Bethesda Will Host Its First Ever E3 Press Conference This Year

[Dragonlayer]

Fallout 4 would be amazing and all, but, well...

'The Elder Scrolls VI: Black Marsh' just has such a damn nice ring to it, you know?

"Argonian Maids with next-gen graphics and physics" has a nicer one in my humble opinion.

OT

Come on Bethesda, announce the next Fallout already! Don't you like obscene amounts of money?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

New IP? Fallout Online! Its free to play, pay to win with plenty of stuff to buy!!!11

ugghhh no NO! no...

I have been burned by so many of their products I just can't get excited anymore

I get excited but then I remember Fallout New Vegas was developed by Obsidian...not Bethesda

then I remember Skyrim

then I sigh....

Don't worry. If you own a copy of Skywind and a copy of Morrowind on Steam then you can look forward to what is shaping up to be the finest Elder Scrolls experience to date. For FREE!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwMeA6uYyXr7N11tgBXnn8Q

As long as they use the non handicaped Oblivion engine...Skyrim is so limited via removed hard code its not funny....

 

[Lightknight]

Well, it generally takes them about 5 years to develop a new kick-ass engine and game to launch with it. We're right there so why not?

 

[deathmothon]

Fallout 4. Somewhere in between the desolation of 3 and untouched effing Las Vegas. Take the great worldbuilding and exploration from 3, and add in the ADS and some of the other realism from Vegas. As long as they can keep the bugs to something approaching an acceptable level and this is my first full price purchase in years.

 

[JarinArenos]

Calling it now... it'll just be them trying to build hype for Battlecry.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Obsidian Entertainment collaboration for Fallout 4 or GTFO. Obsidian to do the lore and plot and dialogue and everything that requires actual writing talent, and leave the open world development to Bethesda. They can make pretty mountains and forests but they cannot write a decent story to save their lives.

 

[Baresark]

I don't know why, but I'm expecting to be disappointed. I, like so many others, really wants a new Fallout game, but my gut tells me they are going to do something ridiculous like Fallout Online (worst case scenario) or they won't announce a new Fallout game at all (best case scenario). We'll see though.

 

[Sanunes]

Well, it generally takes them about 5 years to develop a new kick-ass engine and game to launch with it. We're right there so why not?

I doubt they would create a new engine for any game for Skyrim's Creation engine is an overhauled Gamebyro engine. Now it isn't uncommon to overhaul an engine for a new game Activision did it with Call of Duty: Ghosts.

One of the biggest issues I encounter with Bethesda's open world games (I haven't played enough Skyrim for first hand experience) is their save game structure. Its too bloated and can bring almost anything to its knees and in my opinion is why they will work great for the first few hours, but the more time you sink into the game the worse it runs because its keeping so many world details are active in memory such and glasses, plates, etc.

 

[bat32391]

Looks like its time to get back on the hype train for the 100th time. Hopefully we won't get rick rolled this time.

 

[Lightknight]

Well, it generally takes them about 5 years to develop a new kick-ass engine and game to launch with it. We're right there so why not?

I doubt they would create a new engine for any game for Skyrim's Creation engine is an overhauled Gamebyro engine. Now it isn't uncommon to overhaul an engine for a new game Activision did it with Call of Duty: Ghosts.

Well yeah, but I generally consider the degree to which Bethesda overhauls game engines to be a new engine altogether. Their work on Oblivion and Fallout 3 were Gamebryo engines that were so heavily modified as to practically constitute being considered their own thing even if Bethesda's contractual license with Gamebyro wouldn't allow it.

This is one of those ship rebuilding philosophical questions where you ask how many boards you have to replace before you've got an entirely different ship. Some people would consider it the same ship as long as it happened over a significant amount of time while others would consider it a different ship the moment 50% had been replaced.

It seems to take Bethesda around five years to undergo this project. Finding the engine to work with, modifying the hell out of it and adding things (like radiant a.i. that they wrote themselves, for example) and then making a game with it. Well, more realistically they make the game while building the engine. Then, subsequent games are built off of the engine they made with minor adjustments for the rest of the generation. Even Skyrim was just an even more heavily modified New Vegas engine.

