How is the Elder Scrolls series views by Codexers?

[I eat frozen vegetables]

I played 15 minutes of Arena before quitting. Never played any of them besides that. Do not intend to.

The series as a whole, is an affront to human decency.
As for Todd Howard, every time that this narcissistic sack of privileged platitudes speaks, I’m reminded of a performative middle school student running for class president.

I'd much rather replay Might and Magic 1 to 8, or Ultima Underworld 1 & 2, or Dark Sun 1 & 2 .

Level scaling is a contradiction by design. Getting stronger is meant as a way to overcome enemies you could not before, to score high level loot as an incentive.
If forced to choose between level scaling the stupid romance mechanic from BG2, I'd pick the romance mechanics.
Can we have a game with both level scaling and romance mechanic, so that all the retards can leave real RPG fans alone?

Isn't that Baldur's Gate 3?

 

[Harthwain]

Oblivion is a bad game if you're judging it by the complexity and "robustness" of its systems, but so is Morrowind and so is Skyrim and so is Arena and so, after the early game when everything becomes trivial and the dungeons start looping, is Daggerfall.

Oblivion is the only TES game I can't really get much enjoyment out of playing and it's the only one I'd happily skip when replaying the series, but you know that if the setting was interesting then people would be making all kinds of excuses for the shitty combat and the janky level scaling.

People like to shit on Morrowind's combat, but I actually liked how it worked. Oblivion managed to break that (partially because of level scaling), turning an interesting concept of combat mixed with RPG mechanics into a garbage-level action RPG. Coincidentally, it also destroyed lockpicking by turning it into a minigame, which resulted in people being able to override the locks' difficulty regardless of how skilled they actually were at lockpocking as a character.

It removed most spells related to traversal, which hurt exploration. Being able to walk on water or levitate above the impassable peaks was great and nobody is going to tell me otherwise. Fast travel was another thing that made Oblivion less interesting, because suddenly planning your route stopped being an important gameplay consideration (which hurt the exploration aspect, AGAIN). Oblivion also started the trend of removing the layered armour/clothing system that I enjoyed (and has worked well with enchanting).

But probably the biggest reason why Oblivion is commonly seen as utterly broken is thanks to the AI. In Morrowind there is no AI to speak of so it doesn't constantly remind you of it as a result. You could see this as Roll Safe meme ("You can't have broken AI when you have no AI"), except it actually works in Morrowind's favour as it is extremely single player oriented game (evenmoreso considering how static the game world is, which some people don't like), meaning you didn't need the AI for it to work out.

I could go on, but I think I made my point. So, yeah, trying to compare the two and pretend they are on the same level (or that Morrowind is somehow worse) is just not correct.

Skyrim:
Visually more interesting but somehow even more dull than Oblivion.

You literally can't be more dull than Oblivion. Skyrim has more character, even if it can't beat Morrowind (then again, it is a hard bar to pass. Beating Oblivion is much, much easier by comparison).

 

[destinae vomitus]

If we're going to be saying positive things about Oblivion I'd like to bring up that it still had entertaining Morrowind-esq writing within its books, like The Argonian Account for instance.

 

[TheKing01]

Oblivion is bearable if you immediately download a face/level-scaling mod. Beyond that I distinctly remember it being a chore to get through as I came across bandits accosting me for gold while fully decked out in Daedric armor.

 

[baba is you]

I think Daggerfall and Morrowind are the best. I don't want to play Oblivion or Skyrim without mods like Nehrim or Requiem.

 

[Lemming42]

I could go on, but I think I made my point. So, yeah, trying to compare the two and pretend they are on the same level (or that Morrowind is somehow worse) is just not correct.

All I can say is that I disagree on half of these and agree on the other half; though it's a little beside the point I was trying to get at. Agreed on lockpicking, clothing system, and travel magic. To quickly offer counterpoints to the ones I disagree with though:

- MW's combat is extremely dull because the only thing you're actually doing as the player (for melee) is deciding whether to click-spam or hold LMB, and it stops mattering very early on because combat's so mindlessly easy (at which point the choice is mostly whether you want to bore yourself by stunlocking an enemy or risk taking a bit of damage to get the tedium over quicker). There's theoretically directional attacks but they're a vestigal system from Arena/DF and, like in Arena/DF, don't mean anything after the very early game.

- Neutral on fast travel since route planning isn't exactly a game mechanic in MW since there's no advancement of time, no resources to consider, and the overworld is entirely static, meaning that the only thing silt striders/boats/teleportation do is cut down on wasted time for the player by reducing the amount of time they'll spend in the dead-as-fuck overworld walking back over unchanged ground they've already covered. Fast travel wouldn't detract much from the game, especially if the in-universe options still existed.

- I don't see how nonexistent AI works in MW's favour at all (because it has "singleplayer focus" - but so does Oblivion, and AI is even more important in a singleplayer game, surely?), it just means that combat and what passes for stealth are even more trivial. Enemies being completely unable to deal with the player jumping onto a small rock or even just walking backwards is really poor for a game that's borrowing so much from real-time action games; there's just no excuse for how bad it is. Out-of-combat AI is even worse of course - robbing a shop is literally a matter of making the shopkeeper turn to look at a wall, and can be done with 10 Sneak, because they'll never move again after that.

But yeah, the gist of what I'm arguing is that it doesn't make much sense to say "Oblivion's systems are broken and terrible, I require robust systems, therefore the game is a writeoff," while ostensibly suggesting that Arena/DF/MW/Skyrim (delete as appropriate) don't fall victim to the same criticism. They're all busted sandboxes with broken or simplistic mechanics. I don't think any of these games are masterworks in that sense; when there is an interesting system (eg MW's alchemy/enchanting or DF's languages or Arena's passwall) it's usually just slapped on the game with no balance or proper integration with other systems.

I get finding Oblivion disappointing mechanically, that's an opinion I share, but the commonly-expressed idea that it's uniquely bad and/or that DF/MW were True CRPGs while Oblivion is a Shitty Action Game, that's a big reach that does way too much credit to DF/MW's janky mechanics (doubly so if the person making the claim makes no acknowledgement of the much larger drop in complexity from DF to MW). Especially when people suggest that Shivering Isles is decent or that Skyrim is the preferable game to Oblivion*, I think it shows that people's real concern is the setting but nobody wants to admit it for some reason.

I also feel like all the games after DF tend to be a case of step forward, two steps back. Oblivion does a few things better than any previous TES game; stealth, AI (both enemy AI and NPC reactivity), archery, quest variety, meaningful day/night cycles, etc are all done better in Oblivion than they were in the prior games (I feel I have to stress here that "better than previous TES games" doesn't mean "good", before someone comes and explains to me that Oblivion's AI is bad). Stealth in particular is a quantum leap forward compared to DF and MW. The problem is that the setting is boring as shit and Todd turned it into Middle Earth, which removes people's willingness to deal with the shitty systems and boring world design. If it had a MW-style setting, or some equivalent, you'd have people defending it to the hilt and saying shit like "Oblivion was true monocled cRPG pre-decline greatness", and anyone who complained about the level scaling insanity would just be told to "git gud".

