Why do people hate Oblivion so much?

[Poseidon00]

I personally remember being blown away by the graphics and only seeing the "potato heads" years after release after better tech showed what was possible and basically seeing it as the pinnacle of rpgs for a while. Even though I grew up on more traditional stuff that I vastly prefer to this day.

 

[Funposter]

Paid journalism and it's been a problem from the beginning. I noticed you ignored the bugs that were mentioned etc. Hey you like shit and more power to ya.

When did I say that I liked the game? I said that mainstream journalists and consumers liked it. It's called reading comprehension, you spastic. A review mentioning bugs does not take away from the final verdict being "go buy this game!", nor does it support your initial assertion that "it wasn't well received when it first launched. I remember that it got really bad review scores due to the sheer amount of bugs and broken things. Only after Bugthesda modders came in and fixed it did the game start getting positive reviews." You haven't provided an example of a "bad review score", or an example of "the game [starting to get] positive reviews" after "modders came in and fixed it."

Face the facts: it was immensely popular at release. It was all anybody was talking about on gaming forums for months after launch. It put Bethesda on the map with console gamers and was so successful that they have never needed another company to publish one of their games again. There's a reason you don't see the 2K logo when you boot up Fallout 3 or Skyrim. This is not an endorsement of Oblivion or me saying that I like the game. It's simply the reality of the situation. People liked it. You're either willfully ignorant or stupid if you can't recognise that. People like lots of shitty things, that's the way the world works.

Face the facts that it wasn't. Were you alive at the time Zoomer? But hey I can quote shit sources, but I refuse to do so. Again you are citing the quantity is quality argument.

You can't quote sources because the nearest thing to a negative review from a mainstream source was the one posted on this website. This isn't an example of "quantity is quality" because I'm not arguing that the game is good. I am, however, arguing that high sales figures and overwhelmingly positive critic and user reviews are proof that it was liked by a vast majority of people. You are again confusing an objective statement with my opinion, and are once again refusing to step outside of your bubble. I was alive at the time. I got the game for my 13th birthday, as did hundreds of thousands of other teenagers who owned Xbox 360s. This is such a ridiculous argument to even be having. Who the fuck lives in a world where Oblivion wasn't popular? It was an immense success.

Edit: I'll hide these in a spoiler tag, but some comparisons from Google Trends between Oblivion and Gears of Wars, Grand Theft Auto IV (difficult to find the best search term, admittedly) and Halo 3.

Spoiler

 

[deuxhero]

The voice acting in Deus Ex, with its horrible Asian accents and Joe Friday main character, are better than this because the voice actors are not above their material.

Just a reminder for people: The worst voices in Deus Ex are the ones they hired actors for while the internally sourced voices were all fine. Alex Jacobson in the top five most voiced lines in the game, yet nobody has an issue with his voice was done by Ion Storm's Richard Gaubert (who is now reduced to doing reboot God of War).

 

[JamesDixon]

Paid journalism and it's been a problem from the beginning. I noticed you ignored the bugs that were mentioned etc. Hey you like shit and more power to ya.

When did I say that I liked the game? I said that mainstream journalists and consumers liked it. It's called reading comprehension, you spastic. A review mentioning bugs does not take away from the final verdict being "go buy this game!", nor does it support your initial assertion that "it wasn't well received when it first launched. I remember that it got really bad review scores due to the sheer amount of bugs and broken things. Only after Bugthesda modders came in and fixed it did the game start getting positive reviews." You haven't provided an example of a "bad review score", or an example of "the game [starting to get] positive reviews" after "modders came in and fixed it."

Face the facts: it was immensely popular at release. It was all anybody was talking about on gaming forums for months after launch. It put Bethesda on the map with console gamers and was so successful that they have never needed another company to publish one of their games again. There's a reason you don't see the 2K logo when you boot up Fallout 3 or Skyrim. This is not an endorsement of Oblivion or me saying that I like the game. It's simply the reality of the situation. People liked it. You're either willfully ignorant or stupid if you can't recognise that. People like lots of shitty things, that's the way the world works.

Face the facts that it wasn't. Were you alive at the time Zoomer? But hey I can quote shit sources, but I refuse to do so. Again you are citing the quantity is quality argument.

