jkemmery wrote: »

Bacon wrote: »

How did people not get their fill of dragons from Skyrim. They were everywhere. You couldn't go to winterhold without a dragon showing up almost every time you were there. Yes, I had fun killing the first 100 dragons I came across. It got a little old after that. I killed enough dragons to supply all of Tamriel with dragon armor. I have definitely had enough of dragons to last another 1000 years.

Some dragons were still around during this time but they were not seen or, if they were, those that did see them didn't live long enough to report it. ESO does not need dragons and everyone just needs to let it go. If you want dragons, go back to Skyrim.

Why tell someone to go back to Skyrim? I'm not saying there should be hundreds of dragons roaming the skies like in Skyrim. What I am saying is that it's a bit repressive to have to please all of you lore junkies any time someone makes a suggestion. News flash, IT'S FICTION! Moreover, it's fiction in a GAME series. Why does it matter so much? How come any time anyone makes a suggestion about this or that that isn't "lore friendly" they get jumped all over. WTF? Do you really take it that seriously? It's freaking cultish among some of you.

People care about the lore because the lore in the Elder Scrolls games is well established, and very rich. For many of us the lore is a big part of why we play and enjoy the game - maybe even the biggest factor. Newsflash for you: different people like different things. Your post is basically the equivalent of saying "stop liking things that I don't like!"

There are some dragons alive in lore. Doesn't mean EVERY game needs to have dragons. It would be like buying the same game over and over every year.

Scyantific wrote: »

Go play Skyrim if you want dragons.

soo angry lol.

jkemmery wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

Bacon wrote: »

How did people not get their fill of dragons from Skyrim. They were everywhere. You couldn't go to winterhold without a dragon showing up almost every time you were there. Yes, I had fun killing the first 100 dragons I came across. It got a little old after that. I killed enough dragons to supply all of Tamriel with dragon armor. I have definitely had enough of dragons to last another 1000 years.

Some dragons were still around during this time but they were not seen or, if they were, those that did see them didn't live long enough to report it. ESO does not need dragons and everyone just needs to let it go. If you want dragons, go back to Skyrim.

Why tell someone to go back to Skyrim? I'm not saying there should be hundreds of dragons roaming the skies like in Skyrim. What I am saying is that it's a bit repressive to have to please all of you lore junkies any time someone makes a suggestion. News flash, IT'S FICTION! Moreover, it's fiction in a GAME series. Why does it matter so much? How come any time anyone makes a suggestion about this or that that isn't "lore friendly" they get jumped all over. WTF? Do you really take it that seriously? It's freaking cultish among some of you.

People care about the lore because the lore in the Elder Scrolls games is well established, and very rich. For many of us the lore is a big part of why we play and enjoy the game - maybe even the biggest factor. Newsflash for you: different people like different things. Your post is basically the equivalent of saying "stop liking things that I don't like!"

Sorry if I offended you. I'm not saying don't like it, but to me it just seems that the enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore. I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of the people who play the game day in and day out are NOT that concerned with whether or not something is "lore friendly" but rather if it will increase their enjoyment of the game. Can't something be flexible? Where does the lore come from? Writings, of historians, correct? Humans (as well as Mer and Beastfolk) are fallible and can make mistakes. Can't deviations from established lore be easily explained this way? We know for a fact that many early historians were wildly inaccurate. All I'm saying is I don't understand the obsession over lore, and it's a bit draconic if you ask me to insist that everyone else and the game itself MUST follow the lore, when the lore is both fictional, and can be reasonably assumed to be incorrect in the first place.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. You've missed the point entirely here though: "enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore." It doesn't. For a large portion of Elder Scrolls fans the lore is synonymous with enjoyment of the game. Without the lore the enjoyment of the game goes down immensely. Without the lore it's just a generic fantasy game like all the others on the market. You clearly don't understand that aspect of it, though, because clearly that's not what increases your enjoyment of the game.

