And some are barely humanoid...



(Yes, I'm hating on Argonians.)

It's all out of pure pity for your character, because 70% of them are probably named Xx420XDra90nKi11ahXPonyxX. Because it's XBOX!!!

You character name is not your gamertag, you do get a choice

No I don't. Character name the same as gamer tag.

You talk about criticisms needing to be explained in one sentence and then say that themes present in Dawnguard seem cliche without explaining why. Tell me, how would you make a story about an ancient vampire clan, living in solitude, lead by a Vampire Lord without falling back onto tropes? Writers use tropes because they have been tested through time to be certain things that people can connect with. Serana is there to show the more human side to vampires because, up until then, most vampires were just NPC's that you killed. If she wasn't given more human characteristics, like concern for her first impressions on people and frustration with her family, then she would have to be more of the brutal side of vampires meaning...she would be no different than the NPC vampires or Harkon. She's just there to kill.

Her cliche role is to provide another view for players when a previous view has been too limiting. If she turned out just like Harkon or the NPC's, you would probably claim that they were unimaginative with her character. She is contrast. She isn't an appeal to teenagers. Even advlts, when meeting people for the first time or inviting people over to their residence or going out on a date, keep things secret and reveal them at a slow pace. She does the same thing. She is concerned what you think of her because her life could very well be in danger and you are the only person that MIGHT help her. If she comes across as a snarling vampire, living a life in luxury in a castle, it becomes hard to sympathize with her situation. Why should I care when you have everything a person could want right here? Oh you have family problems? Who cares? Her reluctance to reveal her status amongst the vampires shows she wants you to treat her at face value which is someone is still human in many regards, who has severe family issues (which is not a teenager thing, advlts deal with estranged families too), and she wants your help.

Everything is a cliche man. Look past that and see what people are able to do with them. Serana is a breath of fresh air (ha, cliche again) in regards to characterization in the Elder Scrolls series.

We only meet two members of her "enitire family" We only know of a few momments in her childhood. How then are we suppose to predict that she couldnt grow up to be a nice person using what limited information we have on her childhood and her parents? All children who are [censored] and have mean parents grow up to be mean? Thats what it sounds like you are saying.

@ RagnaroktheGod

I agree. One of the better written chracters in skyrim imo

I would disagree entirely. And I'm not sure how you want me to explain an idea is cliché. Cliché is cliché; it's occured often enough that we've all seen it before. Vampire teen love interests, the vampire lord forms, a vampire hating god....yeah, those all ring bells. Someone in this thread (or was it another about how cliché it all is...) already listed off the clichés.

Tropes are not tools that writers conciously decide to use because they're tested to succeed, no. Tropes are ideas that are so common that they exist in our subconcious and sound good, thus they go through with them.
Hyperbolized arguments are horrible arguments because they fail to be objective and address the actual case at hand. That's exactly what your argument is. "EVERYTHING is cliché, therefore it's ok." No, no it's not. If we were to take on the mentality that it's ok and unavoidable, then we'd never TRY to create new ideas and we truly would make everything cliché; that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's especially an odd argument to make when you consider that Bethesda HAD a non-cliché vampire concept, the Volkihar, that ultimately got butchered and retconned in favor of more cliché content. Bethesda THEMSELVES were proof that not everything has to be cliché, yet for some reason they opted out of that. We went from the Immortal Blood concept of Volkihar to the Underworld concept of Volkihar. We went from the "mist form" vampire power as described in Immortal blood to the more cliché Mist form that's aesthetically more like bat form.

And no, the intention of Serana seems clear to me: She's the love interest for angsty teens. That comment about the castle isn't made because "it makes sense," no. The impression it gives is that she's self-concious about what you think of her: she digs you. Idunno about you, but self-conciousness and a willingness to lie seem more commonly associated with teenagers; of course they're not exclusive to teens, but associated with? Yes. It's subtle flirting; not directly intended by her, but gives off that signal irregardless. That she's there to show "the human side to vampires?" This makes no sense, as you're doomed to side against Harkon and Serana does little to gain sympathy for vampires, but rather only for herself.

And really? Are you arguing that in a WAR involving VAMPIRES VS. HUMANS, her living in a luxurious castle may be the deciding factor that makes me never listen to her again? REALLY? No, it's just a stupid little statement by her that expresses that she's sub-concious about what you think of her. A personal matter, NOT something relevant to the matters at hand.




I'm really sick of this. Bethesda takes cliché ideas and stuffs them into a DLC, and instead of saying "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," you loyally and fanatically argue that cliché content is awesome, everywhere and in no way whatsoever something to frown upon. You sit here and defend a teenage vampire in a MIDEVIL SETTING saying "Oh, I didn't tell you I lived in a castle because I didn't want you to think I'm one of THOSE girls, yknow?" and claim to say it matches the time and setting just wonderously and has so much relevance to the actual plot, and NOT that it's a sign she's the intended vampire teen love interest for angsty teens (despite the presence of other dialog that expresses that exact same theory).

Time and time again, my answer to this forum is simply "Occam's Razor." Learn to use it.

I would be interested in reading your ideas for how to add a vampire lord form into the game.

I wouldn't have. The idea is that before, vampires in TES were always just something that you ARE, not something you can transform into. We have no past evidence for vampire lords. While that doesn't mean they can never be, the way they were shoehorned into the Volkihar just doesn't work out, with the Volkihar COMPLETELY losing their former identity in favor of a cliché.
The general storyline with Harkon wanting to blot out the sun? That's fine, but the Volkihar got severely retconned. They were supposed to be vampires with ice powers living (or at least dwelling) underneath frozen lakes in the Northeast, instead they're vampire lords living in a castle for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, in short walking distance from the most populated city in Skyrim. I would've treated vampires as they had been before, where there is no transformation, but rather specific powers that come with it, such as the frost resistance, perhaps some frost spells superior in power to the ones available to the common mage, and a pass-through-ice/snow power could've been done, either using coding from spriggans, bonemen and Tunnelers (New Vegas) or a simulated effect using similar coding to the Mist Form (your character "disappears" and is assumed to be within the snow or ice and thus cannot hit or be hit), but it can only be activated while standing on ice/snow.

The vampire lord and many of their powers seem to be something that sprung more from the "rule of cool" rather than existing lore. I personally prefer a consistent story, rather than Bethesda retconning everything into a pretentious badass stereotype so people can run around lifting people in the air and pretending to be über hardcoe and evil.

Actualy you can't say that VL is not part of lore. There is no mentioning that Volkihar were suposed to be ice mage vamps. The frost cloak was coded into original game,not dawnguard. Also how long since you last played TES game? They transform since Morrowind. So you have no right grumbling about it in skyrim,

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Immortal_Blood

Also in what way did Oblivion and Morrowind have a vampire lord form? They don't transform. Of course they ARE vampires, but it's subtle. They're humans with glowing eyes and fangs (Morrowind) or they look almost exactly the same as humans, but slightly paler, with more dramatic features if they don't feed (Oblivion). There is no "well I'm a vampire now so I guess that means I no longer have any real human features and instead turn into a humanoid-bat thing."

Vampire Lords are a direct invention of Dawnguard, shoehorned into TES lore because some Dev made them during the Gamejam week. Much like the flaming skeletal horse you can get during dawnguard was shoehorned in because a dev made it. Past evidence for them does NOT exist.

Whoa hello there. You say hyperbole arguments are the worst kind of arguments yet I see hyperbole all over this quote. I didn't say writers consciously choose to use tropes. They are familiar, as you said, ingrained in our ability to storytell. It is because of those familiarities that people can identify and understand a story. If ES vampires did not feed on people, biting them, and were characterized as undead, it would be hard for people to accept them as vampires. If the original Volkihar vampires did not have these things, they would more be characterized as demons or spirits than vampires. There are certain characteristics, certain tropes, that must remain in order for people to acknowledge the story. So yes, tropes are okay. Cliches are okay. I did not say all were okay or that they should be used extensively, but they must exist in some form for familiarity. So many great stories take cliches are twist them just enough for us to go, "I recognize that but at the same time I don't." New ideas are non-existent. Everything is built off of something.

