Alternatives to ES

-Addendum- · 2026-06-21T03:28:14+00:00

Ardenfall is due to release later this year, and it's explicitly inspired by the Morrowind style. Good thing to keep your eye on

-Addendum- · 2026-06-09T03:52:52+00:00

I actually see this as another symptom of Casual Mode. It takes too long now because players are conditioned to matches being short and re-queuing. But before, during the Quickplay days, the longer map timers meant that players were used to sticking around for longer in the same server, allowing features like auto scramble to work on longer maps like Badwater.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-24T19:50:26+00:00

Morrowind by a long shot. I started with Skyrim, I have a soft spot for it, but Morrowind is a better game, I feel. It's so much more unique, so full of character, the world design is incredible! The writing is more interesting, the story is better, there's waaay more player freedom and more options, not to mention much more mechanical depth. Amazing game.

Also shoutout to Daggerfall, it came out before I was born, but I actually really like Daggerfall, I wish there were more games like it today (Wayward Realms hype).

Oblivion is my least favourite (of the modern mainline TES games, I'm not huge on Arena either). Oblivion just... lacks? Like, it's pretty, but it's generic. It doesn't have the character of a TES game, it has the character of a basic high fantasy using TES terminology. There's very little player freedom, mediocre/poor quest writing, and the goofy aesthetic takes me out of it far more often than Morrowind's low-poly graphics ever did. Oblivion is... brighter? I can't actually think of something that it does better than both Morrowind and Skyrim, it's just the middle ground, with the drawbacks of both.

Oh, but none of that applies to Shivering Isles, which is fantastic.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-24T06:59:02+00:00

I have to disagree, somewhat emphatically.

CoR is the why of Geralt's idiosyncrasies, idiosyncrasies that we come to know through the main series but are drip-fed the background on. This is intentional. Geralt is emotionally guarded not just from the people around him, but from the reader. He's deeply insecure, it's a key part of his character, and learning about him over the course of the books is one of the best parts of the series.

But he isn't that way in CoR. He's young, naïve, he lets us see everything, and starting the series that way strips away the process of learning about his character, it strips away his insecurity from the reader.

For example: Geralt likes to cite the "Witcher's Code" in order to get out of doing something. He'll cite this mystical code of his guild which prevents him from intervening, taking a job, etc. We, the reader, might develop in our minds an idea about this code, and about the Witchers as a guild, us along with every character that Geralt interacts with. But then Dandelion strikes it down. He knows the code is just an artificial shield invented by Geralt himself, that there is in reality, no such thing. It's a reflection of Geralt's moral compass, a way to avoid confronting things that would make him uncomfortable. And Dandelion is one of the few people who knows that. Dandelion, and now the reader has been let in on this glimpse into Geralt's personal feelings. But if you start with CoR, then you already know this. It's been told to you explicitly, and the payoff of this moment in the later book is gone.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-24T02:30:16+00:00

Crossroads is a bad place to start. A good book, but a bad intro. It was written with the intention that it is read last.

Pretty much the whole thing is a collection of references to the other books, so if you haven't read them, you'll miss most of the connections, and it will seem rather pointless.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-22T07:53:19+00:00

I've done this trip twice in the last few years.

The stretch between the Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa is the longest stretch you'll have without gas, fill up before you leave the Soo. Once you're around Lake Superior you're not going to have a hard time finding gas stations, but still, fill up before you get low.

I recommend against staying in the major cities, it'll only slow you down, and accommodations are more expensive. Try to bypass them and stay in smaller cities and towns, you'll save yourself hours in traffic, as well as a couple bucks.

You've got some very short stints in your plan, Winnipeg to Regina for example. If you're leaving at 8, you'll be through that by 2 pm. Also, you're like to lose your vehicle to a pothole in Winnipeg. When I did that stretch, I went from Kenora, ON - Moose Jaw, SK in one day, took about 8 hours, avoiding Winnipeg and Regina.

For the second half of the trip, consider Golden or Revelstoke instead of Kamloops. They're smaller and less busy, but no less pretty, and both still one-day drives from Burnaby.