You can't quote sources because the nearest thing to a negative review from a mainstream source was the one posted on this website. This isn't an example of "quantity is quality" because I'm not arguing that the game is good. I am, however, arguing that high sales figures and overwhelmingly positive critic and user reviews are proof that it was liked by a vast majority of people. You are again confusing an objective statement with my opinion, and are once again refusing to step outside of your bubble. I was alive at the time. I got the game for my 13th birthday, as did hundreds of thousands of other teenagers who owned Xbox 360s. This is such a ridiculous argument to even be having. Who the fuck lives in a world where Oblivion wasn't popular? It was an immense success.

I did cite a source that said what I did. It wasn't received well due to the bugs or did you miss that part? Oh you glossed right over it because it didn't suit your narrative. Now this my last reply to you princess on this subject.

 

[Funposter]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

 

[JamesDixon]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

If I remember correctly, back in the day the Codex published a negative review about Oblivion. Bethesda got mad and forced the page to remove it. Or some shit like that. Maybe I'm high.

 

[Funposter]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

Because the rest of the article is arguably irrelevant in the face of the final verdict. Bethesda's games have always been buggy and it has never stopped them from receiving positive reviews up until Fallout 76 which was finally a breaking/tipping point for both journalists and mainstream consumers, although both parties were less enamored with Fallout 4 than they were with Skyrim, so Bethesda was already on a downward trajectory. You've provided a single source which wasn't even negative. It's a positive review. He tells you to buy the game. "Bug/s" are mentioned a total of six times in the review - once in the opening paragraph, and then a further five times in the paragraph directly above the final verdict. In the very first paragraph, it's said that the game "avoids any major blunders". Features endemic of decline - the tutorial that thrusts you into the main quest, the quest compass, the fast travel - are met with glowing praise and said to "make Oblivion a great title for anyone still wary about RPGs". Even with all of the skills and systems culled from Morrowind, it supposedly has "depth and gameplay options" that "may be daunting". He thinks the persuasion minigame is ENGAGING, for God's sake.

I'm left wondering if you have actually read the review, or whether you simply googled "Oblivion bugs review" and clicked on the fifth link because you saw it mention "frustrating gameplay", which doesn't really come up again in the view, by the way. He singles out a few skills as being "useless" (Acrobatics and Athletics) and says that you shouldn't select Luck as a primary attritube because it doesn't directly affect anything. I bet he loved Skyrim after it got rid of these.

9.3/10 is not a negative review.

 

[Decado]

If I remember correctly, back in the day the Codex published a negative review about Oblivion. Bethesda got mad and forced the page to remove it. Or some shit like that. Maybe I'm high.

How could they force the Codex to do anything?

 

[Faarbaute]

If I remember correctly, back in the day the Codex published a negative review about Oblivion. Bethesda got mad and forced the page to remove it. Or some shit like that. Maybe I'm high.

How could they force the Codex to do anything?

Lithuanian hitmen

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

If I remember correctly, back in the day the Codex published a negative review about Oblivion. Bethesda got mad and forced the page to remove it. Or some shit like that. Maybe I'm high.

How could they force the Codex to do anything?

They treatened them with torturing the Fallout franchise. Guess what happened.

The Codex doesn't deal with terrorists

Spoiler

Seriously I don't know. I always remembered talking about this in other forums, many years ago. About something like I said, a page that published a very negative review about the game and Bethesda pressured them because of it.

 

[Funposter]

Pretty sure VD's review of Oblivion that was published in April 06 is still up on the site and always has been.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Only thing that happened is that they added a certain wordfilter to their own forum. (dead now)

 

[MWaser]

Wow JamesDixon you are a sore loser if you feel the need to vote every response of Funposter as "retarded" just because he disagrees with you.

 

[Broseph]

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

It's most well-known in the public consciousness now as "the funny radiant AI game", and as a hallmark of late millennial nostalgia, but at the time of release it was incredibly well-received and hailed by mainstream outlets as one of the greatest RPGs of all time.

When did I say that I liked the game? I said that mainstream journalists and consumers liked it.

Lol that's a hell of a backpedal. "It was incredibly well received" != "Mainstream journalists and consumers liked it".

I was also there. There were shitloads of complaints. Skyrim is a better example of what you're saying.

EDIT:

Wow JamesDixon you are a sore loser if you feel the need to vote every response of Funposter as "retarded" just because he disagrees with you.

To be fair, every response by Funposter is individually retarded for a different reason. Also who goes around checking stickers lol, did you also check his post history to see if he's contradicted anything he ever said before?

 

[JamesDixon]

It's most well-known in the public consciousness now as "the funny radiant AI game", and as a hallmark of late millennial nostalgia, but at the time of release it was incredibly well-received and hailed by mainstream outlets as one of the greatest RPGs of all time.

