The identity of Elder Scrolls and how it relates to ESO

[Kalontas]

During a discussion in another thread, I lapsed into a question that perhaps was better suited as its own thread, so at an administrator's suggestion, I made one.

What really makes an Elder Scrolls game an Elder Scrolls game? What features are, in your opinion, necessary to have the game - ESO in this case - deserve that title? Because according to many critics (one of which am I) ESO just doesn't feel like an Elder Scrolls game because of several reasons. Reasons that according to us are elements that should be inseparable from a title in this franchise.

1) Crime. (Inb4 games make people violent) I won't lie, I enjoy crime in Elder Scrolls games because there is some consequence to you committing crimes. You can't just barge into people's houses, loot their wardrobe before their eyes and walk out of the room untouched. The owner will likely cry out, calling guards, or at the very least will take back the stolen goods. Or even attack you himself.

ESO? There's no pickpocketing, because as we've been told that would potentially turn friendly NPCs against you and let you kill members of your own faction and they don't want to allow that. From that reasoning it's not too hard to conclude we won't see any form of crime. We also heard there won't be clutter (so fruits and baskets strewn about), which is probably a good proof of no stealing.

2) Living NPCs. I know, radiant AI is far from perfect and NPCs will often talk about mudcrabs or make a conversation that's a complete and utter nonsense. But the point is, they behave almost as if they were alive. They go to sleep, lock their shops, and then in the morning eat a breakfast. In the evening you could catch them taking a stroll across the city, or chatting it up with their friends. They feel like people.

In ESO developers felt this kind of behaviour can't be done due to limitations of the MMO genre. While I must agree there is a grain of truth to it, it's not something insurmountable. I don't think it's inconceivable to give every shop a night shift so players can buy things in the night. Can't complete this quest right now because the necessary NPC won't come out till evening? Tough, it happens. As long as nothing necessary for progression is limited by current real world hour, it should be fine.

3) Freedom. TES games became almost universally associated with sandbox games, where you're free to roam around the world and do quests for whoever you want, potentially ignoring the main quest completely. You can just roam around goblin caves and steal their lockpicks. You can murder a random stranger and get admitted into a guild of professional murderers. You can join the holy temple, or roam around the countryside and fulfill the whims of demon-gods. Or you can just run around, catch butterflies and cook elsweyr fondue. You are not forced to do anything to progress in the game, and the only potential restraint are province borders. Now, a TES MMO could remove even that last border!

But from what we hear of ESO, it's quite different. You're hard-locked into one of the three warring factions, WoW-style. Specifically to avoid breaking away from those factions, many other features of an ES game were removed. Moreover, you can't even cross into the territory of another faction, so forget about going to Morrowind as a Breton, or seeing Summerset Isle as an Argonian. You can't even get expelled from those factions (and betray them and join another one) because you're forcibly friendly. Yes, you can make a character on the other faction, but it's beside the point. The point is this squanders the potential to just see all of Tamriel without any artificial borders.

4) Player housing. Many MMO developers seem to be almost afraid of letting players build in-game houses. Some of the most ridiculous arguments I heard were being afraid guilds arrange their houses into some... censorable shapes. Often we also hear we can't have them because it would take away people from the world, but in my opinion, it can be easily solved. (Disclaimer: I do not own Hearthfire, I don't know how you build houses there)

a) reserve a plot in every major city, that plot will remain in a personal phase which will be different for every player
b) leave a buyable (but expensive) deed for the plot and a dynamic quest which lets you design what style of architecture you want your house to be, then choose one of the specific shapes
c) separately buyable furniture
d) let players buy access to several things related to his skills or guild positions (mages get enchanting altars, fighters get weapon cases, etc.) - some of those modules would be some crucial endgame services (banks, auctioneers, etc.) but not all of them, to keep players travelling across the world
e) if you invite someone to group, he will enter your personal phase and see how you made your house - then you handle the group leadership to him to see his house
Voila! Nothing about this house contradicts necessities of an MMO.

