starkerealm wrote: »

Aluneth wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

Aluneth wrote: »

You can read about her death in a lore book in Morrowind. Her closest advisor resurrected her brother (for the 28th time), and no one took her seriously when she cried out for help, as they invaded the throne room. Her brother might have been resurrected as a lich, 27 times prior to this, but he was a noble and honorable man according to the queen, so how could he be butchering her in the throne room? Nonsense.

Do you have the title of this book, or a link to the text?

I would love to give you a link, but I can't copy it because of the huge Crown Store advertisement that is in the way.

It's okay. Just show us, on the journal entry, where Sheogorath touched your Editic Memory entry.

swippy wrote: »

xeNNNNN wrote: »

lygerseye wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Radinyn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure queen wasn't in lore until ESO.

That is correct. There is no mention about the events of ESO in the previous games.

I believe one of the prevailing theories is that the events in ESO take place during a Dragon Break, so not only is history recorded inconsistently, it’s also incomplete.

In other words, nothing matters! LOL

That theory is mostly coming from people who don't want the stories in this game to be cannon. Its a rather biased theory and considering the psijic questline (not the summerset story) its incorrect regardless.

i disagree. i mean, it's true that some people don't want to consider ESO canon, but i don't think those are the same people proposing the Dragon Break theory. it's kind of necessary -- to preserve ESO's canonicity -- for something funny like that to be going on. like, with all the stuff going on on 6 megaservers, and then with the campaigns, like the fact that at any given moment it's possible for there to be 24 different Emperors simultaneously, or even just how i defeated Baron Montclair last year but i can walk directly past a guy in whose world he's still a serious threat... i think the fact that Dragon Breaks account for necessary gameplay weirdnesses perfectly and already exist in the lore, is, um, apparently i'm having trouble with sentence structure today but i hope my point still got through.

lygerseye wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Radinyn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure queen wasn't in lore until ESO.

That is correct. There is no mention about the events of ESO in the previous games.

I believe one of the prevailing theories is that the events in ESO take place during a Dragon Break, so not only is history recorded inconsistently, it’s also incomplete.

In other words, nothing matters! LOL

SilverIce58 wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

xeNNNNN wrote: »

lygerseye wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Radinyn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure queen wasn't in lore until ESO.

That is correct. There is no mention about the events of ESO in the previous games.

I believe one of the prevailing theories is that the events in ESO take place during a Dragon Break, so not only is history recorded inconsistently, it’s also incomplete.

In other words, nothing matters! LOL

That theory is mostly coming from people who don't want the stories in this game to be cannon. Its a rather biased theory and considering the psijic questline (not the summerset story) its incorrect regardless.

i disagree. i mean, it's true that some people don't want to consider ESO canon, but i don't think those are the same people proposing the Dragon Break theory. it's kind of necessary -- to preserve ESO's canonicity -- for something funny like that to be going on. like, with all the stuff going on on 6 megaservers, and then with the campaigns, like the fact that at any given moment it's possible for there to be 24 different Emperors simultaneously, or even just how i defeated Baron Montclair last year but i can walk directly past a guy in whose world he's still a serious threat... i think the fact that Dragon Breaks account for necessary gameplay weirdnesses perfectly and already exist in the lore, is, um, apparently i'm having trouble with sentence structure today but i hope my point still got through.

I think the only thing you can describe the Alliance storylines as is a Dragon Break. Each dlc/chapter takes place a year or more after the first 3 alliance/Coldharbour storylines. I mean, the only way for what happened in each alliance to be canon would be for it to be a Dragon Break. I mean, think about when you go to Coldharbour, there's a quest where you can release one of three prisoners to help you, with each prisoner being from each alliance. That prisoner wouldn't be there if that alliance's questline didn't hapen. (Angof the Gravesinger/Kinlady Estre/Thallik Wormfather)

Bruccius wrote: »

lygerseye wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Radinyn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure queen wasn't in lore until ESO.

That is correct. There is no mention about the events of ESO in the previous games.

I believe one of the prevailing theories is that the events in ESO take place during a Dragon Break, so not only is history recorded inconsistently, it’s also incomplete.

