How important is lore? (Poll and Discussion)

starlizard70ub17_ESO

Without holding on to some basic lore, ESO would cease to be an Elder Scrolls game and would become just another mmorp. Having said said that, you do have to allow the lore to be flexible enough to make the game fun to play. Any race/any alliance, different books discibing the same event differently, players riding around on horses/lizards/big cats, etc. I don't mind ESO adding to Elder Scolls lore as long as it stays consistent in itself. A lot of what happened in this current ESO age could be forgotten or misremembered by the time TESVI takes place in thousand years or so.

UrQuan

Acrolas wrote: »

Even after The Force Awakens made a billion at the box office, there are still people who still consider the Expanded Universe books for that timeline as their lore. Even though Disney has discarded it.

The Force Awakens takes place in a Dragon Break

Forestd16b14_ESO

Thallia wrote: »

Well Technically they have already moved away from most lore as these events have never happend when looking back at Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.

Zeni tried to explain is for saying that they burnt all the books dating to these events but that isnt a very valid excuse for me and im sure for a lot of people aswell.

EDIT:

What im really trying to say is that LEts say in Skyrim and the other games. No one ever mentioned, and not even the respected and grand Scholars, Ever mention Molag Bal nearly destroying the whole god damn world. That can just be gon around by, bye just saying "they burnt some books" or something like that. Now all the Lore crazies have accepted these events but still... I hope in the next Elder scrolls game there is atleast SOME to very little referance to the world nearly ending.

Well the daedra are burning all the books they can find in IC and there is the chance ESO will cause a dragon break causing multiple outcomes that will eventually lead to a single time line again.

And for those who don't know what a Dragon Breaks is they are a event cause by a massive magical event in the course of TES time that causes time it self to shatter causing multiple events to happen or people to forget what happen during that period of time all together eventually all of it coming back together in 1 stream of time. Examples when the 3 Nord heros of Skyrim sent Alduin forward in time or more well know the end game of TES2 Daggerfall when Bethesda introduced the Dragon Break cause they wanted multiple ending and all the to be valid and lore friendly which lore wise is know as "The Warp of the West" when a giant cloud appeared over southern High Rock and northern Hammerfell and all violence and fighting just stopped and no one knows why. Game wise it's when the player stopped the activation of the Dwarf mechanic god Numidium which caused it. Like I'm pretty sure when you stop some one from using the heart of Lorkan the forgotten god to activate a giant metal god that will cause a dragon break.

Lysette

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

To me the whole alliance war thing got pointless at the moment where they introduced the "play any race in any faction" thing. If all is multi-cultural, why would their be a reason to fight for a certain faction, the next one is just as good as this one and pretty much the same then. There is no point in fighting when all factions have multi-cultural elements with pretty much the same races.

Which is why there were Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for the Roman Empire, as well as Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for Germanic tribes against the Roman Empire, right? Clearly you've never studied history... To one degree or another virtually every nation in history has been multi-cultural, and that certainly hasn't stopped people within those nations from finding reasons to fight for their nation.

Frankly, your posts in this thread show that you don't know Elder Scrolls lore, and you don't know real world history.

Germanic tribes where never a nation, you compare apples with oranges here. And their origins are quite different as well. To put them all into one bowl and call them germanic tribes is much like putting south african tribes into one bowl and say they are all of the same kind. They are not and fights between them still exist. So you cannot use "germanic tribes" as a whole and say they fought on both sides, they didn't, those were different tribes on both side. Just because they were labelled by the romans in the same way, did not unite them or make them a nation. Not even later they were one nation - think of the holy roman empire of german nations - those were lots and lots of tiny states with own rules and own laws, but a common Kaiser. They fought each other quite a whole lot, because they were all but the same. Just recently you can think of germany as a nation, even it is actually a federation and a few states in it reserve the freedom to be able to leave it if they would want to - those are called "Freistaat", like bavaria f.e., which still have an own citizenship seperate from the german one.

There is no extra passport for this, but by law I am a bavarian and a german citizen - i have 2 separate citizenships. You see not even nowadays this is one and the same - I am a bavarian citizen, who happens to be german as well. Cultural we are more similar to the austrians than to most other german states. So not even today "german" labels one and the same culture and even less it did in the past with the many germanic tribes - you cannot put them all in one bowl.

Thevampirenight

Forestd16b14_ESO wrote: »

Thallia wrote: »

Well Technically they have already moved away from most lore as these events have never happend when looking back at Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.

Zeni tried to explain is for saying that they burnt all the books dating to these events but that isnt a very valid excuse for me and im sure for a lot of people aswell.

EDIT:

What im really trying to say is that LEts say in Skyrim and the other games. No one ever mentioned, and not even the respected and grand Scholars, Ever mention Molag Bal nearly destroying the whole god damn world. That can just be gon around by, bye just saying "they burnt some books" or something like that. Now all the Lore crazies have accepted these events but still... I hope in the next Elder scrolls game there is atleast SOME to very little referance to the world nearly ending.

Well the daedra are burning all the books they can find in IC and there is the chance ESO will cause a dragon break causing multiple outcomes that will eventually lead to a single time line again.

And for those who don't know what a Dragon Breaks is they are a event cause by a massive magical event in the course of TES time that causes time it self to shatter causing multiple events to happen or people to forget what happen during that period of time all together eventually all of it coming back together in 1 stream of time. Examples when the 3 Nord heros of Skyrim sent Alduin forward in time or more well know the end game of TES2 Daggerfall when Bethesda introduced the Dragon Break cause they wanted multiple ending and all the to be valid and lore friendly which lore wise is know as "The Warp of the West" when a giant cloud appeared over southern High Rock and northern Hammerfell and all violence and fighting just stopped and no one knows why. Game wise it's when the player stopped the activation of the Dwarf mechanic god Numidium which caused it. Like I'm pretty sure when you stop some one from using the heart of Lorkan the forgotten god to activate a giant metal god that will cause a dragon break.

Well elderscrolls online the timeline is facing the biggest dragonbreak in history, thus leading to the time of talos. When Certain someone, messed with amulet of kings to try and become dragonborn themselves it baiscally broke the covenant and shattered time, when a dragonbreak happens all outcomes come true, thus copies of people, time is changed to compistate the strain by making new things that did not happen and merging outcomes or whatever chaotic changes is needed to repair itself.

newtinmpls

They should "gorw" lore in a way that makes sense. They don't seem to be so good at that.

Andarne

Thankfully, the lore of TES is pretty blank during the Second Era period when the Four-Score War takes place, allowing for a degree of freedom in development by the writers of ESO.

However, the main thing that should be noted is that TES is built-up on the foundations of an established lore-set. TESO isn't like Warcraft, which builds its own lore as the game progresses. TESO is in the same boat as LoTRO, in that it should follow the lore as best as possible, but expand during periods that lack explanation.

UrQuan

Lysette wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

To me the whole alliance war thing got pointless at the moment where they introduced the "play any race in any faction" thing. If all is multi-cultural, why would their be a reason to fight for a certain faction, the next one is just as good as this one and pretty much the same then. There is no point in fighting when all factions have multi-cultural elements with pretty much the same races.

Which is why there were Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for the Roman Empire, as well as Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for Germanic tribes against the Roman Empire, right? Clearly you've never studied history... To one degree or another virtually every nation in history has been multi-cultural, and that certainly hasn't stopped people within those nations from finding reasons to fight for their nation.

Frankly, your posts in this thread show that you don't know Elder Scrolls lore, and you don't know real world history.

Germanic tribes where never a nation, you compare apples with oranges here. And their origins are quite different as well. To put them all into one bowl and call them germanic tribes is much like putting south african tribes into one bowl and say they are all of the same kind. They are not and fights between them still exist. So you cannot use "germanic tribes" as a whole and say they fought on both sides, they didn't, those were different tribes on both side. Just because they were labelled by the romans in the same way, did not unite them or make them a nation. Not even later they were one nation - think of the holy roman empire of german nations - those were lots and lots of tiny states with own rules and own laws, but a common Kaiser. They fought each other quite a whole lot, because they were all but the same. Just recently you can think of germany as a nation, even it is actually a federation and a few states in it reserve the freedom to be able to leave it if they would want to - those are called "Freistaat", like bavaria f.e., which still have an own citizenship seperate from the german one.

There is no extra passport for this, but by law I am a bavarian and a german citizen - i have 2 separate citizenships. You see not even nowadays this is one and the same - I am a bavarian citizen, who happens to be german as well. Cultural we are more similar to the austrians than to most other german states. So not even today "german" labels one and the same culture and even less it did in the past with the many germanic tribes - you cannot put them all in one bowl.

And the Bretons have never been a united nation (they're a group of small kingdoms, and also Reach tribes), and the Nords aren't a united nation (only the kingdom of East Skyrim is part of the pact - the kingdom of West Skyrim isn't part of any alliance), and the Argonians aren't a united nation, etc.

