AcadianPaladin wrote: »I want my character's race to to have exactly the same level of impact on combat effectiveness that her gender has.
Shalador (a Nord) was a gifted mage. Why can't my Bosmer be one as well. After all, according to the game she is unique and The Chosen One. Play how you want? What difference do your racials make to anyone but you?
You will not sway the traditionalists. They are far too set in their ways. It's kinda like on of those "MMOs require grind" things. People think it's true, and therfore act like it's true. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's beliefs here, merely pointing out that it is a belief, not a fact. Racials on themselves, as purely game mechanical constructs, do serve a valid function in offering build diversity. However, tying such mechanical attributes to a purely cosmetic factor, is a rather old fashioned way of doing it. Better ways have been devised in the game industry to offer such mechanics, while also fostering greater creativity and ways to express that within the fiction of the game world.
Changing the racials to be irrelevant and purely fluff, and offering selection of natural talents, would not harm the game in anyway, and would make it better for many. But many people will resist the idea simply because of ingrained beliefs that having racials matters.
You will also see lot of people touting past games as proof that they are integral, that they are part of Elder Scroll lore. And that ZOS is simply respecting that. Heh, like lore ever stopped ZOS from doing what they wanted. They retcon stuff left and right to suit their needs.
Besides, racial passive of the Elder Scroll universe have always been a racial bias, not a racial imperative. That is to say, that it is more likely for a member of a specific race to have leanings towards martial or magical learning. Or be more swift and agile than one from another race. But at the same time, those racial aptitudes have never prevented exceptional persons from rising to the very top of their chosen trade thru study and dedicated training, or by the benefits of being unusually gifted in said activities. Those racial tendencies have made certain paths easier than others for a member of a given race, but they have never stood as an absolute barrier in their way. In ESO though, an Altmer is always going to be better an magic than a Nord. The mechanics of the game prevent the Nord from ever achieving the same level of power as an Altmer. No matter what the player does.
In pretty much every Elder Scroll game, except ESO, you can master all trades just as well, regardless of what race you chose at the beginning. In ESO the racials are a dominant feature that explicitly make you better at certain things. You can go across the grain if you want, but the loss of actual ingame power is perceivable. Now some will say it doesn't mater, that you can finish 99% percent of the games content even when playing against your racial stereotypes. Which is true, but doesn't' change the fact, that at the very top of the chart, chasing leadeboard scores, or trying to master PVP, it pays to go toady up to the party line as far as racials go. Which is a shame.
Wanna be like Shalidor? A true master wizard of the arcane arts, who also happened to be a Nord? Well, "No soup for you!", says ESO. Nords are dumb big brutes, best left to take hits for others, and not much else.
But enough already, this wont change. Its a relic of an archaic game design philosophy, but one that is still deeply entrenched into the psyche of gaming population. Heck, I used to subscribe to it like most of everyone else. It took me years and years of convincing by others to finally see the light. Racials do not add anything tangible to the game, and only end up limiting the players creativity.
BretonMage wrote: »I have to admit I'm somewhat conflicted about this. On one hand, I personally believe that people should be able to achieve what they want to despite their origins. And I hate racism. On the other hand, the Elder Scrolls, both SP and MMO, being games, need to describe racial/cultural heritage in a way that we players can experience meaningfully. And I guess in games that is usually through one's stats.
I'm fully aware that this is the "we've always done it this way" argument, which is why I voted yes in the poll. I think it's something interesting to think about, especially if there are players who enjoy a particular race but not their racial stats. I do agree it should probably be a purchasable token, because I think it should be an exception rather than having races losing all their unique qualities.
VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
“VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
Your arguments about lore don’t sway me when the eso combat team gets the lore so wrong.
-Which race is supposed to be tanks? (Hint: Its not nords nor argonians.)
-Which race is supposed to be leather armor berserkers? (Hint: Its not orcs.)
-And which is the stealthiest race? (Hint: Its not kahjiit.) in fact in eso imperials have better stealth passives then Bosmers do.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
So it’s hard for me to sit here and support traditional hard coded racial traits when zos themselves appears to care so little about the lore behind them. Is getting the lore wrong solely the combat teams purview?
