Yeah, don't play as a fighter. Go for int, charisma and wisdom. It's a book, not a game.

is it because it's too easy being a fighter? One of my friends kept complaining that it was hard to train everyone because the main guy would slaughter everything too easily.

Look, the reason that I at least prefer the alien peoples and "Amazon on Steroids" landscapes to what Cyrodiil wound up becoming is more or less because to someone like me "standard fantasy setting" should have stayed an oxymoron but didn't, so Oblivion, which is ostensibly fantasy and therefore is supposed to be strange and alien was familiar, which means it's basically the real world with elves and magic. I may be arguing semantics here, but that's at least part of my personal take on it.

Politics and religion, are one core issue. If this world is so damned realistic, then where are the political factions backstabbing each other after the death of the Emporer? Where is the chaos? I didn't see it. The game had such a diverse chance for politics, with all of the different counts and their courts being possible lieges to take missions from all the different politicians that would attend it. The chance was just absolutely wasted, and it caused Cyrodiil to feel like a total fantasy cliche. Good vs Evil, no backstabbing or double crossing allowed.

Both Daggerfall and Morrowind were diverse with politics and infighting. Hopefully TES V will follow that trend.

And even the 'good guys' did some bad things in DF and MW. Hell, I'd argue in DF, there were no 'good guys' only factions looking out for themselves. Even Mannimarco wasn't evil, he was only looking out for himself so he can become a god and give Arkay the middle finger.

If OB has been less black and white, we'd actually see the counts try to gain more and more power. The Mages Guild and Fighters Guild would have looked more ugly, for they kept trying to pathetically hold a monopoly and pass bad regulations.

I had that problem no matter which way I played. But not playing a fighter is better because the combat isn't that interesting and without the wis/int/cha you'll miss the best dialogues. It's possible to defeat the end boss through dialogue.

Nice, just like in FO1

What I find bothering about the whole MW vs OB clash is that 95% of the complaints about OB (I'm making this statistic up out of thin air, in case anyone cares to get technical) focus on the details and miss the underlying point. Morrowind was primarily a RPG, and nearly everything was heavily dependent on the skills and stats of your character. Oblivion was much more of a FPS game, with a strong dependency on player skills, to the point where character skills like Security (Lockpicking) and Speechcraft (Persuasion) could be done effectively with absolutely NO ability in them, as long as the player's finger dexterity and reactions were decent, and where skills only served to unlock "perks" and increase damage in combat, instead of determining success or failure. In Oblivion, failure has been all but removed, so in effect, the character no longer really matters. Even the Level of the character has been "factored out", by having all of the opponents and loot adjust to match the character, so only the player's own skills really matter.

The most rabid fans of Morrowind (mostly RP'ers), found Fast Travel (with all viable alternatives removed) and the blatant Quest Compass (with many quests totally dependent on it) to be directly contrary to RP and a sense of "challenge", while the newer OB fans (mostly hack&slash players) couldn't care less about character stats, lore, and other RP elements, as long as the combat is good, with FT and a compass to get you to the next fight in a hurry.

The older fanbase feels betrayed by the conversion of the game into a " generic First Person Slayer", while the more recent jumpers onto the TES bandwagon don't see any problem with that, because that's exactly what they want. Few people here will complain that Oblivion is a "bad game"; it's an excellent game, but NOT the same TYPE of game as its predecessors, and I personally wouldn't have bought it if I had known beforehand what it was like.

Picture something along the lines of Civilization VIII: the collectible card game. It doesn't matter whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, because it's going to cause an uproar with its long-term fanbase. Several of the development choices made between MW and OB were all but guaranteed to stir up the proverbial "hornet's nest". The "hate" doesn't surprise me in the least, although I might consider it an over-reation.