When did I say that I liked the game? I said that mainstream journalists and consumers liked it.

Lol that's a hell of a backpedal. "It was incredibly well received" != "Mainstream journalists and consumers liked it".

I was also there. There were shitloads of complaints. Skyrim is a better example of what you're saying.

EDIT:

Wow JamesDixon you are a sore loser if you feel the need to vote every response of Funposter as "retarded" just because he disagrees with you.

To be fair, every response by Funposter is individually retarded for a different reason. Also who goes around checking stickers lol, did you also check his post history to see if he's contradicted anything he ever said before?

It's hilarious to be lectured by someone that wasn't alive when the game was released and you saw everything firsthand. Yet, I'm the one that is wrong on the fact it wasn't well received and had a ton of complaints about bugs that weren't fixed by Bugthesda until after the modders did it for them. It's the I know everything even though I wasn't alive to see or experience it. Even then there were complaints about how bad the game was in scope compared to Daggerfall. But we're all wrong.

 

[Tao]

Horse Armor DLC... If i have to pick one game that embodied the decline it is Oblivion. They started the era of decline in so many levels and fronts that anyone born before this abomination, that actually played videogames, can't honestly claim is was a good thing to the world that this shit was shat.

 

[Funposter]

It's most well-known in the public consciousness now as "the funny radiant AI game", and as a hallmark of late millennial nostalgia, but at the time of release it was incredibly well-received and hailed by mainstream outlets as one of the greatest RPGs of all time.

When did I say that I liked the game? I said that mainstream journalists and consumers liked it.

Lol that's a hell of a backpedal. "It was incredibly well received" != "Mainstream journalists and consumers liked it".

I was also there. There were shitloads of complaints. Skyrim is a better example of what you're saying.

Of course that's what it means. Again, step outside of your bubble. Also you seem to ignore how "hailed by mainstream outlets as one of the greatest RPGs of all time" and "mainstream journalists and consumers liked it" are directly related.

To be fair, every response by Funposter is individually retarded for a different reason. Also who goes around checking stickers lol, did you also check his post history to see if he's contradicted anything he ever said before?

"Who goes around actually fact-checking the shit they're saying?"

It's hilarious to be lectured by someone that wasn't alive when the game was released and you saw everything firsthand. Yet, I'm the one that is wrong on the fact it wasn't well received and had a ton of complaints about bugs that weren't fixed by Bugthesda until after the modders did it for them. It's the I know everything even though I wasn't alive to see or experience it. Even then there were complaints about how bad the game was in scope compared to Daggerfall. But we're all wrong.

You seem to be really fixated on modders fixering bugs post-release when,

1. That's true of every Bethesda game
2. Bugs are the least of Oblivion's problems

If I had to write a review of Oblivion now, at the time, or at any point in between, bugs and glitches probably wouldn't even be in my top 5 issues with the game. Level scaling and the multitude of issues that came with it, linear faction questlines, skill consolidation/cutting of skills, lack of factions compared to Morrowind, main quest storyline being good vs evil with no subtlety, repetitious dungeons with lack of enemy variety, transformation of Cyrodiil into generic forest compared to description in Third Pocket Guide to the Empire and theDeadlands being depicted as Mordor from LOTR with more red...yeah, all of those would rank above the bugs. And the grogs were complaining about Morrowind being small in scale compared to Daggerfall too. It wasn't a new argument lol.

 

[Broseph]

Horse Armor DLC... If i have to pick one game that embodied the decline it is Oblivion. They started the era of decline in so many levels and fronts that anyone born before this abomination, that actually played videogames, can't honestly claim is was a good thing to the world that this shit was shat.

It was worth it for the memes. Oblivion memes are evergreen, there are precious few games out there that are as unintentionally hilarious as Oblivion.

 

[JamesDixon]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

Because the rest of the article is arguably irrelevant in the face of the final verdict. Bethesda's games have always been buggy and it has never stopped them from receiving positive reviews up until Fallout 76 which was finally a breaking/tipping point for both journalists and mainstream consumers, although both parties were less enamored with Fallout 4 than they were with Skyrim, so Bethesda was already on a downward trajectory. You've provided a single source which wasn't even negative. It's a positive review. He tells you to buy the game. "Bug/s" are mentioned a total of six times in the review - once in the opening paragraph, and then a further five times in the paragraph directly above the final verdict. In the very first paragraph, it's said that the game "avoids any major blunders". Features endemic of decline - the tutorial that thrusts you into the main quest, the quest compass, the fast travel - are met with glowing praise and said to "make Oblivion a great title for anyone still wary about RPGs". Even with all of the skills and systems culled from Morrowind, it supposedly has "depth and gameplay options" that "may be daunting". He thinks the persuasion minigame is ENGAGING, for God's sake.