Make the racials more pliable if we are just playing fast and loose with the lore anyway, at least in will possibly break the race meta and make players a bit more happy.
VaranisArano wrote: »“VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
Your arguments about lore don’t sway me when the eso combat team gets the lore so wrong.
-Which race is supposed to be tanks? (Hint: Its not nords nor argonians.)
-Which race is supposed to be leather armor berserkers? (Hint: Its not orcs.)
-And which is the stealthiest race? (Hint: Its not kahjiit.) in fact in eso imperials have better stealth passives then Bosmers do.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
So it’s hard for me to sit here and support traditional hard coded racial traits when zos themselves appears to care so little about the lore behind them. Is getting the lore wrong solely the combat teams purview?
Make the racials more pliable if we are just playing fast and loose with the lore anyway, at least in will possibly break the race meta and make players a bit more happy.
I'm afraid my answer to that is to say that the combat team should pay more attention to the lore.
It's not to say "Whelp, since the combat team doesn't, we shouldn't either, and throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Your suggestion might make some players a bit more happy. I'm well aware this is not a matter where everyone will be satisfied. But at least my answer strengthens roleplaying identity and series lore, rather than removing race-based gameplay from a series known for racial conflicts.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
You could just create a new character using a race you feel is more appropriate?
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
Have you been in Cyrodiil? Only two alliances want to kill Bosmers. Everyone wants to kill the Imperials that camp out.
But... yes... I do think that the combat team favors combat mechanics over lore. I glibly chalk this up to "spreadsheet driven game design". If a race moves out of the standard deviation, then it has to be changed, and the easiest way to do that is just to make the necessary changes. Lore can get in the way of that.
VaranisArano wrote: »“VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
Your arguments about lore don’t sway me when the eso combat team gets the lore so wrong.
-Which race is supposed to be tanks? (Hint: Its not nords nor argonians.)
-Which race is supposed to be leather armor berserkers? (Hint: Its not orcs.)
-And which is the stealthiest race? (Hint: Its not kahjiit.) in fact in eso imperials have better stealth passives then Bosmers do.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
So it’s hard for me to sit here and support traditional hard coded racial traits when zos themselves appears to care so little about the lore behind them. Is getting the lore wrong solely the combat teams purview?
Make the racials more pliable if we are just playing fast and loose with the lore anyway, at least in will possibly break the race meta and make players a bit more happy.
I'm afraid my answer to that is to say that the combat team should pay more attention to the lore.
It's not to say "Whelp, since the combat team doesn't, we shouldn't either, and throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Your suggestion might make some players a bit more happy. I'm well aware this is not a matter where everyone will be satisfied. But at least my answer strengthens roleplaying identity and series lore, rather than removing race-based gameplay from a series known for racial conflicts.
The problem with that argument is that it’s defending lore that the combat team itself appears to care little about. THEY are the ones that created this mess, and relying on them to fix it feels like a lost cause.
I don’t want to be stuck with race passives that feel like they were picked at random rather then following the established lore. Lore attributes doled out like casino results is not worth defending. And if we are going to have racial passives that don’t follow the lore anyway, then let us pick them.
At least for me, I will be closer to the lore then the combat team will dare ever go.
VaranisArano wrote: »“VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
Your arguments about lore don’t sway me when the eso combat team gets the lore so wrong.
-Which race is supposed to be tanks? (Hint: Its not nords nor argonians.)
-Which race is supposed to be leather armor berserkers? (Hint: Its not orcs.)
-And which is the stealthiest race? (Hint: Its not kahjiit.) in fact in eso imperials have better stealth passives then Bosmers do.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
So it’s hard for me to sit here and support traditional hard coded racial traits when zos themselves appears to care so little about the lore behind them. Is getting the lore wrong solely the combat teams purview?
Make the racials more pliable if we are just playing fast and loose with the lore anyway, at least in will possibly break the race meta and make players a bit more happy.
I'm afraid my answer to that is to say that the combat team should pay more attention to the lore.
It's not to say "Whelp, since the combat team doesn't, we shouldn't either, and throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Your suggestion might make some players a bit more happy. I'm well aware this is not a matter where everyone will be satisfied. But at least my answer strengthens roleplaying identity and series lore, rather than removing race-based gameplay from a series known for racial conflicts.
The problem with that argument is that it’s defending lore that the combat team itself appears to care little about. THEY are the ones that created this mess, and relying on them to fix it feels like a lost cause.
I don’t want to be stuck with race passives that feel like they were picked at random rather then following the established lore. Lore attributes doled out like casino results is not worth defending. And if we are going to have racial passives that don’t follow the lore anyway, then let us pick them.
At least for me, I will be closer to the lore then the combat team will dare ever go.
Where are the worst lore vs. combat offenders for you, @BlueRaven ? I would be interested in your analysis.
I only ask because I looked into thinks for the Dunmer in a post in one of the previous incarnations of this discussion and found that soon after release, the Dunmeri traits that had existed in previous games were reasonably well represented. However, things had seemed to drift over time. I wouldn't be surprised if that drift occurred/accelerated after the people who had made the original choices about the game's design moved on to other projects/companies.
However, my analysis was based on mechanical traits rather than in-game text descriptions. Ever since completing it I have made a bit of a study of what the texts in each game have to say about nature of the Dunmeri people. Sadly, due to the amount of material (and my limited time) I have yet to draw conclusions on that score yet.
I have not considered the other races in such detail. That is why I am asking.
Either way, and as I said in my previous post, I'd only ever be interested in expanding the impact of the races in this game through embodying cultural structures and organisations rather than decreasing it in the way that has been described in the OP.
VaranisArano wrote: »“VaranisArano wrote: »No, and none of your counterarguments are particularly convincing.
Race and the racial tendencies to certain archetypes are a consistent part of the lore of The Elder Scrolls, even if the gameplay representations of that have changed from game to game. That's true over and above whatever special talents the player character have. Consider how distinct the naturally high magic skills of the Altmer make them from the warriors of Hammerfell throughout the TES series, or how the Khajiit propensity for stealth leads to a cultural stigma as Thieves that isn't shared by other races, even though we know that NPCs of every race can be gifted Thieves.
This is a roleplaying game. Part of TES roleplaying is playing as a member of a certain race, even if the racial bonuses aren't completely consistent from game to game. I don't know if you've ever played D&D, but this is basically the equivalent of telling the DM, "Hey, I want to play an Elf, but can I not take the stat plus/minuses that elves get, but instead take the extra feats humans get because I want them?"
It's also worth noting the impact of racial bonuses on roleplay. When ESO took away the stealth passive from Bosmer, who've traditionally been stealthy in the lore and past games, a number of players complained they felt there weren't playing a real bosmer anymore. That's a testament to the identity that these racial bonuses give to the roleplaying experience. Sure, one could say "Oh, well, now you can just steal the Khajiit stealth passive!" That's, ah, not really the point.
And "ends racism" is ridiculous in ESO when two alliances are literally based on their three races overcoming their cultural antipathy for each other. TES racism strongly informs the plot and worldbuilding of Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Skyrim. It's very much a part of the setting, worldbuilding, and the lore. Ironically, if you do away with the substantive racial differences entirely, you render TES racism solely about appearance, when it never has been before.
So while I can understand the gripes about how ESO races are implemented such that there's inevitably a BIS racial choice for certain builds and roles...the lore of The Elder Scrolls is such that there are substantive differences between the races that drive many of the conflicts shown in the games.
Finally, it's a surefire way to bias your poll when you preemptively tell the people who disagree with your counterarguments to "stop talking & be quiet for several days."
Your arguments about lore don’t sway me when the eso combat team gets the lore so wrong.
-Which race is supposed to be tanks? (Hint: Its not nords nor argonians.)
-Which race is supposed to be leather armor berserkers? (Hint: Its not orcs.)
-And which is the stealthiest race? (Hint: Its not kahjiit.) in fact in eso imperials have better stealth passives then Bosmers do.
Justify that in lore, in eso why are imperials better at stealth than Bosmers?
The weird part is the narrative half of the game gets it more or less right. But it’s like the combat team works on a different game with much different lore.
So it’s hard for me to sit here and support traditional hard coded racial traits when zos themselves appears to care so little about the lore behind them. Is getting the lore wrong solely the combat teams purview?
Make the racials more pliable if we are just playing fast and loose with the lore anyway, at least in will possibly break the race meta and make players a bit more happy.
I'm afraid my answer to that is to say that the combat team should pay more attention to the lore.
It's not to say "Whelp, since the combat team doesn't, we shouldn't either, and throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Your suggestion might make some players a bit more happy. I'm well aware this is not a matter where everyone will be satisfied. But at least my answer strengthens roleplaying identity and series lore, rather than removing race-based gameplay from a series known for racial conflicts.
The problem with that argument is that it’s defending lore that the combat team itself appears to care little about. THEY are the ones that created this mess, and relying on them to fix it feels like a lost cause.
I don’t want to be stuck with race passives that feel like they were picked at random rather then following the established lore. Lore attributes doled out like casino results is not worth defending. And if we are going to have racial passives that don’t follow the lore anyway, then let us pick them.
At least for me, I will be closer to the lore then the combat team will dare ever go.
Where are the worst lore vs. combat offenders for you, @BlueRaven ? I would be interested in your analysis.
I only ask because I looked into thinks for the Dunmer in a post in one of the previous incarnations of this discussion and found that soon after release, the Dunmeri traits that had existed in previous games were reasonably well represented. However, things had seemed to drift over time. I wouldn't be surprised if that drift occurred/accelerated after the people who had made the original choices about the game's design moved on to other projects/companies.
However, my analysis was based on mechanical traits rather than in-game text descriptions. Ever since completing it I have made a bit of a study of what the texts in each game have to say about nature of the Dunmeri people. Sadly, due to the amount of material (and my limited time) I have yet to draw conclusions on that score yet.
I have not considered the other races in such detail. That is why I am asking.
Either way, and as I said in my previous post, I'd only ever be interested in expanding the impact of the races in this game through embodying cultural structures and organisations rather than decreasing it in the way that has been described in the OP.
@Iluvrien Oh boy. This is a BIG answer so buckle up. This will be a long post and I brought receipts...
Let's begin with wood elves, not the biggest divergence but one that bugs me the most.
Here is how they are described in ES 1:
Notice "thieves".
ES 2:
Again their defining descriptive trait is thieves and archers.
ES 3:
Again "scouts, agents and thieves" and archers.
ES 4:
Once again scouts and thieves with archery.
And finally ES 5:
It is not listed here in the pic, but the skill bonuses are;
+10 Archery (25)
+5 Alchemy (20)
+5 Light Armor (20)
+5 Lockpicking (20)
+5 Pickpocket (20)
+5 Sneak (20)
Sneak and archery are defining characteristics of Bosmers. It is emphasized again and again. What do we have in ESO?
Just a nod to archery as they learn it faster, which is not that big of a deal. No bonuses towards archery other then that, in ESO. Orcs (Which I will discuss later) are better at archery in combat than bosmers in eso. And imperials, with their cost reduction bonus, are better at stealth. In fact that improved eyesight mechanic bosmers have in eso (a pvp only mechanic btw) makes them even WORSE at stealth in Cyrodiil as enemy players can see the sneak detection of a bosmer player BEFORE the bosmer player detects them. Basically, to those in stealth, it becomes a form of early detection which is just embarrassing.
Notice that the improved eyesight mechanic was never an attribute connected with them. Who had improved eyesight? Kahjiits.
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Khajiit_(Skyrim)
Night Eye – See in the dark for 60 seconds for an unlimited number of times per day.
(Not that I would inflict this awful passive on anyone else in eso.)
•••
Now Orcs, I am not going to go through the history of the passives in all the games they were playable, as like Wood elves they are fairly consistent. Instead let me just list what they had in oblivion and skyrim.
Oblivion;
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Orsimer_(Oblivion)
Skill bonuses
Armorer +10
Block +10
Blunt +10
Hand-to-Hand +5
Heavy Armor +10
And skyrim;
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Orsimer_(Skyrim)
Skill bonuses
+10 Heavy Armor (25)
+5 Block (20)
+5 Enchanting (20)
+5 One-Handed (20)
+5 Smithing (20)
+5 Two-Handed (20)
Special abilities
Berserker Rage – Take half damage and do double damage for 60 seconds. This does not apply to damage dealt by spells; however, it does stack with other physical damage buffs. While Berserker Rage is active, the screen turns red and a little blurry while sound dulls a bit.