*I prefer Skyrim to Oblivion too though!

 

[markec]

But yeah, the gist of what I'm arguing is that it doesn't make much sense to say "Oblivion's systems are broken and terrible, I require robust systems, therefore the game is a writeoff," while ostensibly suggesting that Arena/DF/MW/Skyrim (delete as appropriate) don't fall victim to the same criticism. They're all busted sandboxes with broken or simplistic mechanics. I don't think any of these games are masterworks in that sense; when there is an interesting system (eg MW's alchemy/enchanting or DF's languages or Arena's passwall) it's usually just slapped on the game with no balance or proper integration with other systems.

True but Morrowinds alchemy and enchanting mechanic while not balanced allowed the player to have fun and be creative even if it broke games. Which to me is preferable to balanced but overly limited systems. But I understand both points of view.

I get finding Oblivion disappointing mechanically, that's an opinion I share, but the commonly-expressed idea that it's uniquely bad and/or that DF/MW were True CRPGs while Oblivion is a Shitty Action Game, that's a big reach that does way too much credit to DF/MW's janky mechanics (doubly so if the person making the claim makes no acknowledgement of the much larger drop in complexity from DF to MW). Especially when people suggest that Shivering Isles is decent or that Skyrim is the preferable game to Oblivion*, I think it shows that people's real concern is the setting but nobody wants to admit it for some reason.

Agree, many people will hate for hate sake and deny any positives about a game even when warranted. For example Fallout 4 is a bad game but it has easily best dungeon designs of any Bethesda game.

I also feel like all the games after DF tend to be a case of step forward, two steps back. Oblivion does a few things better than any previous TES game; stealth, AI (both enemy AI and NPC reactivity), archery, quest variety, meaningful day/night cycles, etc are all done better in Oblivion than they were in the prior games (I feel I have to stress here that "better than previous TES games" doesn't mean "good", before someone comes and explains to me that Oblivion's AI is bad). Stealth in particular is a quantum leap forward compared to DF and MW. The problem is that the setting is boring as shit and Todd turned it into Middle Earth, which removes people's willingness to deal with the shitty systems and boring world design. If it had a MW-style setting, or some equivalent, you'd have people defending it to the hilt and saying shit like "Oblivion was true monocled cRPG pre-decline greatness", and anyone who complained about the level scaling insanity would just be told to "git gud".

*I prefer Skyrim to Oblivion too though!

This is complete nonsense. Yes Oblivion does some things better then previous games but many others far far worse. In this case it's more one step forward and ten steps back. If you were to swap the settings between Morrowind and Oblivion and everything else stays the same the fans would not change their opinions.

 

[VerSacrum]

Shame you can't get a Guar pet.

You can purchase Corky the Guar from Llovyn Andus in the Ascadian Isles region:

Isn't a pack guar, though.

Merlord's Guar Whisperer mod also comes highly recommended

 

[Lemming42]

In this case it's more one step forward and ten steps back.

Sure, you can debate adjustments to the idiom to suit each game. My point was just that these discussions tend to turn into tit-for-tat on changes made to specific mechanics - Oblivion removed pauldrons and underclothes, but it also enormously improved sneak, but it also took away a ton of spell effects, but it also made archery not terrible, but it also fucked up lockpicking, but it also gave NPCs schedules, but it also nerfed the ability to sell stolen items, but it also added physics-based traps, and so on forever.

If you were to swap the settings between Morrowind and Oblivion and everything else stays the same the fans would not change their opinions.

I can't see Morrowind having anywhere near the fandom it does if it was set in Oblivion's version of Cyrodiil; I think it'd be considered very dull. Even the thought of walking across those boring-ass fields in the MW engine with two music tracks looping forever is giving me PTSD. The primary appeal of MW always has been and always will be the setting/lore/worldbuilding for most fans. Everything else is secondary; flying across the map at 300mph because the spellmaker is busted is fun, but you have to buy into the world and setting first otherwise there's just sort of no point to it all, same for the other TES games. I love Daggerfall a lot and think there's some impressive depth to it at times but I can't imagine anyone enjoying it if they're not engaged by the setting and atmosphere.

Again, I think you can see it with the way people react to Skyrim; the only real reason to prefer it to Oblivion is the setting being somewhat less boring and combat being slightly more reactive (and debatably, more enjoyable albeit more linear dungeons), but everything else is either a step down or a step sideways, and yet the overall consensus even here on the Codex is that Skyrim is the preferable game. People who bash the base game but like Shivering Isles make it even more obvious.

 

[NecroLord]

In this case it's more one step forward and ten steps back.

Sure, you can debate adjustments to the idiom to suit each game. My point was just that these discussions tend to turn into tit-for-tat on changes made to specific mechanics - Oblivion removed pauldrons and underclothes, but it also enormously improved sneak, but it also took away a ton of spell effects, but it also made archery not terrible, but it also fucked up lockpicking, but it also gave NPCs schedules, but it also nerfed the ability to sell stolen items, but it also added physics-based traps, and so on forever.

If you were to swap the settings between Morrowind and Oblivion and everything else stays the same the fans would not change their opinions.

I can't see Morrowind having anywhere near the fandom it does if it was set in Oblivion's version of Cyrodiil; I think it'd be considered very dull. Even the thought of walking across those boring-ass fields in the MW engine with two music tracks looping forever is giving me PTSD. The primary appeal of MW always has been and always will be the setting/lore/worldbuilding for most fans. Everything else is secondary; flying across the map at 300mph because the spellmaker is busted is fun, but you have to buy into the world and setting first otherwise there's just sort of no point to it all, same for the other TES games. I love Daggerfall a lot and think there's some impressive depth to it at times but I can't imagine anyone enjoying it if they're not engaged by the setting and atmosphere.

Again, I think you can see it with the way people react to Skyrim; the only real reason to prefer it to Oblivion is the setting being somewhat less boring and combat being slightly more reactive (and debatably, more enjoyable albeit more linear dungeons), but everything else is either a step down or a step sideways, and yet the overall consensus even here on the Codex is that Skyrim is the preferable game. People who bash the base game but like Shivering Isles make it even more obvious.

The magic in Skyrim is also incredibly dull and has been severely gutted compared to Daggerfall and Morrowind.

 

[The Jester]

WHERE IS THE DWEMER CUBE, WHERE THE FUCK IS IT

 

[NecroLord]

WHERE IS THE DWEMER CUBE, WHERE THE FUCK IS IT

So that's what Septimus Signus had...

 

[markec]

In this case it's more one step forward and ten steps back.

Sure, you can debate adjustments to the idiom to suit each game. My point was just that these discussions tend to turn into tit-for-tat on changes made to specific mechanics - Oblivion removed pauldrons and underclothes, but it also enormously improved sneak, but it also took away a ton of spell effects, but it also made archery not terrible, but it also fucked up lockpicking, but it also gave NPCs schedules, but it also nerfed the ability to sell stolen items, but it also added physics-based traps, and so on forever.

Only Iam not talking about minor mechanics but overall design philosophy and bigger picture.

