fucking morons dont fucking get anything

[gro-Dhal]

That's the only way to write mythology, certainly. Difficult to apply to the here-and-now (in game terms), on the other hand.

[Jacurutu]

This can only really apply when one is alone. In order to collaborate, one must come up with some common ground, some rules for the world -- the greater the collaboration, the greater the number of rules for the fantasy world. It is analagous to the idea of painting a picture: if each person were to paint a little square of that painting with no bearing as to what anyone else was doing, the painting would be a mess. Each painter might be pleased with their own little segment, but the whole would be utterly unintelligible and worthless. Cohesion makes or breaks a collaboration; a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

[Gez]

This can only really apply when one is alone. In order to collaborate, one must come up with some common ground, some rules for the world -- the greater the collaboration, the greater the number of rules for the fantasy world. It is analogous to the idea of painting a picture: if each person were to paint a little square of that painting with no bearing as to what anyone else was doing, the painting would be a mess. Each painter might be pleased with their own little segment, but the whole would be utterly unintelligible and worthless. Cohesion makes or breaks a collaboration; a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

There's two levels of lore. You could call them upper and lower levels, or surface and deep levels. Cohesion and consistency is needed on both. If you say Tiber Septim was born in 3e250, that's a breach of the superficial level -- he can't be born two-and-a-half centuries after the beginning of an era he promulgated himself. But it doesn't necessarily break the deeper level, depending on why you had him born that year.

The deeper level is more difficult to grasp since it's about symbolism, mythology and archetype, rather than simply about fictional history and geography. But it's also more important. Take a look at the in-game book, The Dragon Break Reexamined: this is a book that was written after the end of the third era, a gross anachronism. It's still not lore-breaking. Why?

[Sload]

And you obviously miss the point Jacurutu.

Frandir Hunding is not just a guy with a sword, he's a mythic symbol of warriorhood. Diagna is not just Frandir's emperor, he's a mythic symbol of leadership.

And right now our symbols fall flat on their faces.

[Mothergoose]

I think the idea is that, in order to complete engage the player and create a world that feels both alien and akin to our own, the lore or story of a game needs to serve as a basis of information and inspire the common themes of humanity. We need to connect with the stories, or in a small way appreciate them as our own, in order to beleive them... A world of flat facts and consistent progressions is a very boring world indeed. This idea is true with all mediums of art or fantasy. It needs to effect us, or impact us in a strong way that we understand. It is not enough to be original. It has to be deep. There needs to be themes. These themes need to be consistent and they need to be effective. We don't always remember that which interests us. We do remember that which changes us.

[Jacurutu]

I think you build a much more compelling world if it follows a logical progression -- a logical world makes sense and is easy to relate to. You've already taken the plunge and made that momentary suspension of disbelief you must make to enjoy a movie, a game or a good book. You may argue that muddying roles and histories of the important figures in the game's world makes it a world more similar to our own because our accounts of the personal histories of important ancient figures (Jesus, Mohammed, Rama, etc.) are shrouded in mystery and metaphor for the real world. However, the game contains vivid, personal reaffirmations of the faith of the world (encounters with Daedra, the main stories of Morrowind and Oblivion), whereas the real-world demands those reaffirmations without evidence. Faith is very different when it feels personally corroborated. I don't like the idea of a world forcing its faith on to you as a player and then trying to step back and be an accurate representation of the general human experience. Faith in Tiber Septim is very different than faith in Christianity or any other real religion. It's not that I missed the point, I just don't think that's what a game is supposed to aspire to be.

[Lighter Than Some]

Its not to make you believe but to feel as though the rest of the gameworld believes.

[Haplo]

Which in turn would make it more believable for you the player.

[Sload]

A world without a story is wankery. This is a medium for storytelling, not just a game which needs a backdrop.

Which is why it pisses me off so much that the stirk quest was shat upon: I had a story about classism a la Zinn's Coming Revolt of the Guard. Now Stirk has a boring quest about ghosts.

If you disagree, then I'm sorry but you're wrong. What you want is something boring and depthless. That's not acceptable.

[Deeza]

Just to add my two pennies on this, I may seem to ramble a bit but there is a point I'm getting to, I promise:

I think that there's a point (which as I recall Tolkein made in the preface to one of the versions of the Lord of the Rings) that in any medium of storytelling there's a big difference between allegory and applicability (and this is why in my opinion he was a much better writer than C.S. Lewis, who always wrote in allegory).

Allegory is always clumsier as a device because it requires the reader(or player) possessing specific knowledge in order to recognise the metaphor and also has the effect of forcing the real world (and the author's opinions) into the story world, which wrecks the sense of immersion, because there's nothing worse than being constantly reminded that this is something that has been WRITTEN, or PROGRAMMED, by somebody with an axe to grind.

Applicability on the other hand allows the reader to relate things which happen in the game or book to their own personal world, drawing theings out rather than having them forced in. What really matters is not whether or not the situations are realistic, but that the characters involved, and the ways they react, still ring true enough that people can identify with them.

So just because a story is a fantasy doesn't necessarily mean that it's about fantasy "let us save the magical kingdom from the orcs of Klakdsfjldkjffdha, etc."- but neither does it mean that the whole of the main quest of Morrowind was a metaphor for the War On Terror or something like that.

In Hammerfell, being slowly assimilated into Imperial culture and religion, the people have a classic dilemma, one which is faced by people all over the world as it gets increasingly interconnected: where does the border lie between embracing the modern world and losing something precious of your own culture forever?

There's some traditions people would be glad to be rid of and have replaced by Imperial ideas, because the traditions sucked, like slavery in Morrowind. But at the same time it's rather sad that in a couple of hundred years time everywhere from Seyda Neen to Gnaar Mok is going to look like Pelagiad and Vivec will be just a tourist attraction swamped by hordes of yokels from Bravil.

This conflict wouldn't be too hard to get across in the game, provided the main players were well enough developed, each representing a different opinion. None of them evil (but none of them good in the conventional sense either) - just with very different positions on the issues. Some want to suck up to the Empire because of the power it will bring them. Others will accept that the Empire is here to stay and that makes them fight even harder to preserve their culture as a part of that (you might call them progressive). And of course, there's always a few who can't accept the modern world and resort to the only tool they know how to use, violence, to try to make it go away. These are the kind of positions that only a leader can take, because they're not constrained by having to live from day to day in the world affected by their decisions.

The challenge for everyone else in the world, (and most importantly for us this also includes the player) is to try to find some place where they're comfortable along that spectrum. Does someone convert to worshipping the Nine but still involuntarily greet people with "three blessings" out of habit? Abandon the most regressive ideas of their ancestors but draw a line and decide some change is good but enough is enough? Does someone defy prejudices by having an interracial marriage (something that fantasy doesn't explore often enough as a metaphor for the modern world in my experience)? It's little things like this that make a fictional world vastly more believable and inclusive for the player or reader.

Investment in characters and motives always pays off in terms of how memorable a game or a film is, which is why its always such a shame to see a game with amazing graphics and, often as not, a great idea for a story as well, has the legs cut out from under it for lack of realistic motivations for its characters. Why else is the increasingly innacurately-named Final Fantasy still going after twenty years? Because they realised right at the beginning that no matter how good a game is, if you can't identify with the characters in some way it rings hollow.

This is something that I think has always been ignored as games are judged mainly on their graphics and gameplay (in all fairness, the plots of 99% of games are total trash). Why not let's take the opportunity with this project to show the gaming industry that a bunch of amateurs can come up with a more believable and involving storyline than they can?