I was one of those people that had Two Worlds way back when it first came out, and I couldn't stand it, the dialogue the glitches the freezes, etc.
So I didn't even give it a chance, and I laughed at the very claim that it was and Oblivion Killer.
It now seems to be alot better than I originally found it to be, maybe all the patches fixed exactly what needed to be fixed to make it an Oblivion Killer, because I now believe that it is better than Oblivion. Here's Why:
1) There is a much larger variety of weapons and armour. Oblivion pretty much only had about 10 types of weapons and armour (Iron, Steel, Silver, Glass, Orc etc.), and your enchanted weapons and armour fell in to those exact same catagorys except with different names, enchanted weapons even looked like weapons from one of the catagories except they were glowing, until the enchantment died. This was the same for all weapons, with the exception of a few special ones (Umbra, Dusk Fang).
2) All the weapons have a different attack style in Two Worlds, in Oblivion they all attacked the exact same way. This was likely due to the fact that Oblivion was First Person. Which brings me to the next thing that makes Two Worlds better.
3) Two Worlds is 3rd person, RPG's should always be 3rd person, so you can see everything around you, instead of just what's infront of you. Especially when being attacked by multiple enemies, one of the things that annoyed me the most in Oblivion was the fact that sometimes I had no clue were I was being attacked from. I know Bethesda does this for realism, but even in reality we can still see for quite a distance around us, or at least just slightly turn our necks to see behind us, instead of having to turn right around. Fallout is an exception to this because it's mostly an FPS with RPG elements.
4) I don't think anyone will diagree with me on this one, The leveling system in Oblivion is atrocious, and extremely annoying. Two Worlds using good old fashion exp points, is a much better way to level.
5) The magic spells are way better in Two Worlds, and they look different. In Oblivion every spell looked exactly the same, a low level fire spell that does 8Dmg, looked exactly the same as a high level fire spell that did 800Dmg, the only time spells looked different was if they were, Touch, or Distance. Also the Ice spells and Fire spells all looked exactly the same except one was Blue and one was Red, but the actuall spell graphic was identical. This has been one major pet peeve for me with alot of recent RPG's, why are companies slacking on the spell graphics, what ever happened to having cool looking spells.
6) In Two Worlds special skills are much easier to use, you just hotkey them and than click the Left Trigger to use them. In Oblivion you had to hold forward and attack, or hold back and attack, or push to the side and attack, and most of the time they didn't even work, and when they did, more times than not the enemy had moved out of the way and they didn't connect because it took to long to execute them.
7) In Two Worlds, everything to do with building up your stats, and gaining new skills is much better and easier than Oblivion. I don't know about anyone else, but having to use a cure spell, over 200 times to get it up 1 level in Oblivion was extremely time consuming and boring. In Two Worlds you just put a skill point into it when you get a level up to get it to the next level.
Oblivion does have three advantages, and only three, over Two Worlds, and that's:
a) The Graphics are better in Oblivion (except on spells)
b) Oblivion has a better story line.
c) The dialogue is better in Oblivion (most characters in Two Worlds try to annunciate too perfectly, and it makes them sound like complete idiots)
Besides those three things I believe that Two Worlds is superior in every way.
I noticed a few problems in your assessment; just gonna go ahead and stick to your format, more or less:
1) There are more weapons and armor in Two Worlds, I'll grant you. However, that point is irrelevant when you consider the fact that the only difference between them is their name. I can't tell you how many times I've come across a sword with identical stats to the one I wielded, only to find out I couldn't fuse them because the name had an unnecessary qualifier. And enchanted weapons in this game look the same, too; adding little gems to them never changed the appearance of the weapons.
2) Oblivion's weapons may all have swung similarly (not, as you said, identically, as two-handers were slightly different, and all of them had different charged attacks), but at least it didn't look ridiculous. The guy swings a short sword like he's carving the symbol for infinity into the air in front of him.
3) Oblivion is third person. All you have to do is click R3 on the XBox, or (assuming it's the same as in Morrowind) hit tab on the PC. Besides, as I'm sure you know, the 'RP' in RPG stands for 'role-playing,' and one key element in role-playing is immersion, which first person has over third person. Third person is more suited toward action/adventure, like Zelda. Besides, at least Oblivion offered the choice.
4) The leveling system in the Elder Scrolls game isn't atrocious. It's more difficult to master certain things, let alone all things; but it's far more realistic, and, I have to say, more appropriate, in that you can't walk around bludgeoning things to death to become an unparalleled mage. In makes far more sense in the context of role-playing that to progress in spell casting, you must practice magic, and that to become a deft swordsman, one must spend a good deal of time with a sword at their hip. And Oblivion does use exp as means to level; each skill has its own exp bar. If exp is a deciding factor, it's left other RPGs in the dust.
5) My Poison Bolt spells look the same whether I have one card or fifty. What are you driving at? And when Oblivion's spells hit the enemy, the different elements all had different visual effects. Eg: shock had electrical discharge, fire had flames, frost had snow, etc. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it's been a while since you played, and you didn't bother with magicka much, because this complaint seems a bit dishonest, otherwise. Besides, Oblivion allows for customized spells, leaving the floor open for a fireball that also siphons off your opponent's heath and fatigue into your own while leaving them paralyzed on the floor, spasming from the electricity you left coursing through them.
6) I admit, I haven't got much to say in regards to the skills in Two Worlds; I'm a mage, through-and-through. However, I did use a sword often in Oblivion, such as when I met an enemy with strong absorption or reflection abilities, and the only thing I've ever had a problem with when using charged attacks is the backward palm-strike in hand-to-hand. My coordination is dreadful, but I don't have any difficulty slicing anyone up. You know you can still turn to face your opponent when you're using them, right?