I don't care that Oblivion removed medium armor skill or that sneak is a bit better. I do care that world design is designed around quest compass and global fast travel, leaving the world of Oblivion empty and pointless. I care that horrendous scaled leveling completely destroyed the game as a whole, making leveling and looting pointless.

If you were to swap the settings between Morrowind and Oblivion and everything else stays the same the fans would not change their opinions.

I can't see Morrowind having anywhere near the fandom it does if it was set in Oblivion's version of Cyrodiil; I think it'd be considered very dull. Even the thought of walking across those boring-ass fields in the MW engine with two music tracks looping forever is giving me PTSD. The primary appeal of MW always has been and always will be the setting/lore/worldbuilding for most fans. Everything else is secondary; flying across the map at 300mph because the spellmaker is busted is fun, but you have to buy into the world and setting first otherwise there's just sort of no point to it all, same for the other TES games. I love Daggerfall a lot and think there's some impressive depth to it at times but I can't imagine anyone enjoying it if they're not engaged by the setting and atmosphere.

As a Morrowind fan I can tell you that main draw of the game is not the setting but exploration.

Now don't get me wrong the setting and atmosphere is part of it but the main thing is exploration of the world. The atmosphere can get you only so far if there is nothing of value to find in the world. Gothic has far from original and unique setting but the joy comes from exploration of the world and being rewarded for it and Morrowind is the best TES game for that.

Again, I think you can see it with the way people react to Skyrim; the only real reason to prefer it to Oblivion is the setting being somewhat less boring and combat being slightly more reactive (and debatably, more enjoyable albeit more linear dungeons), but everything else is either a step down or a step sideways, and yet the overall consensus even here on the Codex is that Skyrim is the preferable game. People who bash the base game but like Shivering Isles make it even more obvious.

Now I can't speak for all but for me Skyrim while even more dumb down then Oblivion is superior in many other places. The world design is superior, the dungeons are linear but more interesting, characters don't look and sound like all of them have Down syndrome. That alone makes it a better game then Oblivion but still not a good game by itself.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Level scaling is a contradiction by design. Getting stronger is meant as a way to overcome enemies you could not before, to score high level loot as an incentive.

I agree with this. You'd think that once someone came up with the idea of displaying the difficulty of a monster as part of it's health bar, this would have gone away. It's been widely adopted in so many games, there's really no excuse not to have this. It's also not that hard to make a system where wimpier mobs see a player character that's well over their level, they try to flee instead of attack so it's not like the player has to deal with gnats.

That said, Daggerfall and Morrowind still hold up really well in terms of a gameplay experience though Daggerfall starts off fairly difficult compared to more contemporary games.

People like to shit on Morrowind's combat, but I actually liked how it worked.

I still think if you're going to do first person combat where the player is doing the aiming for the character, that should determine the "To Hit" and your skill should affect the damage output. A low skilled character would be dealing glancing blows more than death strikes.

It removed most spells related to traversal, which hurt exploration. Being able to walk on water or levitate above the impassable peaks was great and nobody is going to tell me otherwise. Fast travel was another thing that made Oblivion less interesting, because suddenly planning your route stopped being an important gameplay consideration (which hurt the exploration aspect, AGAIN).

This is an astute observation that needs to be brought up more. Bethesda doesn't seem to have any designers that get fast travel. It seemed odd to me that Skyrim had those carts and ships that would take you to new places, but you'd only use them once. After that, it was just fast traveling. They could have at least added an "Indiana Jones" style fast travel where you see the line of travel on the map with random encounters. There's absolutely no reason not to fast travel once you know where something is, unlike older games with fast travel. Even Daggerfall had mechanics around fast traveling that had risks and consequences. It's just lazy at this point.

 

[Baron Tahn]

Didn't read whole thread but personal opinion follows:
Didn't play Arena.
Daggerfall was good for the time but all the random generation is rough now.
Morrowind is as good as it got, cool magic customisation system.
Oblivion was super mega fucking console shit terrible.
Skyrim was also terrible but mods can save it as long as you don't play it for the storyline just treat it like a sandbox.

In general I've never been the biggest fan of Elder Scrolls, but RPGs, sadly, are rarely 'good'. Having at least one good entry is notable so Elder Scrolls gets the pass for Morrowind. There are many better franchises and even a few fps style that are better.

 

[Harthwain]

But yeah, the gist of what I'm arguing is that it doesn't make much sense to say "Oblivion's systems are broken and terrible, I require robust systems, therefore the game is a writeoff," while ostensibly suggesting that Arena/DF/MW/Skyrim (delete as appropriate) don't fall victim to the same criticism. They're all busted sandboxes with broken or simplistic mechanics.

This is where I strongly disagree. Because I don't see criticisms towards Morrowind to be "the same criticism" as the ones directed towards Oblivion. Morrowind's mechanics may be simplistic, but they aren't broken (aside from pickpocketing). I will expand on that later in this post.

- MW's combat is extremely dull because the only thing you're actually doing as the player (for melee) is deciding whether to click-spam or hold LMB, and it stops mattering very early on because combat's so mindlessly easy (at which point the choice is mostly whether you want to bore yourself by stunlocking an enemy or risk taking a bit of damage to get the tedium over quicker).

Maybe, but it does offer unique way of representing character's skill in combat. That's why I found it interesting. Compare it with Oblivion's take on combat and what you get is even worse. So, yeah, the extremely dull combat of Morrowind is still BETTER than what Oblivion has to offer. If you don't trust me, then I could show you footage from PatricianTV comparing the two in detail (timestamped):

Spoiler

- Neutral on fast travel since route planning isn't exactly a game mechanic in MW since there's no advancement of time, no resources to consider, and the overworld is entirely static, meaning that the only thing silt striders/boats/teleportation do is cut down on wasted time for the player by reducing the amount of time they'll spend in the dead-as-fuck overworld walking back over unchanged ground they've already covered. Fast travel wouldn't detract much from the game, especially if the in-universe options still existed.

I disagree and I will use Skyrim(!) as my reason why. You can use fast travel in that game. But you know what? I didn't use it and as a result I was having encounters I otherwise wouldn't get, if I were to use fast travel (as well as exploring locations I was passing by). Going back to Morrowind though - there are a plenty of spells you can use to diversify your ability to traverse the world, aside from silt striders/boats/teleportation and it has big impact on exploration. Because we aren't talking only about going back and forth between known locations (or at least, I am not): world exploration is part of the journey as well. It also impacts quest design, in a negative way. So if I were to pick, I think I would rather have spells/quests/fast travel spots versus the ability to fast travel anywhere.

- I don't see how nonexistent AI works in MW's favour at all (because it has "singleplayer focus" - but so does Oblivion, and AI is even more important in a singleplayer game, surely?)

I was very deliberate when I typed "it is extremely single player oriented game". NOT "singleplayer oriented game". The difference between the two is that the first one doesn't rely on NPCs at all (aside from a few escort missions), while the second relies heavily on them (and, yes, I am aware what "NPC" stands for. My point was that the AI was supposed to simulate behaviour of NPCs so the player would feel like the part of a living world).

it just means that combat and what passes for stealth are even more trivial. Enemies being completely unable to deal with the player jumping onto a small rock or even just walking backwards is really poor for a game that's borrowing so much from real-time action games; there's just no excuse for how bad it is. Out-of-combat AI is even worse of course - robbing a shop is literally a matter of making the shopkeeper turn to look at a wall, and can be done with 10 Sneak, because they'll never move again after that.