But if you want to get more specific about the Germanic tribes, look at the example of the Goths. They were culturally and socially united when they were allowed to settle in Roman territory. In the Gothic Wars they rose up against the Romans, but there were Gothic soldiers loyally serving the Roman army against their fellow Goths.

Lysette

Soldiers fought on that side, where the most coin was - for them it was less a matter of loyalty. Soldiers were lend out to other nations to fight their wars and stuff like that, if you look at bigger battles and see where those troops were coming from, you would be surprised, how less loyalty played a role but coin instead.

A Microprose game in the 90s about the Battle of Waterloo had a quite good database about where those troops were actually coming from and where those have fought in the past. This data showed clearly, that soldiers were a commodity in the past, which were lend out for money to fight the battles for others.

Faulgor

TES is nothing without the Lore.

Which is why they have a loremaster.

And of course they will add new lore, as every game does. Hopefully they'll keep it interesting, Orsinium was great.

RAGUNAnoOne

if Bethesda stuck to lore 100% it would be the same *** in every game however there is a difference between lore breaking and lore bending though and many things are are bending so far but they have gotten quite close to lore breaking especially with the special mounts (besides the zombie horse).

UrQuan

Lysette wrote: »

Soldiers fought on that side, where the most coin was - for them it was less a matter of loyalty. Soldiers were lend out to other nations to fight their wars and stuff like that, if you look at bigger battles and see where those troops were coming from, you would be surprised, how less loyalty played a role but coin instead.

A Microprose game in the 90s about the Battle of Waterloo had a quite good database about where those troops were actually coming from and where those have fought in the past. This data showed clearly, that soldiers were a commodity in the past, which were lend out for money to fight the battles for others.

You're using a video game about the Battle of Waterloo as your source when talking about classical History with someone who majored in History and minored in Greek and Roman Studies and in Medieval Studies lol

There were mercenaries in Roman times, but the vast majority of the Roman soldiers (including those drawn from Gothic stock and other "native" populations) were fighting because they were citizens of the Roman Empire, and because it was a steady job (they signed on for a 16 year term, or later a 20 year term plus 5 years of lighter veteran duty) that would give them status in the Empire. That's by the time of the Gothic Wars, anyway, after both the reforms of Marius, and the later edict by Caracalla that gave all of the free men in the Roman Empire citizenship.

Throughout history there have always been mercenaries, but armies made up primarily of mercenaries didn't become common until the aftermath of the Bubonic Plague caused feudalism to slowly collapse.

All of that aside, the existence of mercenaries who will fight for any side also argues directly against your idea that it's somehow lore-breaking to have any race allowed in any alliance.

Lysette

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Soldiers fought on that side, where the most coin was - for them it was less a matter of loyalty. Soldiers were lend out to other nations to fight their wars and stuff like that, if you look at bigger battles and see where those troops were coming from, you would be surprised, how less loyalty played a role but coin instead.

A Microprose game in the 90s about the Battle of Waterloo had a quite good database about where those troops were actually coming from and where those have fought in the past. This data showed clearly, that soldiers were a commodity in the past, which were lend out for money to fight the battles for others.

You're using a video game about the Battle of Waterloo as your source when talking about classical History with someone who majored in History and minored in Greek and Roman Studies and in Medieval Studies lol

There were mercenaries in Roman times, but the vast majority of the Roman soldiers (including those drawn from Gothic stock and other "native" populations) were fighting because they were citizens of the Roman Empire, and because it was a steady job (they signed on for a 16 year term, or later a 20 year term plus 5 years of lighter veteran duty) that would give them status in the Empire. That's by the time of the Gothic Wars, anyway, after both the reforms of Marius, and the later edict by Caracalla that gave all of the free men in the Roman Empire citizenship.

Throughout history there have always been mercenaries, but armies made up primarily of mercenaries didn't become common until the aftermath of the Bubonic Plague caused feudalism to slowly collapse.

All of that aside, the existence of mercenaries who will fight for any side also argues directly against your idea that it's somehow lore-breaking to have any race allowed in any alliance.

I just see no point in it, if it is not important which side wins, because the outcome is basically the same. And with this I end this argument from my side - as a side note, it is rude to say, I have no clue about history or lore - if you really have studied history, you would know that most of it is a matter of interpretation and that there is no such thing as absolute truth in it.

So, now happy new year - I am done arguing in this matter.

