PC Gaming News
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1

    Lets Define Lore

    When is Lore just fan fiction that is about in game characters rather than role playing?

    With a lot of implausible, impossible, and improbable "theories" running around the forum these days, I was wondering if anyone else felt the "lore" part of the "lore" forum slipping away under the weight of guessing.

    And where DO we draw the line?

  2. #2
    Recommendation Second Class10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts10000 Experience Points
    Quintus Antonius's Avatar

    Stormbluff Isle

    Blade and Rose [BaR]

    I agree Nietzsche. Lore is defined as any part of the in-game uni/multiverse that does not violate the fourth wall, is not a necessary game mechanic (ie character creation, UI, etc), and is able to be discussed under the traditional means of scientific exploration. What this means is, just like in the real world, to be considered legitimate lore, a theory must be backed by facts and evidence from the in-game world. It is fine to support these facts with known real world principles as well (physics, biology, etc).

    An example of legitimate lore is a discussion on the motivations and culture of the Charr, showing examples from cinemas, dialouge, and screenshots, and cross-referencing this with real world cultures of similar sociostructure.

    An example of something that is not lore is saying that Gwen is a Charr, or what I call "wishful thinking". That is, off the wall ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. An example of this would be that minotaurs have a world empire (yes someone tried to prove that).

    The problem is, so long as someone isn't clearly being ridiculous, we cannot simply dismiss them. A long standing tradition of the LF is to give everyone a chance to explain themselves, and discuss all guesses, hypotheses, and theories in a respectful and scientific fashion.
    |||Quintus Antonius Adepphius Philologus Tyrianicus Canthacus Elonacus Durheimus|||

  3. #3
    What I would like is for people to stop posting their hypothesis or 'theories' as fact.

    This, for example:

    There are Mursaat armors in the Desert.
    So, you've researched the forgotten armors, and you've found weak, circumstantial evidence supporting your case. No definitive proof of mursaat presence in the desert, however. And no undismissible proof that mursaat were ever human and wore such armor, etc. Yet, you pose this hypothesis of yours of as solid fact.

    Know where to draw the line between conjecture and fact, and don't throw it all around the forums, and don't apply to every single related topic.

    P.S. For the love of god quintus, don't try to defend your theories in this thread. I'm trying to make a point, not denounce your ideas.

  4. #4
    I just don't like how people are starting to "create" wild ideas about nightfall, when minimal, and I do mean minimal information is present. I see tonnes of threads and posts talking about the links between things that might not even exist, that's a bit overboard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts