Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

New Elder Scrolls Game In 2010? 130

Posted by Soulskill
from the sounds-like-a-plan dept.
Paul Oughton, publishing executive for Bethesda, spoke to GamesIndustry about the company's plans for the future, and his comments include some information about the next Elder Scrolls game. Quoting: "'At the moment we've got Fallout 3 for this year and potentially there's a new Elder Scrolls title in 2010,' said Oughton. 'At the moment we're not that interested in the Wii. We're going to stick to PS3, Xbox 360 and PC. We'll continue to pursue three or four titles a year and go for big titles,' he said of the company's publishing plans for the future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Elder Scrolls Game In 2010?

Comments Filter:
  • How old is that series now?
    • by maglor_83 (856254) on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @08:42PM (#25564201)

      14 years. Plenty of older series going round.

    • by genw3st (1373507)
      not as old are your mother

      oOoOoOoOoO

      ...wait, what?
    • I'm currently playing Super Mario Galaxy. That's an amazingly good game from a series that dates back almost 25 years. I don't care if companies keep making games from awesome series, as long as new series come out as well from time to time.
      • by basscomm (122302)

        Apparently we have differing definitions of 'amazingly good'. I've repeatedly been attempting to play through Galaxy, but keep getting stymied by the poor controls and bizarre camera angles, which are both a result of running around on those little spheroids. Of course, the awful camera was also in Super Mario Sunshine [closeoutwarrior.com], too, so it's probably to be expected at this point.

        No, the last 'amazingly good' Mario game was Super Mario 64.

        • by Nick Ives (317)

          That's pretty unusual. I, reviewers and also most people I know who've played it think that the controls are tight and that the camera has its moments but is generally OK. Even my eight year old nephew found the controls very intuitive! I think its because Mario's shadow always falls on the point directly beneath him, that makes perfecting jumps pretty easy.

        • Galaxy is one of the best platformers ever made. It would take a dramatic amount of incompetence to have your progress stunted by the controls, which are fluid and tactile. My wife, who never played video games until this year, is able to play through the game. You seem to be less skilled at games than a woman who has approximately 2 months of total video game experience to her name. Apparently you can only deal with reality if the camera is peering over the top of your head from behind. One of the mos
          • by basscomm (122302)

            Galaxy is one of the best platformers ever made. It would take a dramatic amount of incompetence to have your progress stunted by the controls, which are fluid and tactile. My wife, who never played video games until this year, is able to play through the game. You seem to be less skilled at games than a woman who has approximately 2 months of total video game experience to her name. Apparently you can only deal with reality if the camera is peering over the top of your head from behind. One of the most fun aspects of Galaxy is dealing with the shifting geometry in 3D space, dodging obstacles and enemies at the same time.

            Wow, that's quite the leap. I found the camera disorienting when it's obviously flawless so I'm must be massively incompetent?

            The camera can move around all it wants, that doesn't really bother me, but I expect that Up is always Up, i.e., when I press Up, my character goes toward the top of the screen. In Galaxy, Up is Up until the camera changes angles, and then suddenly Up is Keep Moving Forward Even Though That Direction Might Not Be Up In Relation To Your Screen... Until you stop moving, then Up is Up a

            • You don't understand 3D space well enough. Pushing the control stick forward does not mean "Up". It means "Forward". Mario always moves forward in the direction he's facing when you push the control stick forward.

              Like I said, my wife gets it, and she doesn't even play games. You need practice. Galaxy is a fabulous game, designed for people that can figure out how directions work without throwing a fit and declaring the game "flawed".
              • by basscomm (122302)

                I think I have a pretty good grasp of 3D space, I've managed to navigate through at least a dozen rooms today and haven't collided with any walls.

                It sounds like you're trying to tell me that I can't dislike the game because I don't like the controls because the controls are absolutely perfect, which is completely asinine. Just like you get to like the game all you want, I get to dislike it all I want for whatever reasons I choose. For this game, it's the controls. I don't like them, and I've completed over

                • Well, I apologize for my tone. I was annoyed at a homework assignment I'm working on, so I decided to bark at someone on the internet.