You're entirely right about the fact that much of the lore can and should be somewhat flexible, though, because it all comes from in-universe sources which are, by nature, fallible. Anyone who's ever studied history at anything beyond a basic high school level should be familiar with the importance of understanding the limitations & biases of your sources, and should agree with you on that point. In fact, there are lore books in Elder Scrolls games that directly (and intentionally) contradict each other. That's part of what makes it a largely believable setting, and it can be used to explain a lot of minor inconsistencies. Something that's totally at odds with the lore, though, can hardly be explained away as easily as that, and the more times you have to rely on fallible lore to explain things, the worse the setting gets. It's a fine technique when used sparingly, or when you only hint that certain pieces of the lore might be somewhat wrong rather than outright proving them wrong, but too much of it destroys the suspension of disbelief.

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

Bacon wrote: »

How did people not get their fill of dragons from Skyrim. They were everywhere. You couldn't go to winterhold without a dragon showing up almost every time you were there. Yes, I had fun killing the first 100 dragons I came across. It got a little old after that. I killed enough dragons to supply all of Tamriel with dragon armor. I have definitely had enough of dragons to last another 1000 years.

Some dragons were still around during this time but they were not seen or, if they were, those that did see them didn't live long enough to report it. ESO does not need dragons and everyone just needs to let it go. If you want dragons, go back to Skyrim.

Why tell someone to go back to Skyrim? I'm not saying there should be hundreds of dragons roaming the skies like in Skyrim. What I am saying is that it's a bit repressive to have to please all of you lore junkies any time someone makes a suggestion. News flash, IT'S FICTION! Moreover, it's fiction in a GAME series. Why does it matter so much? How come any time anyone makes a suggestion about this or that that isn't "lore friendly" they get jumped all over. WTF? Do you really take it that seriously? It's freaking cultish among some of you.

People care about the lore because the lore in the Elder Scrolls games is well established, and very rich. For many of us the lore is a big part of why we play and enjoy the game - maybe even the biggest factor. Newsflash for you: different people like different things. Your post is basically the equivalent of saying "stop liking things that I don't like!"

Sorry if I offended you. I'm not saying don't like it, but to me it just seems that the enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore. I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of the people who play the game day in and day out are NOT that concerned with whether or not something is "lore friendly" but rather if it will increase their enjoyment of the game. Can't something be flexible? Where does the lore come from? Writings, of historians, correct? Humans (as well as Mer and Beastfolk) are fallible and can make mistakes. Can't deviations from established lore be easily explained this way? We know for a fact that many early historians were wildly inaccurate. All I'm saying is I don't understand the obsession over lore, and it's a bit draconic if you ask me to insist that everyone else and the game itself MUST follow the lore, when the lore is both fictional, and can be reasonably assumed to be incorrect in the first place.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. You've missed the point entirely here though: "enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore." It doesn't. For a large portion of Elder Scrolls fans the lore is synonymous with enjoyment of the game. Without the lore the enjoyment of the game goes down immensely. Without the lore it's just a generic fantasy game like all the others on the market. You clearly don't understand that aspect of it, though, because clearly that's not what increases your enjoyment of the game.

You're entirely right about the fact that much of the lore can and should be somewhat flexible, though, because it all comes from in-universe sources which are, by nature, fallible. Anyone who's ever studied history at anything beyond a basic high school level should be familiar with the importance of understanding the limitations & biases of your sources, and should agree with you on that point. In fact, there are lore books in Elder Scrolls games that directly (and intentionally) contradict each other. That's part of what makes it a largely believable setting, and it can be used to explain a lot of minor inconsistencies. Something that's totally at odds with the lore, though, can hardly be explained away as easily as that, and the more times you have to rely on fallible lore to explain things, the worse the setting gets. It's a fine technique when used sparingly, or when you only hint that certain pieces of the lore might be somewhat wrong rather than outright proving them wrong, but too much of it destroys the suspension of disbelief.

