I want to play as "evil" in more quests

Nova Sky · July 2021

PFFT. If I want an "evil" playthrough, I'll just fire up a game of Sid Meier's Civilization and play as Gandhi.

starkerealm · July 2021

Nova Sky wrote: »

PFFT. If I want an "evil" playthrough, I'll just fire up a game of Sid Meier's Civilization and play as Gandhi.

At the risk of going off topic, if you really want this, I'd suggest digging up Tyranny. It's got some really meaty dilemmas.

Blinx · July 2021

would love a cadwells silver and gold type rewind quest where we end up on each "main" villains side, it wouldn't even take very long:

Kinlady Estre is only in Auridon,

Angof is only in Glenumbra,

Thallik Wormfather is only in the Rift? {not sure this guy was pretty unmemorable to me)

starkerealm · July 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Correct. The major distinction however is how little regard the Thalmor have for him.

No, regard doesn't distinguish agent and asset, because you can have regard or no regard for either. The distinction between is in the intention of the subject.

At least in the real world, the distinction has to do with affiliation. An agent is an actual spy, while an asset is an individual that the spy recruits and uses as an intermediary. While it's true that either can be expendable, an asset is far more likely to be viewed as such because they're not a part of the parent organization.

As the name suggests, an asset is a resource for the spy, and if that resource becomes a liability, they are far more likely to be sacrificed if it will provide some value.

Now, do the Thalmor use modern tradecraft terms? Not universally, so it's possible that Asset in this case is meant to indicate something distinct, but as a sloppy generalization, Ulfric is working to further the Dominion's agenda, so categorizing him as a foreign agent is still correct, even if the term is technically sloppy.

The one thing I'll grant you without reservation is, I shouldn't have capitalized, "Agent," in the original post. There's no contextual excuse for that, you simply don't capitalize random nouns in English, and that one's on me.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

A valid point, if that support is entirely voluntary. It's not unreasonable that some people in the city genuinely support Ulfric, but the Windhelm we see in TES5 is one where drunken thugs are given carte blanche from the city guard to harass Dark Elves and Argonians. In that environment, any voiced support for Ulfric becomes questionable. Is it because they genuinely believe in him, or is it appeasement, in the hope that they won't be next?

Well ANY voice is unreliable. In a world where the Grey Quarter Dark Elves can, and do, voluntarily express discontent, fear can't be the only reason someone might express support. You just have to accept that just maybe its not so black-and-white as "stormcloaks=bad." Similar complexity is apparent in other stories in the game, so I feel like that's the actual intention here, too.

It's never been that the Stormcloaks are universally evil. There's actually quite a bit of messiness to the Civil War regardless the side you pick. Particularly in the selection of new Jarls for the various Holds. With some fairly vile people being tapped to lead for either faction as you progress. This is both coherent, and logically consistent, as they are people with political power (of various varieties) in their respective Holds, and do appear to reflect the kind of person who would leap at the opportunity to seize power if aided by an outside state, while still having enough legitimacy to hold the office.

There is historical precedence for these kinds of people coming to power in puppet governments. So yeah, if you want to make a blanket statement that, "in the war between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks," neither side is completely in the right, cool, no problem.

Except there's a problem. The Stormcloaks are acting to further the objectives of the Aldmeri Dominion. The Aldmeri Dominion has a goal of destroying The Towers and remaking the world in their own image. At that point, even though the rank and file Stormcloaks are xenophobic towards the Thalmor, and their stated goal is to drive the Dominion and Empire from Skyrim, they are weakening the bulwark which protects them from a hostile power bent on annihilating them.

At that point, the footsoldiers are (mostly) blameless, but to fail to understand this requires Ulfric to either be incredibly stupid (which is not the case), or willfully acting against his nation's interests. Ulfric has to know that an isolated Skyrim has no chance of standing against The Dominion, just as he knows that an Empire reduced to Cyrodiil and High Rock lacks the ability to stand against the 4th Era Dominion.

This leads back to what we're talking about. The problem isn't the rank and file... exactly, it's the administration that riles up and tacitly endorses the drunken racists, then lets them wander unmolested harassing others. Within that context, it's implausible to say there's no coercive element to Ulfric's support, particularly from non-Nords.

It's not to a cartoonish extreme, but, there's certainly an implication that badmouthing the Stormcloaks will get you harassed, assaulted, or worse by those drunks.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

It's not the quality of the writing, it's the number of people who didn't pay any attention to it on the way through. Most players (especially ones who favor the Stormcloaks) never read the Dossiers. That does lead to conversations, not because of the quality of the writing, but that many people consumed the content, and made their minds up, without paying any attention to the writing.

Its nice that there was enough stuff that you have to pay attention to and explore though, right? I'm not really hoping to argue that Nords are racists or Stormcloaks were right. We are both showing why we believe what we believe, and the game story has enough depth to support those narratives. That's why I compare it to ESO.

Mise en scene isn't writing. Skyrim generally has pretty good environmental storytelling, but that's technically distinct from the writing itself.

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO. The world building for Skyrim (more than any other mainline title outside of Arena) is pretty sketchy overall. You're left to infer a lot about the state of Tamriel in the 4th Era. While there's a legitimate writing argument for this kind of minimalism, it's a serious departure from the series as a whole, and does not feel like an intentional decision.

In some ways, Skyrim becomes something of a textual Rorschach test. The ambiguity, and what people read into it, doesn't feel like the result of legitimate narrative depth, so much as people either missing critical information and trying to fill in the blanks on their own.

The other thing that perpetuates the discussion is that you will have radically different perceptions if Skyrim was your introduction to the franchise or not. If you started with an earlier game, you're going to have a different perspective on The Empire. Skyrim specifically tries to pressure you into siding against them. Your first encounter with the Empire is them trying to execute you for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so that puts a strong spin on things. Your first encounter in Solitude is them executing someone for opening a door. It sets a strong tone, and if you're unfamiliar with The Empire, you're more likely to think they're the bad guys. It's not particularly subtle, but it does affect player perceptions, especially for newcomers to the series.

VaranisArano · July 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Correct. The major distinction however is how little regard the Thalmor have for him.

No, regard doesn't distinguish agent and asset, because you can have regard or no regard for either. The distinction between is in the intention of the subject.

At least in the real world, the distinction has to do with affiliation. An agent is an actual spy, while an asset is an individual that the spy recruits and uses as an intermediary. While it's true that either can be expendable, an asset is far more likely to be viewed as such because they're not a part of the parent organization.

As the name suggests, an asset is a resource for the spy, and if that resource becomes a liability, they are far more likely to be sacrificed if it will provide some value.