                  However, you did indicate an inability to understand what direction Mario would move when you pushed "up", and I wanted to point out that his behavior is consistent if you learn to divorce yourself of the notion that "up" on your TV screen is related to "up" in the game world's 3D space.
  • by kbrasee (1379057) on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @08:29PM (#25564059) Homepage
    1. The chicks don't look like dudes.
    2. They get more than 4 voice actors.
    3. It doesn't take an Oscuro's Overhaul to make it play the way it should.
    • ...will we see the return of Raminus Polus?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by JosKarith (757063)
        They so should have give him a huge redguard-style afro.
        "Hi babe, I'm Raminus Polus. Bam-chik-a-waw-waw..."
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Id be happy whacking mud crabs with a stick.

  • But (Score:5, Funny)

    by ludomancer (921940) on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @08:49PM (#25564249)

    It's just going to be Fallout 3 with swords...

    • Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Caboosian (1096069)
      oblivionwithgunswithswords tag?
    • by DinZy (513280)

      As funny as this post is, I actually hope it is true seriously. FO3 was much more engrossing than Oblivion was regardless of their similarities.

      bring it on

      • by Aladrin (926209)

        I'm only a few hours in, but I completely disagree so far. Oblivion managed to catch my attention for around 200 hours. Fallout 3 is already started to wane at about 4 hours. If it doesn't pick up speed soon, I'm going to be very, very disappointed.

        (I've heard it does pick up, but I'm not seeing it yet.)

        • by JosKarith (757063)
          In the first 3 months we had a 360, the g/f and I managed to rack up about 350 hours on Oblivion between us...
          It's really interesting to watch someone else's play style - I'm a "Throw in a huge spell, summon a Daedra and charge" type and she's a "Sneak in, throw in a large AOE DOT, go back invisible and backstab the screaming burning victims" type.
          • Remember that next time you are arguing with her. It could help...
          • by Aladrin (926209)

            I agree. It's impressive the number of tactics you can use. My main one was 'sneak up to them, blast them with a massive spell, and run like a sissy if they don't die.' This only works if you move the slider a bit towards 'easy' though. :) Arrows worked quite nicely as well, though.

            My tactic on Morrowind was 'pummel them unconscious, then take the sword to them.'

        • I disagree with your disagreement ... I put in almost 18 hours on the game just on October 28th alone, and it's been completely awesome so far. Way better than Oblivion, and while very different (in terms of game mechanics) from Fallout 1 & 2, in many ways it is better than those games as well.
  • by Dan667 (564390) on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @11:02PM (#25565131)
    And they give back Fallout to Brian Fargo and crew.
    • by justinlee37 (993373) on Thursday October 30, 2008 @05:12AM (#25566791)

      Have you played it yet? It's quite good.

      There are some changes. But if you examine it in an unbiased fashion, they have actually improved several game mechanics from the first two games.

      1) You have to get power armor training to wear power armor. This prevents people from making a 1st level character with a high outdoorsman skill and walking to Navarro to get Adv. Power Armor, completely breaking the game. And knowing that it was there, and that you could, made any replay of the game feel totally contrived at that point.

      2) Medicine. Changing the mechanic of medicine skills was a Good Thing. In Fallout 2, First Aid/Doctor were much faster in terms of game time. But in terms of player time spent clicking, just slapping "rest until party healed" was faster, so people didn't use those skills much. Now, since Medicine impacts stimpack effectiveness, people will both use the skill AND value it more, regardless of their build.

      3)Healing mechanics. Not being able to rest in the wasteland without a bed means finding food, water, or stimpacks to regenerate HP. In Fallout 1/2, you could just use the pipboy to rest a lot, in almost any location, and therefore avoid the need to use stimpacks at all. Ample use of resting in the game often lead to me having huge stockpiles of 200-300 stimpacks simply because I didn't have to use them. They became less of a commodity.