In other words, nothing matters! LOL

That's not how a Dragon Break works, though. Everything taking place within the Dragon Break is canon.

starkerealm wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

This is vital to keep in mind when discussing lore. Gameplay =/= Lore. As someone active on an Elder Scrolls wiki, I've come across these discussions quite a lot.

In most cases, this is a very good point.

Bruccius wrote: »

It's the same reason why we can carry a hundred or more greatswords in our inventory and still sprint along a field, it's meant to have an enjoyable game. MMO's always work with this gameplay feature (excluding important characters that die as part of a questline).

Your greatsword example is a good articulation for why gameplay and lore shouldn't always be taken as connected. A similar example would be quicksaving in Fallout.

However. We are talking about a game that has already gone out of its way to establish connections between the lore and the gameplay mechanics.

For example, respawning is something that, in most online games, can be taken as a contrivance for the purposes of furthering the mechanics. When you respawn in Call of Duty or reload an old save in Doom, there's no intrinsic idea that this is somehow bound into the nature of the world you're in. You're simply availing yourself of a mechanic designed to make the play experience more enjoyable (or, make it possible at all.)

That's not The Elder Scrolls.

When you die in ESO, and you revive, this isn't simply a contrivance to allow you to continue using the same character. It is an in game action that ties directly into the lore. Lore which is then used as part of the storyline, first as a background element, and later as a major plot point in the Alik'r and Bangkorai.

In fact, the entire conclusion of Bangkorai's main plot is the antagonist looking for a way to persistently rid themselves of an opponent who can come back from death an unlimited amount of times.

That's not gameplay divorced from lore, this is an example of gameplay mechanics being directly referenced in the lore. If you're paying attention, you can even glean a great deal more information from this, and other encounters scattered through the game, about the true nature of the player character in ESO.

When you engage in a textual analysis of a work, you need to examine it and determine what is, and what is not, relevant. Excising irrelevant components needs to be done carefully, as you can lose critical portions of the material in the process.

With video games, that actually includes examining the game mechanics, and determining which factors should be discarded (like your ability to carry 140 mauls in your pack, the other 60 are on your horse, not that it matters) and what should not.

Ordinarily, things like saving and loading are not reasonable considerations, as they simply serve a utility function to make the piece more managable, however, because of Kirkbride, The Elder Scrolls decided to grab a lot of mechanics that would normally be disregarded, and drag them in.

Bruccius wrote: »

I mean, if we look at TES V, for example, as far as time is concerned. Yeah, people will acknowledge some events. But the Civil War in the game? Everybody acts as if it never ended. Well, everybody except for the people directly involved.

The Civil War is a really complex topic because of development factors. Originally the entire system was supposed to be much more dynamic, however system limitations on the 360 severely curtailed the system. This included things like dynamic warfare, where both sides could attack and defend different holds. There were additional quest structures, including things like recruiting Giants to fight for the Stormcloaks. Dynamic economic changes as war conflicts destroyed mills and other infrastructure. Even the size of the battles had to be scaled back, as a 360 will hard crash if more than 50 NPCs are rendered at once (it might actually be lower than that), which resulted in tiny skirmishes being passed off as, "battles."

Cell limits also applied restrictions on how NPC AIs could be activated, and the version of the game that shipped had a nominal limit of 20 active AI participants at a time (as I recall.)

So, how much of that do we take as lore? Well, pretty much none of it, except for the knowledge that somehow the Stormcloaks could have rallied the Giants to fight for Skyrim.

There's similar things with Morrowind and Oblivion. Original plans for the former saw Dagoth forces pouring down out of Red Mountain and gradually conquering cities and occupying the map as the calendar ticked forward. I forget what systems Oblivion tried to implement that the 360 hardware couldn't handle. Something with the cities being destroyed, the way Kvatch was, I think, but, I'm not certain.

If Michael Kirkbride had decided to simply pick an outcome from Daggerfall and say, "yep, that's the ending that happened," we'd be fine. Instead he created this weird system, that, at the very least reflects the idea of multiple playthroughs all occurring simultaneously. This should sound familiar if you've played ESO.