One of the biggest issues I encounter with Bethesda's open world games (I haven't played enough Skyrim for first hand experience) is their save game structure. Its too bloated and can bring almost anything to its knees and in my opinion is why they will work great for the first few hours, but the more time you sink into the game the worse it runs because its keeping so many world details are active in memory such and glasses, plates, etc.

No, not really. I've worked as a QA engineer and I did traditional tests on Skyrim when it came out. You read a bunch of information on how the save files got bloated and thought that was the issue when that actually isn't the case. The ps3 version was having trouble dropping assets from its active memory. Basically, the game would try to keep track of more and more assets as the game progressed without anything resetting. At launch, dungeons weren't resetting at all, for example. A sword dropped in a field months ago of in-game time would still be there. This was more noticeable on the PS3 because its proprietary set up forces developers to split assets up into various categories and if any one of those assets gets too bloated the system will crash.

The save files were just indicative of the problem. They were not causative. This was actually a problem in New Vegas too since it was an engine problem.

So the problem you're really having with Bethesda is that their projects are so massive that they really can't nail down enough of the bugs. I think they rely pretty heavily on their fans and we actually kind of like that. But I'm sure it's frustrating for the non-technologically inclined gamers.

Since almost no other company provides the scale and complexity that Bethesda provides, I'm pretty damn forgiving of the first few patches. As either scale or complexity increase, it becomes significantly harder to find and patch bugs as they will increase right along with it. Bethesda probably thought it would be better for fans if they released it along with the other consoles so that PS3 owners weren't left out. They may have even believed that they could fix the asset bloating issue during the time between code cutoff and release (since that's usually like three months) and just failed to do so.

 

[Sanunes]

Spoiler

Well, it generally takes them about 5 years to develop a new kick-ass engine and game to launch with it. We're right there so why not?

I doubt they would create a new engine for any game for Skyrim's Creation engine is an overhauled Gamebyro engine. Now it isn't uncommon to overhaul an engine for a new game Activision did it with Call of Duty: Ghosts.

Well yeah, but I generally consider the degree to which Bethesda overhauls game engines to be a new engine altogether. Their work on Oblivion and Fallout 3 were Gamebryo engines that were so heavily modified as to practically constitute being considered their own thing even if Bethesda's contractual license with Gamebyro wouldn't allow it.

This is one of those ship rebuilding philosophical questions where you ask how many boards you have to replace before you've got an entirely different ship. Some people would consider it the same ship as long as it happened over a significant amount of time while others would consider it a different ship the moment 50% had been replaced.

It seems to take Bethesda around five years to undergo this project. Finding the engine to work with, modifying the hell out of it and adding things (like radiant a.i. that they wrote themselves, for example) and then making a game with it. Well, more realistically they make the game while building the engine. Then, subsequent games are built off of the engine they made with minor adjustments for the rest of the generation. Even Skyrim was just an even more heavily modified New Vegas engine.

One of the biggest issues I encounter with Bethesda's open world games (I haven't played enough Skyrim for first hand experience) is their save game structure. Its too bloated and can bring almost anything to its knees and in my opinion is why they will work great for the first few hours, but the more time you sink into the game the worse it runs because its keeping so many world details are active in memory such and glasses, plates, etc.

No, not really. I've worked as a QA engineer and I did traditional tests on Skyrim when it came out. You read a bunch of information on how the save files got bloated and thought that was the issue when that actually isn't the case. The ps3 version was having trouble dropping assets from its active memory. Basically, the game would try to keep track of more and more assets as the game progressed without anything resetting. At launch, dungeons weren't resetting at all, for example. A sword dropped in a field months ago of in-game time would still be there. This was more noticeable on the PS3 because its proprietary set up forces developers to split assets up into various categories and if any one of those assets gets too bloated the system will crash.

The save files were just indicative of the problem. They were not causative. This was actually a problem in New Vegas too since it was an engine problem.

So the problem you're really having with Bethesda is that their projects are so massive that they really can't nail down enough of the bugs. I think they rely pretty heavily on their fans and we actually kind of like that. But I'm sure it's frustrating for the non-technologically inclined gamers.

