Imageboard "lore guides"

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1432767953562.png (294.78 KB, 1875x952, 1875:952, marsh.png)

Imageboard "lore guides" Anonymous 05/27/15 (Wed) 23:05:53 No.7312

I can count 15 or so screencaps that vividly describe places, peoples and various other topics from The Elder Scrolls. I'm wondering if there's any interest towards compiling new or updating known pictures/screencaps in a way that'll help /v/irgings and other interested people learning lore basics.

It wouldn't be only for them, either. Painting a picture of a province or a war through a short text instead of fifteen disjointed UESP pages is something even we could appreciate.

On the downsite, this could potentially kill discussion.

Pic related. I typed this back on Aldmeris (I think), and found a screencap floating around later. On rereading it, I realize I got some stuff wrong and more details could be added. I still have the original text, so it could easily be edited instead of typed out again. Throwing this out just in case there's interest. Can't kickstart the thread without offering something.

Anyway, my first question is should we? And the second one is, is there any interest in doing so?

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 02:20:58 No.7320

I feel like the problem with these is that people are inclined to believe they are completely true (why else would someone post them) when alot of the time, there are a number of mistakes.

I feel like at least when someone just types out the knowledge, there's at least a little bit of doubt.

I don't have any problem with you doing it, I'm just saying I'm not going to help.

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 04:07:39 No.7322

>>7320

Obviously, we would have to compile the best lorefags from /tes/ to fact check our shit..

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 10:31:05 No.7327

>>7320

>>7322

Does 100% accuracy really matter? I don't mind when creators add a bit of their own perspective or flavor into the text. I'd be more interested in not missing the meaty obscure details and implications.

Anonymous 05/28/15 (Thu) 22:46:22 No.7337

>>7327

This is part of the reason why I don't think it should be done. It would spread around only a few interpretations of a certain lore topic.

It would be better if people just explained lore themselves.

Anonymous 05/29/15 (Fri) 11:10:01 No.7349

>>7337

I see your point, but lore/not lore is a really messy subject.

There's a difference after all between following Kirkbride implications and infodumping your Echmer propaganda.