The new Elder Scrolls Online leaked footage looks putrid... fucking terrible. Graphics looks shameful, shittier than Morrowind, worse than EverQuest... reminds me of a turd i was forced to play called Dungeon Lords. What a joke. I bet CD Projekt RED is going to grow to be better than Bethesda pretty soon.

I'd be happy if they just stuck to Elder Scrolls and had Obsidian make all the Fallout games.

Mixed feelings about this. On one hand i'm suprised and sadened as i thought there would be atleast another big DLC like dragonborn. On the other hand i'm glad they are going to be focusing on the next one to get that to us asap. Lets just hope it really is on a new engine. Also the DLC and game went on sale it looks like, so if you havent already nows a good time to jump in.

hhmmm...bummed about this news, a little surprising considering how well the game (appeared to) sold. Waiting for a sale for the DLC pieces I dont have to continnue my PC playthrough. Haven't picked up my xbox playthrough in a long time....hell haven't played ANYTHING in over 2 weeks.

They just took too long with their DLC coming out. It's now been a year and a half since Skyrim was released, it's time they move on to their next thing. And yes, while Skyrim is still a top 10 seller on the PC, I doubt anyone on the consoles is still buying it, so that obviously heavily influences their decision.

Next thing is obviously Fallout 4, but in a way I wished they were just going to work on the next Elder Scrolls. I've had so much fun with Morrowind, then Oblivion and now Skyrim that I REALLLLLY want the next one in the series (Elsweyr!!!!)

Creston

Whoever is running the place over there are idiots. Skyrim is STILL top 10 on steam lists and has been since its release (aside from a few weeks when it drops off and comes right back).

3 DLC for this, compared to like 10 for oblivion? Yes these may be larger ones, but it doesn't matter. Theres still tons of money to be made doing DLC for the game.

On a personal note though, thats awesome. Since it means GotY is just around the corner, probably followed by price drops.

Edit: Even given timing of next gen consoles, they could still pull people off of other things, or hire some modders temporarily just for DLC. Heck, modder done DLC would probably be better than what they've done so far.

Ratty wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 16:53:
I'm bummed all we're getting is two mediocre DLCs though. Maybe they'll license out some DLCs to a third party. I mean, why wouldn't they?

Probably for similar reasons why valve isn't hiring out HL3.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2013, 22:12.

ItBurn wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 20:00:
It was a great feeling. In NV, there wasn't any feeling of survival. Food and water EVERYWHERE. Huge fields with crops... People thriving everywhere. Not as interesting.

Well that's probably because NCR is just across the border, and really have the only unified government which is rebuilding civilization(that we know of).

jimnms wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 19:36:
As a fan of the first two Fallout games, I thought FO3 was a good story set in the Fallout universe, but so much seemed unfinished and half assed about it. The main quest was linear, with only one set path. You had no say in what direction you wanted to go, your only option was to do as you were told, no alternatives. Many side quests were linear as well, with a few having one or more alternatives.

There were so many things wrong with FO3, it was almost as if the designers never played the originals. Whoever had the boneheaded idea to make ammo weightless should never be involved in designing another RPG again.

What Bethesda did right in FO3 was the world design, but then they failed hard with the quests taking place in only a small part of this wonderfully designed world. I love the setting of FO3 so much more than FNV. With it being so good, it still had so many little things wrong. It's been 200 years since the bombs fell, but you come across so many places that are untouched. Seriously, after 200 years you shouldn't find a convenient store fully stocked with food.

For FO4, let Bethesda pick the setting and build the world, then hand it over to Obsidian to populate it with stories and quests.

I agree with your point about the main quest. The side quests were awesome though. You could complete them in many different ways. No other game does it quite like FO3. Even NV. Also, it might not have made sense, but it really felt like you were the first person to come to some locations when you explored. You felt like you were almost alone in the world. It was a great feeling. In NV, there wasn't any feeling of survival. Food and water EVERYWHERE. Huge fields with crops... People thriving everywhere. Not as interesting.

ItBurn wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:09:
FO3 was an amazing game and I liked it better than NV like many other people. It was ghastly if you were a fallout 1-2 fan and expected a clone of these, because it's a completely different game.

As for the new engine. On one hand, yes, their engine is super old. On the other, it runs AMAZING and it's getting pretty decent looking now. If they start over with a new engine, a lot of effort will be put into implementing the base system and a lot less effort will be put into adding amazing features. Also, if they reuse the old engine, but use the next gen ressources, I'm sure they can do a major leap in graphics and world complexity.

As a fan of the first two Fallout games, I thought FO3 was a good story set in the Fallout universe, but so much seemed unfinished and half assed about it. The main quest was linear, with only one set path. You had no say in what direction you wanted to go, your only option was to do as you were told, no alternatives. Many side quests were linear as well, with a few having one or more alternatives.

There were so many things wrong with FO3, it was almost as if the designers never played the originals. Whoever had the boneheaded idea to make ammo weightless should never be involved in designing another RPG again.

What Bethesda did right in FO3 was the world design, but then they failed hard with the quests taking place in only a small part of this wonderfully designed world. I love the setting of FO3 so much more than FNV. With it being so good, it still had so many little things wrong. It's been 200 years since the bombs fell, but you come across so many places that are untouched. Seriously, after 200 years you shouldn't find a convenient store fully stocked with food.

For FO4, let Bethesda pick the setting and build the world, then hand it over to Obsidian to populate it with stories and quests.

After a lengthy break I just bought the Skyrim DLC and remodded the game and got playing again. It plays better than ever now the game and community content has matured. I probably also agree that this engine has gone about as far as it can, let's hope for genuine progress here.

