Criticism, praise and hopes for Bethesda's next games after Skyrim

[Syco21]

You being the Dovahkiin is probably exactly why they wouldn't attack you.

 

The Dovahkiin is the most revered character in Nord culture, attacking you is like attacking Talos.

 

The guards at the fort probably only attack you because you are attacking them first.

Then they should try to arrest you, as they do whenever they catch you committing a crime.

[RokHere]

Then every RPG, FPS, RTS, Civilization game ever made are lazy, as none of those do not have realistic descriptions of what "really" happened.

 

Beyond that, gameplay mechanics DON'T have to built around lore or even close to it, Neverwinter Nights was so far from D&D lore it was laughable and yet it was still a great game.

 

It is not a recipe for disaster, a form of laziness, or anything negative at all.

 

Not saying that lore is exclusive to RPG, but really...the reality and practical application of today's gaming world is that lore is only really relevant in RPG games. Most FPS and RTS games don't even have a decent story or a story at all for that matter, let alone "lore". The Civilization series has no "lore", nor does it have any story at all...I don't even know how you can bring that game series into the discussion. Oh yes, there is an old man with an impressive voice telling us about the "dawn of time" occasionally in the very beginning of the game, but let's get serious...Civilization does not have any story, let alone lore; nor is it a game expected or claimed to refer to accurate historical events...that was never how they marketed the game. It's simply a turn-based strategy game, that's all.

 

Now if any RPG game's mechanics are not true to the that RPG game's lore or story, then yes, of course the games were lazy and then playing them (IF they are fun) would be purely a matter of mindless fun, just like we play most of the FPS games nowadays that rely on skill (or mechanic repetition or muscle memory) rather than on brains, and even RTS fun can be loosely referred to as mindless fun because it is mainly based on "trial and error" rather than real "strategic thinking". On the other hand, a game that has a good story, and which has game mechanics that are true to the lore (the good story), is a game that engages our minds, wows us emotionally, and creates sometimes everlasting impressions and memories for us.

 

And your NWN and D&D comment made it sound like every RPG game must be up to D&D's standards or lore. I'm not an RPG or D&D hardcore fan, so there's a lot that I don't know, but I don't expect every RPG there to be a cookie-cutter extract from D&D's lore. The point for me is that any game, whether familiar or an IP, has a chance of impressing me with a deep story, rich lore, and fun elements of gameplay, and emotional moments of great storytelling, and so on. If the game has a deep story, and it is an RPG game, then I will assume that there is "lore", and if so, then I will expect from a good game to be true to its lore. If not, then it will fall into the pile of forgettable games that don't create a base of rabid fans for the developer and don't become marketing material for their future titles. That is a recipe for disaster...being forgotten so fast. On the other hand, BioWare created such an emotional impact on so many fans with what they did in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, that lots of people will never forget some of the moments in those games, and lots of fans will automatically just pre-order sequels without thinking much...the lore there made sense, was well-written, the script was well acted by the voiceover actors, and the game mechanics made sense to what we would expect of the fictional world and its lore. This is also a reason Fallout I and II created such an impact; the story was very powerful, and the game mechanics were so true to the lore or story. Look at all the memorable classics, and you'll see this pattern. Of course there will be "bugs" in most games, but sloppy negligence of making the world and story cohesive by implementing game mechanics that don't make sense with the game's story or lore is obvious laziness that would quickly make a big chunk of players who prefer immersive, emotional experiences to mindless fun feel repelled from playing the game too much, because "it doesn't make sense to them" and that will always bother them in a way, feel awkward, etc.

