(Now, just a warning, I don't particularly want a debate about ESO, I just need to mention it to clarify the question)

Hello,

I wanted to direct this question specifically towards lore-forumers, since I learned of democratically produced, positive attitude towards ESO. What is it that makes the TES series compelling to you?

From my point of view, ESO's generic, perhaps cliched environments (no matter how superficial that might be), thoughtless writing (in terms of real-world resonance) and uninspired plot and quest set up has caused me to deride it as a poor entry into the series. Whereas I always pride Morrowind for the inventivness of its world, and Skyrim, to a degree, to, no such praise can be leveled at ESO. For that reason, I, and apparently a large number of non-lore forumers(excluding the rabid-fans), strongly dislike the game.

However, I have come to realize that a vast majority of you hold it in higher regard than some of the standard entries in the series, and that has lead me to wonder whether you are an entirely different demographic of consumer to the rest of the community (do not mistake this for an insult).

From discussing ESO with many of you, I have found that, in your minds, you can excuse the poor substrate of cliches and blandness because of the thought that Lawerence....what's-his-face, the Loremaster, put into the surrounding books, and legitimizing such changes as, say, the absence of Ald-Cyrod. While I'm sure you can endlessly preach to me of the coherence of his lore, to me I identify here a difference in philosophy. Since the majority of what you do here is lore-ordering, so to speak, the tidiness and coherence of ESO's lore, no matter how bland the environment you had to trudge through to uncover it,is a reason for you to consider it almost superior to the last two games in the series.

But to me, someone not overly concerned with the metaphysics of the lore, I cannot rationalize this excuse. The presentation is undeniably bland, and despite the cohesion of the universe, offers nothing as an art form, arguably in gameplay, and certainly in terms of its story. ESO doesn't wear the lore on its sleeve, and doesn't use it to propel its story without resorting to masking it with fantasy cliches. I like this allegory - ESO is like a monochrome laser printer,precise with its lore (the metaphorical laser), but incapable of producing anything truly eyecatching.

So, am I right to think this way, or am I being unappreciative? What is it that fulfills you about the universe, and what criteria sorts the good from the bad?

Keep in mind, this is not a question about ESO as such, but about the philosophy behind your collective approval.

Every ESO topic seems to get locked, so I hope this one doesn't.

I hate what ESO stands for. It's done to TES what WoW did to War Craft. It's very watered down and plays second fiddle to PvP and grinding. There's a few gems, but this is the [censored] entirety of Tamriel actualized, it should be more then a theme park with a couple of attractions. No Sload, no Imgas, only 1 type of Kahjiit, dumb, forced lore choices to make the 3 way PvP work, and then ruining what ever good lore there was for the PvP content by making you fight your own factions instead of real end-game content.

It's bad, but not so bad that everyone will hate it, so it will become popular and replace the high standered we expect after play Morrowind. I just hope the next stand alone title released will have more focus on lore and not aim for multiplayer gimmicks instead.

It's Elder Scrolls Lite. All of Tamriel with none of the heavy lore.

I understand your gripes, but as I mentioned I don't want this to be an ESO thread, I was merely using it as a case study. I'm much more interested in the thought process behind why the lore forumers, who often seem to be acting in a more official capacity than the rest of us (for unafilliated people, anyway), deem it to be good. I want to know what constitutes compelling and superior, to them, I'm not here to debate the good and bad points of ESO per sé, but which of those points are more important to whom.

Nonetheless, thank you for speaking up, but if we continue in that vogue it will be locked.

I think the "Lore-umers" are simply more aware of the great pains ESO's writers went through to cover their asses and make sure nothing they add contradicts existing lore. They did a good job of that, and they've added a ton of new material to discuss, but I do question some of the choices they did make. I wouldn't say ESO will "ruin" the series, especially since the single-player games have a completely different developer and major audience.

To the topic at hand: it's the detail they put into their worlds that gets me, or at least it's what got me to stay. The first time I played Skyrim, I was enthralled by the open world, and all of the amazing things I could just sort of happen upon without looking. I remember starting the game on release day, talking with my friends about lycanthropy and wondering how it's obtained. I played through part of the Companions questline overnight and the next morning I was like "guys. I found out how to become a werewolf."

But now that I've played the crap out of every game save for Arena, and there isn't much mystery left, I stick around for the attention to detail. The metaphysical aspects of the lore are like tying together threads of a massive hidden conspiracy - a character like Miraak appears superficially as just a rival to the player character, but his background offers tons of implications with lots of little hints that support them.

I also like how they'll retcon without actually retconning, like with the Warp in the West or Cyrodiil's unjungledness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only time a writer outright retconned pre-existing lore was with certain parts of Khajiit physiology described in the Daggerfall edition of "The Real Barenziah".

It helps that the community is overall really great, compared to other communities I've explored. <3 y'all.