Now, do the Thalmor use modern tradecraft terms? Not universally, so it's possible that Asset in this case is meant to indicate something distinct, but as a sloppy generalization, Ulfric is working to further the Dominion's agenda, so categorizing him as a foreign agent is still correct, even if the term is technically sloppy.

The one thing I'll grant you without reservation is, I shouldn't have capitalized, "Agent," in the original post. There's no contextual excuse for that, you simply don't capitalize random nouns in English, and that one's on me.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

A valid point, if that support is entirely voluntary. It's not unreasonable that some people in the city genuinely support Ulfric, but the Windhelm we see in TES5 is one where drunken thugs are given carte blanche from the city guard to harass Dark Elves and Argonians. In that environment, any voiced support for Ulfric becomes questionable. Is it because they genuinely believe in him, or is it appeasement, in the hope that they won't be next?

Well ANY voice is unreliable. In a world where the Grey Quarter Dark Elves can, and do, voluntarily express discontent, fear can't be the only reason someone might express support. You just have to accept that just maybe its not so black-and-white as "stormcloaks=bad." Similar complexity is apparent in other stories in the game, so I feel like that's the actual intention here, too.

It's never been that the Stormcloaks are universally evil. There's actually quite a bit of messiness to the Civil War regardless the side you pick. Particularly in the selection of new Jarls for the various Holds. With some fairly vile people being tapped to lead for either faction as you progress. This is both coherent, and logically consistent, as they are people with political power (of various varieties) in their respective Holds, and do appear to reflect the kind of person who would leap at the opportunity to seize power if aided by an outside state, while still having enough legitimacy to hold the office.

There is historical precedence for these kinds of people coming to power in puppet governments. So yeah, if you want to make a blanket statement that, "in the war between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks," neither side is completely in the right, cool, no problem.

Except there's a problem. The Stormcloaks are acting to further the objectives of the Aldmeri Dominion. The Aldmeri Dominion has a goal of destroying The Towers and remaking the world in their own image. At that point, even though the rank and file Stormcloaks are xenophobic towards the Thalmor, and their stated goal is to drive the Dominion and Empire from Skyrim, they are weakening the bulwark which protects them from a hostile power bent on annihilating them.

At that point, the footsoldiers are (mostly) blameless, but to fail to understand this requires Ulfric to either be incredibly stupid (which is not the case), or willfully acting against his nation's interests. Ulfric has to know that an isolated Skyrim has no chance of standing against The Dominion, just as he knows that an Empire reduced to Cyrodiil and High Rock lacks the ability to stand against the 4th Era Dominion.

This leads back to what we're talking about. The problem isn't the rank and file... exactly, it's the administration that riles up and tacitly endorses the drunken racists, then lets them wander unmolested harassing others. Within that context, it's implausible to say there's no coercive element to Ulfric's support, particularly from non-Nords.

It's not to a cartoonish extreme, but, there's certainly an implication that badmouthing the Stormcloaks will get you harassed, assaulted, or worse by those drunks.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

It's not the quality of the writing, it's the number of people who didn't pay any attention to it on the way through. Most players (especially ones who favor the Stormcloaks) never read the Dossiers. That does lead to conversations, not because of the quality of the writing, but that many people consumed the content, and made their minds up, without paying any attention to the writing.

Its nice that there was enough stuff that you have to pay attention to and explore though, right? I'm not really hoping to argue that Nords are racists or Stormcloaks were right. We are both showing why we believe what we believe, and the game story has enough depth to support those narratives. That's why I compare it to ESO.

Mise en scene isn't writing. Skyrim generally has pretty good environmental storytelling, but that's technically distinct from the writing itself.

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO. The world building for Skyrim (more than any other mainline title outside of Arena) is pretty sketchy overall. You're left to infer a lot about the state of Tamriel in the 4th Era. While there's a legitimate writing argument for this kind of minimalism, it's a serious departure from the series as a whole, and does not feel like an intentional decision.

In some ways, Skyrim becomes something of a textual Rorschach test. The ambiguity, and what people read into it, doesn't feel like the result of legitimate narrative depth, so much as people either missing critical information and trying to fill in the blanks on their own.

The other thing that perpetuates the discussion is that you will have radically different perceptions if Skyrim was your introduction to the franchise or not. If you started with an earlier game, you're going to have a different perspective on The Empire. Skyrim specifically tries to pressure you into siding against them. Your first encounter with the Empire is them trying to execute you for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so that puts a strong spin on things. Your first encounter in Solitude is them executing someone for opening a door. It sets a strong tone, and if you're unfamiliar with The Empire, you're more likely to think they're the bad guys. It's not particularly subtle, but it does affect player perceptions, especially for newcomers to the series.

Ironically, the bit about the Thalmor and the Towers is an example of players filling in that information on their own, not something that's present in the games.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslore/comments/gwy1yx/why_you_should_always_check_sources_the_curious/

Just something to think about.

starkerealm · July 2021

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ironically, the bit about the Thalmor and the Towers is an example of players filling in that information on their own, not something that's present in the games.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslore/comments/gwy1yx/why_you_should_always_check_sources_the_curious/

Just something to think about.

I wondered. I couldn't remember the source off hand. It also answers a very specific question as to, "how the snot where they planning to tear down the Tower in Skyrim?"

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2021

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?

At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

I'm not sure I understand this type of comparison. ESO vs "an authentic Elder Scrolls experience."

First, the singleplayer TES games didn't allow players to join every single faction and have a fully realized questline. That's especially true of enemy factions. The Winterborn of ESO get basically the same treatment as the Silver Hand in Skyrim. It's valid to ask ZOS for more content like the Civil War if that's what people want, but it's not valid when people act like having non-joinable factions isn't also part of the TES experience.

Second, I do think it's necessary to understand that lots of people say "authentic TES experience" when what they mean is "Singleplayer RPG". There is no way for an MMORPG making a quarterly release schedule to match what a singleplayer game with years of development time can do. No way. We just aren't going to get content with the depth of TES 3 or TES 5 with only 6 months between DLC/Chapter releases. Again, it's valid to ask for content like the Civil War if that's what people like, but at least think about the time, effort, and costs involved, and why an MMO might not want to delay their regular content release to do it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the ESO Devs heard their playerbase's demand concerning factions loud and clear: players don't want factions interfering with their gameplay. Players couldn't even accept being locked into their chosen factions storyline, hence Cadwell's Silver & Gold. One Tamriel removed most of the story and faction instancing for good reason. Players want to play together, not be segmented out based on which faction they chose - be it EP/DC/AD or be it siding with the Winterborn/Orcs or Iron Wheel/TG, etc. I'm really not convinced there's a huge appetite for this sort of factionalized gameplay...and even if there is, I can't really blame the Devs for not dipping their toes into the water a second time after the way their original intentions were roundly panned.

