Only because it is widely accepted that Tolkien started the damn genre.

It was the first, how can it be cliched?

Things that copy off of it are what is cliche...

Lore is very important. And very flexible.

Most is merely hinted at. Some is explicitly stated, but later revealed to be lies, misunderstandings or just plain incorrect.

The developers have loads of leeway to alter "known" Lore to their needs, and very little is concrete beyond what was actually experienced in the games themselves.

Break the world enough and even that can change.

You guys do realize we play video games for the gameplay right?

Unless you are a lot of people, be careful of the Royal We. For all you know, I play video games because I enjoy nature photography but hate the outdoors.

Followed, where its possible, If they remove or change some of the smaller bits I don't really care.

True we talked about the books in an older thread remember. You make good points I votede for the lore, but lore and stories can change and they are not set in stone so for gameplays sake some things can be changed while others remain the same. The lore and story is a very important factor for me but gameplay is a high point as well, Seti has some good points, if its not fun to play then the game will crash under the rest of its weight.

I have a few points on this

1 - I think lore can be bent to a certain extent, without totally breaking it. if you listened in history classes, you'd know that in 1800, the bible was seen by all as a history book! "it's all facts!". well, in 200 years look at the change. still, the laws of physics haven't changed you know...

2 - I don't really see exactly HOW a few slight changes in gameplay could totally ruin the lore. I'll take the example of riding dragons: just because almost no one did it before, doesn't mean it can't be done. people have been trying to fly for centuries without much success. still, it became possible after enough tries

3 - what EXACTLY tells you that the story books in the game were in fact stories that really happenned in the game world? I mean, I could understand if they were ALL books about the origins of things, but a lot of them are juts a good read. And besides, there might have been some "translation errors". I'll give another examle from the bible: in the original language, "He walked on the water" and "He walked along the border of the water" were written the same way.

4 - Honestly, there's one reason I never could stand playing Dragon Age. the story was good, but honestly, the gameplay was BORING!!!
That's why I think gameplay should be put WAY ABOVE anything else.

5 - Why in the hell is this debate going on anyways? this is Bethesda we're talking about: they've made their reputation by making the most coherent, believable game worlds for RPGs. I don't see why they'd change it

6 - Please, USE YOUR [censored] BRAINS!!!! most of the stuff mentionned in the forums won't ever be in the game, except if mods do it. So please, there are ALREADY enough people showing how difficult to please they are, don't give them YET ANOTHER topic for it!

and BTW this is not a rant on either Lore, or the bible lol. just examples I had on top of my head.

Video games are primarily meant to be played, and a person who mainly plays video games because they like nature photography would be better off going to Google Images or watching a nature documentary if that was the only reason they enjoyed video games. Lore/cannon is a bonus, and while it's obviously important to many people, me included since I'm a medieval fantasy junky, if something is inheritently wrong with a game's core gameplay purely because of it's lore, something is obviously wrong with that video game.

I'll go with "the lore cant possibly compromise gameplay!" because I couldn't think of any examples off the top of my head where the lore is getting in the way of gameplay.

I do not mind if they change it as long as it is good and is not [censored] gameplay is important but not hack' n 'slash.

When 20 years of playing RPGs you have, bored of generic D&D game mechanics you will be.

The same exact thing can be said for Lore.

I'm really split on this topic.

Without interesting lore it won't captivate me me for years like TES has.
Without good, fluid gameplay mechanics that aren't just thing I have seen 50 times already it won't keep me actually playing the game for more than a few dozen hours MAX.

I could write more on it, but then I would just be saying Ob lacked X so I stopped playing and couldn't bare to see another bandit in glass armor or listen to another passing comment.. or close another Oblivion gate... oops.. better stop before I start on MW...

anyway a lot of TES lore is either myth, rumour or hearsay. Change it a bit to make sense when appropriate is all good. It needs it all over TES lore.

I'm not a huge stickler for lore, but I think it should always be followed. Don't really see a reason to ignore it. Good gameplay and good lore > good gameplay and slightly flawed lore

I was just reading some of the erlier conversations on dragon mounts and wether there in lore or not
My question is why does it have to be in previous lore why cant there be a new hero that could learn to conquer and tame dragons.
Can new heros only do the same thing that heros before them have done? :shrug:

I agree with you there, as well, but since it seems so opposed, I figured proof of it existing in current lore would be a pretty good piece of evidence of why it could work. I agree that we shouldn't be afraid to add to lore, either. I know most people here would probably agree that adding to lore is better, but when Bethesda does, there always seems to be a group of people who think the new lore breaks existing lore and therefore is invalid. :shrug:

Hmm. Tough call.
On one hand, without interesting lore, it becomes "just another fantasy."
On the other, without good gameplay, the entire purpose of a videogame is outright defeated.

Its tough but I'm going with gameplay if only for the fact that otherwise a game has no purpose. If a game has great lore but poor gameplay its better off being a book or movie.

the thing is, they were very clear that dragons were extremely intelligent and have their own agenda. They are supposed to be godlike, powerful creatures, so the thought of taming and riding one (at least for me) would be intensely game breaking. I don't expect they to turn out as I had hoped them to be, against the standard grain of dragons, but even if we get Smaug x60, it wouldn't make sense to be able to ride them.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Starlover%27s_Log

Over the coure of an empires history stuff is added and then taken away. I agee with you both there is nothing wrong with adding to the story or reveiling other things that change up situations or entire sagas of whats already happened. I dont get the logic on if something is added how does that break lore opposed to enhancing or fleshing it out or ushering in change that is not lore breaking its adding to an already solid story and enriching it for the people that play the game. :whisper:

I don't believe that's a tamrielic dragon, but rather a battlemage companion.

It's a dragon. It's origins weren't stated, but they are irrelevant. It's a dragon.

If I recall there is a LIBRARY of scrolls, so, Uh, there is as many games as they so dub.

Not irrelevant at all. A summoned companion dragon made by a mage is far different than those who were made by gods.

Lore is extremely important to me, but gameplay needs to be good too. The lore has a rep for being extremely deep

Difference between Wizards and Gods:

Gods only wish they could be that powerful.

Made by gods? Those little dragonlings I was hacking to pieces in Daggerfall the other day sure weren't exactly godly. Where in lore has it even been stated that mages can create dragons? Mages don't create what they summon, they summon them from the planes of Oblivion and the article didn't mention anything about summoning, anyway. How much do we even know about Elder Scrolls dragons? Dragons have been intelligent, flying, town-wrecking reptiles in most forms of fiction, and from what we know, it's no different in TES universe. It's never even been said that dragons are created by gods, which, again, leads me to wonder what people are talking about. There was a Smaug-like dragon mentioned in Arena that took over a Dwarven lair. In Daggerfall, little dragonlings were a common enemy. In Battlespire, a dragon was mentioned as having been ridden. In Redguard, the main character killed a dragon used as a tool by the Imperial Empire (there's a dragon following orders). A book from Knights of the Nine mentions some wyrm guarding a relic in a ruin. Skyrim has firebreathing monstrosities. In the end, it's also still a dragon being ridden.