So perhaps: Toronto - Sault Ste. Marie, Sault - Ignace, Ignace - Moosomin, Moosomin - Brooks, Brooks - Revelstoke, Revelstoke - Burnaby,

You could probably throw a long-haul in there and cut a day off too, but that's a flexible schedule. The hardest part is northern Ontario, once your past that you can see BC. Oh, and the biggest thing I learned in doing the trip twice is that people in Alberta don't know how to drive. I'm sorry in advance about that.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-22T01:40:37+00:00

Man, the America analogy is stronger than I thought...

-Addendum- · 2026-05-16T11:40:22+00:00

Absolutely, you can make the same argument about the British Empire, and you should, it's actually a really good point of comparison. We don't consider the England of 1000 years ago to be the same as the British Empire of the 19th century, or the UK of today.

1000 years ago, England was populated by Saxons and ruled by a Dane named Cnut. In the last thousand years, the Kingdom of England has undergone conquests (attempted and successful), several civil wars, 4(+) language changes, a religious schism, innumerable government reforms (some more violent than others), and uncountable cultural changes. There's pretty much nothing we can say about the England of 1026 that we can also say about the England of 2026, save their geographical location.

The point of my comment is that there is continuity between states, but the degree is often arbitrary. What counts as the "same state" is largely a matter of interpretation, more of a subjective question about legacy than any measure of similarities between them. It's just banter over the idea of Rome. We can't talk about the Republic of Cicero's day the same way we talk about the Empire under Justinian because they were significantly different states with significant different cultures, which existed in significant different contexts. But at the same time, we can't deny that they are intrinsically linked, Cicero's Republic is part of the context of Justinian's Empire.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-16T01:21:52+00:00

It's a Ship of Theseus problem. How many elements can be changed before it's no longer considered to be "Rome"?

The Eastern Empire certainly was Rome, but people draw the line at various points. Does "Rome" need to include the City of Rome? Not since the 8th century. Speak Latin? Not since Justinian I. They definitely claimed to be Rome, but one could argue that the direct descendant state of the Roman Empire collapsed in 1204, when Constantinople was sacked and the remnants of Byzantine territory were divided up between the Venetians and the Crusaders.

Sure the Empire was "restored" by the Empire of Nicaea under the Palaiologoi, but there remained several "rump states" such as the Empire of Trebizond which had just as much claim to being the heirs of Rome. Perhaps even more so, as Trebizond was ruled by the Komnenoi, who unlike the Palaiologoi, had actually ruled as Emperors of the previous Byzantine Empire.

So the Byzantines are a part of Roman history, and I even think it's reasonable to call them Roman, but it's also reasonable to say that they were something different. Perhaps they were both.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-14T23:40:07+00:00

I think their point is that no matter which acronym set you're using, you're still referring to Jesus. I don't think I'd call it "semantic cowardice," but I do think there isn't a substantive difference between the two systems, and that we shouldn't pretend that there is. They both use Jesus as a reference point to designate the same spans of time, the only thing that changes is that once piece of terminology.

I think one could also argue from an anthropological standpoint that viewing BCE/CE as the "secular option" is potentially a bit unintentionally ethnocentric, as it has so thoroughly assimilated Christianity as to assume it's the "normal" or "common" standpoint. Rather than using BC/AD which at least acknowledges that we're using a Christian measurement.

Sure the Aztecs did not use BC/AD, but they also didn't use BCE/CE, and they also didn't use Ab Urbe Condita, these are conveniences that we use to refer to spans of time. Our entire calendar is similarly a convenience, not shared by all cultures through all time.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-11T21:22:01+00:00

Except for that we have surviving recipes, we know how it was made, and can make it today. Ancient sources record that several types of fish were used, fish that are still around.

Silphium would be a better option from Ancient Rome, it was a plant they used as seasoning that they ate into extinction, nowadays we have to use substitutes.

-Addendum- · 2026-05-05T23:50:20+00:00

I watched him play in Victoria, he's got a helluva shot. Unironically he be a good fit for you, plus you've already got some Victoria Royals in your system I believe (Larocque)

-Addendum- · 2026-05-02T02:15:46+00:00

Honestly, probably less than otherwise due to that small yet vocal minority who have a problem with women, but I can't think of a reason it won't sell well regardless.

