There seems to be a fair bit of vampire lore in the vanila version of Skyrim. I just think it's a bit lame they'd make it a theme of a dlc pack for a TES series. It's like the dovakiin was destined be a hunter of some sort. Dragon hunter, bounty hunter, witch hunter, werewolf hunter, now even a vamipre hunter.

Its Cliche because of all the so called knowledge about Vampires could very well be ruined in the DLC. Immortal Blood was not the only source but many had claimed some sort of Power that was unusable in said region... Cyrodiil Vampires were suppose to blend almost impossibly into Society (which Beth used as a starting point from Morrowind which you could not even be around people) and Yet you still had the insane aging effect and eyes.


Skyrim Vampires are suppose to have underwater breathing and able to form into mist along with coming out of the Ice and taking its prey under.

How this DLC could very well effect all this is by how many twists they make WITHOUT a proper explanation. Beth and many other gaming organizations have attempted to shroud it in mystery stating that it was a "secret" to everyone until the DLC was made and than became global...

Its a common cover up that role players cannot stand... Lore is everything... an off topic example; Can Flying Rats that shoot lasers from there eyes apear in Assassins Creed? The point is REALISM

Why dont you write a whole entire universe filled with hundreds of differnt books HUH, Lets see how you do

I'm in the same boat.

I realize that the Elder Scrolls has had differing accounts and such, but there's a difference.
Take Morrowind for example. A lot of the Tribunal books? Total bull****. The difference? The game provides you with a counter-perspective. There's the BS perspective and then there's the TRUE perspective. The game simply shows you both, and by showing you both, it sends the message of "one of these guys is lying." Even if the game never blatantly says WHO is lying, it at least confirms one of them is.
This? How is this different? We never had a counter-perspective on the Volkihar. That's what makes this a retcon. We were told what they act like and now we have something completely different.

And more importantly, it's just a poor decision. They've sold out an original idea for a cliché one, while simultaneously shoe-horning in some other Gamejam content that may not make sense (the undead horse, the vampire lords), some that's unbalanced (mounted combat) and some that doesn't even feel like it was beta tested. (magic kill cams, sometimes arrow kill cams too)

This sends the message of "we just don't give a damn." Of course, people who treated TES like a book are upset. Imagine watching your favorite movie or TV show, then right at the climix they say "yknow what we stopped giving a damn, now we're interested in this story about vampires instead, so here's a completely different story with vampires."

One, yeah, it's disappointing and borderline insulting, and two it sends the message of this could happen again at any time. Let's say these Dawnguard turn out to be extremely loved. The Dawnguard vampire hunters are well-written and loved by 90% of the community and hailed as the greatest faction to enter TES since -insert popular faction here-. Part of my complaint is that, come TES VI, the very people defending Skyrim now? You might be in my shoes. You might be complaining that your favorite group from Skyrim got retconned and completely written out or changed ENTIRELY. Maybe in TES VI, the Dawnguard are suddenly dead without a trace (after Skyrim establishes them as a Tamriel-wide faction), or now their main focus is to hunt Daedra.
Hence I speak out. I'm sick of this attitude where names and faces change on a dime and we're all supposed to be perfectly ok with this. No, that's called bad writing: learn to write.

After seeing the dragon dive under the water I'm not really worried about the vampires. If a dragon can go under and then pop back up to attack the player, I'm sure a vampire could do the same thing quietly.

Why do arrogant peons assume we should already know about everything that isn't a recent development in the world?

Here's a big reason it wouldn't work for PC vampires, and secondly there is no established lore on Volkihar, a single book written by a vampire is not reliable and can not be considered established until backed up by another source or seen with our own eyes. A Vampire has every reason to lie about the abilities of other vampires.

There seems to be a fair bit of vampire lore in the vanila version of Skyrim. I just think it's a bit lame they'd make it a theme of a dlc pack for a TES series. It's like the dovakiin was destined be a hunter of some sort. Dragon hunter, bounty hunter, witch hunter, werewolf hunter, now even a vamipre hunter.

Its bethesda LORE NOT YOURS, then can do whatever they want with it!!!

Why dont you write a whole entire universe filled with hundreds of differnt books HUH, Lets see how you do

OKAY THIS IS ENOUGH, you All assume that TES is selling out its lore, but we have NO facts about who or what these vampires are!!!, You all assume there the voilkar because a castle they own a castle named castle voilkar, which could be a reference put in by Bethesda.

Here's a big reason it wouldn't work for PC vampires

Pretty sure the types of vampires have to do with different strains of the virus from region to region. Could be wrong, since there hasn't exactly been a lot of lore on them. They've been in the games since Daggerfall, but from game to game so far we haven't had much embellishment on the lore surrounding them.

You must be semi-new. If you've been a PC gamer for awhile, you'd be angry about getting the short end of the stick in nearly everything: Console ports, no SDKs or modkits for any games, console graphics, no keymapping support, etc. It's like PC gamers are always an afterthought on everything, now.