Oblivion has the same issues and adds broken AI on top of them. You could put a bucket on a shopkeeper's head in order to rob him blind. This makes Oblivion a great mine for memes, but it hardly passes for a good game and it doesn't mean it is better than Morrowind. In fact, I am actually arguing it is worse, as you are constantly reminded of how broken the Oblivion's AI is. Morrowind doesn't do that. Hence my comment that the nonexistent AI works in Morrowind's favour.

I get finding Oblivion disappointing mechanically, that's an opinion I share, but the commonly-expressed idea that it's uniquely bad and/or that DF/MW were True CRPGs while Oblivion is a Shitty Action Game, that's a big reach that does way too much credit to DF/MW's janky mechanics

Uh, Morrowind WAS a true cRPG. It literally hinges on character's skills, which is the staple of an RPG. Oblivion did away with too many elements by introducing player skill, hence the reason why I called its combat "garbage-level action RPG" (and the same applies to lockpicks). Because it is so reliant on action, while doing it in a shitty way (shittier than Morrowind, and I am not talking about Daggerfall, because I didn't play it enough to get a solid opinion on the matter).

Especially when people suggest that Shivering Isles is decent or that Skyrim is the preferable game to Oblivion*, I think it shows that people's real concern is the setting but nobody wants to admit it for some reason.

I don't think so. I would say people don't like bad stuff. A good setting would make Oblivion more bearable, but it won't change the fact that it needed to have its fundamental mechanics fixed as well. And Skyrim does both*.

(I feel I have to stress here that "better than previous TES games" doesn't mean "good", before someone comes and explains to me that Oblivion's AI is bad).

It makes for a pretty pointless praise then, doesn't it? I mean, you're LITERALLY saying "Oblivion has bad AI!". I am not really seeing that as a positive, as you might have noticed by my earlier responses.

Stealth in particular is a quantum leap forward compared to DF and MW. The problem is that the setting is boring as shit and Todd turned it into Middle Earth, which removes people's willingness to deal with the shitty systems and boring world design. If it had a MW-style setting, or some equivalent, you'd have people defending it to the hilt and saying shit like "Oblivion was true monocled cRPG pre-decline greatness", and anyone who complained about the level scaling insanity would just be told to "git gud".

Eh, I did like Skyrim's setting and I wouldn't "defend it to the hilt" nor I think it was "true monocled cRPG pre-declione greatness". So I have to disagree here, too.

*I prefer Skyrim to Oblivion too though!

* No surprise there, because Skyrim is basically an upgraded version of Oblivion.

I can't see Morrowind having anywhere near the fandom it does if it was set in Oblivion's version of Cyrodiil; I think it'd be considered very dull.

But this is the failure of Oblivion: it doesn't offer interesting setting in its own right (despite using the same universe and being made by the same company, oddly enough). While Skyrim may be not as good as Morrowind, it certainly has more character when it comes to its setting. It was one of the few elements that kept me playing, whereas Oblivion failed utterly in this regard. And Oblivion has way more issues than just its setting.

 

[Lemming42]

Maybe, but it does offer unique way of representing character's skill in combat. That's why I found it interesting.

Fair enough but this seems subjective to me; I can understand preferring MW's combat all I can really say in response is that I hate it about as much as Oblivion's, MW's main advantage being that you become so powerful so fast that it at least ends quickly, unlike Oblivion's health bloat level scaling nightmares. The fusion of character skill and player skill feels unholy to me; it's like a bad action game where the game just sometimes decides that you missed (and that's only for the early game of course; after the point you start reliably landing hits it just becomes entirely asinine and more of an annoying distraction than anything else). I don't think any game has ever succeeded at merging FPS and RPG, it always ends up as dumb shit like JC shaking like he's having heroin withdrawal while holding the pistol in Deus Ex, or point blank shotgun blasts to an enemy's skull dealing less damage because of your weapon skill in Fallout 3/NV.

I disagree and I will use Skyrim(!) as my reason why. You can use fast travel in that game. But you know what? I didn't use it and as a result I was having encounters I otherwise wouldn't get, if I were to use fast travel (as well as exploring locations I was passing by).

The problem is that in MW there are no encounters you wouldn't get, because nothing changes and there's no random encounter system; the whole world is entierly unmoving. Allowing for fast travel between already-visited locations wouldn't be a big deal for that reason, you're not missing anything other than things you've already seen, unless you actively decide to pursue a new route between two locations - which you could easily do if fast travel was a feature.

Wasn't Oblivion a case of only being able to travel to and from locations you already visited, barring cities which were free at the start of the game? You could argue I suppose that it discourages exploration since you can just whisk yourself back to a city after you're done doing whatever in the wilderness, but self-directed exploration is the name of the game for MW/Oblivion/Skyrim and I think fast travel honestly facilitates the player's ability to do that rather than reduces it.

I'd prefer in-game travel only if there was ever a reason to travel across bits of the overworld you've already passed, if one of these games managed to have an actual reactive world with overworld travelers and factions claiming and losing territory and things like that. Oblivion and Skyrim's random encounter system was a decent idea but, like everything, felt very half-done.

Oblivion has the same issues and adds broken AI on top of them. You could put a bucket on a shopkeeper's head in order to rob him blind. This makes Oblivion a great mine for memes, but it hardly passes for good game and it doesn't mean it is better than Morrowind. In fact, I am actually arguing it is worse, as you are constantly reminded of how broken the Oblivion's AI is. Morrowind doesn't do that. Hence my comment that the nonexistent AI works in Morrowind's favour.

This is an odd argument IMO - the idea that an unimpressive system is worse than, essentially, no system at all. Especailly in a game like Morrowind, and a series like TES, where every system is unimpressive.

I think in open world games like these that rely on interactions between different systems and in which the player is encouraged to try different skills and builds and playstyles, having even a rudimentary system in place to facilitate the player's build and skills is obviously better than having none. Having to think "the shopkeeper is going to follow me and watch me so I'll have to find some workaround, or rely on my sneak skill to move in undetected" is better than "the shopkeeper is literally not capable of stopping me stealing everything so I'll just take what I want", even if the workaround in question ends up being something inane like luring the shopkeeper to one end of the shop then sprinting past them.

It goes for things like the language skills in Daggerfall - was it better to have these there and thus offer the player more playstyles and more options, even if they weren't particularly well-integrated or mechanically complex? I'd argue that it objectively is a good thing to have these systems in place; the games are all basically LARPing simulators and anything that works to aid in that and broaden the player's options and build types is a bonus.

Uh, Morrowind WAS a true cRPG. It literally hinges on character's skills, which is the staple of an RPG. Oblivion did away with too many elements by introducing player skill, hence the reason why I called its combat "garbage-level action RPG" (and the same applies to lockpicks). Because it is so reliant on action, while doing it in a shitty way (shittier than Morrowind, and I am not talking about Daggerfall, because I didn't play it enough to get a solid opinion on the matter).