5) (Not my personal deal-breaker, but I've heard a lot of people talk about this) Combat system. Many people have grown to love the real-time combat system of single player Elder Scrolls games. You have to actually hit a mob to kill it, not just lock-on to it and press keybinds to launch everything straight at it. ESO, apparently because of latency issues, will have a different combat system, more akin to existing MMOs.

All in all, in my opinion the developers went the wrong way. Instead of tacking on an Elder Scrolls paint onto a "WoW", they should have taken an Elder Scrolls game and take away only things that absolutely can't work in an MMO, without killing the unique "Elder Scrolls" feel. People are too constrained by pre-existing genre examples and try to replicate them too much, without thinking what really is necessary



Now that you've heard my rant, what is in your opinion a crucial part of an Elder Scrolls game? Which features make the identity of this franchise and should be present in all TES games? If they don't make it to ESO, why do you think they don't? Is that a deal-breaker for you?

[Velvet LeChance]

To answer your question simply, Elder Scrolls world and lore make Elder Scrolls, not it's crime system or it's pretty houses, sure they add to it, but they do not make it.

[Lynx]

To answer your question simply, Elder Scrolls world and lore make Elder Scrolls, not it's crime system or it's pretty houses, sure they add to it, but they do not make it.

This. What "makes" an Elder Scrolls game is not it's combat, because it's flat and boring (and I'm extremely glad they're adding more variety to it in TESO), it's not the crime system, even though it's fun it's very undeveloped and pretty pointless. What makes an ES game an ES game is the whole setting, the epic feel and the lore.

[Spelling Police]

To answer your question simply, Elder Scrolls world and lore make Elder Scrolls, not it's crime system or it's pretty houses, sure they add to it, but they do not make it.

This. What "makes" an Elder Scrolls game is not it's combat, because it's flat and boring (and I'm extremely glad they're adding more variety to it in TESO), it's not the crime system, even though it's fun it's very undeveloped and pretty pointless. What makes an ES game an ES game is the whole setting, the epic feel and the lore.

I'd add "freedom" to that (although I guess that's kind of implicit in "setting" to some extent), but aside from that I agree with this (particularly about the dubious quality of vanilla Elder Scrolls combat).

[Musicman247]

There are many other games that have everything you listed in the OP. Are they ES games, too? I'm seriously asking, because if what you have listed is what makes an ES game an ES game for you, then there are more than just five (main) games.

Edit: I might move this to TES General since the overall feel of this thread isn't really TES:O right now. I'll watch and see where it goes.

[Skrofler]

What really makes an Elder Scrolls game an Elder Scrolls game? What features are, in your opinion, necessary to have the game - ESO in this case - deserve that title?

Short answer: Tamriel and Bethesda. The name is official, approved by Bethesda and it's set in Tamriel. That should be enough. To claim the name for my own personal agenda would be equally ludicrous and rude.

1) Crime.

Economy mostly.
In SP (single player) you can be as filthy rich as you want but if you become too good at stealing in MP you may break the economy, so the economy has to be set up to handle it. That would dilute the honest crafting economy and that's certainly something developers have no reason to do.
Profitable crime won't work because you will be breaking the golden rule of MP - no altering other players' experience. Obviously there would be no sense in killing friendly players or key NPCs either (griefing) so what remains of crime? Fruit larceny and killing vagrants and beggars. Not worth the effort.

2) Living NPCs. [snip]
Can't complete this quest right now because the necessary NPC won't come out till evening? Tough, it happens. As long as nothing necessary for progression is limited by current real world hour, it should be fine.

That's a bit ambivalent to me. You just described a piece of halted progression. Are you fine with that or aren't you?
This is another golden rule of MMOs. We paid for all the content. We should get to play it when it suits us.
A lot of players (like me) could only play during the night. I should still have access to all the quest and vending options. One work-around might be to have the option to let players choose whether to enter a day phase or a night phase or let the day run its normal course, but it seems a bit unnecessary.

3) Freedom.
[locked factions and provinces etc.]

