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.

SilverIce58 wrote: »

PrayingSeraph 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.

Can you point to explicit evidence that the events of each alliance zone have to happen exactly the same time as their counterparts? Instead of say, happening in close succession with eachother, ie doing Glenumbra>Auridon>Stonefalls>Stormhaven>Grahtwood>Deshaan etc.

We need to keep in mind that being able to play other alliances via cadwell gold and silver was something added after the game launched, and thus it could ge argued that any instances of contradictions between playing alliances were simply the result of ZoS not going back to script and modifying it for the new cadwell gold and silver options.

You are right that some gameplay mechanics have lore explanation, but we cant objectively assume that just because a couple do, the rest of gameplay does as well.

Well, can you provide explicit evidence that the events didn't happen at the same time?

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

PrayingSeraph 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.

Can you point to explicit evidence that the events of each alliance zone have to happen exactly the same time as their counterparts? Instead of say, happening in close succession with eachother, ie doing Glenumbra>Auridon>Stonefalls>Stormhaven>Grahtwood>Deshaan etc.

We need to keep in mind that being able to play other alliances via cadwell gold and silver was something added after the game launched, and thus it could ge argued that any instances of contradictions between playing alliances were simply the result of ZoS not going back to script and modifying it for the new cadwell gold and silver options.

You are right that some gameplay mechanics have lore explanation, but we cant objectively assume that just because a couple do, the rest of gameplay does as well.

Well, can you provide explicit evidence that the events didn't happen at the same time?

The burden of proof is not on me. I was asking him a question based on his statements. At best you could argue objectively fairly well that the three alliance stories were a small dragonbreak focused on the vestige thanks to the powers of Meridia that ends after cadwells gold, but the theory on these forums that ESO in general is a dragon break is a huge claim and one I have seen little actual evidence for.

Shgon_Dunstan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

PrayingSeraph 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.

Can you point to explicit evidence that the events of each alliance zone have to happen exactly the same time as their counterparts? Instead of say, happening in close succession with eachother, ie doing Glenumbra>Auridon>Stonefalls>Stormhaven>Grahtwood>Deshaan etc.

We need to keep in mind that being able to play other alliances via cadwell gold and silver was something added after the game launched, and thus it could ge argued that any instances of contradictions between playing alliances were simply the result of ZoS not going back to script and modifying it for the new cadwell gold and silver options.

You are right that some gameplay mechanics have lore explanation, but we cant objectively assume that just because a couple do, the rest of gameplay does as well.

Well, can you provide explicit evidence that the events didn't happen at the same time?

The burden of proof is not on me. I was asking him a question based on his statements. At best you could argue objectively fairly well that the three alliance stories were a small dragonbreak focused on the vestige thanks to the powers of Meridia that ends after cadwells gold, but the theory on these forums that ESO in general is a dragon break is a huge claim and one I have seen little actual evidence for.

Akatosh, not Meridia. Akatosh is the dragon who breaks, Meridia is "just" a Daedric prince that can sometimes be a Divine when she's so inclined.

Technically a Magna Ge. An Et'Ada that fled Mundus when they realized what Lorkhan planed.

Which means that for all of hanging with them, she would technically be a touch weaker then a "true" Daedric Prince as a little bit of her power was already put into Mundus before she fled.

... That is, of course, assuming that all of that isn't just BS. Daedric Princes are kind of known to lie out their ass. Which devs in turn love to use to retcon. I mean, just look at the whole Malacath/Trinimac issue.

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.

starkerealm wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

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

It kinda is, though. The irony is, I don't think that's intentional.

Which others? I literally can't think of any others.

Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO. Though, like I said, I don't think that's intentional. More a byproduct of how the Dragon Breaks were written up.

Daggerfall is the only one of those that canonically has a Dragon Break, though it remains to be seen how future games will resolve Skyrim's Civil War.

It's probably more accurate to say that Daggerfall is the only one of those with a documented Dragon Break. This is a small, but important distinction.

The entire discussion runs up against a basic dilemma. The Dragon Breaks were created by Kirkbride (and possibly Kurt Kuhlmann) to deal with the multiple endings to Daggerfall. At its core, the Daggerfall Dragon Break is the product of players making different choices and having different outcomes while playing TES2. This isn't speculation by the way, this is, or was, the rational behind creating the concept during the development of Morrowind, as reported by the loremasters on the original Bethesda boards.

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

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

It kinda is, though. The irony is, I don't think that's intentional.