Since almost no other company provides the scale and complexity that Bethesda provides, I'm pretty damn forgiving of the first few patches. As either scale or complexity increase, it becomes significantly harder to find and patch bugs as they will increase right along with it. Bethesda probably thought it would be better for fans if they released it along with the other consoles so that PS3 owners weren't left out. They may have even believed that they could fix the asset bloating issue during the time between code cutoff and release (since that's usually like three months) and just failed to do so.

Fair enough and I do understand complexity does generally come with details that can lead to issues. It is starting to feel like Bethesda relies upon their mod community to make sure the PC version is working and most other developers seemingly releasing more and more broken products with either major patches on Day 1 or being broken for months I am tiring of giving developers more and more chances.

 

[Lightknight]

Spoiler

Well, it generally takes them about 5 years to develop a new kick-ass engine and game to launch with it. We're right there so why not?

I doubt they would create a new engine for any game for Skyrim's Creation engine is an overhauled Gamebyro engine. Now it isn't uncommon to overhaul an engine for a new game Activision did it with Call of Duty: Ghosts.

Well yeah, but I generally consider the degree to which Bethesda overhauls game engines to be a new engine altogether. Their work on Oblivion and Fallout 3 were Gamebryo engines that were so heavily modified as to practically constitute being considered their own thing even if Bethesda's contractual license with Gamebyro wouldn't allow it.

This is one of those ship rebuilding philosophical questions where you ask how many boards you have to replace before you've got an entirely different ship. Some people would consider it the same ship as long as it happened over a significant amount of time while others would consider it a different ship the moment 50% had been replaced.

It seems to take Bethesda around five years to undergo this project. Finding the engine to work with, modifying the hell out of it and adding things (like radiant a.i. that they wrote themselves, for example) and then making a game with it. Well, more realistically they make the game while building the engine. Then, subsequent games are built off of the engine they made with minor adjustments for the rest of the generation. Even Skyrim was just an even more heavily modified New Vegas engine.

One of the biggest issues I encounter with Bethesda's open world games (I haven't played enough Skyrim for first hand experience) is their save game structure. Its too bloated and can bring almost anything to its knees and in my opinion is why they will work great for the first few hours, but the more time you sink into the game the worse it runs because its keeping so many world details are active in memory such and glasses, plates, etc.

No, not really. I've worked as a QA engineer and I did traditional tests on Skyrim when it came out. You read a bunch of information on how the save files got bloated and thought that was the issue when that actually isn't the case. The ps3 version was having trouble dropping assets from its active memory. Basically, the game would try to keep track of more and more assets as the game progressed without anything resetting. At launch, dungeons weren't resetting at all, for example. A sword dropped in a field months ago of in-game time would still be there. This was more noticeable on the PS3 because its proprietary set up forces developers to split assets up into various categories and if any one of those assets gets too bloated the system will crash.

The save files were just indicative of the problem. They were not causative. This was actually a problem in New Vegas too since it was an engine problem.

So the problem you're really having with Bethesda is that their projects are so massive that they really can't nail down enough of the bugs. I think they rely pretty heavily on their fans and we actually kind of like that. But I'm sure it's frustrating for the non-technologically inclined gamers.

Since almost no other company provides the scale and complexity that Bethesda provides, I'm pretty damn forgiving of the first few patches. As either scale or complexity increase, it becomes significantly harder to find and patch bugs as they will increase right along with it. Bethesda probably thought it would be better for fans if they released it along with the other consoles so that PS3 owners weren't left out. They may have even believed that they could fix the asset bloating issue during the time between code cutoff and release (since that's usually like three months) and just failed to do so.

Fair enough and I do understand complexity does generally come with details that can lead to issues. It is starting to feel like Bethesda relies upon their mod community to make sure the PC version is working and most other developers seemingly releasing more and more broken products with either major patches on Day 1 or being broken for months I am tiring of giving developers more and more chances.