      3)Weapon skills. Weapon skill ratings affect both your accuracy in VATS, as well as your damage in real-time and outside of VATS. This means a couple of things; it means that a level 1 character can't use a laser rifle to much effect, in or out of VATS, without a high energy skill. This means that, as with the power armor, you can't break the game by finding a plasma rifle early on. It also means that you can use VATS to get out of playing an FPS, but you can't avoid using VATS to get out of playing an RPG. Somebody with low weapons skills still does poor damage, even if they're a crack shot with the mouse.

      4) Weapon conditions. First, repairing weapons gives a lot more use to out of the repair skill. It also seems more realistic than having weapons and armor that never degrade, despite years of use (Fallout 1/2). Secondly, this makes weapons more of a commodity than they were in the first games -- since you have to constantly acquire weapons to repair your own, it creates more financial expenses for your character (which is good because it makes bottlecaps more of a commodity).

      5) Stealing mechanics. In Fallout 3, you can't rob a vendor of their shop inventory without killing that vendor first (as in Oblivion). This may seem unrealistic, and it is, but it is important to maintaining game balance (and thereby fun/replayability). In Fallout 1/2, you could often eliminate scarcity for your character simply by buying something at a store (say San Francisco), then stealing all of your bottlecaps back from the shopkeep, and then repeating over and over until you had more armor, weapons, medical supplies, and ammo than you could possibly carry. Combined with the possibility of scoring free Adv. Power Armor in the early stages of Fallout 2, this made the game unenjoyable rather quickly once you knew about these locations and how you could exploit them.

      Fallout 3 may be different, but I think it's better. I bought my copy to support Bethesda, and I sincerely hope they release expansions and/or Fallout 4.

      • by Dan667 (564390)
        I thinks "some changes" is an understatement. If I wanted a first person shooter I would buy one. Why Bethesda needed to bastardize a great franchise that they did not create into a FPS I will never know.

        I think it sums it up best to say "When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail" and all Bethesda has is a FPS engine.
        • by Nick Ives (317)

          The AC below suggested that you haven't played it which, tbh, they have no way of knowing. It is obvious, however, that you didn't read the GP as he made a good point about VATS pointing out that you can mostly avoid the FPS elements in FO3. Whilst I doubt it'll be that simple (and I'm not that bothered as I'm OK at FPS games), all the reviews I've read so far suggest that you can use VATS in that manner to a large degree.

          As I live in the UK I'll be finding out myself tomorrow!

        • Why Bethesda needed to bastardize a great franchise that they did not create into a FPS I will never know.

          Fallout 3 is not an FPS. Two reasons why:

          1. You can play the game in third-person entirely. Just zoom-out to your preferred distance using the mouse wheel, and then you control the camera with the mouse. This feature was available in Oblivion, but combat was clunky in third-person view, so it was hardly ever used.

          2. If you use VATS, you never have to aim at a single enemy - pressing the VATS button w

          • and the hit location (and thus damage) is determined by your skill level.

            Actually, the hit location is determined by what you were aiming at. If you shoot for the head and hit, you get a headshot, along with all of the benefits that entails, like the chance of disabling the opponent's head and the higher chance of a critical strike. However, your base damage with the weapon is set by your weapons skill, and (I'm not 100% on this) it seems like your weapon skill influences how accurate your bullets are in

            • Well, then let me be the one who says it. Deus Ex was a mix of FPS, RPG, Stealth, etc, elements, and it was quite easy to be disappointed, if you liked one and hated the others. Sorta like chocolate filled with cherry liqueur doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone who likes chocolate, fruit or booze, but rather to an intersection. There'll be plenty of people who still won't find it a substitute for fresh fruit, for example.

              And yes, it had multiple ways of solving everything, but not all ways of solving any

              • I'd agree with all of that. And I can especially see how some fans of the old games would be disappointed if they aren't into fancy graphics and run older systems, and how you could be seriously disappointed by the inability to have 4-5 companions. Heck, even I am a little.