Edit:

And to discard a games database just because it is a game is as well not very clever - at that time games still had manuals - in the case of "Fields of Glory" this is a 108 page manual - Microprose was known for their detailed description and accuracy of their used historical data - you can download that manual here to see how games were in the past - http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/106/fields+of+glory.html

Xendyn

Lysette wrote: »

I just see no point in it, if it is not important which side wins, because the outcome is basically the same. And with this I end this argument from my side - as a side note, it is rude to say, I have no clue about history or lore - if you really have studied history, you would know that most of it is a matter of interpretation and that there is no such thing as absolute truth in it.

So, now happy new year - I am done arguing in this matter.

Yeh he said that in his first post, so I guess he really does know.



Looks like it's going to be a good popcorn night lol.

Lysette

Xendyn wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I just see no point in it, if it is not important which side wins, because the outcome is basically the same. And with this I end this argument from my side - as a side note, it is rude to say, I have no clue about history or lore - if you really have studied history, you would know that most of it is a matter of interpretation and that there is no such thing as absolute truth in it.

So, now happy new year - I am done arguing in this matter.

Yeh he said that in his first post, so I guess he really does know.



Looks like it's going to be a good popcorn night lol.

No it is not, I am done with this argument.

Iluvrien

UrQuan wrote: »

Any race any alliance is also lore-friendly. Every Elder Scrolls game has members of every race living in the province it's set in. Tons of the books found in those games talk about members of races not considered native to a particular province living in that province. It would be lore-shattering to have only native races in each alliance.

Only up to a point. It is about proportion. Of course there will be a few members of most races in most of the locations we are likely to visit in Tamriel...

... but I also spent a rather surreal evening in Davon's watch when there were more Altmer than any one of the techincally "native" races. Any race in any alliance isn't, in and of itself, a problem for the lore. It does become more problematic when you realise that the players outnumber the residents. That means that the racial demographic of any particular settlement isn't defined by its geographical location or resident population... but by the meta/favourite racial selection of the playerbase.

That is where it gets problematic for me.

Preyfar

Bethesda, as a company, changes lore all the time. Fallout 4 recently had big changes to lore in regards to power armor. The T-45 power armor relied on power cores, and while great, had many weaknesses and faults. The T-51b was later introduced with an internal nuclear reactor to self power the armor. Somewhere between New Vegas and Fallout 4, the entire concept of what power armor is changed (e.g. being complete suits to modular pieces).

Yes, ESO is a Zenimax Online Studios game, but ZOS and Bethesda both fall under their parent company of Zenimax. I imagine the lore for ESO has to be approved by the heads over at Bethesda, but at the same time, Bethesda as a whole is known for completely throwing lore into the wind at times. Or even even designs. Khajiit have undergone radical transformations over the game series, and Khajiit and Argonians have gone from plantigrade to digitigrade legs and back. Things change.

That said, I think the core lore of the game world needs to be consistent. There needs to be structure, but some things can and will change between titles in the same series, even ones that are quite lore heavy.

UrQuan

Lysette wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Soldiers fought on that side, where the most coin was - for them it was less a matter of loyalty. Soldiers were lend out to other nations to fight their wars and stuff like that, if you look at bigger battles and see where those troops were coming from, you would be surprised, how less loyalty played a role but coin instead.

A Microprose game in the 90s about the Battle of Waterloo had a quite good database about where those troops were actually coming from and where those have fought in the past. This data showed clearly, that soldiers were a commodity in the past, which were lend out for money to fight the battles for others.

You're using a video game about the Battle of Waterloo as your source when talking about classical History with someone who majored in History and minored in Greek and Roman Studies and in Medieval Studies lol

There were mercenaries in Roman times, but the vast majority of the Roman soldiers (including those drawn from Gothic stock and other "native" populations) were fighting because they were citizens of the Roman Empire, and because it was a steady job (they signed on for a 16 year term, or later a 20 year term plus 5 years of lighter veteran duty) that would give them status in the Empire. That's by the time of the Gothic Wars, anyway, after both the reforms of Marius, and the later edict by Caracalla that gave all of the free men in the Roman Empire citizenship.

Throughout history there have always been mercenaries, but armies made up primarily of mercenaries didn't become common until the aftermath of the Bubonic Plague caused feudalism to slowly collapse.

All of that aside, the existence of mercenaries who will fight for any side also argues directly against your idea that it's somehow lore-breaking to have any race allowed in any alliance.

I just see no point in it, if it is not important which side wins, because the outcome is basically the same. And with this I end this argument from my side - as a side note, it is rude to say, I have no clue about history or lore - if you really have studied history, you would know that most of it is a matter of interpretation and that there is no such thing as absolute truth in it.

Your posts here prove it though, You're arguing for something that would be completely lore-breaking on the grounds that it would be lore-friendly. You're also trying to argue that real world history doesn't show how unrealistic your idea would be, even though one of the arguments you're using (mercenaries being willing to work for whatever side they want) is actually an argument directly against your lore-breaking concept of restricting races to those "native" to each alliance.

Lysette wrote: »

And to discard a games database just because it is a game is as well not very clever - at that time games still had manuals - in the case of "Fields of Glory" this is a 108 page manual - Microprose was known for their detailed description and accuracy of their used historical data - you can download that manual here to see how games were in the past - http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/106/fields+of+glory.html

lol I was discarding it because it's the wrong time period actually... As a matter of fact I used to play Fields of Glory. I don't need to download the manual because I have a physical copy of it that I got when I got my first Windows-based computer (after the Commodore 64 that I first started playing games on, and the subsequent Amigas that I had after that - I know exactly how games were in the past).

The sources used by that manual are generally fine (although any serious historical publication would never use some of those secondary sources, others are fine, and as a whole they're more than good enough for a game manual), but the info presented by the game manual itself is naturally very surface-level and lacking in detail. It's very much a high level overview. Much better than you'd typically see in a video game manual, but highschool-level history at best. There's nothing actually wrong with it, aside from the fact that it's completely the wrong time period, and the entire structure of Western civilization had completely changed by then.

Xendyn wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I just see no point in it, if it is not important which side wins, because the outcome is basically the same. And with this I end this argument from my side - as a side note, it is rude to say, I have no clue about history or lore - if you really have studied history, you would know that most of it is a matter of interpretation and that there is no such thing as absolute truth in it.

So, now happy new year - I am done arguing in this matter.

Yeh he said that in his first post, so I guess he really does know.



Looks like it's going to be a good popcorn night lol.

Definitely @Xendyn, definitely lol

UrQuan

Iluvrien wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Any race any alliance is also lore-friendly. Every Elder Scrolls game has members of every race living in the province it's set in. Tons of the books found in those games talk about members of races not considered native to a particular province living in that province. It would be lore-shattering to have only native races in each alliance.

Only up to a point. It is about proportion. Of course there will be a few members of most races in most of the locations we are likely to visit in Tamriel...

... but I also spent a rather surreal evening in Davon's watch when there were more Altmer than any one of the techincally "native" races. Any race in any alliance isn't, in and of itself, a problem for the lore. It does become more problematic when you realise that the players outnumber the residents. That means that the racial demographic of any particular settlement isn't defined by its geographical location or resident population... but by the meta/favourite racial selection of the playerbase.

That is where it gets problematic for me.

See and that's another story entirely. Ideally you want the number of "non-native" races in any given alliance to be limited, while the "native" races are more common. That would be the most lore-friendly. I don't know how you could try to implement that in an MMO though. Going only "native" races is lore-breaking for sure, but when the "non-natives" outnumber the "natives" that's also problematic.

newtinmpls

Acrolas wrote: »

Even after The Force Awakens made a billion at the box office, there are still people who still consider the Expanded Universe books for that timeline as their lore. Even though Disney has discarded it.

UrQuan wrote: »

The Force Awakens takes place in a Dragon Break

Points to you for inspiring my sappy squeal while still at work...

Lysette

@UrQuan You never did a deeper look into the troop-database in "Fields of Glory" or you would not call it surface-level or high-school level. For any unit in this game there is a detailed list of events, where these troops have fought in former years. This is far beyond high-school level and by far deeper than surface-level. It is not in the manual, but in the ingame database, but the database is mentioned in the manual. It is a quite big database, far more info than you would need for this game.

And what do you have with the "correct time period" - this is just silly, ESO world happens to be on planet Nirn, not on earth. To say this or that time period on earth is the correct one and another one isnt, is quite pointless. Especially when there is magic in Nirn with effects which could be compared to ranged artillery and stuff like that.

My whole point was, that if ZOS would have stuck to their advertised game play, 3 factions, each consisting of just 3 races, the whole thing would have made more sense. This does not mean that there could not be civilians of other races living in these territories. As a real world example, take WW2 and the japanese americans - they were not allowed to take part in the war on the US side, instead the US decided to incarcerate their own citizen just because they had japanese roots. A similar behavior could be assumed with the alliances in ESO and then it would not be lore-breaking at all, what I suggested.