You stand in The Gold Coast, during The Sweetroll Killer. Naryu and Raz both recognize you as a friend who's been through multiple adventures with each. The problem is, Raz is Dominion, and you're an Eye of the Queen, and Naryu is an assassin for the Morag Tong. She met you while you were working as an agent of the Pact. Here's the problem, both of these events were happening at the same time.

You played through one of their campaigns, Molag Bal invaded Tamriel, and was forced out, then you were sent back to before the invasion started and played through a completely, mutually exclusive, campaign. You know, pretty much the base line description of a Dragon Break. There is no possible way for Naryu and Raz to know you from your time in their alliance, when you were also working for the other one.

The Vestige landed in the water off the coast of Skyrim, and they landed in the water off the coast of Elswyr, and they landed in the water off the coast of Stros M'kai. All three of these events happened at the same moment, but only one can occur.

That's a Dragon Break, and the Psijic Order missed it.

VerboseQuips wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

This is vital to keep in mind when discussing lore. Gameplay =/= Lore. As someone active on an Elder Scrolls wiki, I've come across these discussions quite a lot.

In most cases, this is a very good point.

Bruccius wrote: »

It's the same reason why we can carry a hundred or more greatswords in our inventory and still sprint along a field, it's meant to have an enjoyable game. MMO's always work with this gameplay feature (excluding important characters that die as part of a questline).

Your greatsword example is a good articulation for why gameplay and lore shouldn't always be taken as connected. A similar example would be quicksaving in Fallout.

However. We are talking about a game that has already gone out of its way to establish connections between the lore and the gameplay mechanics.

For example, respawning is something that, in most online games, can be taken as a contrivance for the purposes of furthering the mechanics. When you respawn in Call of Duty or reload an old save in Doom, there's no intrinsic idea that this is somehow bound into the nature of the world you're in. You're simply availing yourself of a mechanic designed to make the play experience more enjoyable (or, make it possible at all.)

That's not The Elder Scrolls.

When you die in ESO, and you revive, this isn't simply a contrivance to allow you to continue using the same character. It is an in game action that ties directly into the lore. Lore which is then used as part of the storyline, first as a background element, and later as a major plot point in the Alik'r and Bangkorai.

In fact, the entire conclusion of Bangkorai's main plot is the antagonist looking for a way to persistently rid themselves of an opponent who can come back from death an unlimited amount of times.

That's not gameplay divorced from lore, this is an example of gameplay mechanics being directly referenced in the lore. If you're paying attention, you can even glean a great deal more information from this, and other encounters scattered through the game, about the true nature of the player character in ESO.

When you engage in a textual analysis of a work, you need to examine it and determine what is, and what is not, relevant. Excising irrelevant components needs to be done carefully, as you can lose critical portions of the material in the process.

With video games, that actually includes examining the game mechanics, and determining which factors should be discarded (like your ability to carry 140 mauls in your pack, the other 60 are on your horse, not that it matters) and what should not.

Ordinarily, things like saving and loading are not reasonable considerations, as they simply serve a utility function to make the piece more managable, however, because of Kirkbride, The Elder Scrolls decided to grab a lot of mechanics that would normally be disregarded, and drag them in.

Bruccius wrote: »

I mean, if we look at TES V, for example, as far as time is concerned. Yeah, people will acknowledge some events. But the Civil War in the game? Everybody acts as if it never ended. Well, everybody except for the people directly involved.

The Civil War is a really complex topic because of development factors. Originally the entire system was supposed to be much more dynamic, however system limitations on the 360 severely curtailed the system. This included things like dynamic warfare, where both sides could attack and defend different holds. There were additional quest structures, including things like recruiting Giants to fight for the Stormcloaks. Dynamic economic changes as war conflicts destroyed mills and other infrastructure. Even the size of the battles had to be scaled back, as a 360 will hard crash if more than 50 NPCs are rendered at once (it might actually be lower than that), which resulted in tiny skirmishes being passed off as, "battles."

Cell limits also applied restrictions on how NPC AIs could be activated, and the version of the game that shipped had a nominal limit of 20 active AI participants at a time (as I recall.)