                It's a different game, for sure. But there are too many RPG elements to call it "just an FPS" like the OP did. Your skills affect your abilities in combat, there are still multiple solutions to most quests (combat/diplomacy/stealth, like

              • P.S. Fallout 3's real-time/VATS system reminds me of Fallout Tactics. Now, a lot of people didn't like Fallout Tactics, for many reasons. I loved it's party-based system, open-ended character design/recruitment mechanics, and combat mechanics (including the real-time mode with the AP regeneration mechanic); I just hated the fact that it was mission-based instead of free-roaming. It had a couple of alternate endings, but they both culminated in the same place, so to call it "open-ended" would be a farce.
        • You said: "When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail" and all Bethesda has is a FPS engine.

          I said: Somebody with low weapons skills still does poor damage, even if they're a crack shot with the mouse.

          I think you must have missed something somewhere. Tell me, in your opinion, was Deus Ex "just an FPS engine?" Fallout 3 is more like Deus Ex than it is like Crysis.

        • by CFTM (513264)

          So let me get this straight, you're upset because a company bought the intellectual property for the Fallout world and then decided to make a game, with that intellectual property, that runs from different mechanics from what you want ergo Bethesda has bastardized a great franchise!

          Seriously, I love the internet.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        The iimplimntations to 'fix' the games problems you list are all lame. There a band-iad and do not fix the underlying problems in those situations.

        Completely ignoring the fact that if someone want's to grab the power armor right off, so what? I wouldn't, but there are many ways to enjoy computer games. Some people like to max out and run around killing things, or max out so they can enjoy the unfolding of the story without worrying about pointless random encounters.

        • You can only get the story once, and then what have you got? Replayability isn't a requirement, but certainly it's better with it than without it, no?

          You also only addressed my first point. Sure, stories are important, but Bethesda's game seems to have an engaging one. Saying that random encounters are "pointless", however, is folly. They were a huge part of Fallout 1 & 2 - the theme of the wastelands is that there is no law & order, the whole world is some high-noon spaghetti western, and filled wi

        • On #5 -- it makes no sense that a shopowner in Fallout 2 could remain in business, and continually restock his inventory, when the Chosen One robs him of all of his coins every time he sells his inventory off (to the Chosen One, incidentally, making the Chosen One rather rich). The shopowner would run out of money, close up his shop, and become another jet-addicted junkie on the sidewalk. What, does that guy have like, a billion coins buried in the middle of the wasteland somewhere or something? Why does a

  • Stop right there, subprime scum!

    PAY $200
    GO TO JAIL
    RESIST ARREST

    • Hmm... I'm playing a 2nd level Shoe.

      GO TO JAIL

      If only I was a 4th level Car, or 5th level Dog...

      • It's okay! TES: Monopoly has level scaling, so every property costs the same and your money supply is pegged to everyone's else's!

  • Oblivion was amazingly ground-breaking and playable and consumed many of my hours. Be delightful to have a followup that can lean on 4 yrs of tech progress since then.
  • by Cougem (734635) on Thursday October 30, 2008 @07:44AM (#25567561)
    Please please PLEASE don't implement level scaling.


    It was the downfall of Oblivion, to me. It was a lovely game, and honestly even the repetitive voice acting I could live through, but having to get a 3rd party mod just so the game seemed worth playing? I leveled up once, and suddenly all the wolves in the forrest turned into sabretooth tigers and I was unable to leave the town without a horse.
    Sad.
    • by colinbg (757240)
      I agree, it turned me off from the game... I love coming up against a overpowering enemy to realize I was not ready yet and it gave me something to work toward to beat later on... that was all lost.
  • by Tom (822)

    We're going to stick to PS3, Xbox 360 and PC.

    Damn. Everything that sucked about Oblivion was a compromise they had to make due to the console versions.

    Please make a real PC version this time, not something that feels like a cheap console port.

  • After a full weekend of Fallout 3 where I completed the main quest line, I have to say that Fallout 3 is a universe prime for an MMO. The game struck me as an MMO that was changed almost at last minute to a single-player game; the size of the map was pretty much a full MMO zone and the scope of the game was truly epic when you incorporated the side-quests and exploration. This deserves to be shared with everyone!
  • I have fallout 3, and it is really good. I hope the new elder scrolls game takes what they learnt making Fallout 3 and puts it towards the new game in 2010.

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton

Working...