Saw a review from someone on GOG which read the following:

Any truth to this in regards to the lore?

No. It's as non-canonical as any other game in the series. [censored] gets retconned all the time and Arena and Daggerfall contradict just as much if not more of "current" lore than Battlespire does.

Now, the events of the game and the Battlespire itself are never referred to in any of the other games so in that sense it can be seen as "removed from canon".

Battlespire is referred to in the some of the in-game books in Oblivion and Skyrim and even ESO, though.

Specifically:

- Doors to Oblivion

- Tamrielic Lore

Tamerielic Lore mentions a hero who defeated Mehrunes Dagon in the Battlespire. That book can be found in Morrowind and Oblivion.

Battlespire has been mentioned plenty of times. Here are some off the top of my head.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Starlover%27s_Log (a text originally in Battlespire, later appears in Morrowind)

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Tamrielic_Lore

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Legendary_Scourge (another text originally in Battlespire that later appeared elsewhere)

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Doors_of_Oblivion

Exactly. Plus the Tamrielic Lore in-game book that appears in Morrowind and Oblivion actually mentions a hero defeating Dagon. So for all intent purposes, that guy who reviewed it on GOG was flat out wrong or just biased enough against the game he didn't want it included.

Aside from those books, while visiting the Soul Cairn in Dawnguard we may hear a line of dialogue mentioning the Battlespire, and the whole realm clearly takes ideas from that game (Ideal Masters looking like giant crystals, the various kinds of undead etc).

ESO references the Battlespire as well. This is a very rare item you can steal:

as far as I know Battlespire was never "removed from lore", likely just some guy slandering a product he didn't enjoy himself (which sadly is quite common on GoG reviews)


granted, i haven't played Battlespire yet, but isn't it even mentioned in the early main quest of Oblivion when you ask Jauffre who "the lord of destruction" is, to which he responds that Dagon had played a role during the Imperial Simulacrum?

Soul in the Cairn mentions being cast out of Battlespire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN006DWQw8E

So I think all of the above replies all but proves it beyond a doubt. I just wanted to know if one of the developers actually removed it from the lore, which was, as I suspected, bogus.

I remember seeing that review. The fact that they think that Battlespire is no longer in the lore either means that they don't actually know much about the lore, or they hate Battlespire so much that they don't care.

Indeed, all of the above and also that guy mentions that the Battlespire is inhabited by enemies who just wait around for someone to take their "test", instead of being a training place for actual humans...

So It seems he doesn't actually know what he talking about

Battlespire is, at the worst, "Broad Strokes" canon, as the Soul Cairn and the Ideal Masters are brought back in Dawnguard.

Kinda like Fallout Tactics, since we see some lore elements of it in FO3/FONV and probably in FO4 too.

battlespire's lore is still valid. however, it's gameplay is pretty bad, even in comparsion to Arena and Daggerfall at release. it was probably the least popular of the series on PC (though debatable with Redguard, however Redguard has decent lore and gameplay).

It's only specific details which can be somewhat questionable. I'm not sure if we'll ever see file cabinets again in a TES game, for example. But Battlespire, generally speaking, is as reliable as any of the main games. I think it's perfectly safe to treat its lore details as reliable unless and until they are controverted.

A substantial amount of Battlespire lore has been corroborated by other games. Almost all of it remains plausible; it hasn't been controverted.

One topic from Battlespire which we can infer has been retconned is some of the specifics surrounding Chimere Graegyn, as material related to him has been substantially revised.

Besides Chimere, references to Hircine's "Wild Hunt" have been changed to "Great Hunt", presumably to avoid confusion with the Bosmeri Wild Hunt.

Both Ulfric and Galmar say that the Great Hunt killed Borgas - which definately was of the Bosmeri variety

Sure, it's not a perfect dichotomy. It's possible Bethesda made an obscure joke about this in Dragonborn. But Hircine's hunt is predominantly referred to as the Great Hunt, while the great majority of Wild Hunt references are referring to Bosmeri rampages. In light of that, I think it's reasonable to infer that the text of Tal Marog Ker's Researches was later revised to refer to Hircine's hunts as the Great Hunts instead of the Wild Hunts to help avoid confusion.

I watched a Let's Play of Battlespire, and honestly the narrative and lore was pretty interesting. But the art direction and gameplay itself looked awful. I mean awful. But it's all canon, at least as far as anything is canon in the TES universe. Mentioned in later games, and a few texts from Battlespire survive into them. Not to mention the Daedric Crescent itself.

As a rule, I tend to ignore reviews where the writer is obviously buttmad. They might be good for entertainment value, but you can never rely on a review to tell you anything useful about the game if it was obviously written in a petty rage.

Also in Morrowind, Divayth Fyr had a lot of items that the hero of Battlespire had accumulated in their travels. I remember people used to believe that the hero and Fyr were one and the same.

He replied back to me and then said "well, they mention Battlespire but not the events" even though he wrote in his review that it was removed from lore (by the makers of all things he claims too!) He links me to the Battlespire entry on the Elder Scrolls Wikia for whatever reason.

I replied back (mentioning that imo, UESP is a better source) and gave him tons of links that prove Battlespire is mentioned both in name and events that occurred in the later games. He hasn't replied back.

I don't have any problems with people not liking a game. I'm perfectly fine with that. But he flat out gave misinformation and lied. It's not even subjective. Stating it was removed from lore and by the developers is flat out dishonest and may give potential customers the wrong ideas about the game. Go ahead and say 'this game is garbage and I disliked it because xxxx' but don't (willingly or not) misinform people about the story and its place in the setting.