Freedom, yes, an important trademark of the series, but it can be done in many ways and I have no right to demand to satisfy my specific urge to go to Elsweyr. That would be an arbitrary demand considering Oblivion wouldn't even let me levitate over the city walls or kill Armand Cristophe. I don't need to mention all the things Skyrim won't let me do in the name of Freedom (mods fix most of these issues though).
That said, this is the first ES game where you will be able to explore all of the (non-randomly generated) provinces. There are just some limitations. Going to Elsweyr in TES 2-5 was certainly much harder.

Now, they chose a grand PvP setting for the game (DAoC style mind you so stop quoting WoW) where it wouldn't make sense for a Dunmer to go to Elsweyr because he would just be killed on sight or at least not have much to do because nobody would trust him. They have to stick with the consequences of that decision.
Yes, I was miffed too about the setting but PvP is obviously important in a major MMO these days and without faction locks it would become guild vs guild rather than an epic war that matters to lore and makes people immersed in Tamriel.

4) Player housing.

This is not definitely out of the game design. It's just definitely not in at launch and no promises that it will appear later. ZOS knows how important this is to some players.
For me, housing was necessary for storage in TES but won't be in ESO. Even though many apparently had houses for sitting down to have a cup of tea (with no guests and nobody watching and no benefits) I don't think it could be called a defining trait.

5) Combat system.

Combat that works is good. Broken combat is bad. This obviously has to submit to MP circumstances. I have no idea why some players would prefer broken combat just to have it reaall l.. ll time. (Sorry about the lag there)

All in all, in my opinion the developers went the wrong way. Instead of tacking on an Elder Scrolls paint onto a "WoW", they should have taken an Elder Scrolls game and take away only things that absolutely can't work in an MMO, without killing the unique "Elder Scrolls" feel. People are too constrained by pre-existing genre examples and try to replicate them too much, without thinking what really is necessary

People need to stop quoting WoW all the time or show that it's justifiable. Some things just come with the genre and it's not Blizzards fault or anybody else's. ESO sets itself apart from the Grand Old Man in so many ways. Most of the things you mentioned come with the genre.
I disagree with what you think ZOS have done to conform to the genre. I ask you: Are there any major features that could be done in the type of MMO that ESO is that haven't been ruled out? (Housing is not ruled out) Remember, the finished product must be an exciting and balanced multiplayer product. The alternative is a terrific new game that sells in the thousands.

[deathm00n]

Imagine if the server can handle say 100 people in one city at the same time. Imagine if all of them could steal and kill whatever they want. Better change the name to Elder Scrolls Chaos Online. And player house in the way you describe it? Only if the game has really small phases, with only 20 people in each, imagine if the whole server could build houses, we would have a metropolis. This could get out of control and the whole landscape would be filled with houses. The solution that other MMOs have for this is that every player has the interior of his house, but there's no real house in the world for you to admire, wich for me is worst, I prefer no houses at all.

[Mattbott]

the freedom - play who you want the way you want

exploration - the detail of the land you're in and the entities that populate it

the lore

in that order. Other games do other things better , but TES excels in the above three areas

[Yaije]

People need to stop quoting WoW all the time or show that it's justifiable. Some things just come with the genre and it's not Blizzards fault or anybody else's. ESO sets itself apart from the Grand Old Man in so many ways. Most of the things you mentioned come with the genre.

I'd just like to say... look at the 900lbs gorilla in the world of MMO's. Note the image on it's butt-cheek

Spoiler:

It not only defined the genre for abouts 6 it.s the game the vast majority of gamers are exposed to today. I know I'm the first person in line to bash it when I can but I have to recognize that the game is almost universally known when talking about online gaming. MMO's without WoW is like FPS without CTF at this point in time =/

Kinda sad really cause I think I found the closest we'll get to an MMO version of Elderscrolls - seeDarkfall and maybe EVE

Spoiler:

yes I'm aware eve is futuristic sci-fi and not fantasy. It does however offer a free roaming open "world" (galaxy really) environment where you basically are able to do whatever you want within the game rules. Though I am slightly aware of a game that Goblinworks is looking to make supposedly set up in a manner similar to Eve with a fantasy setting: Pathfinder Online

Honestly though, a lot of the list of What Makes an MMO needs to be re-evaluated in my opinion. People should probably go look at games like Eve, Runescape, Darkfall (and others I know I haven't given the time of day) in addition to the Rift/ToR/WoW games. Though the games that have the most active paying players tend to be the ones commonly used as far as I'm aware.