 

You need to bring better examples of games that had actual "lore" or a real story and a good one, and where the game mechanics were glaringly clashing with the story or lore, not because of one or two bugs, but because of obvious sloppy game design or development, and the game was still a lot of fun and memorable. I never really thought of NWN as equal to D&D; I don't even know if you're really referring to lore there or to "rules". There is a huge difference between lore and rules. NWN might have been built on D&D and Forgotten Realms "rules", but it may very well have its own unique story. I don't care about "rules"; I care about the story itself or the lore. Now D&D may have not just rules, but lore and stories of the very old games and worlds, and new games don't have to be copycats of such stories and lore. My point is that a game's mechanics should be congruent with its story (or lore), and if it not, then lots of players will eventually stop playing the game because "something bothers them about it", that element of "it doesn't make sense". So yes, a much better comparison or example is needed here. I'm starting to see a pattern from you...you seem to keep bringing strange comparisons and examples, sometimes irrelevant and unrelated, over and over again. Strange how some people think really...it's curious. I wonder if that's really how you think, or you're just desperately trying to prove your point but there is no relevant substance with which to do so? No offense intended; I'm just sharing a third-person's perspective on what you're doing.

[scottmack]

Well, If you have finished the dragonborn quest line and go straight to the civil war quest line, I don't think the stormcloaks would recognise you if you joined the legion and vice versa because they never would have heard about you, or know about you, you'd just be another legionnaire, and if you weren't wearing something that signifies you to be a legionary such as their apparel or what not, they wouldn't recognise you as a one until so far in to the quest line and you make a name for yourself in the Imperial ranks, that being said, if you have finished the MQ then it is assumed everybody will really know who you are and then the whole apparrel/Armor thing wouldnt apply at all. In that scenario I suppose some guards would and other wouldnt attack you, probably because they'd be terrified of someone who hunts dragon like they were deer.

 

EDIT: I see this discussion has taken a rather differant turn and this isnt the subject anymore :P In which case I shall bow out gracefully and creep out of the back door :ninja:

Edited January 16, 2012 by scottmack

[sajuukkhar9000]

Not saying that lore is exclusive to RPG, but really...the reality and practical application of today's gaming world is that lore is only really relevant in RPG games. Most FPS and RTS games don't even have a decent story or a story at all for that matter, let alone "lore". The Civilization series has no "lore", nor does it have any story at all...I don't even know how you can bring that game series into the discussion. Oh yes, there is an old man with an impressive voice telling us about the "dawn of time" occasionally in the very beginning of the game, but let's get serious...Civilization does not have any story, let alone lore; nor is it a game expected or claimed to refer to accurate historical events...that was never how they marketed the game. It's simply a turn-based strategy game, that's all.

Then you have yet to play Half-Life, Homeworld, C&C, or read the exteneded Halo universe in the forms of the books, all of which have great story and much background lore to them.

 

Secondly I was referring to civilization as in the game type, of which the game civilization is the most known one.

 

Now if any RPG game's mechanics are not true to the that RPG game's lore or story, then yes, of course the games were lazy and then playing them (IF they are fun) would be purely a matter of mindless fun, just like we play most of the FPS games nowadays that rely on skill (or mechanic repetition or muscle memory) rather than on brains, and even RTS fun can be loosely referred to as mindless fun because it is mainly based on "trial and error" rather than real "strategic thinking". On the other hand, a game that has a good story, and which has game mechanics that are true to the lore (the good story), is a game that engages our minds, wows us emotionally, and creates sometimes everlasting impressions and memories for us.

The underlined part is one of the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard.

 

Beyond that no it isn't lazy that RPGss gameplay =/= the lore because it would be nearly impossible to do. Alduin would be unstoppably hard to the point were it wouldn't even be fun to play, magic would be immesnly OP to the point it would have a unfair advantage over the warrior and thief playstyles, etc. etc.

 

And your NWN and D&D comment made it sound like every RPG game must be up to D&D's standards or lore. I'm not an RPG or D&D hardcore fan, so there's a lot that I don't know, but I don't expect every RPG there to be a cookie-cutter extract from D&D's lore. The point for me is that any game, whether familiar or an IP, has a chance of impressing me with a deep story, rich lore, and fun elements of gameplay, and emotional moments of great storytelling, and so on. If the game has a deep story, and it is an RPG game, then I will assume that there is "lore", and if so, then I will expect from a good game to be true to its lore. If not, then it will fall into the pile of forgettable games that don't create a base of rabid fans for the developer and don't become marketing material for their future titles. That is a recipe for disaster...being forgotten so fast. On the other hand, BioWare created such an emotional impact on so many fans with what they did in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, that lots of people will never forget some of the moments in those games, and lots of fans will automatically just pre-order sequels without thinking much...the lore there made sense, was well-written, the script was well acted by the voiceover actors, and the game mechanics made sense to what we would expect of the fictional world and its lore. This is also a reason Fallout I and II created such an impact; the story was very powerful, and the game mechanics were so true to the lore or story. Look at all the memorable classics, and you'll see this pattern. Of course there will be "bugs" in most games, but sloppy negligence of making the world and story cohesive by implementing game mechanics that don't make sense with the game's story or lore is obvious laziness that would quickly make a big chunk of players who prefer immersive, emotional experiences to mindless fun feel repelled from playing the game too much, because "it doesn't make sense to them" and that will always bother them in a way, feel awkward, etc.