Many people would call the entire TES series ARPGs, but it's obviously a semantics thing. In Morrowind character skill plays a role, but player skill - or, in MW's case, player ability to bunnyhop around and bamboozle the shitty AI - plays a large role too. This has been the case since Arena, of course - things like dodging (not resisting) a spell have always been a matter of player skill, because it's up to you to move left or right quick enough to avoid incoming fire, and combat in general has always been a combination of the player's skill at moving, the player's skill at giving themselves RSI and carpal tunnel by spamming attacks, and the character's weapon skill to hit and attributes to deal damage (with directional attacks - another aspect of player skill - technically influencing this in Arena/DF/MW, but only in the most rudimentary and mostly irrelevant way). Oblivion changing it to have things like timed blocks and big dramatic power attacks isn't a big deal IMO, especially when the effectiveness of your block or attack is still determined by character skill, and actions rely so strongly on your stamina (or magicka) which is a function of your attributes.

This is not really what I meant though; I was trying to suggest that none of the TES games is mechanically tight nor able to boast robust, well-designed, well-implemented systems. Even in this post we're having to say stuff like "it's actually good that Morrowind NPCs have no ability to react to the player". Anyone looking for tightly-designed, mechanically deep CRPG greatness is going to want to look elsewhere. It's the case with every game in the series: Daggerfall's my favourite and I can write about where I does feel it has depth, but you could very easily put me on the backfoot by asking me if half the systems have any real depth to them, at which point I'd just have to say "no, but _____".

This isn't to excuse bad design decisions or dumbing down of mechanics in any individual one of the games, but I do think the oft-expressed "Daggerfall and/or Morrowind was a deep and complex RPG and a masterwork, Oblivion is trashy arcade garbage for kids" is a view that can only come from a willfully rosy view of of DF/MW's mechanical complexity.

I don't think so. I would say people don't like bad stuff. A good setting would make Oblivion more bearable, but it won't change the fact that it needed to have its fundamental mechanics fixed as well. And Skyrim does both*.

Shivering Isles doesn't change the fundamental mechanics of Oblivion. I want to say the oft-praised Nehrim doesn't either but I might be wrong on that, I only played it once.

It makes for a pretty pointless praise then, doesn't it? I mean, you're LITERALLY saying "Oblivion has bad AI!". I am not really seeing that as a positive, as you might have noticed by my earlier responses.

Again, enemies being able to do incredibly basic shit like follow the player around when suspicious and hunt for the player when alerted are major improvements over previous games; they open up entirely new modes of play and make whole new builds viable. A scrap of reactivity like that is preferable to Daggerfall (where merchants just disappear at night so when you breach the door and pass the check to evade guards, you can take everything unimpeded) and Morrowind (where everyone stands still 24/7 and robbing a store is literally a matter of making the merchant turn around).

My goal isn't to praise Oblivion, though. I don't like the game and I think a lot of the design choices are atrocious, I dunno how to make that clear. I don't enjoy playing the game and can't make myself finish it, and I agree that the core mechanics are incredibly unsatisfying.

No surprise there, because Skyrim is basically an upgraded version of Oblivion.

If we're going down the "true CRPG"/"character skill should be more important than player skill" route, it's a downgrade in every conceivable way, surely? The character system is gutted, about half the mechanics are removed, combat is even further simplified and even more reliant on player skill, etc. I don't think any of that's a bad thing because I don't think there's anything wrong with being an action game with very light RPG elements, which Skyrim does reasonably well, and I'd go further and say that the game actively benefits from shedding a lot of the vestigal RPG stuff that's been hanging around since Daggerfall (and also discards MW/Oblivion's character levelling up system which I think was an atrocious system). But this whole discussion has been about the presence or lack thereof of "systems", under which logic Oblivion boasts a far greater array, surely?

 

[Harthwain]

I don't think any game has ever succeeded at merging FPS and RPG, it always ends up as dumb shit like JC shaking like he's on crack while holding the pistol in Deus Ex, or point blank shotgun blasts to an enemy's face dealing less damage because of your weapon skill in Fallout 3/NV.

PatricianTV (and Saint_Proverbius, to some degree) made a good suggestion that you could replace misses with grazes and glancing blows that are visually reflected in game (when you don't miss but your skill isn't good enough to deal significant damage to enemy). Add Mordhau/Chivalry system to that and I think you would have a solid foundation for a first person RPG.

The problem is that in MW there are no encounters you wouldn't get, because nothing changes and there's no random encounter system; the whole world is entierly unmoving.

True. On the other hand, with no fast travel there is no compass and quest design had to incorporate that fact into its design philosophy. I find that more engaging than having a marker. And Morrowind has fast travel too, it is simply integrated more realistically into the game and it can't literally teleport you anywhere you want. If your argument is that you can't spare a few minutes to get where you want to, then perhaps playing games just isn't for you as they are entirely designed to waste your time?

This is an odd argument IMO - the idea that an unimpressive system is worse than, essentially, no system at all. Especailly in a game like Morrowind, and a series like TES, where every system is unimpressive.

Is it though? There is a saying "More is less" and "Perfect is the enemy of good". And while you could say that systems in The Elder Scrolls can be considered unimpressive when looked at separately, there is such a thing as "More than the sum of its parts" and Morrowind fits that description perfectly. Keep in mind Morrowind isn't just about its setting. At the time it was a game with great visuals, huge seamless open world (that was set up to appear are realistic as possible, for a video game), with a plenty of spells, skills, etc.

It goes for things like the language skills in Daggerfall - was it better to have these there and thus offer the player more playstyles and more options, even if they weren't particularly well-integrated or mechanically complex? I'd argue that it objectively is a good thing to have these systems in place; the games are all basically LARPing simulators and anything that works to aid in that and broaden the player's options and build types 6is a bonus.

I'd say that players shouldn't be LARPing in RPGs: skills should have an impact that justifies their use. I am not saying that all things should be balanced, but that there should be no trap skills or useless skills. In a good game even a niche skills can be very useful if used in a certain build. It is simply a question of someone realizing how such build can be effective (and developers providing tools needed for it).

Many people would call the entire TES series ARPGs, but it's obviously a semantics thing. In Morrowind character skill plays a role, but player skill - or, in MW's case, player ability to bunnyhop around and bamboozle the shitty AI - plays a large role too. This has been the case since Arena, of course - things like dodging (not resisting) a spell have always been a matter of player skill, because it's up to you to move left or right quick enough to avoid incoming fire, and combat in general has always been a combination of the player's skill at moving, the player's skill at giving themselves RSI and carpal tunnel by spamming attacks, and the character's weapon skill to hit and attributes to deal damage (with directional attacks technically influencing this in Arena/DF/MW, but only in the most rudimentary and mostly irrelevant way). Oblivion changing it to have things like timed blocks and big dramatic power attacks isn't a big deal IMO, especially when the effectiveness of your block or attack is still determined by character skill, and actions rely so strongly on your stamina which is a function of your attributes.