For me, so much of this game, as well as any fantasy game really, clearly defies reason as I have no belief in it's possibility whatsoever and therefore no possibility of disbelief to suspend. I mean, wayshrines, walking & talking cats and lizards, horses and other mounts that are summoned out of thin air then disappear as soon as you dismount, breathing fire, calling lightning bolts out of the sky. I could go on for paragraphs. If those don't destroy your suspension of disbelief but a few dragon bosses do ... I don't know what to say, because I can't really comprehend that mindset.

If not actual Dragons, Molag Bal could send Titans from the many area where the sky has teared up. pretty sure those big holes where anchors come out are big enough for one of em (maybe more, but a Titan invasion is probably not a good idea for the possible lags) It's not like our Molag pal never sent a Titan on Tamriel at some point.

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

Bacon wrote: »

How did people not get their fill of dragons from Skyrim. They were everywhere. You couldn't go to winterhold without a dragon showing up almost every time you were there. Yes, I had fun killing the first 100 dragons I came across. It got a little old after that. I killed enough dragons to supply all of Tamriel with dragon armor. I have definitely had enough of dragons to last another 1000 years.

Some dragons were still around during this time but they were not seen or, if they were, those that did see them didn't live long enough to report it. ESO does not need dragons and everyone just needs to let it go. If you want dragons, go back to Skyrim.

Why tell someone to go back to Skyrim? I'm not saying there should be hundreds of dragons roaming the skies like in Skyrim. What I am saying is that it's a bit repressive to have to please all of you lore junkies any time someone makes a suggestion. News flash, IT'S FICTION! Moreover, it's fiction in a GAME series. Why does it matter so much? How come any time anyone makes a suggestion about this or that that isn't "lore friendly" they get jumped all over. WTF? Do you really take it that seriously? It's freaking cultish among some of you.

People care about the lore because the lore in the Elder Scrolls games is well established, and very rich. For many of us the lore is a big part of why we play and enjoy the game - maybe even the biggest factor. Newsflash for you: different people like different things. Your post is basically the equivalent of saying "stop liking things that I don't like!"

Sorry if I offended you. I'm not saying don't like it, but to me it just seems that the enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore. I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of the people who play the game day in and day out are NOT that concerned with whether or not something is "lore friendly" but rather if it will increase their enjoyment of the game. Can't something be flexible? Where does the lore come from? Writings, of historians, correct? Humans (as well as Mer and Beastfolk) are fallible and can make mistakes. Can't deviations from established lore be easily explained this way? We know for a fact that many early historians were wildly inaccurate. All I'm saying is I don't understand the obsession over lore, and it's a bit draconic if you ask me to insist that everyone else and the game itself MUST follow the lore, when the lore is both fictional, and can be reasonably assumed to be incorrect in the first place.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. You've missed the point entirely here though: "enjoyment of the game should not take second place to lore." It doesn't. For a large portion of Elder Scrolls fans the lore is synonymous with enjoyment of the game. Without the lore the enjoyment of the game goes down immensely. Without the lore it's just a generic fantasy game like all the others on the market. You clearly don't understand that aspect of it, though, because clearly that's not what increases your enjoyment of the game.

You're entirely right about the fact that much of the lore can and should be somewhat flexible, though, because it all comes from in-universe sources which are, by nature, fallible. Anyone who's ever studied history at anything beyond a basic high school level should be familiar with the importance of understanding the limitations & biases of your sources, and should agree with you on that point. In fact, there are lore books in Elder Scrolls games that directly (and intentionally) contradict each other. That's part of what makes it a largely believable setting, and it can be used to explain a lot of minor inconsistencies. Something that's totally at odds with the lore, though, can hardly be explained away as easily as that, and the more times you have to rely on fallible lore to explain things, the worse the setting gets. It's a fine technique when used sparingly, or when you only hint that certain pieces of the lore might be somewhat wrong rather than outright proving them wrong, but too much of it destroys the suspension of disbelief.

For me, so much of this game, as well as any fantasy game really, clearly defies reason as I have no belief in it's possibility whatsoever and therefore no possibility of disbelief to suspend. I mean, wayshrines, walking & talking cats and lizards, horses and other mounts that are summoned out of thin air then disappear as soon as you dismount, breathing fire, calling lightning bolts out of the sky. I could go on for paragraphs. If those don't destroy your suspension of disbelief but a few dragon bosses do ... I don't know what to say, because I can't really comprehend that mindset.