@VaranisArano Where did anyone here begin arguing for every single faction to be joinable? I suggested some examples where the DLCs we're paying money for, require you to play an evil character if you wanted to be able to engage the story. Additional to that, I've pointed out that there are a couple of factions that really highlight the railroading and those could provide awesome opportunities for agency or opportunities to for exploring the issues in a story.

I don't mean "single player RPG" because I don't believe that the explorative writing we see in the other games is absolutely impossible in this format - its rather a matter of priority in how resources are dedicated to writing, and taking on the challenge the medium offers rather than folding our arms and saying "but its not skyrim online!" The playerbase did not say they wanted no complex writing, they said they wanted to be able to play together. Do you believe the two must be absolutely mutually exclusive?

I don't know if you've just broadly put yourself against the idea, you don't think its important, personally, or you think that every observation I've made is utterly baseless because your responses just read like a long list of undifferentiated "no.", but people are just here pointing out that agency happens to be a very important part of role playing, that opportunities to explore narrative through various factions IS a signature of Elder Scrolls writing, and its something we hope that ZOS sees we believe is very important.

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2021

It's never been that the Stormcloaks are universally evil.

The argument frequently seems to go: "What depth? The stormcloaks are essentially just racist baddies!"

There's actually quite a bit of messiness to the Civil War regardless the side you pick. Particularly in the selection of new Jarls for the various Holds. With some fairly vile people being tapped to lead for either faction as you progress. This is both coherent, and logically consistent, as they are people with political power (of various varieties) in their respective Holds, and do appear to reflect the kind of person who would leap at the opportunity to seize power if aided by an outside state, while still having enough legitimacy to hold the office.

There is historical precedence for these kinds of people coming to power in puppet governments. So yeah, if you want to make a blanket statement that, "in the war between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks," neither side is completely in the right, cool, no problem.

That was the essence of my point. A surface reading might lead you to believe one thing or another, but there's oppotunity to explore the story through various means, and doing so invariably leads you to challenge your notions. That is interesting writing, because you can explore it, and because it mirrors how we often encounter complex issues in real life: what seems to be black-and-white often turns out to have more nuance.

Its_MySniff · July 2021

I'd like to take neutral evil or chaotic neutral, mix up the parameters and have quests to reflect those or any choices really. Love the game, I'd love to be a prick sometimes. Haha, away from random dungeons, tbaggin' and stealing crowns. Maybe next chapter will allow the vestige to bathe in blood and I don't know, kick chickens without an' oi, what was that'.

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2021

Mise en scene isn't writing. Skyrim generally has pretty good environmental storytelling, but that's technically distinct from the writing itself.

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO. The world building for Skyrim (more than any other mainline title outside of Arena) is pretty sketchy overall. You're left to infer a lot about the state of Tamriel in the 4th Era. While there's a legitimate writing argument for this kind of minimalism, it's a serious departure from the series as a whole, and does not feel like an intentional decision.

In some ways, Skyrim becomes something of a textual Rorschach test. The ambiguity, and what people read into it, doesn't feel like the result of legitimate narrative depth, so much as people either missing critical information and trying to fill in the blanks on their own.

This is all besides the appeal I'm trying to make, but for the sake of a different point of view, I think that Skyrim's writing is really underappreciated. A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that it CAN be played in a very satisfying way by taking everything as superficial, but for those of us who wanted more to any story, we could find it by exploring in various ways. Hell, even 10 years after the game launched I'm still encountering pieces of evidence I had not considered when talking to people on the forum, and I'm someone who engaged the game pretty deeply. Now people can diminish the importance of that, but I'm certain my experience is not atypical.

And that IS coming from someone who's first game was Skyrim - so you have to be careful in taking assumptions too far. And in fact, my views aren't because of my first-game honeymoon - my appreciation for the game's storytelling has only grown over the years (btw Skyrim and Morrowind tie for me for best in the series, though I think that Daggerfall was also really punching above its weight for its tone, despite all the key things it misses).

I don't agree that information about the rest of Tamriel is meaningfully more lacking in Skyrim than in other games: while the series' main character is "Tamriel", each instalment has had its focus province be the star. The story of Tamriel has only ever occurred in the background of the games we play.

If you started with an earlier game, you're going to have a different perspective on The Empire. Skyrim specifically tries to pressure you into siding against them. Your first encounter with the Empire is them trying to execute you for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so that puts a strong spin on things. Your first encounter in Solitude is them executing someone for opening a door. It sets a strong tone, and if you're unfamiliar with The Empire, you're more likely to think they're the bad guys. It's not particularly subtle, but it does affect player perceptions, especially for newcomers to the series.

That might be true, and there are probably people who go into the series from either situation who stick to the Imperials because "Oblivion!" or never saw their redeeming qualities from earlier titles, and therefore only see oppressors. More broadly, no one is immune to entering any issue blind of their own prejudices. The question then becomes did that player dig further as they played? Or to bring it back to my original point: Is it possible to do so?

oldbobdude · July 2021

I don't like the Thalmor.

Ryuvain · July 2021

Wanting to join veiled inheritance? I'll never understand that. They're even worse than Skyrim thalmor.

Faulgor · July 2021

marshill88 wrote: »

It seems most zones (all perhaps?) in ESO have governments run by upper class elitists giving zero democracy to the people always deciding what is best for everyone else and I'm constantly saving their behinds while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class. I'm fatigued with goody-tushu elves and their pompous superiority and I'd be delighted to lead a boat load army of veiled heritance to smash their elite palaces and bring democratic rule to the people

Unironically, Orc Strongholds are the best place to live in Tamriel.

ZOS_Ragnar · July 2021

Hello folks!

We have removed a few posts from this thread that were not focused on the topic and were disruptive to the discussion. Please avoid personally targeting other users for their ideas or suggestions.

Thank you for your understanding.

VaranisArano · July 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?

At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

I'm not sure I understand this type of comparison. ESO vs "an authentic Elder Scrolls experience."

First, the singleplayer TES games didn't allow players to join every single faction and have a fully realized questline. That's especially true of enemy factions. The Winterborn of ESO get basically the same treatment as the Silver Hand in Skyrim. It's valid to ask ZOS for more content like the Civil War if that's what people want, but it's not valid when people act like having non-joinable factions isn't also part of the TES experience.