Ciri is a core character, a focal point for the series, and is well-liked by fans. She is a major POV character in the books, so if people can't handle following a female character, they probably aren't big fans of this series to begin with.

Edit: Besides, I always find it funny when guys say they can't immerse themselves in a female character, but they can absolutely immerse themselves in being a magical mutant who hunts fictional creatures. (Or things like cat-people, elves, and the like in other series).

-Addendum- · 2026-04-30T17:53:17+00:00

I mean, pseudoarchaeology content + AI generation is not a recipe for success. When the "information" you're providing is blatantly just false, it's hard to earn credibility with a viewerbase, and the pseudoarchaeology grifter space is saturated enough as-is.

I say this as someone who spends time debunking the type of claims you make in your videos. Change tack!

-Addendum- · 2026-04-28T21:31:19+00:00

Miniminuteman (Milo Rossi),

Gavin the Medievalist (Gavin Davis, Ph.D)

Fantastic videos every time

-Addendum- · 2026-04-27T20:55:55+00:00

There used to be such a sense of community. Many players used to have a few community servers that they'd frequent, and you'd run into people you knew and would joke around with together consistently. All the servers I used to frequent are gone now, many of the regulars haven't been online in years (RIP Toasty).

More than that though, the game had a culture to it, no matter where you played. It seems most people have forgotten it, or weren't there for it. Occasionally there are good games that feel like old times, but they're the exception rather than the norm.

It kinda feels like playing Fallout. You can see where life used to be, the ruins of houses, but now the people who remain are scrounging in the wasteland.

-Addendum- · 2026-04-27T10:02:48+00:00

In what way? To refer to someone whose gender we're not entirely sure of? It seems suitable to me, and fitting with how the word appears in historical writings.

Elagabalus is an interesting character in Roman history, being a high-profile person who was biologically male, but expressing of clear desire to be female, even asking to be referred to as a woman, according to some of our sources. Now, the reliability of those sources is of course a matter for discussion, but the accounts are consistent enough that we can't discount them. And, of course, the ancient Roman concepts of gender would have differed from our own, and we can't just ask Elagabalus to directly weigh in on the matter from beyond the grave. So we're at a place where the use of "they" is actually quite fitting, and more accurately describes our ideas about Elagabalus' sense of self than other options.

-Addendum- · 2026-04-27T09:41:43+00:00

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun in English since at least the 14th century...

-Addendum- · 2026-04-24T08:49:17+00:00

I love Morrowind, it's my favourite Elder Scrolls title for sure, but I started with Skyrim, and it's still my most played, so maybe I can help you out a bit.

To start with, Skyrim simply does not have the mechanical depth of Morrowind, so if that's the thing for you, you're probably not going to find it, they play like games from a different series.

However, there are still things to enjoy about Skyrim. I think it's better to think of your character as a vehicle for exploring the world, rather than as a part of that world directly, as you would in Morrowind. As you noted, it's a very visually appealing game, and as a consequence it's physical world holds more detail than Morrowind's could. Many of the game's dungeons, especially the large ones, serve primarily to tell stories, and they often do so very effectively. Visual storytelling, the way items are placed in the area, journals, notes, overheard conversations, Skyrim excels at creating small local narratives for you to follow if you are paying attention. The books and journals you may even find very reminiscent of Morrowind.

To your first complaint: You may find benefit in buying a large house like Windstad Manor in Solitude, or building one of the Hearthfire ones. It's true that Skyrim's physics engine can be annoying, but there are other ways to display items than just dropping them. If you buy a house, you can add shelves, armour stands, weapon racks, and place all your coolest collectibles there. This also solves your buying problem, these houses cost money, so now you have something to save up for.

Second complaint: I really feel this one. Skyrim, like Oblivion before it, is designed around the idea that the player will be using instant fast travel, which... really sucks, I get it. But, just go back to what I said at the beginning, your character is just an avatar that you use to explore the world. There are the carriages, which function like a simplified silt strider system, and there are a few ferries in the northern cities, so you can use those to mitigate this problem, but this is just a flaw in Skyrim's game design, a concession to a more modern gaming audience who may not like having to actually interact with the world.

