ummmm.....
*some curved arrow reference*

Thing is, vampires are in a massive disadvantage in day, it's what makes them fun to play. If they just had a few stat debuffs, it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Then again, it's not exactly fun to be able to completely negate all sun damage by molesting a few sleeping folks now, is it?

However, Skyrim's vampires aren't THAT big a deal. All I hope is that Valenwood's "undetectable unless near a candle/torch" Vampires don't get a major "streamlining"... Or (Black Marsh's?) vampires that live as a families child for years.

Daggerfall's incarnation of Lycanthropy in general, as well as Vampirism, was the best.

Hell, Daggerfall's version of Lycanthropy was better. I think Bethesda should of done it the way Daggerfall had done it. Every month a forced transformation and at least one transformation at will. Player stats in human form can be increased and all that. If people complained, just get the Ring of Hircine to control the transformation.

I disliked the concept of transforming at will.

Define "fun" I find a classical vampire experiance like those in old literature to be fun what most people seem to find fun is pretty much "just make it hard". To me that's a svcky way to define "fun".

At least the only thing that they botched regarding Lycanthropy in Skyrim was the lacked of a forced, once-per-month transformation.

Poor vampirism was built poorly from the ground up.

Daggerfall's everything was better.

Sorry, had to help out there. Couldn't resist.

Oh great this argument "all the games since daggerfall svcked". like that sort of NMA bull ugh. So wait the only way to make vampires cool is to make them based on hollywood myths? Going back tyo real old school literature is bad?

Old =/= Better, just as New =/= Better

It all depends on the end result. I, for one, prefer the more modern approach to vampirism/lycanthropy.

Violating the lore that Bethesda themselves laid down is bad.

OK now THAT is a problem but simply going B'awwwwwww they don't burn in sunlight so it msut be Twilight regardless of the fact that that is still a reletively new element to vampirism and not burning in sunlight far predates Twilight means they svck and are not vampires!

What? :confused:

Am I the only one confused about where this came from?

Yeah, but when you take away forced transformation then it's no longer Lycanthropy, but instead, shapeshifting. Sure, not once in the game "shapeshifting" is mentioned and the wolves are regarded as werewolves...but I still don't see it that way. Most people don't.

Vampirism was horrible because the lack of clans. Other vampires attack you and the general lore of the Volkihar was changed. It would make sense for the Cyrodiilic vampires to go to Skyrim, take over and remain there. But since some NPC's are called Volkihar ancient means the Volkihar are present. But so is Movarth Piquine, whom we last heard was bitten by a Cyrodiilic Vampire at the end of "Immortal Blood".

And also, Cyrodiilic vampires, lore-wise, are politics l and noblemen/women of the Empire who manipulate behind the scenes and deceive. Think of the Thalmor, but vampire style to a lesser degree of influence.


Yeah. That was random.

Nope. Obviously he thinks that people who hate the implementation of Vampirism in Skyrim are Twilight bashers.

...Okay, so that's true, but nowhere did I correlate Skyrim Vampirism with Twilight "vampirism." Nor will I ever.

Yep, that's what I said earlier. A daywalking vampire is closer to original vampire lore than the night-only version.

Sorry just a bit of a rant on my part. people assuming that the sunlight thing is as old as the myth itself rather then how it actually is fairly new is frustrating to me. but that brings me to werewolves. a werewolf does not have to be forced. I brought this up much earlier in the thread. in fact the classical myths had them as a sort of deal with the devil wizards and witches who got hte power ot change at will. There were involuntary situations involving curses such as King Lyceus who was forced to be a wolf forever and another who turned every fortnight and could only change back if he could find his clothing but the full moon thing cropped up in the 1930s as well as the edxpliciit connection ot silver and the bite thing.

Just because it's older, doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be better.

Except in the case of Daggerfall's supernatural transformations, apparently.

I never said anythinb about Twilight. Twilight is aweful for a host of reasons but it did not invent trhe notion that vampires arn't harmed/killed by sunlight that was inventedf by the old myths and writings from 1897 going backwards. The ide3a that they are harmed/killed by sunlight is the new element so it's not a Twilight thing. You're putting words in my mouth.




This coming form a fan who says everything after Daggerfall svcked (sorry if i'm wrong on that count the posts are starting to run together)

I stopped reading at page 3.

My vampire beliefs are based on "Interview with a Vampire"

If vampires don't closely follow those guidelines, they aren't "real" in my mind.

I prefer Daggerfall's Lycanthropy because I find it better, not because it's older..

I also frequently play and enjoy Morrowind and Skyrim (of which I actually prefer over Daggerfall due to modability), and they're hardly old.

Morrowind>Daggerfall>Arena>Oblivion, imo (Skyrim is too new to rate, but around the begining somewhere)

Anne Rice one of the biggest contributes to ruining vampires.

Don't forget, only level 4 vampires take sun damage but all vampires have increased fire weakness.

And all that is largely irrelevant to Elder Scrolls lore, which happens to be based on the most familiar pop culture implementation of Vampirism.







Everything? Definitely not! Lycanthropes and Vampires? You bet!