Which others? I literally can't think of any others.

Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO. Though, like I said, I don't think that's intentional. More a byproduct of how the Dragon Breaks were written up.

Daggerfall is the only one of those that canonically has a Dragon Break, though it remains to be seen how future games will resolve Skyrim's Civil War.

It's probably more accurate to say that Daggerfall is the only one of those with a documented Dragon Break. This is a small, but important distinction.

The entire discussion runs up against a basic dilemma. The Dragon Breaks were created by Kirkbride (and possibly Kurt Kuhlmann) to deal with the multiple endings to Daggerfall. At its core, the Daggerfall Dragon Break is the product of players making different choices and having different outcomes while playing TES2. This isn't speculation by the way, this is, or was, the rational behind creating the concept during the development of Morrowind, as reported by the loremasters on the original Bethesda boards.

I thought Michael Kirkbride came on with TES3?? Didn't Ted Peterson write Daggerfall and create the Dragon Break?
And off topic, but for the Kirkbride fans, remember, Julian LeFey is the Godfather of Elder Scrolls. He created all Tamriel and the Divines and all the base world of Nirn and the Mundas in TES1: Arena...
As far as Dragon Breaks, there is also NEW time lines, as in "The Eater Of Time" has created a new beginning...
Look at The Left Handed Elves and The Yokudan's. They are from a completely different TIME!
Dragon Breaks aren't the only time altering/lore altering event...
Just my 2 Drakes....Huzzah!

VaranisArano wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

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

It kinda is, though. The irony is, I don't think that's intentional.

Which others? I literally can't think of any others.

Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO. Though, like I said, I don't think that's intentional. More a byproduct of how the Dragon Breaks were written up.

Daggerfall is the only one of those that canonically has a Dragon Break, though it remains to be seen how future games will resolve Skyrim's Civil War.

Bruccius wrote: »

Dragon Breaks don't work that easily. The only reason a Dragon Break took place in Daggerfall was because the Numidium was used alongside the Mantella; it's more than ''just'' player choice.

SilverIce58 wrote: »

Who ate them? Alduin?

Shgon_Dunstan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

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

It kinda is, though. The irony is, I don't think that's intentional.

Which others? I literally can't think of any others.

Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO. Though, like I said, I don't think that's intentional. More a byproduct of how the Dragon Breaks were written up.

Daggerfall is the only one of those that canonically has a Dragon Break, though it remains to be seen how future games will resolve Skyrim's Civil War.

Kinda hoping for a witcher style setting where you choose what happened in skyrim. As for what happened in eso, bethesda can say that the non daedra controlled imperial legions (imperial legions loyal to the empire before the soulburst) defeated the daedra, rogue legions and the 3 alliances at the cost of cyrodiil being split to colovia and nibenay.

We already know how ESO is handled in the single player games. The Second Era was a time of extreme upheaval, with many of the associated records being lost. That's been kicking around for awhile.

It's... TES. Just because no one remembered it, doesn't mean that no one will remember it. The Dragon Break might well of simply not happened yet in the future.

I mean... ESO has you reading books that haven't been written yet. Time shenanigans are a pretty big thing in TES.

Shgon_Dunstan wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

Shgon_Dunstan wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

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

It kinda is, though. The irony is, I don't think that's intentional.

Which others? I literally can't think of any others.

Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, ESO. Though, like I said, I don't think that's intentional. More a byproduct of how the Dragon Breaks were written up.

Daggerfall is the only one of those that canonically has a Dragon Break, though it remains to be seen how future games will resolve Skyrim's Civil War.

Kinda hoping for a witcher style setting where you choose what happened in skyrim. As for what happened in eso, bethesda can say that the non daedra controlled imperial legions (imperial legions loyal to the empire before the soulburst) defeated the daedra, rogue legions and the 3 alliances at the cost of cyrodiil being split to colovia and nibenay.

We already know how ESO is handled in the single player games. The Second Era was a time of extreme upheaval, with many of the associated records being lost. That's been kicking around for awhile.

It's... TES. Just because no one remembered it, doesn't mean that no one will remember it. The Dragon Break might well of simply not happened yet in the future.

I mean... ESO has you reading books that haven't been written yet. Time shenanigans are a pretty big thing in TES.

I like how we've come so far that one can just say "It's TES" as an answer to how weird (i bmean that in a good way) this universe is. Feels appropriate.

Well... It is a setting where water is made out of dead people’s memories, and shadows are actually windows into alternate timelines... Stuff gets weird in TES.