You're not very familiar with how fiction works, are you? Suspension of disbelief has nothing at all to do with whether something is actually possible in the real world (unless the setting is the real world). It has everything to do with whether it is internally consistent in the fictional setting.

My understanding is this definition from Webster's online "a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment".

I suppose it depends on how you look at that, but, to me, it's that if something seems plausible, then I can buy in to it. If not, it's fantasy and I just enjoy it for what it is. Once I reach that point "internal consistencies" are meaningless, like ESO.

Only, only, only on the tense that it is done correctly.
A few dragons (a few!) I wouldn't mind seeing.
Much more than that would be too lore breaking.
A big NO for Dragon mounts, but a flying deadra would be acceptable.

I could see some blades questline to go slay a dragon or two.
Or the option of helping the Dragon.

UrQuan wrote: »

You're not very familiar with how fiction works, are you? Suspension of disbelief has nothing at all to do with whether something is actually possible in the real world (unless the setting is the real world). It has everything to do with whether it is internally consistent in the fictional setting.

Also the literary meaning of "realistic" as I recall. While the cinimatic meaning of "realistic" refers to a specific style of film making, and has nothing to do with something behaving like it would in the real world.

UTG_Zilla wrote: »

This isn't skyrim

**** off with the dragons

Don't be rude.

This is a fantasy game.
And dragons are core to many high fantasy stories.

What do you have against dragons anyway?

I don't know if we'll see dragons, plural, but I am curious as to know what Alduin is doing right about now. I mean, according to lore, he should be flying about, even if we don't get a chance to fight him.

It's funny. Every time I leave Riften, I expect a roar.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with anyone here I just wish to raise a point. which may not actually be accurate but it's what I heard and reading this thread I got curious.
But I read somewhere on these threads a few days after the AUS PS4 release that the events of ESO happen within a "dragon break" which I'd never heard of but soon learned that it is an elder scrolls version of an alternate time line.

Being that it's an alternate timeline, couldn't anything really happen from here on out?

UrQuan wrote: »

Noomfy-Mop wrote: »

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with anyone here I just wish to raise a point. which may not actually be accurate but it's what I heard and reading this thread I got curious.
But I read somewhere on these threads a few days after the AUS PS4 release that the events of ESO happen within a "dragon break" which I'd never heard of but soon learned that it is an elder scrolls version of an alternate time line.

Being that it's an alternate timeline, couldn't anything really happen from here on out?

That's not exactly what a dragon break is, and the difference between a dragon break and an actual alternate timeline is the reason why you can't explain away major breaks with lore by saying "it's a dragon break". To illustrate what I mean by that, the dragon break that we probably know the most about is the Warp in the West. So what was the result of the Warp in the West? There were multiple "alternate timelines" that had different people end up in control of the Numidium, with drastically different results, but unlike the way that works in most fiction, in the Elder Scrolls timeline all of them happened and everyone knows that they all happened.

So at the end of the dragon break there's still only one timeline, as all of the alternates merge back together. So certain things can be explained by a dragon break (like confusion over which alliance was winning the war at which time, who was emperor when, etc), but something major couldn't be explained by it, because people in games set in the future (compared to ESO - so any other TES game) would know that it happened, even if it was an alternate timeline.

Also, I haven't ever seen anything that confirms that ESO takes place during a dragon break. Unless there's a source I'm unaware of, it's just a fan theory. It's a pretty good theory that makes a ton of sense (more sense than assuming that there isn't a dragon break going on - especially considering the details of Molag Bal's schemes), but still just a fan theory.

Yup.

Scyantific wrote: »

Dragon Breaks are basically a fancy way of bringing in a Deus Ex Machina.

Actually they're a way of having a sequel to Daggerfall that didn't invalidate whichever ending people chose when playing Daggerfall...

If this game was made before Skyrim, these topics would be slim to none