Entertainment desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 26

The Elder Scrolls series & Continuity Lockout?

I plan to play The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and then The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim after that. Do I need to read up on the plots of the previous installments of the series to understand the stories and enjoy them to the fullest? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some lore that is present in all the versions, some of the actions taken in the earlier game are lore in the newer games. However, there are no plot points that require knowledge of the earlier games to finish it. So while it is fun to read about what you did (or sometimes did not) do in the earlier games, it is not essential.

Morrowind is currently on sale on GOG so you might want to play that too, but it will be showing its age I think. I never played Daggerfall or Arena but I think that Morrowind was my favorite of the series. Rmvandijk (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. I started the series way back at Daggerfall, and the lore you need to know is always introduced in the first few minutes of the game, and indeed one of the fun, immersive aspects of the game is discovering the lore along the way. Basically, the game world is a big continent ruled by an oppressive empire, divided into regions each of which is the homeland of some race of humans/humanoids. Each of the game titles takes place primarily in a different one of those regions, and you'll sort of "learn" the lore as you go along in each title, you don't HAVE to play the earlier titles. Along with Rmvandijk, on a purely aesthetic point, Morrowind was a great game from a plot and gameplay point-of-view, if you're OK with the graphics being a bit out-dated and the gameplay mechanics not-quite-worked out yet, it's WELL worth the play from a storyline and it really is the first one of the Elder Scrolls series that feels like the later ones. Daggerfall has the "open world, explore everything" aspect that was revolutionary, but it's got super-old graphics and there's no real plotline. Arena is OK, but it is otherwise indistinguishable from Bard's Tale and other dungeon crawl games. Morrowind is where the series really got its legs. But from a "will I get the later titles" aspect, no, you don't have to play in any particular order nor do you have to play any of the earlier games to "get" the later games. --Jayron 32 13:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jayron, but I will point out that gameplay gets more streamlined and the graphics get substantially better with each iteration. So, if you're considering playing Morrowind, doing it first might be the best bet. In comparison, Oblivion will look better and be easier to master (and the same goes for Skyrim vs. Oblivion). Going from Skrim to Morrowind is going to be frustrating and, in some respects, disappointing, especially if you prefer detailed graphics. On that note, the games - especially Skyrim - are heavily modifiable and have robust modding communities, including efforts to recreate previous ES games into the Skyrim engine (i.e. Skywind and Skyblivion), although neither are publicly playable yet. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the key difference in the gameplay issues is the combat system. Back in Daggerfall, and similarly in Morrowind, hand-to-hand combat was rather complicated on the computer. You had to "aim" with the mouse and you could control where your strikes went, how hard you hit, whether you slashed, clubbed, stabbed, etc., and the system was rather clunky and hard to use. By the time of Skyrim, hand-to-hand combat consists of "click once somewhere on or near the person you want to hit" and that was about it. Since the games are really more about the immersive storytelling experience, and aren't really supposed to be Street Fighter clones, the newer simplified system is (IMHO) quite superior for the purpose of the game. If I am doing an actual fighting game, having complex sets of keystrokes and and moves, fine. But for Elder Scrolls kind of games, it works better to keep it simple. --Jayron 32 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it's more than just the combat (though that's the biggie). Virtually all aspects of the game, from leveling to alchemy to smithing has become more streamlined. Damn, when I think of all the brainpower and time I spent trying to "level efficiently" in Oblivion, it makes me wonder WTF they were thinking. On the other hand, the quests and dungeons have also become more straightforward and that's not such a great thing. Matt Deres (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a guy who "masters" fighting games by cranking down the difficulty and button-mashing until I see every character's ending, I think Skyrim does enough to convince me I'm not just scanning back and forth through a long movie. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrim has enough optional side-quests (both pre-written and autogenerated) as well as a robust crafting system that will occupy enough of your time to leave the main plot if you get tired of it. If you install the full version with the DLC from the beginning, you also get all of the DLC main and side quests running simultaneously as well. The non-linearity of much of the game is enough to keep you very busy even if you get bored with the main plot, or finish it too soon. --Jayron 32 18:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]