How accurate ESO's lore is, compared to Bethesda games?

Lord_Ejl
Lord_Ejl
✭✭
I mean with all the lore books on history, characters etc. I've heard two different sides of this being an accurate, and not being. My Elder Scrolls playing goes only back to Morrowind, so i have no idea of the first two ones at all.
  • Jimboo84
    Jimboo84
    ✭✭✭
    Many parts are correct. My history in The Elder Scrolls go back to the very first game, Arena, back in DOS :-)
    Jimerio / Magicka Sorcerer / PvP & PvE / Master Crafter(Woodworking, Blacksmithing, Alchemy, Provisioning, Enchanting, Clothing) / DD & Heal / CP560+ / Aldmeri Dominion / PC / EU
  • DovresMalven
    DovresMalven
    ✭✭✭
    Let's just say this: there are books in the game that haven't been written yet in Bethesda's timeline. Also ESO's Tamriel seems like a much more magic-heavy and playful world. Many people who were really really into lore, like many folks at r/teslore were disappointed in ESO's treatment of it. Personally, I wasn't a fan either, but there is still some great storytelling and bits of lore that ESO has brought to the series- if you choose to think of it as cannon.
    Dovres Malven
    - Aldmeri Dominion
  • ShadowDisciple
    ShadowDisciple
    ✭✭✭✭
    you have to keep in mind that lore is there to serve the game and not the other way around...

    that said, eso was preety logically placed just in the time Vanus Galerion made mages guild, so that it will make sense when 10000 ppl going around using magic, which is not something many ppl did...and fighters guild was established about 100 years later, so you can fit it in there...and it fits the lore from before eso was even in the works

    also TES Arena - Skyrim is all in 3th age, with exception of skyrim which is in 4th age.

    so we dont really know MUCH what happened in ESO cuz its the 2nd age...and that part is being currently written with eso.

  • kirk_lewis_ESO
    kirk_lewis_ESO
    ✭✭✭
    If you try to follow the lore of any long running franchise, you'll go nuts. Wow is the biggest example i can find. Don't get me started about time travel introduced into games.
    Templar - looking for a new job (Blame the economy).
  • UrQuan
    UrQuan
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.
    Caius Drusus Imperial DK (DC)
    Bragg Ironhand Orc Temp (DC)
    Neesha Stalks-Shadows Argonian NB (EP)
    Falidir Altmer Sorcr (AD)
    J'zharka Khajiit NB (AD)
    Isabeau Runeseer Breton Sorc (DC)
    Fevassa Dunmer DK (EP)
    Manut Redguard Temp (AD)
    Tylera the Summoner Altmer Sorc (EP)
    Svari Snake-Blood Nord DK (AD)
    Ashlyn D'Elyse Breton NB (EP)
    Filindria Bosmer Temp (DC)
    Vigbjorn the Wanderer Nord Warden (EP)
    Hrokki Winterborn Breton Warden (DC)
    Basks-in-the-Sunshine Argonian Temp
    Someone stole my sweetroll
  • nordsavage
    nordsavage
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    One could also say that the players first hand account and experiences from ESO's era would take precedent over written or oral "history" found in any other game. Since you saw it happen or were closer to ground zero in the timeline there would logically be less variation and variables subject to (mis)interpretation. As it would be in real life details are lost, changed or embellished over time and history is written by the victorious.
    Edited by nordsavage on February 1, 2016 1:27PM
    I didn't choose tank life, tank life chose me.
  • ShadowDisciple
    ShadowDisciple
    ✭✭✭✭
    UrQuan wrote: »
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.

    You went too far with your quasi philosophy lol

    ofc its certain..every single bethesda published media is considered canon...and everything in them is as good as set in stone..plotholes happen but theyy are ussually minor and secondary to the main story...

    whether you like it or not thats up to you.. ESO is mixed feeling for me...
    i like the general story but i dislike reason for putting the 3 alliances together...
  • Forestd16b14_ESO
    Forestd16b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Well hard to say cause in the other TES games their isn't many books dateing all the way back to the 2nd era unless it was tied to Talos of Atmora and he didn't show up till the end of the 2nd era while ESO takes place right in the middle.

    Some book refreance how in the 2nd era before Talos that Cyrodiil were like the jungles of Elswyer but the special ESO lore book you received for getting the Imperial edition of the game states that those books of the 3rd and 4th era were "mis-translated" and the Cyrodiil never was a vast jungle.

    Plus by the time Skyrim happens more books were probably destroyed cause only other source of info I can think of that would have lore on the 2nd era would have been the mages and fighters guild and the mages guild is disbanded in the 4th era cause of the Oblivion invasion and the fighters guild has no more presents in Skyrim.