Yeah orcs CAN be crazed warriors, but they are warriors that rely on heavy armor their clans create (blacksmithing) and also have histories with one handed and block as bonuses. Doesn't this sound like tank material? In ESO they are medium armor wearing berserkers.
•••
And who should have been the medium armor berserkers in eso?
Morrowind;
"Violence is an accepted and comfortable aspect of Nord culture; they cheerfully face battle with an ecstatic ferocity that shocks and appalls their enemies."
Nords in Skyrim;
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Nords_(Skyrim)
+10 Two-Handed (25)
+5 Block (20)
+5 Light Armor (20)
+5 One-Handed (20)
+5 Smithing (20)
+5 Speech (20)
Special abilities
Battle Cry: Target flees for 30 seconds.
Resist Frost: Your Nord blood gives you 50% resistance to frost.
"Popular usage
In past games, Nords typically fared well as warrior, barbarian, or scout characters. They retain this advantage because of their specialization in both one-handed and two-handed weapons as well as light armor."
There was no "medium" armor in skyrim, that function was called "light" there. So instead of a heavy bonus, they get the light one which is closer to their lore. And they are the best at two handed weapons, that should be the tip off at what their play style should be like.
In eso they are now a favored tank race which is not really what they are like.
•••
Who is also commonly regulated to tank (and healer) status in eso?
Argonians in Skyrim;
https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Argonians_(Skyrim)
Lockpicking +10
Light Armor +5
Alteration +5
Pickpocket +5
Restoration +5
Sneak +5
Special abilities
Histskin: Invoke the power of the Hist to recover health ten times faster for 60 seconds. Can only be used once per day.
Resist Disease: Your Argonian blood is 50% resistant to disease.
Waterbreathing: Your Argonian Lungs can breathe underwater.
Look at these bonuses,. I mean look at them!
Sneak, lockpicking, light armor (Which translates to medium armor in eso), pickpocketing... They are a race that is infamous with their connection to deadly assassins after all.
What is NOT there? Anything to do with potions! (Where did the ESO combat team pull that from? Can anyone answer me that?) And yes they have a restoration skill bonus, but it's not a defining trait for them. Their restoration bonus is the same as Altmer and Bretons.
Who had the best restoration skill bonus in skyrim? Imperials! So why did Argonians suddenly get the healing nod?
•••
Do you see where I am going here? It happens again and again in eso. Racial traits are mixed up or created whole cloth out of thin air. Bosmers are supposed to be thieves, but they get zero bonuses towards that. They are also supposed to be the best archers, where is the bonuses for that? Instead they are given a improved vision trait that seems more in line with guards, and is inspired from another races ability.
Orcs should be heavy armor clad warriors.
Nords should be medium armor wearing barbarians.
Argonians are assassins.
Imperials are healers...
It's like the eso combat team just put racials out there without a thought to the lore or the previous game mechanics.
(I also want to point out here that the actual in game (questing) lore is more or less correct, certainly within acceptable levels I feel. But the combat team is just completely in left field with many of the racial traits.)
So why should we as players treat the eso race passives as sacrosanct? In many ways they are just wrong to the lore (and are unbalanced in gameplay as well). So why defend what we have? Sure we can HOPE that someone in the dev team sits back and figures this out, and we get ACTUAL racial passives that are based on the ES franchise and that are also balanced. But how realistic is that?
So what does it matter if someone at zos chooses them or we do? If they are going to be wrong, let them be wrong but at least something we like.
So why should we as players treat the eso race passives as sacrosanct? In many ways they are just wrong to the lore (and are unbalanced in gameplay as well). So why defend what we have? Sure we can HOPE that someone in the dev team sits back and figures this out, and we get ACTUAL racial passives that are based on the ES franchise and that are also balanced. But how realistic is that?
So what does it matter if someone at zos chooses them or we do? If they are going to be wrong, let them be wrong but at least something we like.