No it doesn't, I was just pointing out that NWN doesn't follow D&D lore and is still a good game, I never made or implied that every game should have D&D level lore and I would ask that you stop making thing up.

 

As pointed out before, many RPGs don't follow their own lore in gameplay and are held as timeless classics, your analogy is proven wrong by the past of the game industry.

 

Thirdly Bioware's games don't follow their own lore either, I suggest you read the books. Beyond that both DA2 and ME2 were widely regarded to have terrible stories.

 

Also Fallout 3, and to an extent, Fallout New Veags broke TONS of Fallout lore and yet MANY people loved them to death, only again proving the games do not need to follow their lore in the actual gameplay to be good.

 

You need to bring better examples of games that had actual "lore" or a real story and a good one, and where the game mechanics were glaringly clashing with the story or lore, not because of one or two bugs, but because of obvious sloppy game design or development, and the game was still a lot of fun and memorable. I never really thought of NWN as equal to D&D; I don't even know if you're really referring to lore there or to "rules". There is a huge difference between lore and rules. NWN might have been built on D&D and Forgotten Realms "rules", but it may very well have its own unique story. I don't care about "rules"; I care about the story itself or the lore. Now D&D may have not just rules, but lore and stories of the very old games and worlds, and new games don't have to be copycats of such stories and lore. My point is that a game's mechanics should be congruent with its story (or lore), and if it not, then lots of players will eventually stop playing the game because "something bothers them about it", that element of "it doesn't make sense". So yes, a much better comparison or example is needed here. I'm starting to see a pattern from you...you seem to keep bringing strange comparisons and examples, sometimes irrelevant and unrelated, over and over again. Strange how some people think really...it's curious. I wonder if that's really how you think, or you're just desperately trying to prove your point but there is no relevant substance with which to do so? No offense intended; I'm just sharing a third-person's perspective on what you're doing.

 

All I ask is that you look at Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the old Republic, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Mass Effect, Dragon Age or any other RPG ever made and compre them to D&D, Star Wars, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age lore provided in the books and outside materials respectively.

[RokHere]

Skyrim got some things right. Getting rid of those antiquated Classes and the useless stats, addopting a fluid leveling system and the Perk dynamic, the dual-hand combat and interaction system to name just a few positive changes. Particularly the perks and the dual-handed interface, if built upon, could dramatically increase the degree of individuality between characters.

 

They got some things terribly wrong though. Blacksmithing and Enchanting are broken.....

 

.....I'm reserving my opinion on whether or not proper character development and conversational interactivity is possible on how Bioware implements an open world in Dragon Age 3. If they can pull it off, and maintain the same depth of character, i'll expect the same of Bethesda. If Bioware can't, then i will stand by my statement that we should just go back to text.

 

Very nice post, Lachdonin. Lots of good points there, and I especially like the last point. Indeed it would be awesome to see if BioWare can pull it off, and give us in Dragon Age 3 an open-world experience with the same character depth and epic storytelling and voice acting that they gave us in earlier games. Same with Mass Effect really; that world has huge potential beyond the trilogy, and it would be awesome to see it retain its depth and emotional experience while expanding the world itself and making it richer, not just deeper. And it would be great if the next Elder Scrolls parts from Bethesda (or Fallout or an MMO) would keep the same richness and freedom we're used to, but build better relationships between those thousands of elements in the game (and yes, this is a monumental task, but hey, if it's sandbox or open-world experience that you chose as your niche, then you better do it properly), while also trying to provide a similar emotional experience and depth as what BioWare does with some of its games, and finally, the icing of the cake would be to do it all with proper animation and rich visuals.