    So hard to tell but many theorizes that ESO will use the Dragon-Break to make multiple out comes happen while still maintaining lore.
  • Rosveen
    Rosveen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    ESO lore is about as "accurate" as any previous single player game. Some parts are new and brilliant, some expand on what we've heard about before, some are at odds with it, some are borderline ***. A few of the *** things are actually discussed in the game as an attempt to explain and validate them (quite successfully, I'd say). This includes books from the future and Cyrodiil's temperate climate, two favorite complaints of lore fanboys who didn't bother to actually play the game they so love to criticize.
    UrQuan wrote: »
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.

    You went too far with your quasi philosophy lol

    ofc its certain..every single bethesda published media is considered canon...and everything in them is as good as set in stone..plotholes happen but theyy are ussually minor and secondary to the main story...

    whether you like it or not thats up to you.. ESO is mixed feeling for me...
    i like the general story but i dislike reason for putting the 3 alliances together...
    Secondary to the main story? Have you even played the main stories? :D All possible Daggerfall's endings are canon because of nonsensical time shenanigans a Dragon Break. Morrowind revolves around the results of an event we won't even begin to understand until we're halfway through the story and then we realize all we have are a bunch of conflicting accounts and a lying scoundrel's living god's words.
  • Aeladiir
    Aeladiir
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ESO is 100% lore-friendly. Everything that happened during the period in which ESO is taking place, is what actually happened. You experience it. You see it.

    People have claimed it is not (Cyrodiil dilemma and some other stuff), but I am kind of surprised that not many of them thought that the books they have read in the past games might be biased, overreacted and simply false.

    Also, if there is a book that doesn't exist in Skyrim, but exists in ESO, why would that be a big deal. It would simply mean that the Dragonborn has never been able to read that book. Basically, he never found it. And you see a lot of them Deadra worshippers destroying book for a reason.
    Edited by Aeladiir on February 1, 2016 2:05PM
  • UrQuan
    UrQuan
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    UrQuan wrote: »
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.

    You went too far with your quasi philosophy lol

    ofc its certain..every single bethesda published media is considered canon...and everything in them is as good as set in stone..plotholes happen but theyy are ussually minor and secondary to the main story...

    whether you like it or not thats up to you.. ESO is mixed feeling for me...
    i like the general story but i dislike reason for putting the 3 alliances together...
    To put it simply, you're objectively wrong.

    Aside from events which were actually witnessed by the player in a game, not a single thing in TES lore is set in stone (and even the events which were actually witnessed in-game aren't always completely certain). This is exactly the same as in the real world. Because every source is written by an in-universe source (rather than an out-of-universe sourcebook style written by an omniscient narrator) each and every one of them suffers from having an unreliable narrator to one degree or another. None of it can be taken at face value as being true. There is absolutely nothing "quasi philosophy" about this: it's the most basic research methodology.

    The way sources from TES should be treated will be familiar to anyone who has done any history research above the middle-school level. First you determine if it's a primary or secondary source (ie. is the author writing about something he was actually a witness to, or is he writing based on the accounts of others), and then you judge what you know about the author's conscious or subconscious biases. Based on that, and based on whether other sources (which you also judge by the same criteria) agree or disagree with the source, you decide how much weight to give to it.

    Regardless of the result of your analysis, it's never black and white. At best you can only ever say "these sources agree that _____" with the knowledge that those sources may not be accurate.
    Caius Drusus Imperial DK (DC)
    Bragg Ironhand Orc Temp (DC)
    Neesha Stalks-Shadows Argonian NB (EP)
    Falidir Altmer Sorcr (AD)
    J'zharka Khajiit NB (AD)
    Isabeau Runeseer Breton Sorc (DC)
    Fevassa Dunmer DK (EP)
    Manut Redguard Temp (AD)
    Tylera the Summoner Altmer Sorc (EP)
    Svari Snake-Blood Nord DK (AD)
    Ashlyn D'Elyse Breton NB (EP)
    Filindria Bosmer Temp (DC)
    Vigbjorn the Wanderer Nord Warden (EP)
    Hrokki Winterborn Breton Warden (DC)
    Basks-in-the-Sunshine Argonian Temp
    Someone stole my sweetroll
  • ShadowDisciple
    ShadowDisciple
    ✭✭✭✭
    UrQuan wrote: »
    UrQuan wrote: »
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.

    You went too far with your quasi philosophy lol

    ofc its certain..every single bethesda published media is considered canon...and everything in them is as good as set in stone..plotholes happen but theyy are ussually minor and secondary to the main story...

    whether you like it or not thats up to you.. ESO is mixed feeling for me...
    i like the general story but i dislike reason for putting the 3 alliances together...
    To put it simply, you're objectively wrong.

