I feel like that is said in the game somewhere, but I'm really hesitant to believe that. The Elder Scrolls are unfathomably deep, and I think if they can keep up with several dragon breaks in the recognized past, they can keep up with this literal dragon break (and I do think that the events of Skyrim have caused another) at the current point in our timeline. Because honestly, what makes the World-Eater event any different from the Oblivion Crisis or the Nerevarine Prophecy? The Dovahkiin was specifically included on Alduin's Wall. Hence the prophecy seemed to recognize that the end of the world would be stymied.

We can't be certain of what the future may hold for Heroes of the Grey Maybe, but we can be certain of this much: there will be zombies, and we will kill them with fire.

http://imperial-library.info/content/where-were-you-when-dragon-broke...

Hm. That makes sense, actually.

Still, reading the intelligible book that Urag gro-Shub provides in the College of Winterhold (I can't seem to find it at the moment), I got the distinct impression that the Scrolls could see past a Dragon Break, mainly from the comment that the Scrolls can see "forward and backward, but also up and down." From the standard theoretical model of a dragon break, a straight line diverging up or down, this seems to suggest the Scrolls' ability to see these alternate time lines.

Still, it is definitely plausible that they couldn't see past the end of the world... but I mean, if that's the case, what happens now? SOMEBODY has to know what's going to happen.

EDIT: I guess it was gro-Shub that said it, but the book I was thinking of was Effects of the Elder Scrolls.

Why does it do that? Planning out the future means the events in a game can have an even greater impact because it's understood what it will lead too. I also don't see how it limits developers. We've seen the most interesting things come from those limitations. Daggerfall had seven endings and they all happened. The resulting metaphysics are interesting to say the least.

Becuase if back when ES1 was made they said ohh yeah ES6 will be about X and wrote it down in a bound published book with details like the poster asked, but in the years between ES1 and ES6 they came up with a btter idea they would be forced to use the [censored]tier lesser idea or change it and basically admit to lieing and then have a clamoring of fans claiming they are liers.



trying to plan out a series over such long terms is silly, Bioware could hardly do it with a short series like Mass Effect.

It's easier to improvise if you had a plan to begin with. You can draft a plot-arc, laying out the major events, and add secondary plots and add details later on. That's how the TV series Babylon V was written, for instance. As you go on, you can think of ways that earlier secondary plots may influence later events that you didn't think of at the time you introduced them. And you can even modify the major plot-arc elements you laid out in the beginning if that seems called for. It's not published until it's published.

At least as early as TES II, we were told directly that we were seeing the story of the end of the Third Era; TES III was full of references to the end of the Third Era and the rise of a new one. I would guess that they had some such metaplot outlined -- the decline of the Third Era and triumphant rise of the Fourth -- all along.

then the fall of the fourth with landfall and the rise of the 5th and so and so on, and [censored] goes on till the 9th era at least


Meta-plot usually equates to "bad guy tries to kill the world hero stops him, repeat 5 times, new Era."

I like UESP for guides etc but the Imperial Library is the best place to find lore.

You won't find anythig about the next game though lol, wouldn't really make sense, especially since there is no defintive answer to who wins the civil war, and many other events in Skyrim.

This was huge when I read back into history and found that so much of the story of Skyrim has been around for years. Plot for the next game is guaranteed to be floating around in lore somewhere; they typically source a lot from what we/they know. And I'm sure they already have a story at least outlined, too.

See, I always thought that Bethesda never really had a highly specific direction with the meta-storyline; in fact, I always thought that they would create some lore for one game, then when it came round to developing the next game they though just thought: "Hmmm, this specific event or area we devised in the last game has some potential to be fleshed out some more, let's expand upon this and base the next storyline around it." I thought Skyrim was a good example of this, where they looked at all the previous games and thought that they would make the events of said games mean something, and thus Alduin's return was suddenly mentioned as being predicted by the events of the last games - with the exception to Adventures.

The best settings are so full of plot-hooks that plots and characters spring easily from the material, which in-turn feed more plot-hooks. You know you're barking up the wrong tree when you have to invent a ton of new concepts for your plot (unless, of course, this is the first entry in your setting).