 

Each developer has their weakness or the parts that they neglect or get lazy with or "cut corners" in. Bethesda: some animations, especially those sliding and moonwalking feet on the ground, and some relationships between the elements of their world, and depth and emotion in storytelling and romance options. BioWare: great character detail and animation, but lazily designed bland environments, not rich at all; deep, but not rich enough, and lack of freedom or options, too scripted and directed. Crytek or Dice: awesome visuals and animations, rich and well done on every level including technically, but no depth and failed attempts in creating an emotional experience or achieving great storytelling. I wish BioWare's stories, scripts, and actors would be taken into Bethesda's worlds and have relationships built for them by Bethesda in those worlds, and all to be designed in Crytek's graphics engine by Crytek's developers and designers, to produce the best MMO in the history of mankind...haha! =)

[ModelV]

Here is what happened when i first played Skyrim. The game set the graphics setting to medium and from my experience games like to underestimate the power of my system so i set it to the highest settings. I could not fight the game was so laggy so i decided to turn down the settings back to medium and the game run smoothly and you know what i noticed? Everything looked exactly the same no matter the setting. The only difference was how well the game ran and the fade distance which if i changed myself had no effect on performance.

 

Bethesda is a terrible terrible game company when you actually start comparing them to companies like IO interactive or id. They are just plan lazy and I for one am boycotting them from now on. I love Fallout and the TES series is growing on me but like i said in another thread if Beth continues with this laziness those franchises might as well die.

[RokHere]

Then you have yet to play Half-Life, Homeworld, C&C, or read the exteneded Halo universe in the forms of the books, all of which have great story and much background lore to them.

 

Secondly I was referring to civilization as in the game type, of which the game civilization is the most known one.

Half-Life had a good story, yes, but your protagonist is mute; while some people claim that this increases immersion, it really doesn't because I don't sit at my computer and verbally reply to NPCs talking to my protagonist; I'll immerse myself just fine when I choose a certain reply for Shepard and hear him vocalizing the reply properly, thanks. And Halo may have a thousand novels published for it, but the storytelling in-game is pathetic. I don't really care about "lore" published on paper in separate books; when I talk about lore in the gaming context, I'm talking about lore that is being shared with me while I actually play the game. With this in mind, most FPS and RTS games don't have any actual, non-generic story being told there. There are exceptions in the FPS genre, like Half-Life and F.E.A.R 1, but they are few, and exceptions in the RTS genre, like Warcraft III, again very few. Not every story will go up to the level of "lore", and not every story is going to be considered something worth even noting in a game. I enjoyed Borderlands and Battlefield 3 a lot, just like I enjoyed Half-Life and F.E.A.R, but that doesn't mean that I'd be bothered with game mechanics not respecting the story in Borderlands or Battlefield 3 as their stories were forgettable and valid for ignoring; on the other hand, I would be bothered with illogical game mechanics in Half-Life or F.E.A.R. because a big part of why I cherish those games were their stories, those fictional worlds, and the potential for all that to become "lore".

 

just like we play most of the FPS games nowadays that rely on skill (or mechanic repetition or muscle memory) rather than on brains, and even RTS fun can be loosely referred to as mindless fun because it is mainly based on "trial and error" rather than real "strategic thinking".

The underlined part is one of the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard.

I sense someone who plays FPS and RTS games to learn life skills! Hahaha. And they get offended at how another person over-simplified the depth and complexity of what they do in FPS and RTS games, that they had nothing better for self-defense than to accuse them of sheer ignorance. I'm amused; thanks. =)

 

Dude, seriously, if you think that FPS games require much more than mechanical repetition or muscle memory, and that RTS games require much more than trial and error, then I don't know what to say...I'll leave comments and thoughts to anyone who would read this.

