I wouldn't advise people new to the game to just choose ten random skills, and if I gave that impression then I was wrong to do so. You do need some knowledge of how the game works to make use of a more... esoteric, shall we say, build. And admittedly if you are playing without one of a small number of mods that address the issues with how health increases as a function of endurance, there are certain things you need to keep in mind that I admit I was not keeping uppermost in my mind.Originally Posted by Bolivar
Even so, the reduction in the number and variety of skills (and then the elimination of stats entirely) has clearly harmed the ability to build a diverse character. Sometimes it's fine, there's no great less by merging Long and Short Blade for example, but the reduction in acrobatics and athletics and stuff, making all weapons either one handed or two handed, etc., all hurt. In this way I think Oblivion is actually less of a problem than Skyrim because the merges hadn't gone as far, but I've always felt more constrained after Morrowind.
Sooorrrrt of? I agree with the first part, there is no way whatsoever to argue with the claim that the introduction of proper physics made archery vastly better in Oblivion and Skyrim. It did, I concede the point, no argument or equivocation.I mention physics because it takes some of the gameplay options to a level of choice and freedom which Morrowind never could. Stealth is more fun when you can leap between the rafters, stalking unsuspecting prey until you crash down on them like Batman. Archery is better when you can kite enemies to walking across the trip wire between you, setting off a devastating trap. And swordfighters can either dance nimbly within and out of their opponent's range, never being hit, or use brute force to block and parry attacks. In Morrowind, you can build a character who can do those things statistically but ultimately, it's up to the game's random calculations to decide whether you're successful, not you.
The second part is a lot more subjective and, yes, there are a lot of people who find the Morrowind roll-to-hit system to be annoying or unintuitive, but I'm not one of them and I know plenty of people who agree. You have a better skill in something, you can hit more reliably with it/cast spells more reliably/etc.. I don't mind roll-to-hit at all, perhaps because I'm used to that kind of game? For me I find it easier to believe that a big overhead warhammer swing missed than to believe it hit but did 1 HP in damage. It can miss and whiff, and I can allow the graphical shortcomings in that, but if it's all actiony like Skyrim for example, it's a lot harder for me to believe that a direct contact hit doesn't cave a skull in.
This is subjective gameplay stuff though. I think archery is better in the IV and V, but I don't think that means it isn't viable in III - better doesn't mean the previous one was bad. And I admit the combat isn't the height of refinement and precision even when you do grok it like I do, the later games would improve in that way, but I don't personally equate that (Archery excepted, as I said), with increasing your options. All the things you can do in Oblivion or Skyrim, you can do in Morrowind, often better, thanks to acrobatics and levitation and so on. You can still dance out of the way of attacks or wear heavy armor and have a big shield.
The thing is though that the gameplay is and has always been secondary with TES games. Even Skyrim, refined as the fighting all is, doesn't really measure up to a game like The Witcher or Dark Souls if you're looking for deep combat. None of the games are about the gameplay and if that's what someone is looking for, this just isn't the series. The games are about the world, the characters, the machinations of different factions, the religious cults, the different interpretations of the same events, the detail that shows in the robes worn by Tribunal Temple priests or the fact that someone managed to plausibly demonstrate where Tarhiel began his jump. That's why I rate Oblivion so much lower than Morrowind or Skyrim. Those games, especially the first, have ambiguity, they have depth to their worlds, the actions of various actors make sense or, where senseless, are senseless for good reasons. Oblivion just feels... hollow.
e; To add to that and follow up on what ToriJ said, you do admittedly have to approach the games in particular ways to get the most out of them. I wouldn't say Pike was particularly aggressive about it, but like all games, you meet it on the game's terms if you want to get the most out of it. That's not really something that makes it better or worse in itself, just a fact - you can't play Dark Souls as a hack-'n'-slash, and Tetris doesn't have a story mode.
e2; And to follow up on that there's nothing right or wrong with enjoying any particular aspect of games or looking for any particular thing in them, and I didn't intend to come across as attacking that, but I do strenuously object to the assertion that Morrowind doesn't offer choices in how you play!
Reply With Quote
As I said in an earlier post it is my favorite series, the lore is unparalleled. Still waiting to get a hold of the side games (Redguard, Shadowkey, Battlespire et al) - it would be a lot easier if Bethesda actually re-released them.
I mean I do think the sequels are better in both instances - which is hardly groundbreaking in any game series - but the originals are still great games. I think Oblivion often gets unfairly bashed.
