Bethesda Meetings

[soda popinski]

To what extent do these guys sit around and really debate this stuff?

To what extent is what they come up with so far beyond what they program, that they leave it for us to find out?

I really love the discussions about the lore (the great war, etc) that of course have no answers.

Do you think they get together every friday for a year, and intake some skunk and really get into this stuff to the point where, while our speculations might not have a solid answer in the game, they approached it where that answer was in fact real?

Or our our speculations on the falmor and things like that intentionally left so completely open?


My personal impresision is that they always are more in depth than you know until you personally put in the effort to understand what they are doing (read the books, talk to everyone, etc)

[OblivionDuruza]

It's my view that a lot of the Lore is open to interpretation, particularly with the amount of choice the player is given, it'd be silly of Bethesda to do something which would invalidate or alienate one side. If you look at every figure or organisation in TES history, be it Sheogorath, Tiber Septim, the Empire, there is often two sides to the story, neither of which more ture than the other. A major part of this is allowing players to have choice in what they believe, but another part is allowing for ambiguity so that Bethesda can twist Lore as they see fit for new games, as they did with Skyrim (effectively destroying or invalidating a lot of Nordic Lore to work Dragons in, creating a bunch of new - and arguably equally good, Lore in the process)