You could "bunnyhop around and bamboozle the shitty AI". I never bothered with that. Avoiding magic missiles was the peak of my involvement with Morrowind's action. You said it yourself: the best thing about Morrowind's combat was that at certain level it wasn't an endless slog, as it was the case with Oblivion's combat. And up to a certain level there was some degree of challenge involved, even if the challenge is question meant outlasting your opposition.

This is not really what I meant though; I was trying to suggest that none of the TES games is mechanically tight nor able to boast robust, well-designed, well-implemented systems. Even in this post we're having to say stuff like "it's actually good that Morrowind NPCs have no ability to react to the player". Anyone looking for tightly-designed, mechanically deep CRPG greatness is going to want to look elsewhere.

Obviously not every game is for everyone. Morrowind is a bit of an acquired taste. As far as the Codex is concerned Morrowind was always considered to be a rough gem (emphasis on "rough"). Good luck looking for tightly-designed, mechanically deep cRPG greatness. I would struggle to think of any cRPG fitting your description. As much as I enjoyed Gothic, I never though of it as "mechanically deep" (it is actually fairly simple).

Shivering Isles doesn't change the fundamental mechanics of Oblivion.

Exactly my point. There is only so much you can do with the base game being what it is.

Again, enemies being able to do incredibly basic shit like follow the player around when suspicious and hunt for the player when alerted are major improvements over previous games. A scrap of reactivity like that is preferable to Daggerfall (where merchants just disappear at night so when you breach the door and pass the check to evade guards, you can take everything unimpeded) and Morrowind (where everyone stands still 24/7 and robbing a store is literally a matter of making the merchant turn around).

I will use your words, not mine:

"better than previous TES games" doesn't mean "good".

Calling something "major" on the basis of "the previous game didn't have that at all" (and that thing being very minor in the grand scheme of things) is not good enough for me.

My goal isn't to praise Oblivion, though. I don't like the game and I think a lot of the design choices are atrocious, I dunno how to make that clear. I don't enjoy playing the game and can't make myself finish it.

See, that's where I differ - I do praise Morrowind, I like the game, I think a lot of the design choices were good and I enjoy playing it. I don't bother finishing it, because finish of the main quest is really weak and it makes me feel like the game is over despite the game allowing me to keep playing it, and I don't like when games do that. In fact, I always found dicking around to be one of the biggest strengths of the big open world games.

If we're going down the "true CRPG"/"character skill should be more important than player skill" route, it's a downgrade in every conceivable way, surely? The character system is gutted, about half the mechanics are removed, combat is even further simplified and even more reliant on player skill, etc. I don't think any of that's a bad thing because I don't think there's anything wrong with being an action game with very light RPG elements, which Skyrim does reasonably well, and I'd go further and say that the game actively benefits from shedding a lot of the vestigal RPG stuff that's been hanging around since Daggerfall (and also discards MW/Oblivion's character levelling up system which I think was an atrocious system). But this whole discussion has been about the presence or lack thereof of "systems", under which logic Oblivion boasts a far greater array, surely?

Why do you think so many Codexers hate Oblivion (and, by extension, Skyrim)? Skyrim being a better/refined version of Oblivion is a perfect example of Decline™. Personally I was able to enjoy Skyrim more than Oblivion (again, not a very high bar to pass), while still acknowledging it as inferior to Morrowind, so there is no contradiction on my part.

 

[Lemming42]

True. On the other hand, with no fast travel there is no compass and quest design had to incorporate that fact into its design philosophy. I find that more engaging than having a marker. And Morrowind has fast travel too, it is simply integrated more realistically into the game and it can't literally teleport you anywhere you want. If your argument is that you can't spare a few minutes to get where you want to, then perhaps playing games just isn't for you as they are entirely designed to waste your time?

Ideally, videogames shouldn't waste your time at all. You're playing the wrong ones if you feel like you're having your time wasted. There's plenty of ways to make in-universe fast travel work and have it be meaningful (and St Proverbius' suggestion of switching to a map with a chance of a random encounter is a solid idea too).

I'd say that players shouldn't be LARPing in RPGs: skills should have an impact that justifies their use. I am not saying that all things should be balanced, but that there should be no trap skills or useless skills. In a good game even a niche skills can be very useful if used in a certain build. It is simply a question of someone realizing how such build can be effective (and developers providing tools needed for it).

All Elder Scrolls games have useless trap skills. Pick Speechcraft, Mercantile, and Sneak as your major skills in Morrowind and watch what happens. It's part of the series, and ideally, subsequent instalments should build on ways to make these skills useful (or just cut them if there's no viable way).

Developers providing tools needed for it is exactly what I'm talking about. Picking Sneak as your major skill in Morrowind (and DF) is a phenomenal waste of time because there's virtually no systems underpinning or supporting it. Oblivion and Skyrim are a big step up in that regard in that there's now a whole mode of gameplay attached to stealth, which basically plays like a shitty version of Thief, a la Deus Ex. I don't see how that's controversial, it's literally just true.

You said it yourself: the best thing about Morrowind's combat was that at certain level it wasn't an endless slog, as it was the case with Oblivion's combat.

Ideally, the combat would be fun, not tedious but mercifully brief. This is especially important since the game places such a focus on it.

Calling something "major" on the basis of "the previous game didn't have that at all" (and that thing being very minor in the grand scheme of things) is not good enough for me.

It's not minor IMO, it's an entire new way to play the game. Again, it takes Sneak - a skill that's been present since DF - and makes it into an viable mode of gameplay. Is that mode very good, mechanically deep, or well-balanced? No, but neither is any other mode of play in TES games.

See, that's where I differ - I do praise Morrowind, I like the game, I think a lot of the design choices were good and I enjoy playing it.

I also like Morrowind. I will praise various aspects of it. I just listed it as my top game of 2002 in my esteemed "Your Favourite Game From Each Year Of The 2000s" thread. I think it's fun overall, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to pretend it doesn't have enormous shortcomings and design choices that are just outright bad, and that it's also quite disappointing next to Daggerfall (which, again, itself has all kinds of flaws). I do not like Oblivion, meanwhile, and don't enjoy playing it, but similarly that's no reason to pretend it got absolutely nothing right and doesn't have any strengths or interesting ideas whatsoever.

I just don't get this weird mindset some people have of "i like this game therefore everything about it is a roaring success, i don't like this other game therefore literally every aspect of it is bad", especially when both games in question are greatly flawed. With TES it's even more bizarre given that Morrowind itself is already a huge step down from Daggerfall in so many ways, so the posturing some people (not necessarily anyone in this thread!) do about how Morrowind is Very Deep And A True Game For Monocled Gentlemen or w/e the fuck is dumb as hell.

 

[ds]

I agree with this. You'd think that once someone came up with the idea of displaying the difficulty of a monster as part of it's health bar, this would have gone away. It's been widely adopted in so many games, there's really no excuse not to have this.

