good point.

I think the integrity of the amazing world they have created is very important. It's one of the few gameworlds that I can lose myself in. Throwing all that away just to include some cool feature would be sad, I'd rather play with the feature in another game that I don't care so much about.

Still, I can't see this being an issue very often. Gameplay mechanics are usually quite neutral on lore.

Maybe including some major spell effect that's never been in the game before would be difficult to pull off, but you could always integrate it into the game, for instance as a new discovery at whatever the Skyrim mages' college is. Would be nice to have a magic university that actually does research for a change.*

Let's hypothetically say that dragon riding contradicts lore (I'm aware of the discussion above, it's just an example). Let's say the developers want a dragon-riding experience in the game. Easy solution is to think up some other winged mount that has some kind of magic attack. Put it into the game, never mention 'dragon riding', and wait a little while for those who wanted dragon riding in to realize that they have something that is functionally identical. Everyone's happy.

*...or drowns in paperwork, money-wrangling and other beuraucracy, which seems to be the way universities are going, at least here in Denmark

Lore I think is important but just the same is game play... after all it's a game (duh). But lore even if it's in a state of constant flux still explains why things are the way things are; how magick works, what politics governed this and that, and the origins of that particular people etc. It makes everything mesh well into the world around it and that in turn makes it believeable.

That's what I want most for Skyrim, a believeable world, very alien yet slightly familiar at the same time.

For me Lore is the glue that holds the series together and prevents the world around the lore from having a meaningless existance. Gameplay should follow the lore yet lore should be flexible to some point.

Who is this 'Lore' fellow and why do three four people want to screw him? :blink:

Opposite of this.

Altair, I hear Lord of theRigns is waiting for you. Gameplay>Lore? No thank you, I don't need the twenty-trillionth generic game.

I think I've played all the Elder Scrolls games, except the expansions/DLC for Oblivion (Arena is the one I'm not so sure about). I don't think I could hold a conversation about any of the Lore in the series, that's how important it is to me. It adds to the story but is of lesser importance than gameplay.

He's Data's evil twin brother. Remember? And, if he's truly like his twin, he was built fully functional

...Now I need to come up with something else to contribute to this discussion.

More Gameplay = Better. Of course, that may be because I see the TES games as fantasy-world Modding platforms than anything more substantial.

Don't add facts if you are not certain that you can deal with them, that's my motto. If good writers wright lore, they can work with it, if it is impossible to work with that means that the writing was crappy to begin with, and does the game no credit. I haven't encountered anything that can't be worked with in TES yet. The only reason to bend TES lore is laziness, and I'm not a fan of that one.

Just out of curiousity, we're all aware that we're playing games and that what separates them from movies and books, such as Lord of the Rings, are gameplay, right? Lore is great, but if you're looking for a good read over good gameplay, I don't think you're dabbling in the right form of entertainment. The lore in its pure form is on the UESP, so I would just read that if I was only looking for lore. When I play a game, however, my primary objective is to actually enjoy the game part. Of course I read in-game documents, letters, and books and of course I pay attention to details, dialogue, and the story, but it's a game and I don't see why anyone should be playing a game if they think gameplay is unimportant. :shrug:

It a game is no fun to play, its story it rendered useless to me, maybe it will be nice to read about as a prelude to the next game which I would hope is better gameplay wise but I think it you are going to make a videogame you need to start of on the gameplay side.

Lore is the most important thing in this kind of game it makes the world what it is. I am completely against of breaking any of the lore to make "awesomeness". It would make the gameworld dull, bland, and boring...like Oblivions.

Are we talking about the same series... the series in which 3 out of 4 games have a setting pretty similar to Oblivion's... or in which Oblivion actually comes up pretty high on the list of more interesting gameworlds and having more lore?

As far as in-game lore by amount goes: Morrowind>Oblivion>Daggerfall>Arena

Tone > Gameplay = Lore > Graphics

Seti, umm no. Just no. If we're going to go based on they're all LotR except for gameplay then why aren't orcs evil? Why do we have gold-skinned high elves? Why're Dark Elves not Drow? Lore is the story, it is the foundation, the glue, and the duct tape of the franchise. And I play the games, because Elder Scrolls always has at least good gameplay (I played through FO:PoS, I know what's good and what's not). If I can tolerate FO:PoS, I can tolerate anything TES can throw.

I wouldn't mind changing the lore if they gave a lore answer to it
and example of this would be "no dragons on Vvardenfell because the cliff racers drove them out!"
sure, it's ridiculous and doesn't really make sense, but it's lore and everyone accepts it
I don't want any of this "there aren't spears because... there just aren't"

This makes the most sense here.

Most of you guys are a bit lore crazy, usually a good thing. But if its against adding something really needed to gameplay and your going to go all ape **** on it, thats the time to go outside and take a breath of fresh air.

And hell no to dragon riding.

This! But Cliffracers does make sense. 1 spider will decimate an ant. 1 spider will be driven out by 1000 ants.

Yes. :shrug: Daggerfall>Morrowind>Arena>Oblivion

"umm no. Just no." what? What do you mean by "tolerate"? Surely you realize that games are, in fact, separated from other forms of media by gameplay, right? No one should have to "tolerate" bad gameplay in a game. If a game has bad gameplay, it's a bad game because it fails at its primary objective. The reason why I'm here anticipating Skyrim is because I want to play it, otherwise I would go read one of the many books I have that focus on lore... both fictional and real. They're games. There is a very strong connection between the words "game" and "gameplay", and what does Lord of the Rings have to do with any of this? While there are game interpretations of it, it's not really a game series. All the Lord of the Rings games I have played have pretty mediocre gameplay, so I don't see how they factor into any of this. The series' lore is, of course, very important and sets up a very detailed background, but without good gameplay, they would be failures as games.

:lmao:

Well played sir...well played.

No. Morrowind has about 230 in-game books introduced through it, Oblivion has about 140 introduced through it, Daggerfall has about 90 introduced through it, and Arena has 0, literally 0... total.

By tolerate, I mean look past. And Lord of the Rings is the epitome of cliches for Fantasy Games. As for Lord of the Rings games, try Clash for Middle Earth II.

I know what you meant by tolerate. Rephrasing it as "look past" doesn't do anything to make my understand what you're getting it. Games are about gameplay. Mediocre gameplay is not something to look past, it just makes the game a failure as a game by the very nature of what a game is.

Thanks for the game recommendation.