It was before said that ESV is a direct sequel to Oblivion. Is this actually true, or was it just a rumor?

That depends how you define sequel. It's a game set in the same world with a storyline as the result of the events in TESIV, but it doesn't feature the same main character (unless you want it to) and will probably have no returnign characters, other than M'aiq.

Rumor, I think. None of the games are direct sequals in that meaning of the word, but a tale of a new Event.

Besides what others has answered, If what you want to know is if there is no time transcurring between Oblivion and skyrim, it is. 200 years.

What the other guys said. It's set a few hundred years later, the empire is in decline following the events of "oblivion", and you have to deal with a whole new set of problems but with the same world and lore, but with the changed that a few centuries bring with them.

No the events do not 'follow on' from oblivion but it is set in the same timeline etc, 200 years after the oblivion crisis. There is tons of info within this forum about the game and all the details....

eh???

yes it happens 200 after OB and yes its ES 5, yes I think its 5

No. Todd Howard has stated, a few times, that none of the games are direct sequels. In that sense Skyrim is as much as sequel for Morrowind as it is Oblivion (and he did mention how it is- in a way- a sequel to Fallout being that's where they got a lot of the inspiration for the game from.) Each part of TES is its own game, it stands out on its own, its what makes TES great. But at the same time, all the games flow- but aren't directly sequels

It's no more a direct sequel to Oblivion than Oblivion was to Morrowind, Bethesda has made all of the Elder Scrolls games independent stories, of course, they take place in the same world, and so far, the main games in the series have followed chronological order, with Arena being the earliest and Oblivion being the latest among the currently released games (Obviously, Skyrim will take it's place when it's released.) there may even be lose threads tying the games' stories together, but they are not direct sequels in the usual sense, Skyrim doesn't follow the story began with Oblivion, but rather starts a new one, and you don't generally need to have played older games to understand the story of a later one. Now, you could say Skyrim is a sequel to Oblivion in the sense that it's an Elder Scrolls game that follows it, but the story in itself is entirely independent.

The part about it being a direct sequel was a pre-announcement rumor, I understand, and I'm not sure of the basis for the rumor, but the fact that someone said the Elder Scrolls V would be a direct sequel to Oblivion does not necessarily make it so. Admitably, some of the pre-announcement rumors and speculation proved accurate, but that doesn't mean all were true.

I read somewhere how the dragons and ultimately Alduin return due to a sequence of events that occurred in the past (previous games), culminating with the lighting of the dragon fires in Oblivion. So my take is (and seriously, please correct me if I'm wrong) that it is not a direct squeal, yet it is set in the same "world" 200 years after Oblivion (as many have said) and is also heavily linked through the establish TES lore (and will likely lead in some way to events in TES VI if we are so blessed)

Exactly. Each Event stand alone, but also add too the conflicts of the world of TES. The Event in Skyrim is supposed to tie the events of TES 1-4 togheter, but it isn't a direct sequel.

The events of each game could be considered to have caused the events of the game after it.
Arena. The political turmoil of Jagar Tharns interregnum causes conflicts in High Rock and Hammerfell. In addition the emperors desire to keep check on powerful magical artifacts such as the staff of chaos leads to the events of:
Daggerfall. The Numidium is found and destroyed, causing a dragon-break.
Morrowind. With the Numidium gone the empire has no significant weapons against Dagoth Ur who decides that he can put his plans of world-domination in motion with nothing in his way and curbstomp everyone with his own numidium. The tribunal is weakened and destroyed.
Oblivion. With the Tribunal, the greatest threat to his power, gone Mehrunes Dagon decides to invade Nirn.

Now with the Amulet of Kings gone, now Alduin/Auri-el finally free to omnomnom Nirn like a spoiled brat at will. So I believe

And with Martin kicking the bucket and closing off Nrin from deadric invasion, this allows for Audin/Akatosh to pull his dragony stuff.

It depends on your definition of sequel. According to some places I've read, a sequel is simply another installment in a series, but also envelops the terms prequel and interquel. In this definition, a direct sequel is simply a sequel that follows afterwards in the timeline. Most people I know define sequel as taking place later in the storyline by nature, while a direct sequel is a sequel that immediately follows the events of the first. So, a sequel is something like Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring in relation to The Hobbit, while a direct sequel would be LotR: The Two Towers to LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring.

If you take the first definition of sequel there, then yes, Skyrim is a direct sequel but not an immediate one. The more common definition lists Skyrim as a sequel, but it takes place long after the events of the previous game, making it not a direct (immediate) sequel.

Its more of a continuation than a sequel

I consider it more of a successor than a sequel

I'd say "no". You're not continuing the same story (yes, it's in the same world, but it's a new plot), and you're not carrying on with previous characters.


So while it may be considered a sequel (another game in the same series & setting), it's not a direct sequel.

It IS a direct sequel. Yes, it's 200 years later. Yes, it's unlikely to see a single recurring character. Yes, it works as its own standalone game. But it's still a direct sequel to Oblivion in the sense that, without the events of Oblivion, there would be no story. It's all been a big build up to the present story of Skyrim. The jewel of Red Mountain, the Heart of Lorkhan, was "destroyed" and then Martin and his heirs were killed, making the Dragonfires not be lit, thus 2 of the major towers of Tamriel were down, allowing the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion to be weak enough for Dagon to invade. The Oblivion Crisis also plays some sort of significant role in the awakening of the dragons and the coming of Alduin, so says the wall that we've seen in all of the videos for Skyrim.

The details aren't clear, but yes, it's a direct sequel as much as any other game has been a direct sequel.

As much as, but not more than. Without Morrowind, there would be no Oblivion. The Emperor would still have died, but the Barriers, which Red Mountain was helping hold up, would have been strong enough to prevent Dagon's invasion. Same goes for Daggerfall- Numidium was another "tower". And it appears the Staff of Chaos was pretty important too, seeing as how it's on Alduin's Wall.

The plots of each game build on the previous, but the story's are completely self-contained entities. This isn't like Mass Effect, where each game is a part in a trilogy. All games in TES appear to be plots of an overarching storyline, but you don't need to play Oblivion to understand what's going on in Skyrim, which is more than can be said for things like Mass Effect.