The icky feeling you get for breaking immersion is the consequence

But there are those who don't follow it, and aren't really playing TES how it should be played - as a world. They'd be playing it more like a casual game, which is NOT what TES is supposed to be.

Not to mention if I am a member of the Thieve's Guild and I got into the place with all the Commona Tong members, I'd expect a "Get out, we don't want you here." Not a "Ohai, you want to join us?"

Realism. It goes a long way.

So one person being a [censored] means... what exactly? 'One person.' There are at least that many jack-holes in the world. So what? Would you credit the comparisons you think are fair? I'd like to see them.


anyway,
Nobody here's even comparing the games, but arguing the merit of comparing the games. Nice.

Given that I can (and did, in my first playthrough) pass all the "tests" Oblivion's guilds require at level one with lousy stats, even killing a god in the process, I'd say neither is really convincing. Ideally, most guilds should at test your basic ability to do what they need you to do in a controlled environment. As such, Morrowind's "skill level requirements" are a very high-level abstraction of such tests - too high-level for my tastes.

EDIT:



Don't be silly. Breaking (out of) the lore should have consequences for your character. It shouldn't have any for the player, it's just a game after all.

But you're not other people so why would you care how they play the game?

I personally didn't like either Morrowind's or Oblivion's way of advancing in guilds.

Which realistic limitations are those?

Morrowind, where you can't be in the Thieves Guild and the Imperial Legion at the same time? (oops. Just checked my save. I'm at the top of both)
Or is that TES III, where you can't serve the Tribunal and the Nine Divines? (drat. It seems I did that, too)
Or maybe we're talking about the previous TES game, where you can't be in a few factions at the same time if you complete all the missions that are both legal and valid according to the Guild charter? (Wait a sec... I'm pretty sure the charters don't allow Guild business to violate imperial law, like the whole 'don't murder people' one... foiled again)

That leaves... the Great Houses: a bunch of good-for-nothing blights on the Dunmer race. Fortunately, UESP indicates that I've mostly missed a bunch of fetch quests by not bothering to deal with these factions so far.

Or... could you mean TES II's madlib quests for Guilds were somehow what you are missing, because it somehow felt realistic that children get kidnapped and the Fighter's Guild gets involved every month...?

Either way, your bias is showing...

I understand that, but which is more immersive and reflective of the real world?

You resorted to calling me biased. I am done trying to debate with you on the forums. If you wish to continue your arguments, send me a PM.

The problem with biases is that everyone is biased in some way. Please no name-calling...

And that's a good thing? Zero replayability, there. The only reason I could replay Oblivion is to try another class.

I love how you accuse someone of flaming and you start flaming yourself, with invalid points.

Just my 2 cents to the "freedom" discussion.
Freedom in a game is nice and if there is one thing that makes me come back to Oblivion form other games, it is its freedom in which it is unsurpassed (except for Morrowind, which is more or less equal in this respect, in my opinion). However, too much freedom is as bad as too little. Freedom sounds nice, but if overdone, it destroys everything. You want complete freedom in your game and by only limited by self-imposed rules? Well what about this:

All enemies have only one life-point, compared to the player, who is always in a god mode. You can restrain yourself and impose a limit of enemies you can kill, you do not need some game mechanics to do this for you

Upon starting the game, you should receive infinite amount of currency and the first shop you find should hold all the items available in the world worth 1 piece of the currency, so that you can buy anything and everything. You would have to employ your self-restraint and RP that you cannot buy everything.

You can walk through walls if you wish, you should not be limited in this if you do not wish to be.

I could continue with this for some time, but the trend is obvious I think. We need some kind of limitations. Self imposed rules are nice, but they do not suffice. Giving too much freedom to players is like giving too much freedom to small children. It inevitably leads to frustration. Of course the question is how much freedom/limitations we need. I thin that limiting the character in what factions he/she can join or when he/she can advance is a good thing and should be brought back. I hope that TES V will introduce some new factions. If so, how should I know on the first play-through which of them are rivals and which are friends? If I'm told that I cannot join faction A and B at the same time, I can make a good guess that those two factions are not on friendly terms. Also imposing limitations on the character (and thus the player) makes the world seem to be less centred on the player (and his/her avatar in the game world), which is a nice thing too.

I play tabletop games, the pinnacle of "freedom".
But that freedom hinges on storytelling, consistency and, ultimately, restrictions on what you can and cannot do with a character(be they plotwise or mechanical). The TES-games is the electronic equivalent of tabletop for me, something I can do when I'm not able to get my friends together and play the old-fashioned way.
I love the TES-games simply because they're the sandbox where I can do what I want within reason.

If I wanted a no-brain colour-fest, I'd go play WoW or a FPS instead. I don't.

Roleplaying is what allows me to replay.

You see you shouldn't have to resort to roleplaying just to be able to replay the game. While roleplaying is important in a roleplaying game, quests should factor into the replayability. It also helps roleplaying when there's tensions between guilds and you can only join certain guilds. (not joining certain guilds yourself doesn't emphasize the tension)

"Can" not "must." I don't think I've ever chosen to do every faction on a single character, but I'm I'm fine with it being me rather than Bethesda who decides which ones I pursue simultaneously. In fact, this one prefers it that way. If some prefer to exhaust every quest line in a single playthrough, that's their choice. If I prefer not to, that's mine. I think there's a fundamental conflict between folks who want the game to provide more limits/direction and those who love the freedom of TES games.