I'm left wondering if you have actually read the review, or whether you simply googled "Oblivion bugs review" and clicked on the fifth link because you saw it mention "frustrating gameplay", which doesn't really come up again in the view, by the way. He singles out a few skills as being "useless" (Acrobatics and Athletics) and says that you shouldn't select Luck as a primary attritube because it doesn't directly affect anything. I bet he loved Skyrim after it got rid of these.

9.3/10 is not a negative review.

You are under the impression retard that I said the game didn't review well. That's not what I said. I said it wasn't well received by the players and you ignoring the entire point behind me posting the Gamespot review that highlights the bugs only makes you the retard. Nice backpedal though.

 

[Broseph]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

Because the rest of the article is arguably irrelevant in the face of the final verdict. Bethesda's games have always been buggy and it has never stopped them from receiving positive reviews up until Fallout 76 which was finally a breaking/tipping point for both journalists and mainstream consumers, although both parties were less enamored with Fallout 4 than they were with Skyrim, so Bethesda was already on a downward trajectory. You've provided a single source which wasn't even negative. It's a positive review. He tells you to buy the game. "Bug/s" are mentioned a total of six times in the review - once in the opening paragraph, and then a further five times in the paragraph directly above the final verdict. In the very first paragraph, it's said that the game "avoids any major blunders". Features endemic of decline - the tutorial that thrusts you into the main quest, the quest compass, the fast travel - are met with glowing praise and said to "make Oblivion a great title for anyone still wary about RPGs". Even with all of the skills and systems culled from Morrowind, it supposedly has "depth and gameplay options" that "may be daunting". He thinks the persuasion minigame is ENGAGING, for God's sake.

I'm left wondering if you have actually read the review, or whether you simply googled "Oblivion bugs review" and clicked on the fifth link because you saw it mention "frustrating gameplay", which doesn't really come up again in the view, by the way. He singles out a few skills as being "useless" (Acrobatics and Athletics) and says that you shouldn't select Luck as a primary attritube because it doesn't directly affect anything. I bet he loved Skyrim after it got rid of these.

9.3/10 is not a negative review.

You are under the impression retard that I said the game didn't review well. That's not what I said. I said it wasn't well received by the players and you ignoring the entire point behind me posting the Gamespot review that highlights the bugs only makes you the retard. Nice backpedal though.

If by players you mean the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans and RPG connoisseurs, sure. The normie masses loved Oblivion when it came out and still do to this day.

 

[JamesDixon]

It's hilarious to be lectured by someone that wasn't alive when the game was released and you saw everything firsthand. Yet, I'm the one that is wrong on the fact it wasn't well received and had a ton of complaints about bugs that weren't fixed by Bugthesda until after the modders did it for them. It's the I know everything even though I wasn't alive to see or experience it. Even then there were complaints about how bad the game was in scope compared to Daggerfall. But we're all wrong.

You seem to be really fixated on modders fixering bugs post-release when,

1. That's true of every Bethesda game
2. Bugs are the least of Oblivion's problems

If I had to write a review of Oblivion now, at the time, or at any point in between, bugs and glitches probably wouldn't even be in my top 5 issues with the game. Level scaling and the multitude of issues that came with it, linear faction questlines, skill consolidation/cutting of skills, lack of factions compared to Morrowind, main quest storyline being good vs evil with no subtlety, repetitious dungeons with lack of enemy variety, transformation of Cyrodiil into generic forest compared to description in Third Pocket Guide to the Empire and theDeadlands being depicted as Mordor from LOTR with more red...yeah, all of those would rank above the bugs. And the grogs were complaining about Morrowind being small in scale compared to Daggerfall too. It wasn't a new argument lol.

You seem fixated on defending Bugthesda's honor in the hopes that Todd Howard fucks you. Pretty pathetic actually. Again, the retard misunderstands simple English where I used the modders to highlight how Bugthesda waits until their fans fix their game then incorporates it as a patch later. You are creating a strawman to attack me with and not even bothering to touch upon the points I made child. You also seem to have ignored my question on if you were alive when Oblivion released. That alone tells me you weren't and you have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Now shut the fuck up and stop replying to me asshole.