OKAY THIS IS ENOUGH, you All assume that TES is selling out its lore, but we have NO facts about who or what these vampires are!!!, You all assume there the voilkar because a castle they own a castle named castle voilkar, which could be a reference put in by Bethesda.

Which I'm taking to mean that this is where the Volkihar strain originated from, and is now occupied by a different strain of vampires because the original Volkihar fled to the frozen parts of Skyrim after they were discovered.

Maybe I'm lying to myself, but I sincerely hope that's the case.

Learn to argue objectively.

If I proved incapable of doing so, does that prove Bethesda are good writers? Absolutely not. My ability or inability to create an entire universe filled with hundreds of different books and not retcon myself doesn't make Bethesda good writers.




....Seriously...























.....SERIOUSLY....



.....No seriously. It's kind of obvious. Over the past two weeks I've argued what I believe to be logical points using evidence I have provided to me, and I've heard several arguments like yours right here. I recall arguing that Dawnguard was gonna be about vampires and how stupid that was, and heard "we only know the DLC has SOME files related to vampires ok???!!" Then I argued the vampires would be the Volkihar retconned and heard "U don't kno that they could be COMPLETELY NEW VAMPIRES!!!!" Now it's "Castle, Volkihar" and you're claiming it's an easter egg? The forum community falls back on such an argument and says "UR ONLY 99.9% SURE SO SHUTUP OK???" and then lo and behold, our 99.99% certainty turns out to be correct.

Can we just clear something up for a second for all those who claim they're chucking out lore to copy the movies...
The movie industry and game industry get there ideas from the same place, why are are people so dissapointed/shocked when there are similarities...
And just because -in game- there a few books on the matter it doesn't mean we know absolutely everything about vampires, in fact give it a few months after the DLC release and everyone would of accepted it as game lore and then when TES VI come out they will moan if they cant turn into Vampire Lords/Bats/Werewolves because its in the lore/law that they can.

Citing one example (that isn't really much of a point, but I'll pretend like it is for this statement alone) doesn't really mean anything for the generality of things. I was speaking in general terms. However, I'll still address your point (but only once so I don't steer this off-topic):

Why should we have to rely on other people to fix our games, when Bethesda could've done that? On release, we had Console Textures, no CK, a terrible UI, and overall, a horrible, semi-optimized console port. It was an atrocity and nothing about it was special to PC users at all. So, someone made a better UI (SkyUI), people started retexturing things, people started fixing PC-exclusive annoyances, etc. And then, you console gamers have the nerve to be jealous of us fixing our own problems that shouldn't exist in the first place?

And, then, of course, 3-4 months later, we get a CK and high-res textures. About damn time.

That's what i want to know. They assume we already knew everything about the Volkihar when we really knew nothing. Especially when our evidence of them was from a vampire from a separate clan.

Then why does this book exist?

Would this be a good idea? Absolutely not. It makes no sense, serves no purpose and doesn't match the theme of the book at all. You're implying Immortal Blood is the same. While you could use that as an excuse to justify the Volkihar as they are now, that does NOT justify Bethesda's writing skill or the fact that it was stupid as hell to include that book if it's unreliable and completely false.

I was actually talking about the arrogance of people assuming we should already be aware of every ancient order in existance.

Its a fact longknife that the Elder Scrolls series is filled with contradictory books on various subjects. Just like real life is filled with contradictory books on various subjects. You can either accept the fact the books in-game are designed to be falliable just like in real life or you can find another game series where everything told is at face value, your never lied to and nothing requires more then a casual thought.

WEll, Beth is allowed to add to the lore of their own series if they want to.

And I've already addressed this.

The difference is that if you want to say to your readers "hey, no one knows what the truth is," then you provide people with TWO OPPOSING OPINIONS. They did this in Morrowind. The Tribunal had an interpretation of things whereas certain Priests and Ashlanders had a different interpretation. This sends the message of "SOMEONE IS LYING" to the player and lets you try and figure out who.

Immortal Blood? It doesn't have an opposing opinion. It is the lone authority on vampires in TES lore. There was never a book challenging the legitimacy of it's claims.

That's why this is poorly written.

I'm actually thinking that may be how you find them.
Someone else suggested that's the entrance to the Volkihar castle. As in, perhaps a town requests that you, Dragonborn, come kill this dragon that's terrorizing him, then during your fight he dives under the ice and you give chase, and before you know it you've stumbled across the Volkihar.

Does it make perfect sense? Well no, that doesn't explain how you get to the castle since it's clearly not underwater, but from a lore perspective this would be a lore-friendly introduction to the Volkihar.

Immortal Blood? It doesn't have an opposing opinion. It is the lone authority on vampires in TES lore. There was never a book challenging the legitimacy of it's claims.

That's why this is poorly written.