RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

I'm also bothered by Leyawiin and the Niben River. I know they have to scale down everything, but they could at least make it so Tamriel's biggest trade route looks like ships could pass by.

Blackwood actually adds a neat bit of lore to explain (or justify depending on your view) why large ships cannot pass through Leyawiin to travel down the Niben River.

It's in the Traveller's Guide to Leyawiin lore book that's on the bench you see when entering through the main gate.

I quite like it (even if it isn't a perfect explanation).

Elsonso wrote: »

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

I'm also bothered by Leyawiin and the Niben River. I know they have to scale down everything, but they could at least make it so Tamriel's biggest trade route looks like ships could pass by.

Blackwood actually adds a neat bit of lore to explain (or justify depending on your view) why large ships cannot pass through Leyawiin to travel down the Niben River.

It's in the Traveller's Guide to Leyawiin lore book that's on the bench you see when entering through the main gate.

I quite like it (even if it isn't a perfect explanation).

By the Third Era, during the reign of Uriel Septim VII, the large ship Bloated Float has wheels so that it can navigate past the bridges and shallow areas of the Niben and reach the open waters of Topal Bay. Other ships, such as the Marie Elena, may also have these wheels installed, which allows them to get to the Imperial City from Topal Bay.

menedhyn wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The architecture is beautiful. However, where is the forest?

Yep.That's quite a damning comparison. Thanks for sharing.

Darkstorne wrote: »

Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees

I really love Valenwood for what it is, but what a difference a bit more structure and depth would bring to the feel of the zones to help meet the description in lore. That might at least appease me a bit.

Lugaldu wrote: »

RemanCyrodiil_I wrote: »

The lore reason for it would be that the Fourth Legion unintentionally burned down virtually the entire Blackwood forest during the Blackwater war.

An interesting theory. But I wonder how realistic it is for a large forest to burn down in a swampy area?

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Not sure how alone I am in this, but I would rather they not make up ''lore reasons'' as to why things that in game look the way they do due to game limitations (ex. not many trees in Valenwood because the engine or whatever can't handle it).

I'm not really versed on timeline related lore stuff, so I don't know if that's how they're going about the sparseness of Blackwood for example, but I would rather they just say ''yeah the river is small because of game limitations sorry we know it sucks,'' not ''the river is small because ships might pass through Leyawiin without stopping'' or whatever.

I'm completely ok with making up new lore obviously, and even retconning some stuff, but I don't see a reason to make up lore to justify things in the game that are only there because video games have limitations. Idk if I made sense

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Not sure how alone I am in this, but I would rather they not make up ''lore reasons'' as to why things that in game look the way they do due to game limitations (ex. not many trees in Valenwood because the engine or whatever can't handle it).

I'm not really versed on timeline related lore stuff, so I don't know if that's how they're going about the sparseness of Blackwood for example, but I would rather they just say ''yeah the river is small because of game limitations sorry we know it sucks,'' not ''the river is small because ships might pass through Leyawiin without stopping'' or whatever.

I'm completely ok with making up new lore obviously, and even retconning some stuff, but I don't see a reason to make up lore to justify things in the game that are only there because video games have limitations. Idk if I made sense

@emilyhyoyeon Yup. I'm really disliking these "lore excuses" they give, like the book @RemanCyrodiil_I mentioned. There's no harm in saying that some things can't be portrayed correctly because of game limitations, meanwhile making these superficial reasons just comes across as bad. Like the ship thing. If only smaller boats can pass, then how does that explains the ships higher up? Oblivion had the same issue but even worse, and we got to see Imperial City's waterfront there, with ships.

I rather have a simple "It's game limitations" over some half-arsed "lore" excuse.

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Not sure how alone I am in this, but I would rather they not make up ''lore reasons'' as to why things that in game look the way they do due to game limitations (ex. not many trees in Valenwood because the engine or whatever can't handle it).

I'm not really versed on timeline related lore stuff, so I don't know if that's how they're going about the sparseness of Blackwood for example, but I would rather they just say ''yeah the river is small because of game limitations sorry we know it sucks,'' not ''the river is small because ships might pass through Leyawiin without stopping'' or whatever.

I'm completely ok with making up new lore obviously, and even retconning some stuff, but I don't see a reason to make up lore to justify things in the game that are only there because video games have limitations. Idk if I made sense

phantasmalD wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Not sure how alone I am in this, but I would rather they not make up ''lore reasons'' as to why things that in game look the way they do due to game limitations (ex. not many trees in Valenwood because the engine or whatever can't handle it).

I'm not really versed on timeline related lore stuff, so I don't know if that's how they're going about the sparseness of Blackwood for example, but I would rather they just say ''yeah the river is small because of game limitations sorry we know it sucks,'' not ''the river is small because ships might pass through Leyawiin without stopping'' or whatever.

I'm completely ok with making up new lore obviously, and even retconning some stuff, but I don't see a reason to make up lore to justify things in the game that are only there because video games have limitations. Idk if I made sense

Some of the coolest and most memorable lorebits were born out of the desire to justify early game mechanics and limitations. Like the Lunar Lattice or Dragonbreaks or Talos achiveing CHIM.

I dunno, I personally don't mind having the lore written around the game, kinda gives the lore a sort of organic feel.
But I like 4th-wall breaking things in general, so shrug.

Danikat wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

I am not sure why people are disappointed that most of the zone isn't covered in a depressing, swampy forest like Oblivion's Blackwood. ^^

I think you've read too many fairy stories! Wetlands are gorgeous places, you just have to open your eyes. Even in Oblivion, those black-trunked, willowy woodlands were really evocative and gave that part of the world a really distinct and interesting feel.

That reminds me of some of the more infuriating parts of the Shannara series. I can only assume Terry Brooks had never visited any type of wetland and missed that Tolkien has special, lore based reasons for the Dead Marshes being so devoid of life. If you go by those books you'd think any time the ground gets remotely damp everything dies and all living things except bacteria avoid the area forever more, which is not at all representative of the huge variety of wildlife (and therefore colour and sound) in real wetlands.

Other series usually aren't quite so bad but it's still an annoyingly common fantasy trope which I'd be happy to see ESO avoid. They've done a good job with Shadowfen and Murkmire, making them difficult and dangerous precisely because of the huge number of things living in them and I'd be disappointed to see that change with Blackwood.

Elsonso wrote: »

Tigertron wrote: »

I'm thinking its just that PTS is not fleshed out yet. There is not many things in the area either. Like animals and NPCs, and no resource nodes.

I expect that only the animals and resource nodes are still pending. I don't expect any significant changes in the world itself. That includes adding trees, or even making the Deadlands portals look more impressive than little glowy Christmas tree ornaments hanging down from the veil.

I agree. I can't remember the appearence of a map changing much after it got onto the PTS. Sometimes they adjust the numbers or spawn rates for some of the enemies but I don't remember them adding many (or any) trees, plants etc. Generally by the time we get to see maps they're in a largely finished state and things only change if bugs are found and fixed.

Darkstorne wrote: »

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

As an ecologist it's my biggest pet peeve with the game

Snowstrider wrote: »

Darkstorne wrote: »

I think the engine can't do it. It's bizarre. Even Valenwood and Cyrodiil's great forest are just sparsely scattered mature trees. And there is zero change to ground flora within a "woodland/forest" part of a map compared to grassland.

As an ecologist it's my biggest pet peeve with the game

Why cant the engine do it when older games with a way older engine can do it? Isnt it all on ZOS and their design and not the engine?