Robo_Hobo

Thallia wrote: »

Well Technically they have already moved away from most lore as these events have never happend when looking back at Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.

Zeni tried to explain is for saying that they burnt all the books dating to these events but that isnt a very valid excuse for me and im sure for a lot of people aswell.

EDIT:

What im really trying to say is that LEts say in Skyrim and the other games. No one ever mentioned, and not even the respected and grand Scholars, Ever mention Molag Bal nearly destroying the whole god damn world. That can just be gon around by, bye just saying "they burnt some books" or something like that. Now all the Lore crazies have accepted these events but still... I hope in the next Elder scrolls game there is atleast SOME to very little referance to the world nearly ending.

Someone on a different forum explained this pretty well, there probably are books that talk about ESO in the times of the future games, we just don't read them.

Every new game adds books about past or present things that didn't exist in prior ones - but didn't have any in-lore reason not to be. You don't hear about the nerevarine prophecies or much about the tribunal until morrowind, and until oblivion came out, every reference to Cyrodiil mentioned it being jungly and heavily forested, likewise the Dragon Cult makes no mention in books until Skyrim, and even the Book of the Dragomborn, which, in-lore was written before Arena takes place and by someone in Weynon Priory - a place we go to in Oblivion - isn't seen or mentioned in-game until Skyrim.

So for all we know, there could easily be tons of books about ESO in the next TES, and no explanation would be needed to say why they're there - just like there won't be any for its own additional lore added with that game that talks about the past and present, we just don't see every book there is.

Gidorick

I consider lore to be composed of 4 parts and they are important in the following order:

1: What we actually see in the game
2: What we read in the books
3: What exists in expanded narrative (loremaster archives, TES Novels (all 2 of em!) and to a much MUCH lesser extent, the work of Michael Kirkbride)
4: The aesthetics and rules of the TES universe established by the above 3

What we have seen in previous games is first and foremost what creates the lore. This includes the story, dialogue, and events of the games. This is one of the reasons the fire, ice, and lightning horses irritate me so much. Out of everything I've seen in ESO the mystical mounts are the ones that seems to disregard #1 and #4 of the above list.

When I see the mystical mounts in ESO the game I get irritated because the game gives absolutely no justification for them. If there were lorebooks that spoke of them, that would be cool. If there were quests that involved them or maybe had us tame them that would be even better. But you know what would be perfectly fine and probably the best thing... This:

For them to just exist in the world... because according to the "lore" of the other games (1: what we actually see in the game) The only special mounts that exist are one of a kind mounts. They are very special and aren't available to every Tom, ***, and Harry. Now, ZOS can add to the lore and they can change it but I wish they would do so considering all aspects of the lore. They can add it with books. They can add it with the loremaster's archive or they can add it by simply putting it in the game world.

Bottom line.. whatever they put in the game BECOMES part of the lore... I just really wish we have more explanation for their existence than "oh... the player of that person bought it for them".... at least if the items were included in game somehow we could make contextual justifications and connections ourselves.

J2JMC

Lore is completely insignificant when it comes to actual gameplay.

For storytelling, it is obviously the most important.

Forestd16b14_ESO

Thevampirenight wrote: »

Forestd16b14_ESO wrote: »

Thallia wrote: »

Well Technically they have already moved away from most lore as these events have never happend when looking back at Skyrim, Oblivion, etc.

Zeni tried to explain is for saying that they burnt all the books dating to these events but that isnt a very valid excuse for me and im sure for a lot of people aswell.

EDIT:

What im really trying to say is that LEts say in Skyrim and the other games. No one ever mentioned, and not even the respected and grand Scholars, Ever mention Molag Bal nearly destroying the whole god damn world. That can just be gon around by, bye just saying "they burnt some books" or something like that. Now all the Lore crazies have accepted these events but still... I hope in the next Elder scrolls game there is atleast SOME to very little referance to the world nearly ending.

Well the daedra are burning all the books they can find in IC and there is the chance ESO will cause a dragon break causing multiple outcomes that will eventually lead to a single time line again.

And for those who don't know what a Dragon Breaks is they are a event cause by a massive magical event in the course of TES time that causes time it self to shatter causing multiple events to happen or people to forget what happen during that period of time all together eventually all of it coming back together in 1 stream of time. Examples when the 3 Nord heros of Skyrim sent Alduin forward in time or more well know the end game of TES2 Daggerfall when Bethesda introduced the Dragon Break cause they wanted multiple ending and all the to be valid and lore friendly which lore wise is know as "The Warp of the West" when a giant cloud appeared over southern High Rock and northern Hammerfell and all violence and fighting just stopped and no one knows why. Game wise it's when the player stopped the activation of the Dwarf mechanic god Numidium which caused it. Like I'm pretty sure when you stop some one from using the heart of Lorkan the forgotten god to activate a giant metal god that will cause a dragon break.