As for the next ES game, I would predict that Summerset Isle or Valenwood would be the next setting as you can't go wrong with elves. I think getting most of your game's lore from Khajiit or Argonians would be a bit offputting for some people. I'm not ruling out a return of the Dwemer!!!

OpticNerve wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 15:47:
Based on that very underwhelming leaked gameplay footage of ESO, I have a feeling that ESO is going to be SWtOR v. 2.0 and will not do so well (after the initial rush of sales and subs due to the brand name).

I honestly feel their success will fall much on how they approach monetization and the community. For example, Guild War 2's approach to a high upfront cost with a lot of nickel and diming worked pretty well for it. Then you look at The Foundry from Star Trek Online and now other Perfect World titles, and you see how modding should be handled. The age of subscriptions is quickly coming to an end, and is one of the reasons SWToR failed.

The reason modding is important is that it solves one of the largest issues with a high-cost MMO: content supply. That removes the need for a full-priced subscription requirement (although not as an option) which in turn enables more flexibility with the user base. Server costs can largely be mitigated by commission (see Diablo 3's RMAH), which while having its own problems might work for a properly designed MMO.

Modding is crucial especially for an Elder Scrolls game, I am sure everyone can agree. Yet its presence will dictate much of the rest of the game, as elaborated above, and that means reliance on the large and great community. Star Wars likewise had such a community - built up at least partially from Galaxies - that was totally ignored and let down by EA with SWToR (and Sony, with the Galaxies expansion).

So, to reiterate: monetization and community are the keys to success or failure.

Would be interesting to know what the general sales figures have been. Smashed sales records at release and it's been either in or near the top 10 bestsellers on steam ever since.

I have only just completed Fallout New Vegas for the first time, and have since reinstalled Fallout 3 along with mods for another playthrough. It is immediately clear to me just how much of an improvement FNV was, albeit a completely different game.

I have to say however, how disappointing the Skyrim DLC was, with Dragonborn being the only substantial effort from Bethesda, while the other two are more comparable to horse armour DLC.

Focusing on an Elder Scrolls MMO, I expect they won't begin work on another game for a long while, if at all. At the rate Bethesda is pumping out games these days, while high quality, I'm concerned they have abandoned individuality in an attempt to rub shoulders with the likes of EA, Activision and Blizzard.

Prez wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 16:57:
I am currently playing Skyrim with 47 mods installed, a decent amount of them being graphical tweaks. On ultra setting it looks awesome and runs like a dream. And I kind of like the combat (with an archery mod installed), clunkiness and all.

And while New Vegas was inarguably better in every way, I thought Fallout 3 was spectacularly enjoyable, and I played the first two for a combined 11 million hours (give or take a few).

NV was objectively better in every way, but I enjoyed FO3 more.

Lower pressure to see everything and do everything "right," I suppose.

I am currently playing Skyrim with 47 mods installed, a decent amount of them being graphical tweaks. On ultra setting it looks awesome and runs like a dream. And I kind of like the combat (with an archery mod installed), clunkiness and all.

And while New Vegas was inarguably better in every way, I thought Fallout 3 was spectacularly enjoyable, and I played the first two for a combined 11 million hours (give or take a few).

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:51:
It (Fallout 3) had poor writing, poor system design, cookie-cutter dungeon design, decent art direction but some horrifically incompetent art (look at the proportions of the character models sometime, particularly their hands), poor loot progression (mortal sin for what was essentially a dungeon crawler), poor combat, and while it provided a whole world for you to explore, exploration by and large wasn't very rewarding. And of course it's technical design bore no resemblance whatsoever to the originals,

Fallout 3 has its weaknesses but is still a very well done game. I am playing it for the first time these days, and am about 15-20 hours in. At hard difficulty level, the ammo is very scarce, and roaming around the wasteland is quite hard. I have had some very tough multi-stage missions which required a lot of running around, sneaking and trying to find objectives that were left quite open-ended.

While the characters aren't memorable at all, the world is built quite well. The radio channels that fade in and out based on your location are great addition in a game primarily about wandering the wasteland alone (for some reason I haven't found an NPC party member so far). It's a disappointment that the DC ruins can't be explored in an open map, instead of traversing underground stations (a better rendering engine would have helped there)

It's a good addition to the series. I am looking forward to finishing it and trying out the Obsidian's take on it too, one with hopefully more interesting writing.

Cutter wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:07:
Why do you all want Elswyr so much? I"d much rather have the Black Marsh. Utilize some underwater adventures with the Argonians. Ruined towers in the swamps, trolls, etc. Black Marsh would be hella more cool than Elsewyr!

So totally agree. I'm hoping for Black Marsh too. I've always loved a swampy setting in games, ever since Redneck Rampage. Valenwood would be cool too - lots of treehouse type stuff a la the Ewok moon of Endor.

I'm bummed all we're getting is two mediocre DLCs though. Maybe they'll license out some DLCs to a third party. I mean, why wouldn't they?

Beamer wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:20:
They just did their all new engine, though.

Is this the engine without the ugly face NPCs? :-)

Based on that very underwhelming leaked gameplay footage of ESO, I have a feeling that ESO is going to be SWtOR v. 2.0 and will not do so well (after the initial rush of sales and subs due to the brand name).

Zenimax will then have to rely on Bethesda to try and save the day with their next game and hope that the Elder Scrolls brand name isn't too tarnished at that point. So it should be interesting to see how Bethesda's next game will turn out since I think they'll probably have to do their best to make it a blockbuster and do a bit of damage control at that point.

Just my predictions and I could be wrong after all :]

zombiefan wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 12:01:
I just hope their next major project isn't the shitty MMO they're trying to make.

Completely different Studio is making the MMO (ZeniMax Online Studios)

The Single Player games are made by Bethesda Game Studios.

Whether the next project is another Elder Scrolls, or another Fallout, is unknown at this time.