While I don't own every single TES game, I do know the basics of all of them. And I do noticed that the lore seems to be constantly evolving.

When Arena came out, it was sort of like a fetus. It was set in a very basic and generic Tamriel that had little to no backstory that I personally know off. Then came Daggerfall, while it did developed the background and culture of Tamriel; (Though mostly just the Illiac Bay, with a lot about Cyrodiil.) Albeit it was still something of a generic medieval European theme. (I recall even Morrowind was somewhat like that at the time.)

Then Redguard came out. While from the gameplay I've seen, it didn't show much new lore (I never play the game so I am probably wrong on that.) It did came with the PGE first edition. Which described Tamriel in a much different manner than what Daggerfall and Arena described. One such example of Cyrodiil being a tropical jungle. And most of it was written by no other than MK

Morrowind then came out and even expanded on MK's version of Tamriel. (He was still a main writer after all.) mostly by updating current events as Redguard was set in the Second Area. This "era" of Tamriel's writing and lore is perhaps the most popular among Elder Scrols fans, especially the ones who played the older games.

Oblivion came out. There quite a few retcons, the biggest of which was turning tropical Cyrodiil into a Gondor 2.0. Many people were understandably pissed of at Bethesda for doing this, it didn't help much either that the game didn't even properly represented Nibenease and Colovian culture, making the Imperials look like they were one the same. (I even recalled Todd Howard admitted into getting that part wrong, but I don't know of a link.) And the politics described in the PGE were "watered down" to say the least. And it was during that time I believe that MK wasn't a lead writer anymore...

When Skyrim came out, it did acknowledged some of MK's newest work (WGC and Many Headed Talos are an example) and older ones. (Painted cows.) However, a lot of loreumnites complained of some changes. (One example of Alduin being Akotosh's son when it was explained that they were different aspects of the same soul.) Overall, some thought it was a better than what happened at Oblivion and others thought the lore was basically being "slaughtered". (Might be a bad choice of words.

Then there's ESO. While not released; there were, and still some, controversies on these forums about how much of the lore they changed. (Such as giving a different explanation of how Cyrodill got forested when MK already wrote an explanation himself, which was acknowledged by Bethesda.) Mainly though were the little things.

So the question is, do you think Bethesda or Zenimax are trying to change a lot of what MK contributed on purpose? If so; then why? Is it because they wanted to appeal to "casuals" (For lack of a better term" that wouldn't get most of MK's stuff? Or is it because they have a different group of writers that have a different vision than what MK and his crew had in mind? Do you prefer the change or you don't?

Honestly, it's more a matter of butthurt people having their head canons contradicted more than anything else. While there have been some serious retcons, the whole of the lore has been roughly consistent, and draws on works written and designed in the past when shaping a new province.

And no, a business is not going to change things to suit "casuals" or even to purposely conflict with the works of previous writers (such as MK), they are going to make decisions from a business perspective. You'll notice also that a lot of work is written in in-game books by fallible authors, so it isn't always bad when something like the Volkihar in Dawnguard aren't the carbon copies of the Volkihar in what was essentially the Tamriel version of a story or novel. And oftentimes, new lore is just a filling in the blanks of old lore, an extension of it, and not an immediate retcon.

'sides, the community will always fix mistakes that come up, and make the lore cohesive. That's what we got writers and lore buffs for.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Cyrodiil's climate. (I quite liked the environment of Oblivion...A bit more generic than Morrowind maybe, but I liked it in its European-ness.) And though I didn't really know anything about Colovian or Nibenean culture at the time, when I did learn I was a bit disappointed with how Oblivion did it.

In all honesty the first TES game I played was Oblivion, and I haven't even scratched the surface of Morrowind yet, so my knowledge of Elder Scrolls may still be a bit on the noob side.

I don't think they tried to change anything on purpose, really. I think that they are different people with different biases and different visions for the series. Ultimately, MK still works on stuff and I'm sure he gives quite a bit of input every time a new TES project/game comes out.

It's not like it's MK VS Kuhlman or anything like that, from what I can tell.

@ Mudcrab.

I don't mean to make it to look like MK and the new writers are having this eternal war. I do know that MK still has contact with Bethesda in some way, but not to the extent that he had in the early 2000s. I meant more like comparing the changes this new crew implemented in the writing and seeing people's opinion on it.

I dislike the phenomenon of glorifying and fixating on Kirkbride's role in the lore. It feels unhealthy and unrealistic.

The former sort of falls under the latter. 99.8% of the people who play Skyrim wouldn't understand most of what MK writes, nor would they care. They just want to kill dragons and murder people as Vampire Lords. Bethesda knows that. That's why we have quest markers and an omniscient compass. That's why we have a satellite map. That's why there are no serious consequences to our actions. That's why some of the more complicated lore is hidden away in places only the curious would think to look or notice.

Changing things to suit "casuals" is the most lucrative decision from a business perspective, and that usually entails ignoring established lore (although it's also done for the sake of simplifying the development process, but that's another topic entirely and something we can't blame them for doing anyway).

You asked if you think the current devs are changing things on purpose or if they simply have a different view.

It's safe to say they just have different views and are different individuals. MK isn't employed officially by Bethesda anymore therefor the current devs do what they can with what was established. I don't think much has changed.. it was never a one-man show and that guy is still in contact with the team. Things would have changed and been tweaked inevitably anyway.

I always like to remember that most of the lore pieces we have are not "word of god" but rather in-universe mortal accounts, meaning it's not implausible for them to be proven wrong down the road. The mortal view of the Aurbis is woefully limited.