 

[JamesDixon]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

Because the rest of the article is arguably irrelevant in the face of the final verdict. Bethesda's games have always been buggy and it has never stopped them from receiving positive reviews up until Fallout 76 which was finally a breaking/tipping point for both journalists and mainstream consumers, although both parties were less enamored with Fallout 4 than they were with Skyrim, so Bethesda was already on a downward trajectory. You've provided a single source which wasn't even negative. It's a positive review. He tells you to buy the game. "Bug/s" are mentioned a total of six times in the review - once in the opening paragraph, and then a further five times in the paragraph directly above the final verdict. In the very first paragraph, it's said that the game "avoids any major blunders". Features endemic of decline - the tutorial that thrusts you into the main quest, the quest compass, the fast travel - are met with glowing praise and said to "make Oblivion a great title for anyone still wary about RPGs". Even with all of the skills and systems culled from Morrowind, it supposedly has "depth and gameplay options" that "may be daunting". He thinks the persuasion minigame is ENGAGING, for God's sake.

I'm left wondering if you have actually read the review, or whether you simply googled "Oblivion bugs review" and clicked on the fifth link because you saw it mention "frustrating gameplay", which doesn't really come up again in the view, by the way. He singles out a few skills as being "useless" (Acrobatics and Athletics) and says that you shouldn't select Luck as a primary attritube because it doesn't directly affect anything. I bet he loved Skyrim after it got rid of these.

9.3/10 is not a negative review.

You are under the impression retard that I said the game didn't review well. That's not what I said. I said it wasn't well received by the players and you ignoring the entire point behind me posting the Gamespot review that highlights the bugs only makes you the retard. Nice backpedal though.

If by players you mean the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans and RPG connoisseurs, sure. The normie masses loved Oblivion when it came out and still do to this day.

Yes, the same masses that love McDonalds and other shit things in life. Let me guess the sheep's opinion actually matters to you huh?

 

[Broseph]

It wasn't received well due to the bugs

You know, I really love John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. The Thing has a few things wrong with it, especially the end sequence with the stop motion Blair, which looks way worse than the rest of the VFX in the movie. If I were writing a review of that movie, I might say "the VFX in the end confrontation with Blair look really shitty" but that wouldn't stop me from giving the movie a high score, or all of a sudden mean that I disliked it. You are able to give an overall positive review of a product (which might end with you saying something like "is it worth a purchase? Definitely.") while noting that it has some problems that stop it from being perfect, which this reviewer has done.

And you ignore the rest of the article moron. Welcome to the stupid list.

Because the rest of the article is arguably irrelevant in the face of the final verdict. Bethesda's games have always been buggy and it has never stopped them from receiving positive reviews up until Fallout 76 which was finally a breaking/tipping point for both journalists and mainstream consumers, although both parties were less enamored with Fallout 4 than they were with Skyrim, so Bethesda was already on a downward trajectory. You've provided a single source which wasn't even negative. It's a positive review. He tells you to buy the game. "Bug/s" are mentioned a total of six times in the review - once in the opening paragraph, and then a further five times in the paragraph directly above the final verdict. In the very first paragraph, it's said that the game "avoids any major blunders". Features endemic of decline - the tutorial that thrusts you into the main quest, the quest compass, the fast travel - are met with glowing praise and said to "make Oblivion a great title for anyone still wary about RPGs". Even with all of the skills and systems culled from Morrowind, it supposedly has "depth and gameplay options" that "may be daunting". He thinks the persuasion minigame is ENGAGING, for God's sake.

I'm left wondering if you have actually read the review, or whether you simply googled "Oblivion bugs review" and clicked on the fifth link because you saw it mention "frustrating gameplay", which doesn't really come up again in the view, by the way. He singles out a few skills as being "useless" (Acrobatics and Athletics) and says that you shouldn't select Luck as a primary attritube because it doesn't directly affect anything. I bet he loved Skyrim after it got rid of these.

9.3/10 is not a negative review.

You are under the impression retard that I said the game didn't review well. That's not what I said. I said it wasn't well received by the players and you ignoring the entire point behind me posting the Gamespot review that highlights the bugs only makes you the retard. Nice backpedal though.

If by players you mean the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans and RPG connoisseurs, sure. The normie masses loved Oblivion when it came out and still do to this day.

Yes, the same masses that love McDonalds and other shit things in life. Let me guess the sheep's opinion actually matters to you huh?

Your posts reek of butthurt.

Saying normies like Oblivion is a statement of fact, not an endorsement of the game you dumbfuck.