    Aside from events which were actually witnessed by the player in a game, not a single thing in TES lore is set in stone (and even the events which were actually witnessed in-game aren't always completely certain). This is exactly the same as in the real world. Because every source is written by an in-universe source (rather than an out-of-universe sourcebook style written by an omniscient narrator) each and every one of them suffers from having an unreliable narrator to one degree or another. None of it can be taken at face value as being true. There is absolutely nothing "quasi philosophy" about this: it's the most basic research methodology.

    The way sources from TES should be treated will be familiar to anyone who has done any history research above the middle-school level. First you determine if it's a primary or secondary source (ie. is the author writing about something he was actually a witness to, or is he writing based on the accounts of others), and then you judge what you know about the author's conscious or subconscious biases. Based on that, and based on whether other sources (which you also judge by the same criteria) agree or disagree with the source, you decide how much weight to give to it.

    Regardless of the result of your analysis, it's never black and white. At best you can only ever say "these sources agree that _____" with the knowledge that those sources may not be accurate.

    this is something called retconning, and/or plotholes... every major lore-worlds have it.
  • UrQuan
    UrQuan
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    UrQuan wrote: »
    UrQuan wrote: »
    "Accurate" is not a word that should ever be associated with TES lore. The lore is built up from many different sources, none of which are completely reliable, and some of which contradict each other. The only way you can ever be completely sure about how an event happened is if you were there and experienced it (and even then you might still be wrong about what really happened). It has always been much like the real world that way.

    When you start throwing all kinds of crazy magic, dragon breaks, and manipulations by daedric princes into the mix, nothing is certain.

    You went too far with your quasi philosophy lol

    ofc its certain..every single bethesda published media is considered canon...and everything in them is as good as set in stone..plotholes happen but theyy are ussually minor and secondary to the main story...

    whether you like it or not thats up to you.. ESO is mixed feeling for me...
    i like the general story but i dislike reason for putting the 3 alliances together...
    To put it simply, you're objectively wrong.

    Aside from events which were actually witnessed by the player in a game, not a single thing in TES lore is set in stone (and even the events which were actually witnessed in-game aren't always completely certain). This is exactly the same as in the real world. Because every source is written by an in-universe source (rather than an out-of-universe sourcebook style written by an omniscient narrator) each and every one of them suffers from having an unreliable narrator to one degree or another. None of it can be taken at face value as being true. There is absolutely nothing "quasi philosophy" about this: it's the most basic research methodology.

    The way sources from TES should be treated will be familiar to anyone who has done any history research above the middle-school level. First you determine if it's a primary or secondary source (ie. is the author writing about something he was actually a witness to, or is he writing based on the accounts of others), and then you judge what you know about the author's conscious or subconscious biases. Based on that, and based on whether other sources (which you also judge by the same criteria) agree or disagree with the source, you decide how much weight to give to it.

    Regardless of the result of your analysis, it's never black and white. At best you can only ever say "these sources agree that _____" with the knowledge that those sources may not be accurate.

    this is something called retconning, and/or plotholes... every major lore-worlds have it.
    No, it isn't that at all. None of what I've mentioned has anything at all to do with retconning (which is intentionally changing a part of the continuity - the Warp in the West would be an example of retconning), or plotholes (which would be where there's something that doesn't make sense).

    It's unreliable narrators, and every single lore source in every TES game uses that technique. It's an integral part of the setting that nothing is spelled out with certainty. It's part of what makes the setting feel real. There are even intentionally different sources describing the same historical events in different terms, and it's up to the readers to decide which they think is more likely to be true.
    Caius Drusus Imperial DK (DC)
    Bragg Ironhand Orc Temp (DC)
    Neesha Stalks-Shadows Argonian NB (EP)
    Falidir Altmer Sorcr (AD)
    J'zharka Khajiit NB (AD)
    Isabeau Runeseer Breton Sorc (DC)
    Fevassa Dunmer DK (EP)
    Manut Redguard Temp (AD)
    Tylera the Summoner Altmer Sorc (EP)
    Svari Snake-Blood Nord DK (AD)
    Ashlyn D'Elyse Breton NB (EP)
    Filindria Bosmer Temp (DC)
    Vigbjorn the Wanderer Nord Warden (EP)
    Hrokki Winterborn Breton Warden (DC)
    Basks-in-the-Sunshine Argonian Temp
    Someone stole my sweetroll
  • Anhedonie
    Anhedonie
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Lord_Ejl wrote: »
    I mean with all the lore books on history, characters etc. I've heard two different sides of this being an accurate, and not being. My Elder Scrolls playing goes only back to Morrowind, so i have no idea of the first two ones at all.

    *** up mostly.
    Profanity filter is a crime against the freedom of speech. Also gags.
  • Tdroid
    Tdroid
    ✭✭✭
    Given that Bethesda has done major retcons in the lore for every game, I say it does things fairly uncontroverially. And, overall, I like it, though more controversy might be better :P
Sign In or Register to comment.