So, how much of that do we take as lore? Well, pretty much none of it, except for the knowledge that somehow the Stormcloaks could have rallied the Giants to fight for Skyrim.

There's similar things with Morrowind and Oblivion. Original plans for the former saw Dagoth forces pouring down out of Red Mountain and gradually conquering cities and occupying the map as the calendar ticked forward. I forget what systems Oblivion tried to implement that the 360 hardware couldn't handle. Something with the cities being destroyed, the way Kvatch was, I think, but, I'm not certain.

If Michael Kirkbride had decided to simply pick an outcome from Daggerfall and say, "yep, that's the ending that happened," we'd be fine. Instead he created this weird system, that, at the very least reflects the idea of multiple playthroughs all occurring simultaneously. This should sound familiar if you've played ESO.

You stand in The Gold Coast, during The Sweetroll Killer. Naryu and Raz both recognize you as a friend who's been through multiple adventures with each. The problem is, Raz is Dominion, and you're an Eye of the Queen, and Naryu is an assassin for the Morag Tong. She met you while you were working as an agent of the Pact. Here's the problem, both of these events were happening at the same time.

You played through one of their campaigns, Molag Bal invaded Tamriel, and was forced out, then you were sent back to before the invasion started and played through a completely, mutually exclusive, campaign. You know, pretty much the base line description of a Dragon Break. There is no possible way for Naryu and Raz to know you from your time in their alliance, when you were also working for the other one.

The Vestige landed in the water off the coast of Skyrim, and they landed in the water off the coast of Elswyr, and they landed in the water off the coast of Stros M'kai. All three of these events happened at the same moment, but only one can occur.

That's a Dragon Break, and the Psijic Order missed it.

Something that could also be looked at, is Shadow Magic. This type of magic makes it possible to merge different possible versions of someone, as Azra Nightwielder did for himself.

Also, there is something wierdly similar in "merging the three possible selves" of the player during the Cadwell quests, and merging the three shards of a sky prism, I wonder if it is pure coincidence or not.

crashen17b14_ESO wrote: »

Honestly, there is nothing saying that the alliance storylines can't be going on at different times, so long as it's before you do the Guild and Main quest lines. Since One Tamriel, you don't have to drop into the ocean and be fished out to start the faction quests. I've played a few characters through where I completely skipped Coldharbour/Vestige questline until later. I just played through Covenant, then Pact, then Dominion, then after all that went back and did the Fighter's Guild and Main Quests.

The story was still pretty cohesive, if you choose to believe your character isn't REALLY a member of any alliance, and is just a random mercenary adventurer with a good set of morals. Even the references to your soulless nature as a Vestige, and the handful of times where that actually lets you accomplish things (like shrugging off a mage's mind control or crossing a barrier that blocks souls or whatever) make sense if your character happens to be a vampire.

starkerealm wrote: »

VerboseQuips wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

This is vital to keep in mind when discussing lore. Gameplay =/= Lore. As someone active on an Elder Scrolls wiki, I've come across these discussions quite a lot.

In most cases, this is a very good point.

Bruccius wrote: »

It's the same reason why we can carry a hundred or more greatswords in our inventory and still sprint along a field, it's meant to have an enjoyable game. MMO's always work with this gameplay feature (excluding important characters that die as part of a questline).

Your greatsword example is a good articulation for why gameplay and lore shouldn't always be taken as connected. A similar example would be quicksaving in Fallout.

However. We are talking about a game that has already gone out of its way to establish connections between the lore and the gameplay mechanics.

For example, respawning is something that, in most online games, can be taken as a contrivance for the purposes of furthering the mechanics. When you respawn in Call of Duty or reload an old save in Doom, there's no intrinsic idea that this is somehow bound into the nature of the world you're in. You're simply availing yourself of a mechanic designed to make the play experience more enjoyable (or, make it possible at all.)

That's not The Elder Scrolls.

When you die in ESO, and you revive, this isn't simply a contrivance to allow you to continue using the same character. It is an in game action that ties directly into the lore. Lore which is then used as part of the storyline, first as a background element, and later as a major plot point in the Alik'r and Bangkorai.