7) Easier doesn't equal better. If that were the case then I could just set all the games I own to the 'easy' setting, then play any rented games to the hardest setting and console myself with the idea that I own all the good games and all the rest are crap. Besides, there's such a thing as training in Oblivion. It's rather inexpensive, lowers the magicka cost of relevant spells, and doesn't rely on the chance of finding spell cards on finite npcs that may or may not have the things. And if ease is so vital, then remember that you don't have to hunt down impossible-to-find, unmarked, one-of-a-kind trainers before you can cast a certain school of magic; every town has a guild, and each guild will have a spell from most, if not all, of the different schools. Also, it wasn't the skill points that makes your spells stronger, as you imply, but collecting the cards I mentioned. The skill level only matters in what you can cast, every three points opening a new row for you to collect cards for.
A few more pros to add to Oblivion:
A) A more stable game, less likely to break irreparably.
B) Customizable spells and enchantments
C) Vampirism, adding new challenges.
D) More role-playing elements
E) More depth
Though, I can't deny that there are a few things I like about Two Worlds that Oblivion doesn't have:
A) Combining weapons of the same type
B) Lower skill requirements for when you want a more casual, less challenging game.
And to prevent future childing bickering on both our parts, please note that I'm not being disdainful or sarcastic, and that if you are offended, it wasn't my intent.
No I'm not offended, trust me I used to think the same way as you, that Oblivion was a superior game. It's just that I now like Two Worlds better and the reasons I gave were some of the reasons why.
I don't really care about how easy or hard a game is, trust me, I've played alot of RPG's and none of them are really hard. Even Oblivion, I figured out how to max out every stat at 100 using specific major skills and levelings other skills up as necessary, and I had no problem beating Oblivion on nearly it's hardest setting, it just took a long time to kill certain enemies because they had alot of HP, but they had no chance of killing me. So it's not the ease of Two Worlds that I prefer.
Compared to Infinite Undiscovery, and Demon's Souls. Both Oblivion and Two Worlds are cake walks.
Now the reason I like the spells better in Two Worlds is because they look different, go back to oblivion, and buy every Distance Fire Spell, and use them all, you'll notice that every one of them is just a single fireball, and they all look exactly the same. Yes they burst into fire when they hit the target, as the should it's a fire spell, but they all look the same, the only time they'll look different is on impact if you have an area effect on them, but going through the air, the weakest distance fire spell, looks the same as the strongest one. The impact may differ slightly, but it's only slightly. In Two Worlds all the fire spells look different, the stonger fire spell actually look stonger than the weakest ones, and cooler, when there cast. In Oblivion no matter which element your casting, the lower level ones look identical to the higer level ones. The higher level ones just do more damage. As for creating your own spells, well it was a good idea in Oblivion to create anything really powerful in that game would make a spell that required so many magic points, that you may only be able to cast it once. I know this for a fact because I to played mostly as a magic character when I was playing that game, and though having a spell that siphons hp while doing damage to the enemy is cool. If you tried to make it actually worthwhile the MP cost would be insane even for a Bretan Wizard, to the point where you may only be able to cast the spell once or twice before you MP is nearly gone, with you Destruction magic maxed out, and making a spell the siphons 5-10 HP when used is next to useless when you have 500 HP and enemies are hitting you with 30+ damage each hit. Yes spell creation was a good idea, but they shouldn't have made, making really powerful spells so consuming of MP, that you could only use them once or twice before your MP were gone.
I do agree with you that when the character in Two Worlds uses a 1 handed sword, it looks kind of funny, but I actually know how to fight with swords in real life, through various martial arts training, and the way he attacks is a legitmate way of using a short sword. The style is actually a reverse sword style, where most people would hold a sword with the blade facing up towards there head, the reverse style has the blade pointing towards the wielders feet. Now this is not usually done with a 1 handed longsword like in Two Worlds, but it is a very legitimate style with a short sword, and yes the attacking motion would be similar to and infinty symbol.
In the end it's just a matter of opinion, I've never really liked First Person games, except things like Fallout or Borderlands, which are FPS RPG's. Oblivion was actually the first, First Person Game I ever played, I guess I just like 3rd person RPG's better.
P.S. I know there is Third Person in Oblivion, but have you ever tried using it. It's absolutely horrible. When you go sideways you character kind of just shuffles to the side like he's River Dancing, and you loose your targeting Cross heirs, which makes it harder to hit enemies, and nearly impossible to use a bow or magic that attack at range. Riding is about the only thing that's better in 3rd person.
Meh, playing either game makes me want to play Diablo or Morrowind instead. Or any other RPG.
MPH FC- 1419-8645-8302
well you can go first person in Two worlds as well, but you cant open combat in it, I am not really a big fan of Two worlds, but I am giving it a chance. So far I am enjoying it, minus the shoddy controls, voice acting and all. I am finding what I like and dont like. What I dont like is how he swims and moves in water, like a retard trying to swim in jello.. and how the horse moves. But I can deal with these things. I dont really like that he has no walking.. or at least I cant figure out how to.
Overall I do find the voices funny. Kind of like a low budget film that turns out good because it has a sort of charm to it.
I don't think either game is better. They both are incredable games. Two Worlds deserves a place beside Oblivion. Two Worlds did have it problems. My biggest complaint: Old English. It made it hard to take the story seriously. Other than that, this was one RPG that had my complete attention.