Look, the real problem with Two Worlds was... that it just wasn't really very good.
You can argue the toss as many ways as you like, but at the end of the day, the weak story, lack of depth, hugely flawed combat system (just press dodge at the right time and you're invincible? wtf?), poor graphics (particularly on the xbox 360 version), bad dialogue and utterly terrible voice acting completely let down the game.
Now, I'll not say that I didn't have some fun playing through the game. But I can't honestly say that I thought it was good.
And for the Oblivion comparisons, its fate, I'm afraid, that any title, film, book, or game, will be compared to its contemporaries. Oblivion is not the finest example of RPG the open-world genre has to offer, but it is the most popular in recent years, and its only sensible to draw comparisons.
As for the argument that this wasn't a major game backed by a major publisher, that's fair enough, it wasn't. But then, neither is The Witcher, but it that game far surpasses what Two Worlds accomplished.
To be perfectly blunt, I think Two Worlds was completely deserving of the criticism it received. Numerous people who watched me playing the Xbox 360 version - or who tried it themselves- repeatedly asked me just why was I playing it. My answer was only that it was mildly entertaining, and I had nothing better to play at the time. Now, there's something to be said for a game that is fun in spite of its flaws, and were it not for the underlying fun to be found in Two Worlds it would probably deserve only 4 or 5 out of ten, not 6 or 7. But its still very difficult to argue that the game was, in any sense, Good.
The X Button - Press X to play http://www.thexbutton.co.uk