In fact, the entire conclusion of Bangkorai's main plot is the antagonist looking for a way to persistently rid themselves of an opponent who can come back from death an unlimited amount of times.

That's not gameplay divorced from lore, this is an example of gameplay mechanics being directly referenced in the lore. If you're paying attention, you can even glean a great deal more information from this, and other encounters scattered through the game, about the true nature of the player character in ESO.

When you engage in a textual analysis of a work, you need to examine it and determine what is, and what is not, relevant. Excising irrelevant components needs to be done carefully, as you can lose critical portions of the material in the process.

With video games, that actually includes examining the game mechanics, and determining which factors should be discarded (like your ability to carry 140 mauls in your pack, the other 60 are on your horse, not that it matters) and what should not.

Ordinarily, things like saving and loading are not reasonable considerations, as they simply serve a utility function to make the piece more managable, however, because of Kirkbride, The Elder Scrolls decided to grab a lot of mechanics that would normally be disregarded, and drag them in.

Bruccius wrote: »

I mean, if we look at TES V, for example, as far as time is concerned. Yeah, people will acknowledge some events. But the Civil War in the game? Everybody acts as if it never ended. Well, everybody except for the people directly involved.

The Civil War is a really complex topic because of development factors. Originally the entire system was supposed to be much more dynamic, however system limitations on the 360 severely curtailed the system. This included things like dynamic warfare, where both sides could attack and defend different holds. There were additional quest structures, including things like recruiting Giants to fight for the Stormcloaks. Dynamic economic changes as war conflicts destroyed mills and other infrastructure. Even the size of the battles had to be scaled back, as a 360 will hard crash if more than 50 NPCs are rendered at once (it might actually be lower than that), which resulted in tiny skirmishes being passed off as, "battles."

Cell limits also applied restrictions on how NPC AIs could be activated, and the version of the game that shipped had a nominal limit of 20 active AI participants at a time (as I recall.)

So, how much of that do we take as lore? Well, pretty much none of it, except for the knowledge that somehow the Stormcloaks could have rallied the Giants to fight for Skyrim.

There's similar things with Morrowind and Oblivion. Original plans for the former saw Dagoth forces pouring down out of Red Mountain and gradually conquering cities and occupying the map as the calendar ticked forward. I forget what systems Oblivion tried to implement that the 360 hardware couldn't handle. Something with the cities being destroyed, the way Kvatch was, I think, but, I'm not certain.

If Michael Kirkbride had decided to simply pick an outcome from Daggerfall and say, "yep, that's the ending that happened," we'd be fine. Instead he created this weird system, that, at the very least reflects the idea of multiple playthroughs all occurring simultaneously. This should sound familiar if you've played ESO.

You stand in The Gold Coast, during The Sweetroll Killer. Naryu and Raz both recognize you as a friend who's been through multiple adventures with each. The problem is, Raz is Dominion, and you're an Eye of the Queen, and Naryu is an assassin for the Morag Tong. She met you while you were working as an agent of the Pact. Here's the problem, both of these events were happening at the same time.

You played through one of their campaigns, Molag Bal invaded Tamriel, and was forced out, then you were sent back to before the invasion started and played through a completely, mutually exclusive, campaign. You know, pretty much the base line description of a Dragon Break. There is no possible way for Naryu and Raz to know you from your time in their alliance, when you were also working for the other one.

The Vestige landed in the water off the coast of Skyrim, and they landed in the water off the coast of Elswyr, and they landed in the water off the coast of Stros M'kai. All three of these events happened at the same moment, but only one can occur.

That's a Dragon Break, and the Psijic Order missed it.

Something that could also be looked at, is Shadow Magic. This type of magic makes it possible to merge different possible versions of someone, as Azra Nightwielder did for himself.

Also, there is something wierdly similar in "merging the three possible selves" of the player during the Cadwell quests, and merging the three shards of a sky prism, I wonder if it is pure coincidence or not.