I agree that it is natural to compare the TES-games with each other. I do it myself too. I also in many cases agree with the critique Oblivion has gotten. Having that said, I think some MW-fans were expecting Morrowind 2 when Oblivion came out. Just like some DF-fans expected Daggerfall 2 when MW came out, and some OB-fans will surely expect Oblivion 2 when TES V comes out. Comparing them is one thing. Moaning constantly because "They shouldn't have done X, becuase it's not like Morrowind" is just annoying. The best thing is to accept the differences, even if you prefer one over the other, and enjoy the game for what it is in itself.

Someone rightly said on an earlier post (was it this thread?);

Freedom needs to always have limits. Why not just give us an unlimited supply of money? We don't have to spend it. If we want to be poor, simply don't spend it all. There's many other situations like this. Freedom needs to be managed correctly to stop the game being far too easy, stopping unbelievability, and to make the game enjoyable.

Also, the fact that I CAN join any guild I want really breaks immersion. The people aren't believable, as they don't seem to care about thier guild.

There where actually so many opportunities to fix this in Oblivion. I could have joined Blackwood instead of the Fighter's Guild. I could have join the necromancers instead of the Mage's Guild. I could have joined the Imperial Legion instead of the Thieves Guild. But no, Bethesda decided that, instead, I was to be limited to one morality, and one morality only. I could never join up with the Legion because I believe in the law, or join up with the necromancers, because I think they're unfairly treated. It's completely wrong. There should be various paths that my character can follow, and each one should close a different path.

Also, about the DF2, MW2 and OB2 thing. Why shouldn't we? If I enjoyed Morrowind, I buy the next game because I want to get that same bit of enjoyment. I don't think "oh, look, the next game in the series. That must be completely different, considering it's the same genre, setting and series."

This.

There is nothing wrong with comparing two games from the same series. It was pretty inevitable that Oblivion would be compared to Morrowind, just as it was inevitable that Morrowind would be compared to Daggerfall. And there is honestly nothing wrong with that. I admit that when Oblivion came out back in 2006 I was excited to play it largely because I though ti was going to be Morrowind 2. Since my computer at the time couldn't run Oblivion and I couldn't afford a 360 I had to wait until December 2008 when I finally got a new computer to play it.Since then I have stopped wanting Oblivion to be Morrowind 2 and enjoy it for what it is. If one game genuinely did something better then the other there is nothing wrong with pointing that out (Oblivion's magic system is better then Morrowind's wail Morrowind has more joinable factions) but all to often it does degenerate into really devoted fan ranting. Both games have things they do right and both games have things they do wrong and both games should be enjoyed for what they are.

Why you shouldn't? For two reasons: 1. That will always make you disappointed. 2. It's unfair towards the newest game in the series. The TES-series have always been quite different from each other, both when it comes to feel, atmosphere, world and - somewhat - gameplay. Also, there is a fair chance that the game you liked the most and have played for countless of hours also now holds a nostalgica-factor, something no other game can ever compete with. Every game is set in a different province, which all is different, and Bethesda always try to bring something new to the series. If you expect Morrowind 2, you will just be disappointed. I will not at all be surprised if, when TES V is out, many Oblivion fans will complain over it, like MW-fans do with Oblivion, because it didn't meet their expectations - because their expectations was Oblivion 2, only difference was a tad better graphics, better engine, new quests and everything improved in the way they thought it should be improved. That will never happen. Understanding that is what makes me able to enjoy DF, MW and OB for what they are, as they are all great games in their own rights.

In many respects, the two games are "siblings". They share a common levelling system with (mostly) the same skills, a common "perspective", and very similar (but definitely not identical) systems of weapons, armor, and clothing. They also share a common background setting (with a slight time and place shift between each of the games), with mostly the same organizations and character types ("races") in each.

On the other hand, the fundamental difference in the type of gameplay and focus (RPG/action with a mainly character-based skill focus versus ACTION/rpg with a mainly player-based skill focus) makes them very different animals. In one, failure is a common occurrance at low levels, and your character gradually goes from being one of the weakest things in the game to the most powerful; in the other, failure isn't possible for most actions, and your character starts out on par with everything around him or her, and stays there, because everything adjusts to the character's level throughout the game. In the one, there are long-term consequences for one's choices, so your actions matter; in the other, even in the few places where you actually have to choose between two paths, they both provide an equivalent or identical reward. In short, the one is a "game", because it provides for meaningful choices and rewards or punishments; the other (outside of combat, at least) is more of an "activity" where you pretty much run around and "kill things", with enough RP "window dressing" to make it look like you're doing something more.

Very obviously, different people play video games for entirely different reasons, and most of the "hostility" here is because the two titles cater to somewhat different (although partially overlapping) audiences. Those who are "outside" the overlapping area can't relate well to those in the opposite fringe area.

Here, take this hammer and hit the other nails squarely on the head while you're on a roll :tops:

I don't think anyone here is saying Oblivion is an action game. We're saying the series is going there. Ever since Morrowind. Oblivion has taken it even further though.

Some people are saying quite a bit ore than that. They are acting as if Morrowind was God's gift to mankind, while Oblivion is a bit of stinking bile that isn't worth the case it came in. Nuances and reflective criticism doesn't seem to to exist to those people, and instead they show the worst case of fan-hate.

On that note, yet another Morrowind/Oblivion thread bites the dust. Why is it that the proponents of the two games can't get along without a gradual slide towards nastiness and flaming? So, before it gets that far, topic closed.