Honest question. How many players play the various MMO's (and I mean ANY of them)? WoW constantly seems to show off something of a player count (almost every damned add/comercial).

Imagine if the server can handle say 100 people in one city at the same time. Imagine if all of them could steal and kill whatever they want. Better change the name to Elder Scrolls Chaos Online. And player house in the way you describe it? Only if the game has really small phases, with only 20 people in each, imagine if the whole server could build houses, we would have a metropolis. This could get out of control and the whole landscape would be filled with houses. The solution that other MMOs have for this is that every player has the interior of his house, but there's no real house in the world for you to admire, wich for me is worst, I prefer no houses at all.

Simply, imagine some of the most entertaining parts of oblivion/skyrim and imagine a computer trying to replicate them for 3 more people in the same area. Forget 20 people in the market buying equipment.... imagine 2 people making cheese-falls off a roof.

Housing itself can be doable, but it would need sooooo much tweaking and a means of removing unused buildings over time. Most players really don't have that great a desire to have a personal plot of land forever (most would be content with a bank box only). Games that do have personal construction on a large scale have tend to eventually have tons of ghost towns as the players that establish them move on to more relevant areas of gameplay. I've only seen two ways that handle in game housing in a way I enjoy.

One: Houses were located in separate instances/cells that you could go to (and take friends) where you see the outside yard and building and then can go inside (runescape, lotro).

Two: Houses and other buildings could be built (at rather great expense compared to other things) on areas claimed by your guild/clan. however the area itself was always at risk of being taken by other groups if you didn't properly defend it. (EVE, Darkfall)

The above examples both countered out ghost towns that resulted from people just building to build and losing interest after awhile. Which is really the biggest problem I have with in game housing.

[Avron the S'wit]

Imagine if the server can handle say 100 people in one city at the same time. Imagine if all of them could steal and kill whatever they want. Better change the name to Elder Scrolls Chaos Online.

Thank you - I agree. PVP is fun, but when it's "wherever you want, whenever you want!" it can be not just chaotic but just darn annoying. Even other MMOs have a pretty thorough system of checks and balances to prevent all of this chaos from happening, although you'll get griefers and trolls without a doubt. But I hate nothing more than players who aren't combat focused getting smashed down left and right by the big guns on the server, and with so many people all over - wooo!

A successful game has to try to create a system that appeases as many people and playing preferences as possible - the same way the forum tries to appeal to the most users as possible. You aren't always going to satisfy everyone, but if you can make something the majority enjoys, success. And really, I'd enjoy my TES games without being destroyed every five minutes by some noob in Europe.

Honestly, to me, TES is all about the story, the lore, and the world. I am under the impression so far that I can be who I want in TESO without breaking from the tradition of what I know about the game's history, and that's encouraging to me. If it was completely alien to the feeling I get when I play the single player games, then I probably wouldn't enjoy it; but right now my expectations are that it will be accurate.

[Demiverse]

The only requirements for an ES game are

a) it has "Elder Scrolls" in its title (regardless of the studio producing it), and
b) it takes place in the Elder Scrolls universe.

What about "The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard"? This little Bethesda game bears the Elder Scrolls tag, and was even directed by Todd Howard. But you'd be hard-pressed to call it an RPG, or claim that it contains many of the elements mentioned in the OP.

Gameplay itself is irrelevant. The lore is what's important to the integrity of the series. TES VI could be a FPS for all I care. Heck, it would probably net even more sales than Skyrim.