If it was this simple, you'd run into your shadows in Messages from Across Tamriel and on Stirk. We do run across the characters holding the alliances together in your absence with those quests. It's Naryu, Raz, and Copper.

adriant1978 wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

Copper?

Copper Dariah

The DC equivalent of Raz. She has a blink and you'll miss it walk on part in Messages Across Tamriel. I rather wish we'd seen more of her and the Ring of Daggers.

crashen17b14_ESO wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

crashen17b14_ESO wrote: »

Honestly, there is nothing saying that the alliance storylines can't be going on at different times, so long as it's before you do the Guild and Main quest lines. Since One Tamriel, you don't have to drop into the ocean and be fished out to start the faction quests. I've played a few characters through where I completely skipped Coldharbour/Vestige questline until later. I just played through Covenant, then Pact, then Dominion, then after all that went back and did the Fighter's Guild and Main Quests.

The story was still pretty cohesive, if you choose to believe your character isn't REALLY a member of any alliance, and is just a random mercenary adventurer with a good set of morals. Even the references to your soulless nature as a Vestige, and the handful of times where that actually lets you accomplish things (like shrugging off a mage's mind control or crossing a barrier that blocks souls or whatever) make sense if your character happens to be a vampire.

Actually, before Tamriel Unlimited, when you finished the main quest while doing your faction storyline, Cadwell says that by using meridia's power he can send you back in time or something of the sort into another faction to experience their storyline. Before Tamriel Unlimited, the whole "each alliance's storyline happening at the same time is a Dragon Break" actually made more sense. Once it was added that people can go anywhere at anytime and not follow the storyline in a coherent manner, is when people got this notion that "oh, well, I didn't do the main storyline until I finished all three alliances so it's not a Dragon Break" or some such theory.

Having been playing since early PC beta, I am aware of how it was before One Tamriel and the veteran zones. But if you disregard one throwaway line that makes very little sense about time-traveling alternate histories where your relationships with people persists across timelines, and chalk it up to Cadwell being completely insane, it's not so unreasonable to think the three faction's storylines are happening at different times.

adriant1978 wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

Copper?

Copper Dariah

The DC equivalent of Raz. She has a blink and you'll miss it walk on part in Messages Across Tamriel. I rather wish we'd seen more of her and the Ring of Daggers.

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

crashen17b14_ESO wrote: »

Honestly, there is nothing saying that the alliance storylines can't be going on at different times, so long as it's before you do the Guild and Main quest lines. Since One Tamriel, you don't have to drop into the ocean and be fished out to start the faction quests. I've played a few characters through where I completely skipped Coldharbour/Vestige questline until later. I just played through Covenant, then Pact, then Dominion, then after all that went back and did the Fighter's Guild and Main Quests.

The story was still pretty cohesive, if you choose to believe your character isn't REALLY a member of any alliance, and is just a random mercenary adventurer with a good set of morals. Even the references to your soulless nature as a Vestige, and the handful of times where that actually lets you accomplish things (like shrugging off a mage's mind control or crossing a barrier that blocks souls or whatever) make sense if your character happens to be a vampire.

Actually, before Tamriel Unlimited, when you finished the main quest while doing your faction storyline, Cadwell says that by using meridia's power he can send you back in time or something of the sort into another faction to experience their storyline. Before Tamriel Unlimited, the whole "each alliance's storyline happening at the same time is a Dragon Break" actually made more sense. Once it was added that people can go anywhere at anytime and not follow the storyline in a coherent manner, is when people got this notion that "oh, well, I didn't do the main storyline until I finished all three alliances so it's not a Dragon Break" or some such theory.

I really don't like the concept of "Dragon Breaks". Bethesda invented them to cover up lore inconsistencies between games and to be able to more easily retcon aspects of the series. But at the end of the day, they're just a cop-out. I wish they'd focus on good, coherent writing from the start.

The TES series hasn't been out long enough to need something like this. It's different for comics that have been out for over 70 years and have had multiple writers contrbute to the story. We're just taking about 6 mainline games here (if you include ESO) and a few minor side games. It shouldn't be that hard to keep a coherent plot going.

SilverIce58 wrote: »

It's not like every game that comes out uses a Dragon Break.