You shouldn't need a HUD element to convey which foes are dangerous. Creature design as well as warnings about monsters or areas received in-game from NPCs and books are plenty to give you a chance of not killing yourself. Area design can help as well. It's not impossible to make it instantly noticeable that the area you just entered is deadly if its littered with scorched skeletons. And if you don't listen and run right into the deathclaw cave before being ready and get chunked then that's choice and consequences for you.

People like to shit on Morrowind's combat, but I actually liked how it worked.

I still think if you're going to do first person combat where the player is doing the aiming for the character, that should determine the "To Hit" and your skill should affect the damage output. A low skilled character would be dealing glancing blows more than death strikes.

I think either way can work but it should have the animations depend on the dice roll result. Nothing wrong with missing even though you were sure the hit would connect if you can visually see your sword bounce off a shield or the enemy jump out of the way at the last moment.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You shouldn't need a HUD element to convey which foes are dangerous. Creature design as well as warnings about monsters or areas received in-game from NPCs and books are plenty to give you a chance of not killing yourself. Area design can help as well.

I'll agree with you on this, but in a lesser of two evils, I'll take the "immersion breaking" skull over the life bar of the monster as opposed to level scaling. There are other ways of doing it, but if you're going to pick one or the other of those two options, and you go with the one that makes progression less satisfying in a CRPG, you probably should consider another genre to work in. I'll never understand level scaling as a concept for CRPGs. Yes, I understand you want to provide a challenge for the player throughout the entire game and yeah, monsters significantly lower level than the player can get annoying, but level scaling is probably the single worst way of handling those issues.

 

[Lyric Suite]

TES I: Arena - meh, maybe at the time it was okay, but I played it too late
TES II: Daggerfall - cool tech back at the time, gets boring after a while due to all random generation, better just keep to main quest
TES III: Morrowind - cool atmosphere, generally alright and worth to give it a playthrough, cool lore, crap combat
TES III: Tribunal - Boring dungeon crawling with crap Morrowind combat
TES III: Bloodmoon - Interesting and atmosphering expansion, probably the best TES part
TES IV: Oblivion - decline overall, but still has some interesting quests and combat is better, avoid main quest at all times, destroyed all lore
TES IV: Shivering Isles - a bit too bizzare, but it's just more of Oblivion
TES V: Skyrim - Oblivion but with anything interesting removed, complete cliche fantasy borefest

Not a bad summary but i'd like to point out that Daggerfall had a killer atmosphere, both in the towns and the dungeons.

Also, whether one likes the random generation or not, the dungeons got some points for me for being truly massive, and coming out of them was a truly unique experience.

Lastly, Daggerfall is mechanically the most coherent one because they went all in with the basic concept of randomly generated content. Level scaling made sense in Daggerfall, while there was no reason it had to be in Oblivion. The wiki style dialog also made sense in Daggerfall, while again there was no reason for it to be in Morrowind. Daggerfall had a clear vision of what it wanted to be where as those that came after it kept trying to retain some of its elements for no particular reason.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Don't like Oblivion = You have no sense of humour. Simple as.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

TES I: Arena - meh, maybe at the time it was okay, but I played it too late
TES II: Daggerfall - cool tech back at the time, gets boring after a while due to all random generation, better just keep to main quest
TES III: Morrowind - cool atmosphere, generally alright and worth to give it a playthrough, cool lore, crap combat
TES III: Tribunal - Boring dungeon crawling with crap Morrowind combat
TES III: Bloodmoon - Interesting and atmosphering expansion, probably the best TES part
TES IV: Oblivion - decline overall, but still has some interesting quests and combat is better, avoid main quest at all times, destroyed all lore
TES IV: Shivering Isles - a bit too bizzare, but it's just more of Oblivion
TES V: Skyrim - Oblivion but with anything interesting removed, complete cliche fantasy borefest

Not a bad summary but i'd like to point out that Daggerfall had a killer atmosphere, both in the towns and the dungeons.

Also, whether one likes the random generation or not, the dungeons got some points for me for being truly massive, and coming out of them was a truly unique experience.

Lastly, Daggerfall is mechanically the most coherent one because they went all in with the basic concept of randomly generated content. Level scaling made sense in Daggerfall, while there was no reason it had to be in Oblivion. The wiki style dialog also made sense in Daggerfall, while again there was no reason for it to be in Morrowind. Daggerfall had a clear vision of what it wanted to be where as those that came after it kept trying to retain some of its elements for no particular reason.

Firstly, it's a fitting quote to start with because I think there's a clear demarcation line between Daggerfall vs Morrowind enjoyers. I'm firmly on the side of Morrowind because for all it's mechanical uniqueness, lore-wise Daggerfall is mostly still a regular out-of-the-mill DnD copy. Morrowind however, for all it's flaws and half-leftovers from Daggerfall that make little sense (*like constantly resting for 16 hours in caves after every stab wound, which only made sense in TES 2 where you had limited time to turn in a quest; and the decline of GOTY edition, where you're immediately ultra-rich if you survive Dark Brotherhood assassins and sell their loot.) still represents the absolute peak of CRPG, where it comes to world-building and lore, this side of Planescape: Torment, down to the very metaphysics, to the point I struggle to find any contender.

Now, no Codexer, and maybe 5 people on the entire planet in general, played every TES game, simply because there were weird experiments like, uhm... Shadowkey for Nokia N-Gage? or TES Legends TCG game, that while important lore-wise, are such a bizarre idea I can't see anyone bothering to do more than reading a wiki summary.

That said, I'll try to elaborate on this list:

TES I: Arena
TES II: Daggerfall - I'll bundle those 2 together, since it's a bit like FO3 and F:NV situation - to an untrained eye, they look almost the same, only the 2nd one is bigger and better in every way. And yes, I'm aware of the limitations of such metaphor. The only thing Arena has going for it is the fact it's only one of 2 games where you're able to visit the entire Tamriel, but after Daggerfall, there's little reason to bother with Arena. Like every over-ambitious milestone, it has its limitations, but I can't recall a game that is anything like TES 2. Even if you're a boomer who struggles to run older games freaking out on modern tech, Daggerfall Unity completely solves such issues for you, so there's no reason to skip it.

TES: Battlespire - people tend to skip those side. There's a great let's play here on Codex, I'll try to find a link to it later.

TES: Redguard - the clear demarcation line that does away with "TES: DnD derivative #1407" for "TES: meta-oniric substance-fueled esoteric fever dream". It's where legendary Michael Kirkrbide (there are more unsung heroes in the background, like Ken Rolston) comes in, alongside Pocket Guide to the Empire, 1st edition bundled with game manual. If you see people claiming "In Skyrim Nords are just generic vikings, but in lore they're so much more!", that's what they're referring to. Oh, the game itself? It sucks. Great setting, good plot, awful "we have Tomb Raider at home" gameplay. You can check it out for the lulz, just don't be surprised you'll drop it after 15mins.

TES: Shadowkey - it's the Nokia N-Gage game. Sorry, I can't do much more here than refer to some wiki summary.

TES III: Morrowind: The absolute high point of TES, CPRG worldbuilding, crafting a truly alien and unique fantasy world, etc. If it's the first time you hear of it, SsethTzeentach review is a good first point of contact.
Why is the lore so great, and the next best thing since Tolkien sliced bread himself?