On that note, has anyone seen The Making of Oblivion video? Towards the beginning, Todd Howard says something to the effect of "I used to be a nerdy kid in my garage making video games, and look at me now". The subtext there is "now I'm laughing all the way to the bank".

Don't kid yourself into thinking that preserving the "identity" of TES universe is more important to the devs than pure sales. The series already has a history of making both gameplay and lore "tweaks" for the purpose of attracting a larger demographic, at the small expense (from a sales perspective) of a few disillusioned hardcore fans.

[Xarnac the Conqueror]

The gameplay, since nobody would have bought any ES title if it was a linear, mindless button masher. Why do you think there was only one ES:Adventure game, that sucked by the way? As much as people want to lie to themselves, the reason the ES is huge, is because of the game play, not the lore (the majority of ES players don't even really know anything about the lore). If it was just the story or setting, the ES would be books, comics and shows and that would be about it. But the ES are GAMES and not just any games, but expansive sandbox RPGs where you can create anything you want. Take that away and you've taken away the spirit the ES created with Arena.

Generic MMO game play (that nobody asked for or wanted) is not Elder Scrolls title game play. Not having the freedom of a numbered title, or the choice to be whoever I want to be=Not an ES game worth acknowledging.

But the real question shouldn't be what makes an ES an ES game, but what makes an ES game a good ES game. You can have an ES title with all of the mechanics, but if the game sucks, then it sucks.

And as you can see from the overwhelming criticism by fans on the many forums and comment sections over TESO's differences, TESO will probably fail. And for the same reasons they are criticizing it - generic MMO game play with too many missing fundamentals from the series gone. And who could blame them? Certainly not people interested in playing an ES game for the same reasons they played all the others.

[Demiverse]

@Xarnac

DISCLAIMER: My previous post was a cynical and slightly sarcastic commentary on the state of the franchise. It certainly doesn't reflect my beliefs on what "defines" an Elder Scrolls game, nor my aspirations (be they idealistic or otherwise) for the future of the series. I apologize if that wasn't implicit in my choice of language. Intonation and conversational nuance is often lost in the ether of the internet.

With that out of the way, I'll try to address some of the points you've made.

Why do you think there was only one ES:Adventure game, that sucked by the way?

The Elder Scrolls Adventures was intended to be a spinoff series of adventure games set in the Elder Scrolls universe. Yes, the game was met with poor reception, and the "series" tanked. But that doesn't mean Redguard wasn't an Elder Scrolls game.

It's like claiming The Old Republic isn't a Star Wars game because it isn't an RPG like KOTOR was, or an action-adventure like other "official/numbered" Star Wars games (like the Episde 1 and 3 games, for instance). All of these games exist within the Star Wars universe and are bound to the same lore, though they span various genres of gameplay. The only way they can be entertained as not part of the series/universe is if they break the lore.

As much as people want to lie to themselves, the reason the ES is huge, is because of the game play, not the lore (the majority of ES players don't even really know anything about the lore).

I'm sorry, but this is where you're dead wrong. In fact, a statement like this makes it sound like you have little to no awareness of the climate and opinions of TES fanbase at all.

I'll concede that with the advent of Skyrim, the series now has more "casual gamers" (if you'll pardon the inherent condescension in that phrase) than ever before. But you're missing a huge piece of the big picture here. In marketing, it's a "little" term known as cult branding.

Every successful company knows that one long-term consumer is far more important that one, two, or even three one-time consumers. In fact, a company must foster a following - or cult (a demographic of loyal consumers) dedicated to their brand (a product or franchise that is somehow distinguished from its market competitors by quality, uniqueness, or style) - in order to survive. And never more so than in an arena as fiercely competitive as the contemporary video game industry.