Second, I do think it's necessary to understand that lots of people say "authentic TES experience" when what they mean is "Singleplayer RPG". There is no way for an MMORPG making a quarterly release schedule to match what a singleplayer game with years of development time can do. No way. We just aren't going to get content with the depth of TES 3 or TES 5 with only 6 months between DLC/Chapter releases. Again, it's valid to ask for content like the Civil War if that's what people like, but at least think about the time, effort, and costs involved, and why an MMO might not want to delay their regular content release to do it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the ESO Devs heard their playerbase's demand concerning factions loud and clear: players don't want factions interfering with their gameplay. Players couldn't even accept being locked into their chosen factions storyline, hence Cadwell's Silver & Gold. One Tamriel removed most of the story and faction instancing for good reason. Players want to play together, not be segmented out based on which faction they chose - be it EP/DC/AD or be it siding with the Winterborn/Orcs or Iron Wheel/TG, etc. I'm really not convinced there's a huge appetite for this sort of factionalized gameplay...and even if there is, I can't really blame the Devs for not dipping their toes into the water a second time after the way their original intentions were roundly panned.

@VaranisArano Where did anyone here begin arguing for every single faction to be joinable? I suggested some examples where the DLCs we're paying money for, require you to play an evil character if you wanted to be able to engage the story. Additional to that, I've pointed out that there are a couple of factions that really highlight the railroading and those could provide awesome opportunities for agency or opportunities to for exploring the issues in a story.

I don't mean "single player RPG" because I don't believe that the explorative writing we see in the other games is absolutely impossible in this format - its rather a matter of priority in how resources are dedicated to writing, and taking on the challenge the medium offers rather than folding our arms and saying "but its not skyrim online!" The playerbase did not say they wanted no complex writing, they said they wanted to be able to play together. Do you believe the two must be absolutely mutually exclusive?

I don't know if you've just broadly put yourself against the idea, you don't think its important, personally, or you think that every observation I've made is utterly baseless because your responses just read like a long list of undifferentiated "no.", but people are just here pointing out that agency happens to be a very important part of role playing, that opportunities to explore narrative through various factions IS a signature of Elder Scrolls writing, and its something we hope that ZOS sees we believe is very important.

I think it's unlikely to happen in an MMORPG that has a quarterly release formula that works for ZOS. Adding more complexity costs time, effort, and money, and I really doubt you'll see the formula change by much.

Thing is, I agree that player agency is important...but it's not going to happen unless ZOS adds more quests. Players getting to explore the issues in greater depth isn't going to happen without more quests, more characters, more voice acting, etc. I'd be down for more joinable "enemy" factions, but again, that requires a ton more quests, characters, lorebooks, named bosses, dailies, locations, and a whole host of stuff to make it an actually satisfying experience (as opposed to, say, Skyrim's truncated choice to kill the Dark Brotherhood).

Spoiler for Markarth

At one point, ZOS gave me the agency to decide if I was going to trade information with Rada al-Saran. I did, and figured out the target of his entire evil plot from that one conversation. Did that agency matter? No, because ZOS didn't let me share the info he told me with any of my allies. That "agency" was an illusion. A real example of player agency that breaks the railroad would've required that conversation to make a substantial change to the zone quest, since I had just bypassed most of the early legwork needed to figure out his plan if you don't trade the information. But that would've required ZOS to design more quests, so it didn't happen.

See also the railroading that happens to Dark Brotherhood players in Blackwood.

You see where that time, effort, and costs start to add up for ZOS?

I might enjoy everything listed above, but it's just impractical. ZOS is already obviously pressed for development time on their current schedule - they can't go adding more content of the complexity players want without more costs. Part of those costs include recognizing that delaying the quarterly release schedule also costs them money as players drift away in between DLC releases.

There's just not a lot of practical benefit to ZOS changing their formula for DLC: focus in depth on the culture we're exploring, treat enemy factions like the Silver Hand in Skyrim.

ZOS does a fantastic job with the first half. The writers work with Altmer, Argonians, and Khajiit in their own homelands has laid a strong foundation for future lore in areas where the singleplayer games never touched in detail. Likewise, ESO added a lot of depths to Orcs in Orsinium, Reachmen in Markarth, and developed Clockwork City beyond a dungeon crawl.

As for minor opposing factions? It's basically the Silver Hand from Skyrim. They get a couple quests, a couple lorebooks, a couple named bosses, and a goal opposed to us. We beat them down and move on to the next thing. In ESO, there are some nice worldbuilding details and fun roleplaying hooks in those minor factions, but nothing joinable like the OP wants from the Veiled Heritance and nothing with agency like what you say you want. We can explore the issues...in our own imagination.

Spoilers for Markarth:

Markarth is a great example of this dynamic, because it's the first DLC to explore the Reachmen sympathetically after the Reachmen have been the generic "always chaotic evil" enemies since the base game. It does pretty well! We meet a number of Reachmen NPCs with differing viewpoints, learn a lot about their spirituality and culture that builds on what we know from Skyrim. But the opposing faction introduced in the DLC, Lady Belain and the Nighthollow Clan, get the same treatment as the other minor opposing factions. A couple quests to find out what their goal is, a named boss, a mildly sympathetic reason for their goal, and then we beat Belain down and move on to the next thing. Vampire fans can explore the issues if they want...in the realm of inagination.

Could ESO treat these minor opposing factions with more nuance? Sure, they could.

Do I expect them to? Not really. That's not their formula, and deviating from their formula requires time, effort, and costs. If you want them to change their formula, then it's not sufficient to say that some players want this or that they need to for an "authentic TES experience." You and everyone asking for major changes, including the OP's wanting to join certain factions, need to grapple with the practical side of such requests. If the money isn't there to support such reprioritizing, it's not going to happen.

So let's get practical: do you have some cheap, quick, baby steps that would improve your experience with enemy factions that ZOS could add to their development cycle with relatively low cost in time, effort, and money?

My suggestion: more lorebooks and journals from the perspective of members of the opposing factions. The Elder Scrolls does the unreliable narrator very well, and giving us more perspectives is a great way to create a fuller picture of the life and goals of those factions. Plus, lorebooks are a lot cheaper than more voice-acted NPCs - its just paying for more writing.

Cirantille · July 2021

I want to join the Worm Cult

Destai · July 2021

The main problem with having evil content is it gates out a lot of people. The same argument could be said for "good" content, but perhaps people play more heroic than villainous characters. One of the few complaints about the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood storylines is the fact that you can't play in opposition.

That being said, I do wish there were more evil storylines. My nightblade and necromancers are my evil toons, so I'd like to play more robust content with them. I try to make my own adventures, but it's limited.