 

Beyond that no it isn't lazy that RPGss gameplay =/= the lore because it would be nearly impossible to do. Alduin would be unstoppably hard to the point were it wouldn't even be fun to play, magic would be immesnly OP to the point it would have a unfair advantage over the warrior and thief playstyles, etc. etc.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. For example, why the heck would magic be immensely overpowered and an unfair advantage if the lore itself tells tales of warriors defeating mages?? You really need to bring specific examples, and PLEASE make them relevant, logical examples, to make sense. You really just say the weirdest things.

 

As pointed out before, many RPGs don't follow their own lore in gameplay and are held as timeless classics, your analogy is proven wrong by the past of the game industry.

Again, specific examples? You said "many RPGs", yet failed to name even ONE example in your casual statement? Why, I wonder.

 

Thirdly Bioware's games don't follow their own lore either, I suggest you read the books. Beyond that both DA2 and ME2 were widely regarded to have terrible stories.

Dude, I really have better things to do than read books about games, and no, those better things are not playing the games, but simply reading better books. I have better things to do than watching sports, like playing good computer games. And I have better things to do than reading game books, like reading self-improvement or historical books. So really, please do not assume that novels published based on a "game name" or trademark are going to be considered "lore" by all gamers. If you want to do that, be my guest. But as far as I'm concerned as a gamer playing a specific game, I simply want THIS game to be true to the story (or lore) that it is being shared with me THIS moment, now, while playing the game. If some weird author that I never heard of, and who never worked for BioWare, for example, is suddenly given permission to go and write a novel based on the Mass Effect world, then Mass Effect 3 has a contradiction to something in HIS book, I'll never say, "Oh, Mass Effect 3 was so contradictory to the Mass Effect lore that it was almost laughable." That...is a laughable thing to say. A game's lore is not defined primarily by novels published to make more money out of the trademark; a game's lore is primarily defined by the stories being told WHILE playing the game or its sequels. And DA2 and ME2 may not have the most creative or ground-breaking ideas in their stories, but the storytelling itself was epic; that's what counted. Entertaining script and great voice acting and directing made the journey enjoyable enough, even if the stories themselves weren't revolutionary or epic.

 

Also Fallout 3, and to an extent, Fallout New Veags broke TONS of Fallout lore and yet MANY people loved them to death, only again proving the games do not need to follow their lore in the actual gameplay to be good.

Fallout 3 and especially FNV were far from classics, and were dismissed by countless fans and gamers (including me), just as lots of other gamers played them and enjoyed them anyway. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the Fallout name and franchise and fictional world deserved better, much better.

 

All I ask is that you look at Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the old Republic, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Mass Effect, Dragon Age or any other RPG ever made and compre them to D&D, Star Wars, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age lore provided in the books and outside materials respectively.

Already commented on that. As I said, please separate "book lore" from "game lore". Don't get me wrong, I don't look down upon people who read books based on gaming worlds; in fact, I happily admit that I bought a couple of Mass Effect books because it is my all-time favorite game series, perhaps close to Fallout, but Fallout is long gone since Fallout II (the latest attempts were pathetic in my eyes and heart). However, I haven't really finished those Mass Effect books, and I still maintain that I have better things, or more precisely better books to read than game-world books, including Mass Effect. But regardless to that, my point is that I do NOT consider the actual "game lore" to be influenced by the "trademark books"; for me, those are completely separate. You are free to say something like, "Dragon Age 3 has things that contradict a couple of the books that were published for the Dragon Age world", but to extend that description to saying "DA3 contradicts DA lore", that would be an extreme overstatement. As I said, you're free to think however you want, but do realize that there are lots of gamers for whom "lore" is purely about the stories being told WHILE actually playing the games, nothing more; we don't care what some trademark books said, we just care what was said to us or what we read while playing the actual games. If the games and their mechanics are true to the stories or lore we got to know while playing, we're happy. Based on this particular mentality, you'd be hard pressed to find an example of a classic or memorable favorite game that contradicted its own in-game lore, or where the mechanics were glaringly in contradiction with the story we live in-game. Such games are quickly abandoned for more engaging and immersive ones.

[sajuukkhar9000]

There is no such thing as "game lore", there is only the limited and often untrue way in which we see things through the gameplay. Lore itself is found in books inside the game, or real life books about the series.