This is a good start to understand it: https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/the-metaphysics-of-morrowind-part-1/



TES III: Tribunal
TES III: Bloodmoon - some people will try to convince you there are Morrowind expansions that exist. They do not. Preposterous! Move along, citizen.

TES IV: Oblivion - aside from mentioning Vault Dweller's review, in many ways Codex's rise to fame/infamy, more than enough books were written about it, even ITT for me to add anything. It's also hard to find many positives about this aforementioned Patient Zero of RPG decline (fantastic metaphor). The most unforgivable thing about this is, at least on a superficial level, complete castration of what makes (Cyrodiil, which was described as a Byzantine "endless jungle", turned into the blandest of bland Medieval Europe. Funnily enough, in TES: Online Gold Road that came out a week ago, the jungle is back )

I'll however note one positive rarely mentioned: many side-quests' premises and scripting/"quest stages"-based design were very neat.

TES IV: Knights of the Nine - Oblivion's medieval-esque blandness taken to the extreme. The only notable thing is Kirkbride's contributions, but they were limited mostly to new in-game books like Song of Pelinal.

TES IV: Shivering Isles - if you're planning on checking out TES IV at all, it's probably the only reason to do so. The game is batshit insane, but if you appreciate it's absurdist humor, ranging from Monty Python on acid to lol-random non-sequiturs, it may just be your cup of tea. Just be sure to mod some overhaul on top of it, or you'll die of boredom.

TES V: same with Oblivion, it's such a "cultural" (and I use that term very loosely, obviously) milestone, and a cash cow for Bethesda and countless youtubers ("10 More Skyrim Details you didn't notice! Part 468") there's little to say anymore. It's a "rotten compromise" between Morrowind and Oblivion that pulls the breaks in some ways (setting's blandness, respect to its own lore), goes full speed on others (oversimplification, copy-pasted dungeons, etc).

TES V: Dawnguard: ...

TES V: Dragonborn - you go back to Morrowind and visit Apocrypha (which is one of the better translations of "Lovecraftian" into game format. Well, they all suck except for Bloodborne, but still). The absolute high point of Skyrim. What is it with expansions/DLCs often being so much more interesting than the base game?

TES: Legends - see: Shadowkey. Actually, I played it a bit before it stopped being developed (I even got a free Dagoth Ur card from one of those booster packs! Talk about being blessed). If you're not averse to TCG format, it may be worth checking out, as it's a "story driven" one (as in, expansions come as narrative sets of encounters). Some cool stories, like that tragic Dunmer father on Shivering Isles.

TES Online - it's the 2nd game that let's you visit the entire Tamriel, but since it's an MMO, by and of itself it's hard to recommend just "checking out" this one, or finding a Codexer who did just that. Most who do, tend to not bother for long - overland content is difficulty: braindead, you can be overflooded with quests that, sure, are voice-acted, but the dialogues are boring and full of irrelevant infodumps, and the time commitment required to really appreciate what it does well and where is massive. Those things are enough to be a hard NO for most people, understandably so.

That said, lore-wise it's the next best thing after Morrowind, where it's Kirkbride-esque weirdness is on full display, and if you're really into TES universe and stick with it, you'll can see some of the best TES content and truly memorable stories. I recommend to at least check out some Let's Play on the Clockwork City DLC.

 

[Harthwain]

Ideally, videogames shouldn't waste your time at all. You're playing the wrong ones if you feel like you're having your time wasted. There's plenty of ways to make in-universe fast travel work and have it be meaningful (and St Proverbius' suggestion of switching to a map with a chance of a random encounter is a solid idea too).

I never felt like my time was wasted in Morrowind, even when I had to take a route through some areas I've visited already. Maybe that's because I liked Morrowind's open world and lack of fast travel beyond designated points was the norm for games back then. That said, I don't feel like addition of fast travel was any good, both for games that have it and for the players. Then again, I usually don't sit to play a game - any game - if all I have is 30 minutes or so...

All Elder Scrolls games have useless trap skills. Pick Speechcraft, Mercantile, and Sneak as your major skills in Morrowind and watch what happens. It's part of the series, and ideally, subsequent instalments should build on ways to make these skills useful (or just cut them if there's no viable way).

I don't consider these trap skills. More like underrated skills. Sure, you might think Mercantile is useless, because you can steal your way to riches and ultimately swim in money, but what if you don't? Speechcraft is useful for persuasion, taunting and it plays hand-in-hand with Mercantile. In fact, Speechcraft is pretty damn amazing if you decide to not have a magic-using character. Sneak is pretty useful in some quests for stealing items. Granted, I wasn't using it beyond that. If you want to name a trap skill then Pickpocket would be that, mainly because - if I recall correctly - it is actually broken in the sense it is not working properly.

Oblivion and Skyrim are a big step up in that regard in that there's now a whole mode of gameplay attached to stealth, which basically plays like a shitty version of Thief, a la Deus Ex. I don't see how that's controversial, it's literally just true.

I don't think anyone finds that controversial, only that what Oblivion does right doesn't really compensate for what it does wrong (and there is a plenty of that).

Ideally, the combat would be fun, not tedious but mercifully brief. This is especially important since the game places such a focus on it.

Yeah, I wish more games had high-stakes combat and a wound system that makes post-combat effect waaaay more meaningful that the act of combat itself. This was one of a few reasons why I enjoyed combat in NEO Scavenger so much: the combat itself could be a mess, it could be lethal and you had to deal with the lingering after-effects of it.

I also like Morrowind. I will praise various aspects of it. I just listed it as my top game of 2002 in my esteemed "Your Favourite Game From Each Year Of The 2000s" thread. I think it's fun overall, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to pretend it doesn't have enormous shortcomings and design choices that are just outright bad, and that it's also quite disappointing next to Daggerfall (which, again, itself has all kinds of flaws). I do not like Oblivion, meanwhile, and don't enjoy playing it, but similarly that's no reason to pretend it got absolutely nothing right and doesn't have any strengths or interesting ideas whatsoever.

OK, here is the deal:

1) Nobody (or nobody who is serious, to be precise) will say that Morrowind doesn't have shortcomings (enormous or otherwise). But I enjoyed playing it all the same.

2) Yes, Oblivion played with some interesting ideas that ultimately resulted in being an utter failure and it needed Skyrim to fix most of them. I still didn't enjoy playing Oblivion. At all. So I think it was shit. Because it was. Despite having some strengths or interesting ideas in it (besides also having outright stupid design decisions of its own, such as the art direction being awful, shitting on its own lore, etc.).

I just don't get this weird mindset some people have of "i like this game therefore everything about it is a roaring success, i don't like this other game therefore literally every aspect of it is bad", especially when both games in question are greatly flawed.

This. This right here. This is what you "don't get". While you could say that "both games in question are greatly flawed" in theory, the perception of these flaws will be different depending on the person. I don't see Morrowind's flaws to be greater (or even equal) to those of Oblivion and I appreciate its strong points more than I do Oblivion's. Had I thought otherwise, I wouldn't dislike Oblivion as much as I did.