Sylvermynx · July 2021

Destai wrote: »

The main problem with having evil content is it gates out a lot of people. The same argument could be said for "good" content, but perhaps people play more heroic than villainous characters. One of the few complaints about the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood storylines is the fact that you can't play in opposition.

That being said, I do wish there were more evil storylines. My nightblade and necromancers are my evil toons, so I'd like to play more robust content with them. I try to make my own adventures, but it's limited.

Quite true at least for me - though I wouldn't complain about questlines I choose not to do (as I already don't complain about TG and DB DLCs). I wouldn't buy content that was slanted toward evil, though of course I would get it available with ESO+. But I'd never play it....

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2021

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?

At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

I'm not sure I understand this type of comparison. ESO vs "an authentic Elder Scrolls experience."

First, the singleplayer TES games didn't allow players to join every single faction and have a fully realized questline. That's especially true of enemy factions. The Winterborn of ESO get basically the same treatment as the Silver Hand in Skyrim. It's valid to ask ZOS for more content like the Civil War if that's what people want, but it's not valid when people act like having non-joinable factions isn't also part of the TES experience.

Second, I do think it's necessary to understand that lots of people say "authentic TES experience" when what they mean is "Singleplayer RPG". There is no way for an MMORPG making a quarterly release schedule to match what a singleplayer game with years of development time can do. No way. We just aren't going to get content with the depth of TES 3 or TES 5 with only 6 months between DLC/Chapter releases. Again, it's valid to ask for content like the Civil War if that's what people like, but at least think about the time, effort, and costs involved, and why an MMO might not want to delay their regular content release to do it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the ESO Devs heard their playerbase's demand concerning factions loud and clear: players don't want factions interfering with their gameplay. Players couldn't even accept being locked into their chosen factions storyline, hence Cadwell's Silver & Gold. One Tamriel removed most of the story and faction instancing for good reason. Players want to play together, not be segmented out based on which faction they chose - be it EP/DC/AD or be it siding with the Winterborn/Orcs or Iron Wheel/TG, etc. I'm really not convinced there's a huge appetite for this sort of factionalized gameplay...and even if there is, I can't really blame the Devs for not dipping their toes into the water a second time after the way their original intentions were roundly panned.

@VaranisArano Where did anyone here begin arguing for every single faction to be joinable? I suggested some examples where the DLCs we're paying money for, require you to play an evil character if you wanted to be able to engage the story. Additional to that, I've pointed out that there are a couple of factions that really highlight the railroading and those could provide awesome opportunities for agency or opportunities to for exploring the issues in a story.

I don't mean "single player RPG" because I don't believe that the explorative writing we see in the other games is absolutely impossible in this format - its rather a matter of priority in how resources are dedicated to writing, and taking on the challenge the medium offers rather than folding our arms and saying "but its not skyrim online!" The playerbase did not say they wanted no complex writing, they said they wanted to be able to play together. Do you believe the two must be absolutely mutually exclusive?

I don't know if you've just broadly put yourself against the idea, you don't think its important, personally, or you think that every observation I've made is utterly baseless because your responses just read like a long list of undifferentiated "no.", but people are just here pointing out that agency happens to be a very important part of role playing, that opportunities to explore narrative through various factions IS a signature of Elder Scrolls writing, and its something we hope that ZOS sees we believe is very important.

I think it's unlikely to happen in an MMORPG that has a quarterly release formula that works for ZOS. Adding more complexity costs time, effort, and money, and I really doubt you'll see the formula change by much.

Thing is, I agree that player agency is important...but it's not going to happen unless ZOS adds more quests. Players getting to explore the issues in greater depth isn't going to happen without more quests, more characters, more voice acting, etc. I'd be down for more joinable "enemy" factions, but again, that requires a ton more quests, characters, lorebooks, named bosses, dailies, locations, and a whole host of stuff to make it an actually satisfying experience (as opposed to, say, Skyrim's truncated choice to kill the Dark Brotherhood).

Spoiler for Markarth
At one point, ZOS gave me the agency to decide if I was going to trade information with Rada al-Saran. I did, and figured out the target of his entire evil plot from that one conversation. Did that agency matter? No, because ZOS didn't let me share the info he told me with any of my allies. That "agency" was an illusion. A real example of player agency that breaks the railroad would've required that conversation to make a substantial change to the zone quest, since I had just bypassed most of the early legwork needed to figure out his plan if you don't trade the information. But that would've required ZOS to design more quests, so it didn't happen.

See also the railroading that happens to Dark Brotherhood players in Blackwood.

You see where that time, effort, and costs start to add up for ZOS?

I might enjoy everything listed above, but it's just impractical. ZOS is already obviously pressed for development time on their current schedule - they can't go adding more content of the complexity players want without more costs. Part of those costs include recognizing that delaying the quarterly release schedule also costs them money as players drift away in between DLC releases.

There's just not a lot of practical benefit to ZOS changing their formula for DLC: focus in depth on the culture we're exploring, treat enemy factions like the Silver Hand in Skyrim.

ZOS does a fantastic job with the first half. The writers work with Altmer, Argonians, and Khajiit in their own homelands has laid a strong foundation for future lore in areas where the singleplayer games never touched in detail. Likewise, ESO added a lot of depths to Orcs in Orsinium, Reachmen in Markarth, and developed Clockwork City beyond a dungeon crawl.

As for minor opposing factions? It's basically the Silver Hand from Skyrim. They get a couple quests, a couple lorebooks, a couple named bosses, and a goal opposed to us. We beat them down and move on to the next thing. In ESO, there are some nice worldbuilding details and fun roleplaying hooks in those minor factions, but nothing joinable like the OP wants from the Veiled Heritance and nothing with agency like what you say you want. We can explore the issues...in our own imagination.

Spoilers for Markarth:
Markarth is a great example of this dynamic, because it's the first DLC to explore the Reachmen sympathetically after the Reachmen have been the generic "always chaotic evil" enemies since the base game. It does pretty well! We meet a number of Reachmen NPCs with differing viewpoints, learn a lot about their spirituality and culture that builds on what we know from Skyrim. But the opposing faction introduced in the DLC, Lady Belain and the Nighthollow Clan, get the same treatment as the other minor opposing factions. A couple quests to find out what their goal is, a named boss, a mildly sympathetic reason for their goal, and then we beat Belain down and move on to the next thing. Vampire fans can explore the issues if they want...in the realm of inagination.

Could ESO treat these minor opposing factions with more nuance? Sure, they could.