I sense someone who plays FPS and RTS games to learn life skills! Hahaha. And they get offended at how another person over-simplified the depth and complexity of what they do in FPS and RTS games, that they had nothing better for self-defense than to accuse them of sheer ignorance. I'm amused; thanks. =)

 

Dude, seriously, if you think that FPS games require much more than mechanical repetition or muscle memory, and that RTS games require much more than trial and error, then I don't know what to say...I'll leave comments and thoughts to anyone who would read this.

You sense wrong. I was just fixing your gross oversimplification. I would love to see you try out Sins of a Solar Empire, fighting against 9 AI. Try playing that and telling me its about "trial and error". There is no trial and error only do or die.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. For example, why the heck would magic be immensely overpowered and an unfair advantage if the lore itself tells tales of warriors defeating mages?? You really need to bring specific examples, and PLEASE make them relevant, logical examples, to make sense. You really just say the weirdest things.

Because there are many instances in the ES universe of mages opening portals to other realms, destroying cities single handedly they make entire islands disappear for periods of hundreds of years or more, mages can summon Daedric princes etc. etc. Mages are grossly overpowered.

Again, specific examples? You said "many RPGs", yet failed to name even ONE example in your casual statement? Why, I wonder.

Lets see Neverwinter Nights does not portray monsters with the same strength of powers as it does in the books, Fallout 3/New Vegas don't portray many weapons/power armors or the Enclave as stated in previous lore, Knights of the old republic doesn't portray light saber combat as Star wars lore dictates it is. the discrepanceys between lore and gameplay are so obvious as to not need explanation.

Dude, I really have better things to do than read books about games, and no, those better things are not playing the games, but simply reading better books. I have better things to do than watching sports, like playing good computer games. And I have better things to do than reading game books, like reading self-improvement or historical books. So really, please do not assume that novels published based on a "game name" or trademark are going to be considered "lore" by all gamers. If you want to do that, be my guest. But as far as I'm concerned as a gamer playing a specific game, I simply want THIS game to be true to the story (or lore) that it is being shared with me THIS moment, now, while playing the game. If some weird author that I never heard of, and who never worked for BioWare, for example, is suddenly given permission to go and write a novel based on the Mass Effect world, then Mass Effect 3 has a contradiction to something in HIS book, I'll never say, "Oh, Mass Effect 3 was so contradictory to the Mass Effect lore that it was almost laughable." That...is a laughable thing to say. A game's lore is not defined primarily by novels published to make more money out of the trademark; a game's lore is primarily defined by the stories being told WHILE playing the game or its sequels. And DA2 and ME2 may not have the most creative or ground-breaking ideas in their stories, but the storytelling itself was epic; that's what counted. Entertaining script and great voice acting and directing made the journey enjoyable enough, even if the stories themselves weren't revolutionary or epic.

You obviously don't have enough important things to do that you can sit around playing games, especially considering you are playing a game that most of its lore comes from in game books, of which there are 600 in Skyrim alone. Secondly "lore" is not dictated by gamers it is dictated by the series owner. What a individual decided to take as lore is irrelevant as only Bethesda can determine what is the ES lore just as George Lucas can determine what is Star Wars lore etc. etc.

Fallout 3 and especially FNV were far from classics, and were dismissed by countless fans and gamers (including me), just as lots of other gamers played them and enjoyed them anyway. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the Fallout name and franchise and fictional world deserved better, much better.

There will always be fans who don't like sequels because of various reasons, it does not make the games any less of classics or future classics. Many did not like how Neverwinter Nights changed gameplay from Baulder's gate yet NWN is still a classic. Beyond that Bethesda adapted the fallout games into the new age and brought them back from beyond death, no other game dev could have done what they did for that series.

Already commented on that. As I said, please separate "book lore" from "game lore". Don't get me wrong, I don't look down upon people who read books based on gaming worlds; in fact, I happily admit that I bought a couple of Mass Effect books because it is my all-time favorite game series, perhaps close to Fallout, but Fallout is long gone since Fallout II (the latest attempts were pathetic in my eyes and heart). However, I haven't really finished those Mass Effect books, and I still maintain that I have better things, or more precisely better books to read than game-world books, including Mass Effect. But regardless to that, my point is that I do NOT consider the actual "game lore" to be influenced by the "trademark books"; for me, those are completely separate. You are free to say something like, "Dragon Age 3 has things that contradict a couple of the books that were published for the Dragon Age world", but to extend that description to saying "DA3 contradicts DA lore", that would be an extreme overstatement. As I said, you're free to think however you want, but do realize that there are lots of gamers for whom "lore" is purely about the stories being told WHILE actually playing the games, nothing more; we don't care what some trademark books said, we just care what was said to us or what we read while playing the actual games. If the games and their mechanics are true to the stories or lore we got to know while playing, we're happy. Based on this particular mentality, you'd be hard pressed to find an example of a classic or memorable favorite game that contradicted its own in-game lore, or where the mechanics were glaringly in contradiction with the story we live in-game. Such games are quickly abandoned for more engaging and immersive ones.

Again as I pointed out, what happens in game =/= lore. Lore is whatever the series owner chooses to stay happened in the next game.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[RokHere]

There is no such thing as "game lore", there is only the limited and often untrue way in which we see things through the gameplay.

 

Lore itself is found in books inside the game, or real life books about the series.

 

Lore according to Merriam-Webster: "2. something that is learned: a : knowledge gained through study or experience, b : traditional knowledge or belief; 3. a particular body of knowledge or tradition."

 

I think that "hearing an NPC character say something about TES 5's fictional world", or in other words, "hearing a guard say something about Skyrim", pretty much falls under "knowledge gained through experience", and is part of "a particular body of knowledge" pertaining to the fictional world. So actually, yes, there is something called "game lore", which is particular body of knowledge gained about the fictional or alternative world through hearing about the world from its fictional characters. You don't have to read books, whether in-game or real-life published novels, to know about a fictional world. In fact, I'd say it's a better argument to say that you learn best about a world by listening to its inhabitants, just like you'd learn more about a city and the reality of a city, like Cairo in Egypt, by listening to inhabitants of that city tell you about it. You can go and read a book about the city, but to claim that that's a better way of knowing about it is an extreme, misleading overstatement.

[sajuukkhar9000]

Lore according to Merriam-Webster: "2. something that is learned: a : knowledge gained through study or experience, b : traditional knowledge or belief; 3. a particular body of knowledge or tradition."

 

I think that "hearing an NPC character say something about TES 5's fictional world", or in other words, "hearing a guard say something about Skyrim", pretty much falls under "knowledge gained through experience", and is part of "a particular body of knowledge" pertaining to the fictional world. So actually, yes, there is something called "game lore", which is particular body of knowledge gained about the fictional or alternative world through hearing about the world from its fictional characters. You don't have to read books, whether in-game or real-life published novels, to know about a fictional world. In fact, I'd say it's a better argument to say that you learn best about a world by listening to its inhabitants, just like you'd learn more about a city and the reality of a city, like Cairo in Egypt, by listening to inhabitants of that city tell you about it. You can go and read a book about the city, but to claim that that's a better way of knowing about it is an extreme, misleading overstatement.

Tell me then did you know

That Talos is Lorkhan?

That the main reason Dagon could invade in Oblivion was not because The Dragonfires were out but because The Heart of Lorkhan was gone?

That Mankar Cameron was Dragonborn?

That Pelinial Whtestreak, the Divine Crusader from Knights of the Nine was a time traveler?

That Sitis is Lorkhan?

That the world of Mundus is held up by Towers each of whom has fallen?

 

Probably not, because they are never stated by NPCs in-game. In fact NPCs almost exclusively talk about what is happening in the present or what happened in the recent past, compounded with the fact most of what they tell you is distorted by regional bias means you get very little to almost no actual lore by playing the game.

 

 

The so called "lore" given in the games themselves is often wrong because of cultural bias, and the NPCs limited scope of knowledge, the only real lore comes from what the Devs have stated OUTSIDE the game because only they hold the unbiased view.

 

A vast majority of ES lore is not found in games and never will be, by going solely on what is stated in-game you are basically not getting anything at all.

Edited January 16, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000