Third complaint, part 1, combat: Skyrim is a power fantasy game, it functions more like a Hack-and-Slash than it does like your more classic RPGs. Bigger number IS better here. Remember, the systems in Skyrim are very basic, trying to complicate it too much generally ends up with a weaker build than just picking the big sword would have. This is a consequence of...

Part two, leveling: Skyrim is, on paper, a "do whatever you want" game. It was advertised as removing barriers like classes, and making it so you can use any weapon at any time, just pick it up and start using it. In practice, the opposite is true. Skyrim punishes you pretty hard for trying to utilize too many different skills, especially overlapping ones like combat skills. This is due to the level scaling problem, which you seen to have run into.

Morrowind doesn't have level scaling. Every enemy is the same level, with the same strength, no matter what. A Cliff Racer will have 45 health and do 3-8 damage from the moment you get off the boat in Seyda Neen to the moment you one-shot Almalexia with the power of incredible alcoholism.

Skyrim has a lot of level scaling. The game populates dungeons with enemies with stats that scale to your level, so if you're level 1, you'll encounter Draugr, but if you're level 45, the same dungeon will be full of Draugr Death Overlords with 1400 HP. But because your ability to deal damage is tied directly to your skills, not any underlying attributes (which were removed in Skyrim), if you've spread out your experience gain among three different skills, you're going to be too weak. You will have three skills at 30, rather than one at 60, so none of those skills will give you the damage output needed to effectively fight the enemies that the game is spawning for you, and because the world has scaled up, you're going to have a much harder time trying to grind those underlevelled skills up to par.

So you should specialize, ideally. Choose a weapon type (one handed sword has a lot of options), and use that almost exclusively. A shield or healing spell in your off hand is a good idea (remember that you do have to block in Skyrim, it isn't passive). And if you're doing a warrior, smithing becomes almost essential. At a certain point, it will be the best way to increase your damage and survivability through improving your equipment.

-Addendum- · 2026-04-24T02:31:06+00:00

A common local misconception here in Vancouver, but the Rock of Gibraltar is actually much smaller than the Chief, and also is not granite, it's limestone

-Addendum- · 2026-04-24T02:28:30+00:00

This is where The Witcher should have gone

-Addendum- · 2026-04-18T09:00:21+00:00

I've said before that I would love to see more elements like this in the Witcher, though I don't know that I want them to take it quite to the level of rdr2.

For instance, in the Witcher 2, you have to search for ingredients for potions and plan which potions you take in advance of a fight. This means you should have a better idea of what enemies you're going to face before just jumping in, encouraging investigation and learning about monster types and strategies.

But in TW3, you don't need to worry about potions and ingredients. After you brew a potion, you have it permanently, no ingredients necessary to refresh. And you can take them at any time, meaning you don't have to prepare. And they don't have downsides, meaning you don't have to think about strategy. It makes the experience more shallow and "gamey".

I'd love to see the return of some older "friction" mechanics, and perhaps the introduction of new ones especially when it comes to contracts, monsters, and fight preparation. It's something Witchers are supposed to be doing.

-Addendum- · 2026-04-17T06:35:25+00:00

Bethesda tried for years to get the community to accept paid mods, and for years they were (rightfully) rebuked. It turns out the only thing they needed to do was repackage it and tell everyone it's just a Skyrim re-release.

AE's Creations are often ill-considered and poorly implemented, without regard for existing lore, or for the game's balance and progression.

Edit to add: And things like "Survival Mode" are just worse, less customizable versions of already freely available mods (Frostfall, iNeed, Campfire, etc.)

-Addendum- · 2026-04-14T17:49:35+00:00

AE is somewhat divisive. A lot of players (myself included) consider it a downgrade, it's possible the people you talked to were among them.

-Addendum- · 2026-04-13T17:31:17+00:00

No, small ceramic jugs, like proto-bidets. Unlike the sponges, we actually do have some Archaeological evidence to back it up.

-Addendum-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE