I put "some" because its more subjective and open to interpretation.
but if you fell i should change it feel free to suggest what it should be replaced with.

I think, by definition, it should be impossible for a game to not follow its own lore. A game completely breaking its own lore is like any observed scientific principal declared void because "It's not the answer we want", in the face of all evidence in support of the principal.

Without the game, there is no lore.

Lore is flexible. They make up new lore (to add to existing lore) with every game.

Storm

It depends on why

If you have pre-existing lore that you have a better idea for, go ahead and sneak in the better idea
If you want to ditch rich previous lore just because you won't bother to do your freaking homework (Oblivion), then get fired :flamethrower:

Would someone mind answering this for me?

"History is written by the victors." ~ Winston Churchill

History/Lore as recorded, is often times not the complete truth. Even within the same history book in school, a person can many times find things that just don't quite add up, when viewed together. Contradictions will happen, though they should be the exemption and not the rule. Variances in the lore of the game, can make the game more realistic. Especially if you consider, that just within the 10 playable races, there will be different views of the same historical events.

I would like to see werewolves and werebears in Skyrim, as mentioned in the lore. I could give a toss about prophesied heroes making pacts with dragons or whatever else sounds like it came from the kid who wrote Eragon.

I picked the third, i usually come up with my own story and lore though. Its more fun that way.

the main reason i want them to follow the lore in skyrim is that i want were bears :/

I don't know the lore well for Skyrim, but its in the game best interest to have more diversified environments. Like Todd said they don't want a world that is all mountains(or snow). Same thing if they did the Black Marsh(again not to sure about its lore/geography) but if it was really all a big swamps that could be lame, gameplay wise so they would need to diversify it a bit.

But TES games are the lore... That's like saying, should this new game I'm making, be the new games? Yes. No matter what I make it, it will be the new games. TES games will follow TES lore because they ARE the TES lore...

I know a fair bit about the lore; I can read Daedric for example. I'm reading a heap of in-game books (currently the 36 Lessons of Vivec). And I believe that the games should follow the lore like a religion. Why? Because the Elder Scrolls doesn't really have any other market (okay, ONE book). So if the games don't stick to the lore, what will?

Well I said follow it religiously because it needs to stay in line with the lore. Also you need to realize that the games are the main source of the lore so of course they are going to stay in line with the lore when they make it hehe. I also voted on option 1 of both poll questions.

One of the great things about TES is there is still a lot of lore to be added. I don't think they have to worry much about contradicting lore. The only things I think they've changed a lot were just proto-lore and things that just weren't fleshed out that well. Another thing is sometimes there are conflicting points of view which I think is great for trying to create a realistic (or believable) world. I think this is the case when people were saying Cyrodiils environment was retconned in Oblivion.

The only time I think the lore should be outright changed would be for gameplay reasons. If it's not doable in the game, or if it's just something that makes the game less fun, or just a mechanic that would be to difficult to implement, these are times I think it's okay for lore to be changed.

I think the games should follow the lore religiouly. I know that not all sources of Tamrielic history are reliable, so when I say to follow the lore religiously I mean within the flexibility and ambiguity that has already been established.

Lore doesnt change but can be redefined as time passes, rome was built on 7 hills with lots of marsh land allaround but try to find a marsh land near rome within the last 1200 yrs it was drained long ago while the people were still using swords and armor so dont judge Cyradil to damn hard geezus lol

Inability to follow the lore is a failure of imagination on the part of the designers. You don't design a game and then check back to see if it is correct, you design inspired by the lore, using it as your muse for the entire game,* while being careful to keep lore and mere gameplay mechanics separate and independent of each other.

*otherwise, in my opinion you have no business having creative control over the series.

And for the record, Cyrodiil could indeed have undergone climate change. I've said a hundred times that the climate was just the symbol and the real loss was the vibrant, incredibly vivid culture filled with competing religions and political groups, the potential for an original, aesthetically pleasing setting the equal of Morrowind. But instead we got uninspired pap barely better than Fable. But yes, the jungle and culture could have changed. It could have changed into the Teletubbies makeup room and it still would have svcked.

I think Bethesda should follow lore religously...because if they don't who will? And that makes for a crappy game.