Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-3225355-20150107041151/@comment-27007772-20150108153932

Draevan13 wrote: ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

Draevan13 wrote:

ShawnHowellsCP wrote: That is actually one of the stupidest things I've heard in a very long time. Daggerfall is canon, in a sense, with over 3/4ths of it's content being non-canon or ignored.

No TES games ignore previously established lore without giving a direct reason. (Cyrodill & CHIM Forests as an example).

And no, a publisher/developer does not need to comment on every non-canon thing. ESO was created and made as a separate idea, not part of the bunch. It was never meant to fit in at all, and that is easily seeable in all of it's content. And I disagree with that. I consider ESO canon, simply because Bethesda worked with ZOS to ensure accuracy. If it wasn't going to be canon, why would they bother helping with the story?

I guarantee you when TES VI comes out, we'll see references to the events of ESO, likely in book form. Too bad it wasn't accurate. Hell, they even messed up MANNIMARCO. They completely changed the character and his backstory. He is essentially a different character, who is far lesser, with the same name. Clearly Bethesda had no problem with those changes. I don't expect TES lore to remain static as new games come out, if we tried to have each game that changed the lore declared non-canon, each game would be its own seperate entity XD Mannimarco is a staple character in the series, making multiple encounters. Changing his story means all games post-Daggerfall must be changed as well.