Yes, banning and hunting down necromancers(even though their practice is legal) is very stereotypically good. The Shivering Isles also couldn't be more black and white. Various quests of the Shivering Isles never challenged my character's morals. The Thieves' Guild is pure evil, not made up of the poor trying to make a living. Oblivion is sometimes "gray", but if anything was truly gray, then noble characters, such as my own, wouldn't be doing anything. In real life, I don't choose between two "gray" sides all the time, I stay neutral if the values of one side don't seem a more fair than the other's. There is some black and white in Oblivion and real life just as there is some gray in Oblivion and real life. I like consequences for my actions, but everything doesn't need to be "gray", and in TES series, few things are truly gray. Oblivion's main quest is stereotypically black and white, but the fact that it exists means that something black and white can exist. The problems with Oblivion's main quest are its boring plot and its urgency, not its black and white quality. Morrowind's main quest isn't as gray as some people claim it is either.

No, TES needs to be gray so that all manners of characters can be played and consequences can be had. Just like in Mass Effect, sometimes what seems to be the choice that would cause the most good can cause a lot of harm, get a lot of people hurt, or let out information that really ought not to be public. There are many decisions in life that are good and bad, but the indirect effect of those decisions can often cause more things to happen down the road.

Once in a while, the "good" choice needs to cause people to die, and the "bad" or "evil" choice needs to cause the fuzz to crack down or something bad to happen to you or your faction. That's just how things happen, because many consequences are unforeseeable unless you really sit down and think things out to a T.

What are you talking about? I love Oblivion the more than all the other TES games(I love all of them), but I am not a hack and slash player or a first-person shooter player. I only play RPGs, except for the civilization series, and Oblivion is not an FPS at all, it is an RPG. FPS fans who don't like RPGs would not like Oblivion. It is not a shooter and it is not a hack and slash action game. I love the game's lore, character stats, role-playing, and open world, but I don't care for the game's combat. I dislike level-scaling, but Daggerfall's level-scaling is even worse then Oblivion's. Daggerfall has a lot of level-scaling, and the game is very easy as a result, even easier than Oblivion. When I encountered my first saber-tooth tiger in Daggerfall, I quickly killed it with 3 swings of my sword. When I encountered my first mountain lion in Oblivion, it quickly killed my character. and I had to level up to be able to start defeating them. Some older fans are just overly angry. I have read about Morrowind being greatly criticized when it was the latest game in the series. The same thing is happening with Oblivion. Oblivion RPG fans, say "I". I. I played the older Elder Scrolls games and I love them. I played many other RPGs, including many older ones, such as those of the Baldur's Gate series, and I love them. I have never played a first-person shooter. I love Oblivion more than any other game. Explain, please.

I agree with Seti18.

I don't know how you guys change the genre of the game. Morrowind and Oblivion are both first person and third person RPGs. Where in the hell do you get First Person Shooter?

Total lack of choice and consequence might have something to do with it (ooh, edgy!).

All jokes aside, if you're marketed as an RPG you need to deliver an RPG standard, for example, a non-linear plot to go with that sandbox world, which really needs to have more in it than the same copy-paste meadow and the same copy-paste NPCs in it. So I consider Oblivion a great game, just a mediocre RPG. Just work on the first two letters and you'll be fine.

Morrowind has a linear plot. Morrowind has very few consequences. Oblivion, like previous Elder Scrolls games, still has skills that have an effect on character stats, it has many different classes, as well as allows one to create their own class, and it allows one to play the role of their character(whatever character they want to be). Unless role-playing isn't as simple of a description as it seems, Oblivion is a role-playing game, one that allows more role-playing paths than most RPGs. Also, like I said, I have only played RPGs in my life, and Oblivion is my favorite game. Daggerfall has worse level-scaling than Oblivion, and it was easier. Daggerfall had no consequences(all the factions are pretty much the same, every quest and location is generic and randomly-generated, so missing out on quests given by one noble doesn't make a difference). The reputation system doesn't make a difference because, like I said, everyone gives the same quests and almost the exact same benefits. In Daggerfall, I was more powerful at level 2 than I was at level 15 in Oblivion. It really isn't a hard game and the skills don't mean much in Daggerfall. Oblivion is no less of an RPG than Arena, Daggerfall, or Morrowind. Also, I play Oblivion(and all other games) unmodded. I'm experiencing these games, and Daggerfall is either an easier game with less emphasis on skills than Oblivion or I am a great character creator who comes out of Privateer's Hold more powerful than anything else walking. Speaking of generic games, you have heard of the randomply-generated, generic, DnD clones known as Arena and Daggerfall, right?

What is the RPG standard? Oh yeah I just went there.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

I always thought RPG stood for role-playing game. In Oblivion, I play the role of my character in the game. It seems pretty self-explanatory.

Bethesda left me and had a baby with Joe Walmart. That hurt me the most, it really did.

I don't like 99% of games, they're not what i want. And when Oblivion came out i was enraged, because i was in love with Morrowind, and it was one few games that seemed to be made with someone like me in mind. I know it's just a game, but Bethesda created a mini continent and jam packed it with history, culture, adventure etc... That's what i loved, the wall of text dialogue was the only way they could add such depth, and inferior combat seemed to be a small trade off for the time spent on the on the other fantastic elements.

There are THOUSANDS of games catered for people who care about action and combat, why can't you action orientated people just play them? Leave one of the few game series that tries to go above and beyond alone. Unfortunately i think it's already too late, the damage can't be undone. Bethesda knows it can afford to skimp on the qualities that Morrowind had after seeing how well Oblivion did with the casual to semi casual gamers.

I feel impotent as well, no matter how good a point i make, if i write the DEFINITIVE OB vs MW argument and prove scientifically how OB was the inferior game, the casual gamers still have the greater market share, and that's what TES will be catered for.

In Halo I play the role of Master Chief.

In Final Fantasy I play the role of my party.

In Super Mario I play the role of Mario.

In Civilization I play the role of a ruler.

In Oblivion, I choose my race, I choose my class, I choose my skills, I choose my quests, I choose my path, and I am whoever I want to be. I feel like I am actually my character, I become my character, my character's personality is whatever I want it to be, my character's goals, values, and beliefs are what I want them to be. My character is unique and only I play as my character. Nobody else has the same character, nobody else has to make the same character. My character is mine alone to control, and I actually feel experience what my character experiences. My character starts as a blank slate, and I write whatever I want on that slate. Their destiny is unknown to me and them, but I experience their destiny as they do. My character has no personality other than the one I give them, and what I give them is my choice. I connect to my character in a way only Elder Scrolls games allow. That is role-playing. My views have always been that since I got Oblivion. When I first played Oblivion, it was sheer masterpiece. I came on here, and there was no praise for what I considered to be a unique game. Being isolated does wonders when forming an opinion regardless of anyone else's. :glare: The moment anyone dares to call me a hack and slash player or Oblivion a hack and slash game, I will always defend it. So, I defend Oblivion because I played it with no expectations. Now, just as those who start with previous Elder Scrolls games, I rate every Elder Scrolls game by comparing them to my first Elder Scrolls, which was Oblivion, so my opinion is, like everybody else's, just an opinion. I can't stand hearing Oblivion is a horrible game compared to Morrowind(that's a pure fact :rolleyes:) and that Oblivion is just a hack and slash game(also a pure fact :rolleyes:). It saddens an RPG-only fan who, in Oblivion, found something special.

This is the attitude that I dislike greatly:



I am not a casual/action/combat player. I am an RPG player, only. Oblivion is not a combat game. Oblivion is like Daggerfall in many ways. Have you played Daggerfall, or any Elder Scrolls game besides Morrowind(seriously)? Your statement hurts quite a bit, and actually is quite offensive, especially considering I am not a casual/combat/action player. Many RPG fans play and like Oblivion.

Every single one of those features is extremely common in western RPG's. They especially do nothing to recommend Oblivion on their own, it being the fourth game in a series that has repeatedly offered all of that.

