This is more of a disscussion than just plain out choosing which is better.

Now, I personally divide the basics of Elder Scrolls lore into two groups, the "unique" version written mostly by the lovely Michael Kirkbride. And the mostly "traditonal" fantasy as seen in all Main ES games besides Morrowind.

Now, and espacially with the controversy on how ESO is being handled, many people are not so happy about how they feel that the lore is being changed. So I figured that there could be a civil debate about whether you prefer MK's version of the lore. Or the more "traditonal" version that Bethesda had done before Morrowind and maybe is following again since MK left.

Now I personally prefer the unique version of the lore. To me, Elder scrolls are one of the few fantasy related media that hasn't entirely copied Middle Earth. (Don't get me wrong, I like what little I read from Tolkien, but he was one of the first fantasy writers, so people tend to take inspiration from him.) And to have Bethesda and ZO take the pre Morrowind route and just change it back another generic fantasy realm will just be dissapointing. It already grinds me that how they changed Cyrodill in Oblivion to a forrest when it was originally a jungle.

I personally still see a ton of MK's influence in Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO and the two paperback novels and don't really see any of these as completely abandoning or retconning his vision of the world, but maybe that's just me. He certainly seems to take most of it in stride and even incorporates elements of it into his more recent writings, such as Dovah language and such.

I'm not saying the his work is being dismissed, but just that since he left, his work isn't making much of an impact on the games since Morrowind.