Do I expect them to? Not really. That's not their formula, and deviating from their formula requires time, effort, and costs. If you want them to change their formula, then it's not sufficient to say that some players want this or that they need to for an "authentic TES experience." You and everyone asking for major changes, including the OP's wanting to join certain factions, need to grapple with the practical side of such requests. If the money isn't there to support such reprioritizing, it's not going to happen.

So let's get practical: do you have some cheap, quick, baby steps that would improve your experience with enemy factions that ZOS could add to their development cycle with relatively low cost in time, effort, and money?

My suggestion: more lorebooks and journals from the perspective of members of the opposing factions. The Elder Scrolls does the unreliable narrator very well, and giving us more perspectives is a great way to create a fuller picture of the life and goals of those factions. Plus, lorebooks are a lot cheaper than more voice-acted NPCs - its just paying for more writing.

I personally don't know what resources they currently spend, or what further resources they might be inclined to dedicate if they saw there was an important niche they might be able to improve with. People speculate about that stuff all the time. Regardless, they've made big, seemingly costly changes in the past that few armchair pundits like you or me would have guessed.

I also don't put stock in forum samples for assessing demand. I absolutely concede that there just may not be all that much demand for it, or not enough to demand the effort. Conversely, I might be expressing something that a lot of people you don't see on the forums find very important. To this day ESO's writing is criticised as comparatively weak (I don't necessarily agree: I think there is some amazing writing, even despite the significant challenges the writers work with in this format). You wont see too much of it here, or on Reddit ESO, because its perceived as overly negative and people don't like being brought down by hard opinions. But those opinions do exist, they've just been pushed to places where they aren't going to get harpooned for expressing them. To what degree is that reflective of people that would otherwise buy in? I don't know, and you don't know. If ZOS is getting these opinions from various sources, they might have an idea.

I've just come here to discuss what I think is important in the game. I want my views out there. The forums are already vastly dominated by talk about mechanics and servers and balance and all the MMO aspects with not the slightest concern for feasibility- talk about the rpg or lore concerns or story was already pushed to the fringes with all the "literally unplayable" and "lmao tHiS IsN't SkYrReM oNlInE!" rhetoric.

You could be 100% right, or you might be failing to account for all factors, too. Its not up to me to anticipate that. I don't think I should have to submit a business proposal just to highlight what I see is a potential direction they could improve in, and why.

Obsidian3 · July 2021

I want to join Molag Bal. He said he would give me a minion for everyone of his I destroyed. I want my own deadric army!

VaranisArano · July 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?

At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

I'm not sure I understand this type of comparison. ESO vs "an authentic Elder Scrolls experience."

First, the singleplayer TES games didn't allow players to join every single faction and have a fully realized questline. That's especially true of enemy factions. The Winterborn of ESO get basically the same treatment as the Silver Hand in Skyrim. It's valid to ask ZOS for more content like the Civil War if that's what people want, but it's not valid when people act like having non-joinable factions isn't also part of the TES experience.

Second, I do think it's necessary to understand that lots of people say "authentic TES experience" when what they mean is "Singleplayer RPG". There is no way for an MMORPG making a quarterly release schedule to match what a singleplayer game with years of development time can do. No way. We just aren't going to get content with the depth of TES 3 or TES 5 with only 6 months between DLC/Chapter releases. Again, it's valid to ask for content like the Civil War if that's what people like, but at least think about the time, effort, and costs involved, and why an MMO might not want to delay their regular content release to do it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the ESO Devs heard their playerbase's demand concerning factions loud and clear: players don't want factions interfering with their gameplay. Players couldn't even accept being locked into their chosen factions storyline, hence Cadwell's Silver & Gold. One Tamriel removed most of the story and faction instancing for good reason. Players want to play together, not be segmented out based on which faction they chose - be it EP/DC/AD or be it siding with the Winterborn/Orcs or Iron Wheel/TG, etc. I'm really not convinced there's a huge appetite for this sort of factionalized gameplay...and even if there is, I can't really blame the Devs for not dipping their toes into the water a second time after the way their original intentions were roundly panned.

@VaranisArano Where did anyone here begin arguing for every single faction to be joinable? I suggested some examples where the DLCs we're paying money for, require you to play an evil character if you wanted to be able to engage the story. Additional to that, I've pointed out that there are a couple of factions that really highlight the railroading and those could provide awesome opportunities for agency or opportunities to for exploring the issues in a story.

I don't mean "single player RPG" because I don't believe that the explorative writing we see in the other games is absolutely impossible in this format - its rather a matter of priority in how resources are dedicated to writing, and taking on the challenge the medium offers rather than folding our arms and saying "but its not skyrim online!" The playerbase did not say they wanted no complex writing, they said they wanted to be able to play together. Do you believe the two must be absolutely mutually exclusive?

I don't know if you've just broadly put yourself against the idea, you don't think its important, personally, or you think that every observation I've made is utterly baseless because your responses just read like a long list of undifferentiated "no.", but people are just here pointing out that agency happens to be a very important part of role playing, that opportunities to explore narrative through various factions IS a signature of Elder Scrolls writing, and its something we hope that ZOS sees we believe is very important.

I think it's unlikely to happen in an MMORPG that has a quarterly release formula that works for ZOS. Adding more complexity costs time, effort, and money, and I really doubt you'll see the formula change by much.

Thing is, I agree that player agency is important...but it's not going to happen unless ZOS adds more quests. Players getting to explore the issues in greater depth isn't going to happen without more quests, more characters, more voice acting, etc. I'd be down for more joinable "enemy" factions, but again, that requires a ton more quests, characters, lorebooks, named bosses, dailies, locations, and a whole host of stuff to make it an actually satisfying experience (as opposed to, say, Skyrim's truncated choice to kill the Dark Brotherhood).

Spoiler for Markarth
At one point, ZOS gave me the agency to decide if I was going to trade information with Rada al-Saran. I did, and figured out the target of his entire evil plot from that one conversation. Did that agency matter? No, because ZOS didn't let me share the info he told me with any of my allies. That "agency" was an illusion. A real example of player agency that breaks the railroad would've required that conversation to make a substantial change to the zone quest, since I had just bypassed most of the early legwork needed to figure out his plan if you don't trade the information. But that would've required ZOS to design more quests, so it didn't happen.

See also the railroading that happens to Dark Brotherhood players in Blackwood.

You see where that time, effort, and costs start to add up for ZOS?

I might enjoy everything listed above, but it's just impractical. ZOS is already obviously pressed for development time on their current schedule - they can't go adding more content of the complexity players want without more costs. Part of those costs include recognizing that delaying the quarterly release schedule also costs them money as players drift away in between DLC releases.