In all fairness, the vast, vast majority of videogame RPG's are essentially hack and slash, action rpg's. Most jRPG's involve plowing through hordes of monsters in the dungeons in between plot points, while wRPG's let you wander and decide when you hit those plot points...while freely wandering a world that consists almost entirely of monster-filled dungeons. It's long been that way, likely due to time and money constraints. You can't make a game with infinite possibilities, so developers focus on the one possibility that most endears them to the adolescent male demographic that has long ruled videogames; action. Swords, sorcery, and flying monster parts.

I think what many "hardcoe" RPG fans are looking for, their imaginary holy grail, is a game that can combine all the versatility of a pen and paper RPG with the accessibility of a videogame. You have freedom of ideas in pen and paper, because you just think of something, and look to the person running it to roll some dice and make a rule for it. Videogames have limited resources and lack that freedom, but make those ideas "real," letting you steal some loot and flee the guards and hide in the sewers, adrenaline and excitement ahoy, instead of spending 5 minutes rolling dice and trying hard to imagine it.

The Elder Scrolls games get extra points from those players because they reach tendrils in the direction of those freedoms. Oblivion has fewer of them. It has nothing to do with how good the rest of the game is or isn't, and everything to do with the fact that it comes from a series with those tendrils, promised more, and delivered fewer. You can have several great games, and easily have someone who hates one of them because it's a genre they don't like. It doesn't really matter if it's a "good game." It doesn't have the features those people are looking for in a good game, so they don't like it. The extra hate comes from the fact that the market is saturated with those "other" games, and the desired features are a niche market. Being a niche svcks. You've got a group of people living in constant withdrawal for that ever-so-rare genre they crave, then you dangle a box near them promising a fix, and then they open the box and find a note saying "Psyche!" It doesn't matter if that box was full of gold, they're still going to murder you.

Which RPGs let me experience all of these things through my character's eyes in an open world with plenty to do?

Morrowind.

I gotta say, Seti, while I'm really glad you like Daggerfall, and while I'll readily admit that Oblivion has more in common with Daggerfall than Morrowind, Oblivion merely mimics what Daggerfall has to offer. What truly makes Daggerfall's elements work, what truly pulls together all of its various mechanics is its massive scope and its gritty dirt-under-everyones'-fingernails politics. Without those centerpieces, Daggerfall would fall apart, because those two are what give life to virtually everything else. The MQ of Daggerfall would be a shell were it not for its politics. That goes for virtually all the back-stories and goings-on within Daggerfall as well. Without those unique and refreshing political perspectives and the substance that resulted, Daggerfall just might have been another Tolkein-reminiscent dungeon-crawler like Nethack. Its factions hinge upon having a big enough world for widespread duties and widespread competitors if the scope were not present. Its fast travel would be reduced to eventually being able to port every 1,000 feet without that massive world. Its dungeons wouldn't even have the saving grace of having somewhat regional architecture and somewhat regional monsters to further accent the discrepancies between large distances were it not for the scope.

Oblivion may have seen the designers looking back and pulling things from its predecessors, but if their goal was to pull from Daggerfall, they neglected to take the core elements that mattered most. Oblivion presented the finest trace of Daggerfall's facade and not a trace at all of its soul.

Yes, an Elder Scrolls game. Rhekarid made his/her statement in a way that made me believe non-TES games allow the freedom and view of TES games. Are there any like that? Like I stated earlier, Oblivion is a lot like Morrowind in many ways. It is possible to love both games, but as one of the more agressive opinions above shows, so-called "hardcoe" fans seemed to despise Oblivion sometimes, and those who play it. Casual is a horrible word. It may not be spoken on the Elder Scrolls forum. Why isn't it censored?

"Open world," which was not mentioned in the paragraph, is so far the only defining factor. For everything else you said, the easiest route would be to just list almost everything Bioware has made. It would be easy to find others. However, an open world is irrelevant when the subject is about defending Oblivion as compared to other games in the series because they all have that factor in common. People hating on Oblivion are generally not doing so as compared to unrelated games that are nothing like it.