Saying that self-consciousness and tendency to lie are associated with teens is completely false. Who associated those together? You admit that they aren't exclusive but these are aspects of human psychology that never go away, even growing into old age, save for a few notable exceptions. Everyone is self-conscious about something, whether it's their social life, physical appearance, mental capability, economic status, etc. You name it, someone worries over it. It's NOT associated with just teens. It's associated with being a human being. It's folly to think that these characteristics are the domain of teenagers only. My doctor, at 58 years of age, still suffers from Imposter Syndrome, a psychological disorder where people feel they have cheated through life and must mask their true selves. It's everywhere. And people lie. Children lie, teens lie, advlts lie, lawyers lie, politicians lie, doctors lie, soldiers lie, everybody lies. And everybody is willing to do so if it means reducing the dissonance they may feel.

And what do you know of Medieval social expectations? Are you saying people weren't concerned at the time of others' opinions? And are you assuming that the ES universe must follow the same culture boundaries? No. It's a fantasy world that merges different aspects of themes, concepts, time periods, foundational systems (like how magic works) to create a new world. Bashing Bethesda for not following our historical precedence, assuming you know the individual thoughts of our ancestors during that time, is the same as bashing Bethesda for following historical precedence.

You know nothing about me, so I don't understand how you can characterize my argument as loyal or fanatic. I was focusing on your particular points. For all you know, I could agree with you but was pointing out weaknesses in your argument. You make assumptions you have no backing for. For future references, I am vocally critical of Bethesda. I feel they do lack originality and when they stumble on something they could really exploit for creativity, they squander the opportunity. I do agree that they should have left the Volkihar as they were. But maybe they lacked the ability to figure out how to bring it to life properly and they did the easier deal. Not my preference but I can understand that. You also need to realize that 200 years between games is a long time for things to change. The Cyrodillic strain could have crossed boundaries, mingled with the Skyrim vampires, and forced an evolutionary change. Expecting things to remain "consistent" for centuries is unrealistic for proper universe development. Things will change and that's part of the discovery.

Oh. I thought you ment that they don't die like in Dawnguard.

Everything shoehorned into TES lore by Devs. Dev's word is law. They create history. And if Molag Bal dev tells you that as a pure blood you can transform then that means it part of the lore.

And what wrong with the horse?

That last question is probably what gets him the most, and I get it. Questions like, "Well, what's wrong with putting something in the game that has never been mentioned before?" can lead to the devs retconning a great deal of things we know to be true. To give another example, in Dragon Age, it is specifically stated that teleportation is impossible. It's been tried numerous times and no one succeeds. But in Dragon Age 2, mages teleport all the time. Bioware's response, "Well what's wrong with that?" It breaks what we know of the world to be true without any plausible reason. A flaming horse, although "cool" does not fit into the ES universe as it stands. It's a gimmick with no connection to the universe.

Immortal Blood is very vague. For example "whose very breath could freeze their victims' blood in the veins" Could mean at least 3 things. 1. The sound of their voice was terrifying and made people freeze up. 2. He stumbled upon a vampire that learned to shout 3. They have an abillity to freeze people

As far as the whole living under the lake theory, it could simply be that, a theory. One that we now know to be untrue. They live in castles instead!

I dont think Immortal Blood is proof of anything really. We dont even know who wrote it.

And why does it not fit? It's an undead spiritual horse. Where does it say that you can't ride an undead horse filed with enough necro magic to raise a dragon?

Dragon Age 2 was once a drink coaster, now it is being used to stop a chair from wobbling. There is more wrong with that game then stomping all over the previous lore. Some times imo changing the lore is ok if the is a large pay off in terms of gameplay. Teleporting mages added to the gameplay and only a small population took issue with it (not saying that small population isnt important) But there are cases were lore must be changed in favor of better gameplay, and I am ok with that. Vampire Lords may be one of those instances. (But I dont think anyone can make a solid agrument that the lore was changed, there is just so much about it that is unknown.)

Mostly because we know nothing about it. It's just a summonable horse. We don't know if the thing was ever alive or if it's always been a spirit like horse. We don't know if there are others or if he is the only one (which definitely makes it a gimmick). There is no foreshadowing of the creature. It just pops up, jarringly. There needs to be some sort of context for the creature to fit in. Right now, it's just there. Not saying it can't fit into the universe, but the way they handled it just comes across as something "thrown in."

If lore has to be changed though, it has to be explained. There is no mention in DA2 why mages can suddenly teleport. It was done to make it more action-y (laughable). You touch on something that is great about ES lore though. Nearly everything we know, EVERYTHING, is told in-universe. We have no outside sources to compare new books and discoveries to. It's one characters word against another. Even the races disagree on the role of the Daedra and Aedra and whether or not they should be called Gods. This is both good and bad. Good, in that it breeds discussion and creates a sense of realism in the universe, as players can choose to trust one source over another. Bad, though, because it does give Bethesda the freedom to change what they want and to explain away past possible-facts. Like Alduin and Akatosh being two different beings now. That was one change I was not happy about.

I can understand his disagreement with the change of the Volkihar and their presentation in the game now. In fact, I was about as livid with the MQ as he seems to be about this. I despise the main quest in Skyrim. My problem is the way he presents his case, criticizes others, and then makes the same faults and pretends he isn't as hyperbolic or fanatic.

I have to agree with this. As far as the early comment "Past evidence for them does NOT exist" Evidence for many things does not exist until they are discovered. And unless you can pull something from the lore that says "there is no such thing as a spirtual horse" than you cannot use lore to explain what they dont exist. Perhaps there is nothing in the lore because it was unknown. The way the lore in Elder Scrolls is stucture they have a lot of room to add more to it, without destroying what we already know to be true. And there is nothing in the lore (at least to my knowledge) saying that vampire lords/ spritual horse dont exist.

I'm sorry but are you a pc player? Any xbox player worth their name knows that you get the horse from a trapped soul in soul cairn and yes it used to be alive. You know,the dimension from where all necromancers draw their power. There are a lot of things we don't know about lore in TES,does this mean that we gonna see any new adition as something cliche,gimmik and thrown in by dev? It's TES5 for evil's sake, it must add new stuff to the lore and enviroment.

I can agree with this. There should be mention to why mages could teleport, With the way Bioware made their lore they created to many "facts" and they dug themselves into a hole and simply could not explain it. The same can be said about the enitre ME series.

But like you said, there isnt a clear system of facts in Elder Scrolls, which to me makes the series fill more alive, as though we are all living it together. That is why I am fine with the new "discoveries" even if they change what we thought we knew and even if they are just tacked on.
The lore would become dry and dull if we knew everything about it, therefore there would be no room for new additions.

Yes, I'm xbox. And no, we really don't know much about it at all. The guy teaches you a Conjuration spell. So when the soul was alive, was the horse alive, or did he summon it? If it was alive, and not a summon, why is it not just a dead horse? Why is it's appearance drastically different than everything else? If it was alive, why would the soul know a spell to summon it? You can't summon "live" creatures. So it must have been something else? Or...it was a gimmick. They didn't think about the story of the mechanics behind it, they just put the horse in.

And no, the Soul Cairn is not the Oblivion plane the necromancers DRAW their power from. It's where souls go and necromancers can make exchanges with the Soul Cairn, just like they can make pacts with any of the daedric lords and minions and summon them, like any old conjurer.

Are you a veteran Elder Scrolls player? Do you know anything of the lore?

Don't insult me.

double post