Bethesda is well aware of this. While with each new release, they strive to introduce as many new potential consumers to their brand as possible (which is often achieved by toning down or even omitting many of the gameplay elements being discussed here), they also know that a large percentage of their projected sales for a new product will come from return customers. People who have played and enjoyed previous Elder Scrolls games, and are hoping for that distinctive style and level of quality they have come to expect from previous releases. To say that "the majority of ES players don't know anything about the lore" is a slap in the face to a vast portion of the Elder Scrolls audience.

If it was just the story or setting, the ES would be books, comics and shows and that would be about it. But the ES are GAMES and not just any games, but expansive sandbox RPGs where you can create anything you want. Take that away and you've taken away the spirit the ES created with Arena.

If we're calling Skyrim an "expansive sandbox RPG", then it's not much of a stretch to say the same for TESO.

*Equips tower shield for incoming volley*

Not having the freedom of a numbered title, or the choice to be whoever I want to be=Not an ES game worth acknowledging.

I agree completely, but again it's all syntax. Not an ES game worth acknowledging. But still an ES game. Every good franchise has its peaks and valleys. Sometimes the valleys have to be ignored altogether. It won't hurt you to pretend it doesn't exist. That's going to be my coping mechanism for TESO.

[Skrofler]

I'm sorry, but this is where you're dead wrong.

This!

[Taters]

I'm sorry, but this is where you're dead wrong.

This!

Seconded. The lore is HUGE, and I've yet to meet an ES player who doesn't have at least a moderate amount of time invested in learning it. Now, sure, there are players who will buy any new game when it comes out, as happened with Skyrim, who care little for the lore or the series in general but just want "the next big thing". Those players, however, don't tend to stick around too long, since, after a while, it's not "the next big thing" anymore. I imagine the same will happen with ESO. Launch day will surely bring all sorts of trenders and generic MMO players, but there'll always be a hardcore fanbase who're there for the lore and the storytelling, and they're going to be the ones who last the longest. I think I speak for a lot of people on this forum when I say we'd rather see mediocre gameplay and strong, fitting lore than vice versa.

[Pilaf The Defiler]

The identity of the Elder Scrolls?

From the TESI Arena manual:

"In The Elder Scrolls, we have strived to put the fun back into role-playing. We have given the world many areas of exploration, over four hundred places where death can be dealt in new and exciting ways. It is a place where those of you who love combat and spell casting can earn fame and fortune by proving your prowess in battle. Among the hundreds of quests present in the world, the opportunity to save the Empire is there, for those who are brave or foolhardy enough to seek it out. We plan to dedicat further expansion and adventure modules to giving people new areas to explore or other mysteries to solve.

In The Elder Scrolls there is no absolute right or wrong. We have always held that the idea of "good vs. evil" is a bit cliché, however effective it may be for running a story. Things in the real world are rarely black and white. We did include an overall quest for those of you who wish to participate in the never ending battle of Light vs. Darkness. Failing this, however, only means that particular or adventurer has met an unfortunate end, not that the game is over for the dozens of other characters you might otherwise have chosen to play. If you wish to become a thief who robs innocent nobles, fine. If you wish to play a warrior who makes it his mission in life to kill these thieves, that's fine too. All we did is give the computer all the parameters of the Land, from NPCs and their motivations, to monsters and their treasures, to nobles and their quests. The rest is up to you."

[Abel]

I'm going to try to prove that the identity of TES != gamplay with a little story.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend of mine, who sadly has a horrible taste in games (think League of Legends and... well, actually, he only plays LoL). We ended up talking about Skyrim. I said how much I loved Skyrim and the other TES games, but he starts ranting that Skyrim is waaaay overrated: "quests are repetitive, dungeons all look the same, loot is always the same, fighting is dull, ...". And, while I was shocked to hear someone talk like that about an Elder Scrolls game, I had to confirm his points. If you're looking from the perspective of a gamer who is looking for innovative combat, strategic planning, rewarding quest awards and loot, ... you can't blame them for looking elsewhere. Other games (be it RPG, action/adventure,....) can provide a lot more varied combat, quests, and so forth.
But I couldn't care less about the points my friend listed, because that's not the reason I like TES games. I like TES games because the world draws me in. Because they make me feel like I'm part of a fantasy world that has nothing to do with my daily boring life. Because of the TES games have huge lore background (which I know very little about, sadly).
And that's why I think the fan base of TES consists (mostly) of players who like the TES lore and background and not the gameplay. There are just so many games with better melee combat. So many.