There's just not a lot of practical benefit to ZOS changing their formula for DLC: focus in depth on the culture we're exploring, treat enemy factions like the Silver Hand in Skyrim.

ZOS does a fantastic job with the first half. The writers work with Altmer, Argonians, and Khajiit in their own homelands has laid a strong foundation for future lore in areas where the singleplayer games never touched in detail. Likewise, ESO added a lot of depths to Orcs in Orsinium, Reachmen in Markarth, and developed Clockwork City beyond a dungeon crawl.

As for minor opposing factions? It's basically the Silver Hand from Skyrim. They get a couple quests, a couple lorebooks, a couple named bosses, and a goal opposed to us. We beat them down and move on to the next thing. In ESO, there are some nice worldbuilding details and fun roleplaying hooks in those minor factions, but nothing joinable like the OP wants from the Veiled Heritance and nothing with agency like what you say you want. We can explore the issues...in our own imagination.

Spoilers for Markarth:
Markarth is a great example of this dynamic, because it's the first DLC to explore the Reachmen sympathetically after the Reachmen have been the generic "always chaotic evil" enemies since the base game. It does pretty well! We meet a number of Reachmen NPCs with differing viewpoints, learn a lot about their spirituality and culture that builds on what we know from Skyrim. But the opposing faction introduced in the DLC, Lady Belain and the Nighthollow Clan, get the same treatment as the other minor opposing factions. A couple quests to find out what their goal is, a named boss, a mildly sympathetic reason for their goal, and then we beat Belain down and move on to the next thing. Vampire fans can explore the issues if they want...in the realm of inagination.

Could ESO treat these minor opposing factions with more nuance? Sure, they could.

Do I expect them to? Not really. That's not their formula, and deviating from their formula requires time, effort, and costs. If you want them to change their formula, then it's not sufficient to say that some players want this or that they need to for an "authentic TES experience." You and everyone asking for major changes, including the OP's wanting to join certain factions, need to grapple with the practical side of such requests. If the money isn't there to support such reprioritizing, it's not going to happen.

So let's get practical: do you have some cheap, quick, baby steps that would improve your experience with enemy factions that ZOS could add to their development cycle with relatively low cost in time, effort, and money?

My suggestion: more lorebooks and journals from the perspective of members of the opposing factions. The Elder Scrolls does the unreliable narrator very well, and giving us more perspectives is a great way to create a fuller picture of the life and goals of those factions. Plus, lorebooks are a lot cheaper than more voice-acted NPCs - its just paying for more writing.

I personally don't know what resources they currently spend, or what further resources they might be inclined to dedicate if they saw there was an important niche they might be able to improve with. People speculate about that stuff all the time. Regardless, they've made big, seemingly costly changes in the past that few armchair pundits like you or me would have guessed.

I also don't put stock in forum samples for assessing demand. I absolutely concede that there just may not be all that much demand for it, or not enough to demand the effort. Conversely, I might be expressing something that a lot of people you don't see on the forums find very important. To this day ESO's writing is criticised as comparatively weak (I don't necessarily agree: I think there is some amazing writing, even despite the significant challenges the writers work with in this format). You wont see too much of it here, or on Reddit ESO, because its perceived as overly negative and people don't like being brought down by hard opinions. But those opinions do exist, they've just been pushed to places where they aren't going to get harpooned for expressing them. To what degree is that reflective of people that would otherwise buy in? I don't know, and you don't know. If ZOS is getting these opinions from various sources, they might have an idea.

I've just come here to discuss what I think is important in the game. I want my views out there. The forums are already vastly dominated by talk about mechanics and servers and balance and all the MMO aspects with not the slightest concern for feasibility- talk about the rpg or lore concerns or story was already pushed to the fringes with all the "literally unplayable" and "lmao tHiS IsN't SkYrReM oNlInE!" rhetoric.

You could be 100% right, or you might be failing to account for all factors, too. Its not up to me to anticipate that. I don't think I should have to submit a business proposal just to highlight what I see is a potential direction they could improve in, and why.

Fine.

So, you got any practical, cheap, easy steps ZOS could add into their development cycle for relatively little cost, time, and effort?

My suggestion was more lorebooks/journals that explore the minor opposing factions from differing POVs

jle30303 · July 2021

I honestly don't understand what is the attraction about playing "evil".

I mean, one of the most important things about telling a story is that *good is supposed to win in the end*. You're supposed to identify with the hero, not the villain. A good villain may make a good story, but has to lose at the end of it - even if he escapes to fight another day in a later story (as the heroes may themselves do at an earlier stage of the story).

starkerealm · July 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO.

I think that Skyrim's writing is really underappreciated.

These aren't mutually exclusive. And, while it may seem odd, I agree.

I don't agree that Morrowind and Skyrim are equals in writing, but, you know.

Monroe585 · July 2021

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet:

755

Supreme_Atromancer · July 2021

starkerealm wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO.

I think that Skyrim's writing is really underappreciated.

These aren't mutually exclusive. And, while it may seem odd, I agree.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. There's actually a lot of stuff we agree on, even if we see some things quite differently

I don't agree that Morrowind and Skyrim are equals in writing, but, you know.

Now there's a can of worms I'm happy to leave unopened!

@VaranisArano

I'm not being deliberately belligerent on this issue - I can see you are appealing for more constructive criticism (and encouraging insight into why things may not happen), I just think taking for granted what ZOS can and can't do, what resources they may or may not have is usually baseless and frequently just hot air. Putting up what I see, and my thoughts as they are can't be derailed and diluted and effectively "given up" by arguments based on things we don't actually know. Its enough for me to know they are important, and leave it to ZOS to implement it, if they can.

But for the sake of taking on your perspective, I'll mantle ZOS. Let's agree that lorebooks do offer a good solution to some of this - you don't need voice actors, they seem *relatively* easy to implement. They offer the potential to alleviate the imagined problem of not enough resources. Bethesda's transition to VA scripts is controversial. The experience is far more immersive, but there was an obvious cost in sheer volume of content which some people have read as a "dumbing down". Lore books can go a long way in plugging that hole, and are great because its a very organic solution in that there was always lorebooks (if they removed them, there would be a riot!). I would personally read them, and a lot of the people commenting here absolutely would too. We would be exploring the world, and discussing our findings with fellow explorers on the forums. The conceit here is that if the problem is that ZOS simply doesn't see the value in "complex issues and perspectives", exploring, feel for nuance and a genuine feel for The Elder Scrolls vs. generic fantasy, nod after nod to old-school dnd stuff", and all those things we've been talking about, then this is all moot. Another thing is that while you and me and all the riot squad would find it a satisfying solution, for the work put in to writing, I don't know how that translates to content and outcomes for the average ESO player. I don't buy that no one will ever read any book put into the game, more that people expect more interactability. So while part of a great solution, and something I really hope they might improve with, it alone might not satisfy what people are talking about here. Again though - its just baseless speculation with made-up facts and figures - I don't know.

