote myself:

But a question:

What makes immersion and what breaks it?

Most of the people who have replied to my arguments here in this thread know a great deal of TES lore.

As Nextmastermind has stated the Thieves Guild and the Morag Tong are rivals. Knowing full well that they are rivals and joining both would be immersion breaking why would he, or anyone else who cares about the immersion and lore of the game, do so?

Part of immersion is knowing the games lore, and while it would have been cool for some guild faction fighting, for whatever reason the devs didn't include it and allowed for the freedom for the player to choose if they wanted to join multiple factions

At this point it almost seems as if they are saying "you make the immersion and you make it consistent"

The Thieves' Guild is unknown and Dark Brotherhood agents can be undercover. Mages' Guild and Fighters' Guild members don't have a mark branding them as outcasts from the Thieves' Guild and the Dark Brotherhood(so they can conceal their identities). A thief is a thief and a murderer is a murderer. We're not comparing the Morag Tong and the Dark Brotherhood or the Camonna Tong and the Thieves' Guild, but even if that were the case, where is the mark on my forehead that signals to one group that I'm of an enemy faction?

I don't know if rivals is the correct term, as one is a group of thieves and one is a group of assassins. Either way, they hate each other with a passion. Or is it Theives guild and Commona Tong? Gah! I'll have to refresh my TES lore this summer, I haven't played MW in ages.


You have a good point about the Oblivion thieves guild and dark brotherhood, as in both of those you could go unknown to the other (I don't even know if they hate each other in OB, though) and to the rest of the world. However, a member of the Fighter's Guild should not be able to join the Mage's Guild. Not because they hate eachother, but because a warrior should not be able to become a good mage.