[Avron the S'wit]

I definitely agree. Even within the series there have been things I've disliked (incredibly so), but my interest in the world and its history is what hooks me and allows me to use my imagination to make things positive. You're always going to have people who dislike X and people who love X, but such is life. Variety and spices and all that jazz.

[Xarnac the Conqueror]

snip

You're dead ill informed. The ES is big because of the game play, if it was another genre it would have never been as big. The reason people know about it in the first place was because of it's game style, not it's lore or story. Most people bought and went into every ES title without even knowing about the lore. Again, if ES were some linear two person fighting game it would have never been as big, but since it is an expansive sandbox RPG it succeeded. Hence why every ES numbered title was an expansive RPG and not just an interactive story. Nor did I ever say Redguard wasn't an ES game, I rhetorically asked why it tanked, becasue it got bashed for not having series game play. It wasn't praised for it lore rebooting, or expansive story for an adventure game, no it was bashed for not playing like Dagger or Arena.

The lore is huge, but not the reason the ES is what is is.

[Velvet LeChance]

snip

The ES is big because of the game play, if it was another genre it would have never been as big. The reason people know about it in the first place was because of it's game style, not it's lore of story.

Actually people know about it because of Bethesda's large advertising/marketing budget.

The game may mean the game play to you, but to me and seemingly a lot of other people in this forum it's the lore and world that sucks us in.

[Xarnac the Conqueror]

snip

The ES is big because of the game play, if it was another genre it would have never been as big. The reason people know about it in the first place was because of it's game style, not it's lore of story.

Actually people know about it because of Bethesda's large advertising/marketing budget.

The game may mean the game play to you, but to me and seemingly a lot of other people in this forum it's the lore and world that sucks us in.

Bethesda didn't have a huge marketing budget when Arena came out. It's the game play, since Beth wouldn't have the same following if they made linear action or adventure games and not expansive RPGs. They come for the game play, they stay for the lore. It is the game play. Whether you started with Arena, or any other title, you came for the game play, since you couldn't have known about the lore without playing the games.

Who the hell learns everything about a series and it's lore without ever playing the games? Posers or something? If it was just the lore, people wouldn't even need to play the games, they could just come here or go to the IL. That however is not the case and like I've already said the majority of the new money from each game knows nothing of the lore, they bought it for the game play, they bought it becasue they thought Vikings get to headshot Dragons.

If ES:VI came out and it was an on rails facebook sim, nobody would buy it, not becasue of lore reasons, but because it isn't ES game play.

[Velvet LeChance]

Admittedly many people may have originally picked Elder Scrolls up because they liked the look of the game without ever really knowing much about the lore and world. But many of the non-casual players stuck around because if the lore and the world. Jedi Taters and Demiverse actually explains this a lot better than I will be able to so I'd suggest re-reading their posts.

Secondly I'd like to point out that many people didn't start playing Elder Scrolls with Arena, most of the fanbase jumped on during later instalments of the series. Actually from what I've seen the original reviews for Arena weren't even that great. (It's definitely my least favourite of the main instalments.)

If it was in the Elder Scrolls world, had elder scrolls lore, and added to said lore I'd buy it, just to check it out.

[Xarnac the Conqueror]

snip

They get it for the game play, if it played like another game, it would tank like RG did. It is after all a game and not a bunch of stories and most who play it (all of the new players with each title) really know nothing about the lore.

[Avron the S'wit]

I'm going to suggest we agree to disagree and move on instead of running around in circles. Thanks!

[Velvet LeChance]

Well I don't buy Elder Scrolls games solely for the gameplay, as I've explained in my first post. That's really all I can say on it, I'm done improving my post count for today.

Just about to do that Avron