VaranisArano · July 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Ironically, I'd say that Skyrim has significantly better environmental storytelling, but weaker overall writing than ESO.

I think that Skyrim's writing is really underappreciated.

These aren't mutually exclusive. And, while it may seem odd, I agree.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. There's actually a lot of stuff we agree on, even if we see some things quite differently

I don't agree that Morrowind and Skyrim are equals in writing, but, you know.

Now there's a can of worms I'm happy to leave unopened!

@VaranisArano

I'm not being deliberately belligerent on this issue - I can see you are appealing for more constructive criticism (and encouraging insight into why things may not happen), I just think taking for granted what ZOS can and can't do, what resources they may or may not have is usually baseless and frequently just hot air. Putting up what I see, and my thoughts as they are can't be derailed and diluted and effectively "given up" by arguments based on things we don't actually know. Its enough for me to know they are important, and leave it to ZOS to implement it, if they can.

But for the sake of taking on your perspective, I'll mantle ZOS. Let's agree that lorebooks do offer a good solution to some of this - you don't need voice actors, they seem *relatively* easy to implement. They offer the potential to alleviate the imagined problem of not enough resources. Bethesda's transition to VA scripts is controversial. The experience is far more immersive, but there was an obvious cost in sheer volume of content which some people have read as a "dumbing down". Lore books can go a long way in plugging that hole, and are great because its a very organic solution in that there was always lorebooks (if they removed them, there would be a riot!). I would personally read them, and a lot of the people commenting here absolutely would too. We would be exploring the world, and discussing our findings with fellow explorers on the forums. The conceit here is that if the problem is that ZOS simply doesn't see the value in "complex issues and perspectives", exploring, feel for nuance and a genuine feel for The Elder Scrolls vs. generic fantasy, nod after nod to old-school dnd stuff", and all those things we've been talking about, then this is all moot. Another thing is that while you and me and all the riot squad would find it a satisfying solution, for the work put in to writing, I don't know how that translates to content and outcomes for the average ESO player. I don't buy that no one will ever read any book put into the game, more that people expect more interactability. So while part of a great solution, and something I really hope they might improve with, it alone might not satisfy what people are talking about here. Again though - its just baseless speculation with made-up facts and figures - I don't know.

Okay, I just wondered if there were any other relatively cheap and easy ideas that people had for adding more depth to the minor opposing factions.

Perhaps more dialogue options for existing members of those factions when we get to talk to an enemy? Adding more lines when you already have the voice actor assigned to the character probably isn't so bad, while also it calls to mind the deeper conversations we're able to have with Dagoth Ur in Morrowind (which wasn't fully voice acted, so NPCs got to wax eloquent in text) or the interesting monologues from Mankar Camoran in Oblivion. I liked Rada al-Saran's little experiment in trading information in Markarth in theory though unfortunately the information we exchanged had no impact on the quests even though it should have.

Now, that's not going to help players who skip through the dialogue without reading, but I'm not sure what would.

I don't think it's true that ZOS doesn't see the value of complex issues and perspectives. They do a really good job of fleshing out the protagonist culture of their DLC/Chapter - we've seen them do great work with the Argonians, Khajiit, and Altmer compared to what little has been covered in past singleplayer games. In Orsiniun, the thorny religious and cultural strife effecting the Orcs torn between Trinimac and Malacath is a very complex issue. What's already been said is that they struggle to simultaneously flesh out their minor opposing faction in the same time period - as noted, the Winterborn have their own bone to pick, but are largely treated as a red herring for the real antagonists.

So I see it more like ZOS can only handle one or two complex issues at a time in the development cycle they have, and thus they focus on the culture we're immersed in, while the minor opposing factions get much less depth.

marshill88 · August 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

marshill88 wrote: »

...while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class.

The Veiled Heritance wants to install their own leader onto the throne, and maintain the existing monarchical structure. It's about replacing Ayrenn with Estre, with the only major social change beyond that being the high elves becoming even more xenophobic. Not a cry for freedom from the oppressed masses.

In fact, Estre's rise to power would actually be worse for the majority of The Dominion, as she views the Bosmer and Khajiit as a lower class of "her" empire.

Mostly just for argument's sake, I want to say that if that's the only interpretation of what the VH are, its a weakness in the writing. There's no room to sympathise with that faction - in a narrative sense they serve only the based impulse to hoist a very loosely veiled Real World pariah that everyone can categorically just hate on.

Those sorts of stories fall short on value because they don't offer the opportunity to explore our own prejudices, or the innate complexity inherent in the world. And I think it misses the mark of Elder Scrolls story telling. If you can read one sentence and decide that they're just evil, there's no room for exploration. Its just 5 zones of "kick 'em out".

There's room for evil - sometimes in life you can look for nuance all you want, but a situation or person is just outright wrong. And there should be room for that in ES story writing too. But a story is always more interesting when there's more to the story.

This is exactly what I have noticed...basically ZOS story tellers tell us "these guys are xenophobes" and I'm supposed to automatically side with them without considering their point of view. I don't like being forced to sympathize with groups without the ability to hear the other side dispassionately and neutrally. Just because character X tells me character Y is a xenophobe doesn't mean anything to me...that situation is less reliable than even a "he said, she said" because in this case you only get the "he said" and aren't given a full view of the other side. I think, more than any other aspect in the lore of this game, the narrow bandwidth in which I am permitted to operate in the story of ESO is the biggest reason I feel completely emotionally unattached to this game world. I would feel much more emotionally attached to the world of ESO if I had more agency within the story telling, otherwise i feel like I am just reading someone else's novel (and even in this case, I think it's not that great of a novel) as opposed to feeling like I am actually a part of the story.

starkerealm · August 2021

marshill88 wrote: »

...and aren't given a full view of the other side.

This is untrue with the Heritance. You get plenty of examples of them presenting their position at the expense of other races.

They're also not shy about espousing their philosophy, which is, frankly, ethnocentric.

So, here you are saying, "we don't know they're racist, just because they've done all of these horrifically racist things. Their goal to subjicate all non-Altmer is just a misunderstanding. They're not racist, you see, they just believe all other races are inferior to them."