Agreed. I'm just glad that Bethesda actually gives us the tools to fix the problems. Have you seen a fully modded Skyrim environment? It's breathtaking. Anyone who buys their games without also intending on eventually modding the game (I play vanilla first every time) is seriously missing out on 7/10ths of the game.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Fallout 4 is such an open secret anyway. Everyone knows they're making a Fallout 4. I'm almost certain it won't be better than New Vegas but I am hopeful that it will be better than 3.

I wouldn't mind a Dishonoured 2 from Arkane.

Fingers crossed for Fallout 4 with drivable vehicles. I want to go on a postapocalyptic road trip - just me, a couple of companions and a trunk full of loot.

You should play Fallout 2. If they do bring back the Chryslus Highwayman they better include the theme.

 

[Lightknight]

Fallout 4 is such an open secret anyway. Everyone knows they're making a Fallout 4. I'm almost certain it won't be better than New Vegas but I am hopeful that it will be better than 3.

I wouldn't mind a Dishonoured 2 from Arkane.

Fingers crossed for Fallout 4 with drivable vehicles. I want to go on a postapocalyptic road trip - just me, a couple of companions and a trunk full of loot.

You should play Fallout 2. If they do bring back the Chryslus Highwayman they better include the theme.

That recommendation should also always come with the preface that you also hate your eyes and their ability to distinguish good graphics from ancient graphics. The pre-FO3 titles did not age well. Not well at all. I do wonder what I'd think if someone released an updated graphics version of it. But going back was nigh childhood-ruining for me when I simply couldn't enjoy it. And I'm not even a graphiophile so it shouldn't have struck me that badly.

 

[CaitSeith]

E3 big announcement: Fallout and Elder Scrolls for Wii U! *Greetings from Bizarro World*

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

If they don't announce Fallout 4, I might just breakdown from anticipation.

Also I've heard they might be using a new engine for this game. Which means it will hopefully have less bugs. But at the same time that game engine had a certain wonky charm to it that i might miss.

 

[Voulan]

Fallout 4 would be amazing and all, but, well...

'The Elder Scrolls VI: Black Marsh' just has such a damn nice ring to it, you know?

I'd be excited for news about either franchises.

Although maybe 'The Elder Scrolls VI: Elsweyr' would be preferable.

 

[Grumman]

Fingers crossed for Fallout 4 with drivable vehicles. I want to go on a postapocalyptic road trip - just me, a couple of companions and a trunk full of loot.

You should play Fallout 2. If they do bring back the Chryslus Highwayman they better include the theme.

What I want is such a vehicle in a Bethesda-style sandbox, not specifically in the Fallout setting.

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

I'm seeing all these fans getting their hopes up for Fallout 4, and yet my gut feeling is that Bethesda has jumped on the MMO boat so hard that they'll just announce more content for Elder Scrolls Online, unaware how this will just create a huge backlash of disappointment. I could not care less about that MMO than I already do.

Prove that gut feeling wrong, Bethesda.

You must just have gut ache.
You got to hand it to "Zenimax Media" the real Publisher, calling their Pretend Publisher "Bethesda Softworks", when the Developer is called "Bethesda Game Studios" and already a Fan Boy god, was genius. When the Publisher screws up the dev fans defend it to the death.
To make it even more a sure thing they create a separate dev, "Zenimax Online" in case the MMO flops, it has.
SO ZM Is the Publisher and BGS are single player developers, BGS have only made 3 games this century,Morrowind was released 2001, so started last ceturty:
Started 2002 - The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - Released: 20th March 2006
Started 2006-7 - Fallout 3 - Released: 28th October 2008
Started 2009 - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - Released: 11th November 2011
So
Started 20013 - Fallout 4 - Released: Earliest November 2015 - Likely 2016

BGS only make single player, open world RPG's it's now Fallout's turn, like it or not that's all they can be making, no other studio is involved, not Obsidion or anyone else

News of the wasteland, please. Kthxbai.

I'd rather they announce that they're bringing on the TESR team working on Skywind as full time employees to create all future Elder Scrolls games. That team has talent. But alas, I know that would never happen.

If they hired the guy who made Falskaar, they won't be overlooking the Skywinders.

Well they need to make Skywind first, that's more important.
As for Falskaar author Alexander J Velicky, he wasn't hired by Bethesda at all, it was Bungie that gave him a job.