Talk:Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series

Notability

OK, this article's existence struck me somewhat odd, but its references (like 40) is what stopped me initially from AFD'ing the article, but now I've noticed another problem: how is the article only going to talk about 2 games in the whole series? If this isn't addressed, I'm AFD'ing the article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, an AFD already? I moved the material here from Morrowind and Oblivion because of space concerns, following WP:SS, okay? Notability? Like, 80% of what reviewers talk about when they write about a game is Gameplay. The fact that I can and do source these things can attest to that fact. That multiple, reliable, independent sources exist that describe this topic—sources, indeed, of the highest calibre commonly available to CVG-class articles, reviews—means that this article can not be anything but notable. Do I really need to say this? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." "It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements."

I know that a lot of "Gameplay of" articles that have once existed in the past might have been "cruft-magnets"; "cruft depots"; "cruft flying castles"; and "irresistible mass-crufting centres for the endless promotion of cruft at home and abroad"; but that is ony because they haven't followed Policy. I haven't offered the reader endless deathless heartless lists of items, weapons, spells, monsters, spheres, abilities, cards, classes, subclasses, stats and skills. I haven't rewritten the game manual. I haven't spoken of the game by the game's own terms. I haven't speculated. I haven't cited blogs, personal websites, webcomics, forum posts or fanfiction. To class this article with that bleeding infectious morass of pages that rises by the inaction of admins and falls bythe application of their righteous blows, to class this with those articles, by mere power of suggestion, whose existence lies in question, to class this article amongst those traitors and turncoats who lie in wait hidden the back-streets of the wiki who are called gamecruft is nothing short of slander. I have focused on what WP:RS say about the gameplay in plainly descriptive terms. There was too much information in the top Morrowind article to keep on one page; this page is the overflow. Do not think of it as overflow in the sense of "....in popular culture". Think of it, rather, as overflow in the style recommended by the project, overflow of the summary style kind.

Sources regarding the first two ES series games are rare in any case. If you have a stash of PC review mags 1990-1996 that would really help a bunch, but I simply don't have access to those sorts of sources. The interweb does not speak so often of games whose publishing dates fell in times before the benighted rise of their rule. GameSpot, GameSpy and the pandemic multitudes of lesser sites have not lived as long as one might hope. When all is said and done, I simply don't think I'm capable of writing sections on the first two games in the series. But that's not an issue. Can you AFD on the basis of comprehensiveness? I don't think you can.

I'd like it if you'd refrain from threatening this article. I don't think it's good form. Thank you for suggesting improvements, improvements that are quite clear to anyone whose stumbled across the page. I think it's quite justified to call the article "incomplete". I think, however, it's completely unfair to threaten the article with deletion. Sorry if I seem brash, mean, or stupid. I just think dangling the plight of deletion over my head like some mythical sword of Damocles is not the politest way to get me to write the article you want. Thank you.

That having been said, I'd be willing to break the article into Gameplay of Morrowind and Gamplay of Oblivion or somesuch pages, provided no one adds cited information on the first two games.

Please, don't take this as a personal affront. You seem like a well-meaning person, and I probably reacted too harshly. I don't think I can help with the sections that should exist early on, but I don't think that means they should be cut entirely. While you're here, how do you feel about the article that does exist, rather that those elements that do not? You like this series, so I think you could be a wonderful help here. :) Comments on the prose, on the coverage within the individual games, on style manual issues? Sorry again if I hurt your feelings. I hope we can work together to make this the best "Gameplay of ..." article on the Wiki! Geuiwogbil 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

N.B. : It doesn't really have 40 references. It's more like 10. I cite reviews by page, so there arises a proliferation of links to what is essentially the same source. I don't mean to bloat the article; I just think it helps readers find the exact provenance of a piece of material. I've been meaning to break the notes down into a section of cites and a biblio section, but I haven't gotten around to it. I'm just a bit too lazy. Geuiwogbil 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the preceding comments. I'm just a bit crazy. ;) I'll see what I can do. Let's not get too AFD/PROD happy, though, mkay? Thanks! Geuiwogbil 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, is it possible to change the name to something more relevant? Like I said, how can it be about the series if it addresses 2 games only? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been addressed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you yeild

I think you just try to talk to the other guy while you're holding down block. They might refuse, though, if they're really pissed. Geuiwogbil 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg

Image:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Description goes a bit long for something nearly irrelevant

This is in the Classes paragraph for TES4: Oblivion:

A new class can also be created, though the image that represents a custom class might not correspond to its skill set, since the picture for the class selected before the class-creation option is chosen will be used as the picture for the new class. For example, if the player first selects a pre-made class that depends on stealth and then chooses to create a class that primarily uses magic, that magic-using class will be represented by a thief-like picture.

This is an awful lot of detail for a tiny image that doesn't ever appear in the game after class is chosen. Given the level of detail throughout the rest of the article, this seems gratuitous and a bit irrelevant. It's also not very well written. Move to strike? 12.233.146.130 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I loaded up my game to check, and while these pictures (in both morrowind and oblivion) are nice, they do not display again for you. Like at any point. Their existance does seem rather pointless, great pictures though they may be. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Freeform Design

A much more elegant description is needed. While it works for Morrowind and Oblivion, the gameplay from Arena/Daggerfall really seems to be this odd amalgam of FPS and SCUMM-type gameplay, but with graphics instead of pure text. I think the biggest change is needed in Arena, and though i have no sources for this (its in-game stuff, im never sure how to source that. Do in-game books count?) Its important.

The big difference in this case, is the Passwall spell, and its corresponding remove floor/ceiling spell whos name i cant recall. You can use these spells to create a random dungeon basically anywhere, which will have at least a single potentially valuable treasure chest. ("boss level chest" in fan terms.) Its a divergant enough feature from...well actually i cant think of another game short of possibly Minecraft that works in anything resembling this manner.

From the looks of the talk page, I felt it a good idea to check before making any changes. Opinions?

Aside from that part of the game, Should we include details for the Travels series? (Stormhold, Dawnstar, Shadowkey and Oblivion Mobile) or is it divergant enough that it would be in appropriate here? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060503165551/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdegm/is_200511/ai_n15349692 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdegm/is_200511/ai_n15349692

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability 2016

As it stands, there aren't enough sources dedicated to this topic to warrant a split from the main series article. As written, this article is a weird honeypot for collecting the overflow from the lengthier, individual articles. The problem is that stuff should just be cut rather than foisted on this coatrack. If this article is to stand on its own, it would need sources that support the idea of some continuous "gameplay of the series" AND a deluge of such sources to warrant a split (summary style) from The_Elder_Scrolls#Gameplay. Otherwise the existing gameplay sections of the individual and the series articles should suffice. czar 09:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)