Well elderscrolls online the timeline is facing the biggest dragonbreak in history, thus leading to the time of talos. When Certain someone, messed with amulet of kings to try and become dragonborn themselves it baiscally broke the covenant and shattered time, when a dragonbreak happens all outcomes come true, thus copies of people, time is changed to compistate the strain by making new things that did not happen and merging outcomes or whatever chaotic changes is needed to repair itself.

Lore at it's finest right here :'3

Tonnopesce

If this game was without the TES lore NONE of us will be here

Elebeth

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

To me the whole alliance war thing got pointless at the moment where they introduced the "play any race in any faction" thing. If all is multi-cultural, why would their be a reason to fight for a certain faction, the next one is just as good as this one and pretty much the same then. There is no point in fighting when all factions have multi-cultural elements with pretty much the same races.

Which is why there were Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for the Roman Empire, as well as Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for Germanic tribes against the Roman Empire, right? Clearly you've never studied history... To one degree or another virtually every nation in history has been multi-cultural, and that certainly hasn't stopped people within those nations from finding reasons to fight for their nation.

Frankly, your posts in this thread show that you don't know Elder Scrolls lore, and you don't know real world history.

Germanic tribes where never a nation, you compare apples with oranges here. And their origins are quite different as well. To put them all into one bowl and call them germanic tribes is much like putting south african tribes into one bowl and say they are all of the same kind. They are not and fights between them still exist. So you cannot use "germanic tribes" as a whole and say they fought on both sides, they didn't, those were different tribes on both side. Just because they were labelled by the romans in the same way, did not unite them or make them a nation. Not even later they were one nation - think of the holy roman empire of german nations - those were lots and lots of tiny states with own rules and own laws, but a common Kaiser. They fought each other quite a whole lot, because they were all but the same. Just recently you can think of germany as a nation, even it is actually a federation and a few states in it reserve the freedom to be able to leave it if they would want to - those are called "Freistaat", like bavaria f.e., which still have an own citizenship seperate from the german one.

There is no extra passport for this, but by law I am a bavarian and a german citizen - i have 2 separate citizenships. You see not even nowadays this is one and the same - I am a bavarian citizen, who happens to be german as well. Cultural we are more similar to the austrians than to most other german states. So not even today "german" labels one and the same culture and even less it did in the past with the many germanic tribes - you cannot put them all in one bowl.

And the Bretons have never been a united nation (they're a group of small kingdoms, and also Reach tribes), and the Nords aren't a united nation (only the kingdom of East Skyrim is part of the pact - the kingdom of West Skyrim isn't part of any alliance), and the Argonians aren't a united nation, etc.

But if you want to get more specific about the Germanic tribes, look at the example of the Goths. They were culturally and socially united when they were allowed to settle in Roman territory. In the Gothic Wars they rose up against the Romans, but there were Gothic soldiers loyally serving the Roman army against their fellow Goths.

Erm, I don't want to nitpick or start another derailing discussion, but your statement: "They (Goths) were culturally and socially united..." is not true. You are referring to Visigoths; in a nutshell you are correct since they were the Goths from Roman perspective and they did have distinct material, cultural and social identity, however they were just one of dozen different "tribes" commonly referred to as "the Goths".

Unless I completely misinterpreted your post and you were just giving spin-off example to "German-Bavaric" situation. Then ignore me.

NewBlacksmurf

Tonnopesceb16_ESO wrote: »

If this game was without the TES lore NONE of us will be here

This right here is the strongest statement in the whole discussion

UrQuan

Lysette wrote: »

@UrQuan You never did a deeper look into the troop-database in "Fields of Glory" or you would not call it surface-level or high-school level. For any unit in this game there is a detailed list of events, where these troops have fought in former years. This is far beyond high-school level and by far deeper than surface-level. It is not in the manual, but in the ingame database, but the database is mentioned in the manual. It is a quite big database, far more info than you would need for this game.

Notice where I said the manual is high-school level?

Lysette wrote: »

And what do you have with the "correct time period" - this is just silly, ESO world happens to be on planet Nirn, not on earth. To say this or that time period on earth is the correct one and another one isnt, is quite pointless. Especially when there is magic in Nirn with effects which could be compared to ranged artillery and stuff like that.

Actually, we were talking about the Germanic tribes and the Romans when you brought out this irrelevancy from the Napoleonic period. That aside, when talking about the relative prevalence of mercenaries, you don't pick a relevant time period to base you assumptions on based on whether they have things that can be compared to ranged artillery... That shows a lack of understanding of the factors that lead to armies using largely untrained conscripts, a professional standing force, or hired mercenaries. Social structure is the important thing that needs to be examined. The way armies were formed in Napoleonic times was a result of the post-feudal social structure. When looking at ESO it makes the most sense to compare it to earlier time periods. Depending on the province, comparisons with the Roman Empire, feudal Europe, the Moors, etc make most sense. Comparisons with Napoleonic Europe make no sense.

Lysette wrote: »

My whole point was, that if ZOS would have stuck to their advertised game play, 3 factions, each consisting of just 3 races, the whole thing would have made more sense. This does not mean that there could not be civilians of other races living in these territories. As a real world example, take WW2 and the japanese americans - they were not allowed to take part in the war on the US side, instead the US decided to incarcerate their own citizen just because they had japanese roots. A similar behavior could be assumed with the alliances in ESO and then it would not be lore-breaking at all, what I suggested.

So how do you reconcile that with your assertion that soldiers were always from all over the place working for wherever there was more coin? Your arguments are all over the map and contradictory.

UrQuan

Elebeth wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

To me the whole alliance war thing got pointless at the moment where they introduced the "play any race in any faction" thing. If all is multi-cultural, why would their be a reason to fight for a certain faction, the next one is just as good as this one and pretty much the same then. There is no point in fighting when all factions have multi-cultural elements with pretty much the same races.

Which is why there were Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for the Roman Empire, as well as Germanic soldiers fighting loyally for Germanic tribes against the Roman Empire, right? Clearly you've never studied history... To one degree or another virtually every nation in history has been multi-cultural, and that certainly hasn't stopped people within those nations from finding reasons to fight for their nation.

Frankly, your posts in this thread show that you don't know Elder Scrolls lore, and you don't know real world history.

Germanic tribes where never a nation, you compare apples with oranges here. And their origins are quite different as well. To put them all into one bowl and call them germanic tribes is much like putting south african tribes into one bowl and say they are all of the same kind. They are not and fights between them still exist. So you cannot use "germanic tribes" as a whole and say they fought on both sides, they didn't, those were different tribes on both side. Just because they were labelled by the romans in the same way, did not unite them or make them a nation. Not even later they were one nation - think of the holy roman empire of german nations - those were lots and lots of tiny states with own rules and own laws, but a common Kaiser. They fought each other quite a whole lot, because they were all but the same. Just recently you can think of germany as a nation, even it is actually a federation and a few states in it reserve the freedom to be able to leave it if they would want to - those are called "Freistaat", like bavaria f.e., which still have an own citizenship seperate from the german one.

There is no extra passport for this, but by law I am a bavarian and a german citizen - i have 2 separate citizenships. You see not even nowadays this is one and the same - I am a bavarian citizen, who happens to be german as well. Cultural we are more similar to the austrians than to most other german states. So not even today "german" labels one and the same culture and even less it did in the past with the many germanic tribes - you cannot put them all in one bowl.

And the Bretons have never been a united nation (they're a group of small kingdoms, and also Reach tribes), and the Nords aren't a united nation (only the kingdom of East Skyrim is part of the pact - the kingdom of West Skyrim isn't part of any alliance), and the Argonians aren't a united nation, etc.

But if you want to get more specific about the Germanic tribes, look at the example of the Goths. They were culturally and socially united when they were allowed to settle in Roman territory. In the Gothic Wars they rose up against the Romans, but there were Gothic soldiers loyally serving the Roman army against their fellow Goths.

Erm, I don't want to nitpick or start another derailing discussion, but your statement: "They (Goths) were culturally and socially united..." is not true. You are referring to Visigoths; in a nutshell you are correct since they were the Goths from Roman perspective and they did have distinct material, cultural and social identity, however they were just one of dozen different "tribes" commonly referred to as "the Goths".

Unless I completely misinterpreted your post and you were just giving spin-off example to "German-Bavaric" situation. Then ignore me.

No, you're right - I was specifically talking about the Goths who were allowed to settle on the Roman side of the Danube. They're the Goths who became socially and culturally united as the Visigoths. They weren't ever particularly united with the other Goths..