Bethesda to host their own conference at E3 for the first time

[iNero]

TESO is already kinda old news though, LOTS of mixed reviews. lots of complaining. they announced its going to be FTP on PC too. doubt a TESVI announcement is gonna effect it.

 

It would. It hasnt been released on console yet and there are way more consumers on console than on PC.

Even if it only has a small effect, it still would be money Bethesda would lose. Thats buisness.

[Mr Rabbit]

A new Doom might happen, however this is a bethesda conference right? not zenimax, Doom is ID software, owned by Zenimax, not Bethesda, Zenimax is the parent to both companies. So if this is in fact Bethesda's show Doom might get a mention but it won't be the focus as ID is just a company with the same parent, it would be like Rockstar advertising for 2k just because they are both owned by Take Two. However the difference here is Bethsoft are going to be publishing titles from ID, so yes, any ID games will get a mention but Bethsoft will focus on fallout 4 or TES VI if they have anything on those games, doom will be like a bonus 5-10 minute thing whereas fallout 4 will be like half hour, kinda like Ubisoft when they advertise assassins creed at E3 as their main thing but then show us several others as 5-10 minute events as a quick side thing, if doom is relegated to a side position at E3 then bethsoft must have an awesome show. I think we might get some news on both a new fallout and maybe even Elder Scrolls VI. Like a trailer on Fallout and a quick announcement on TES VI, maybe just that they are working on it, a trailer on both would be spoiling us, but if Bethesda are merely publishing Fallout 4, it might happen. Given the time elapsed from Skyrim they are about ready to pop out another game. Every 4-5 years seems right. But fallout 3 was the exception since it was an IP they just acquired and wanted to jump into, give them 4 years to make a fallout game like they do for TES and we might get something truly special.

 

Personally I would like Bethesda to make the game world for Fallout 4, and obsidian to make the story, dialogue and gameplay mechanics. I feel the capital wasteland was better than the mojave as it wasn't as littered with invisible walls and the settlements had more radiant AI, so it didn't feel as dead as the wastes, places like rivet city were a reprieve from the dead wasteland, just how it should be in a post-apocalypse game. But the gameplay and writing was superior on NV

 

I hope somehow we get to see the results of our actions as well, like a save importing thing.

[iNero]

Zenimax owns both. But Zenimax doesnt publish games themselfes. Bethesda publishes id Games. RAGE was developed by id and published by Bethesda. Zenimax already owned id back then.

 

Btw.

I really hope MachineGames helps out with the shooting mechanics and that they use idTech6 for FO4. idTech5 wasnt suitable for open world games but they may have changed that with idTech6.

 

I mean:

 

 

 

It runs on idTech5 and this game has one of the best shooting mechanics and ragdoll physics Ive seen. FO4 with these fluid mechanics would be amazing.

[Coin]

 

 

It would. It hasnt been released on console yet and there are way more consumers on console than on PC.

Even if it only has a small effect, it still would be money Bethesda would lose. Thats buisness.

 

 

Uh wut?

 

1) Since when has there ever been way more consumers on console than on PC for TES games? Many people who buy it on console go on to buy it on PC too, because mods. Plus the people who buy it only on PC.

2) It's an MMO. You know, traditional PC territory. Nor is it designed exclusively for consoles like Destiny.

3) The PC version is ditching the subscriptions. That's indicative of it's lack of success (usually). Plus the console versions were already delayed. There's not really a whole lot of interest in it at this point. It's not going to be a big success.

4) Like I already said. TESO is completely irrelevant to the main series. They're both very different experiences with little-to-no overlap anywhere except theme (and even then, they are set so far apart story wise also).

5) TES VI would sell like f*cking hotcakes. You know it. Bethesda knows it. Everyone knows it. Any loss from a game that's not going to do particularly well anyway will be accounted for and then some.

6) It's not going to be TES VI anyway. It's more likely to be Fallout IV or something new entirely because that's the way Bethesda operates.

[iNero]

Who said that it would hurt TES6? Obviously it would hurt TESO sales.

And there is no more "PC territory".

Even Battlefield now has more players on PS4 than on PC while it was and still is a PC first franchise.

Btw: Skyrim has sold way more copies on console than on PC: http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

[Coin]

I didn't say it would hurt TESVI. I said TES VI would more than make up for any perceived loss with relation to TESO. Because it would.

 

"PC gaming is dead" lolno.

 

Btw: Your link is flatout wrong (and doesn't even have a source). Steam copies alone are estimated at ~6 million of the ~20 million total. So it hasn't sold "way more" on console. It's roughly the same as each individual console and as that was almost a year ago (Skyrim continues to feature near the top of the top seller charts on Steam) the numbers will be even higher in favour of PC.

[TheMcSame]

Even Battlefield now has more players on PS4 than on PC while it was and still is a PC first franchise.

That's down to it being tied to Origin and the sh*tty way you have to start the game rather than PC territory going away. Keep in mind a lot of PC gamers that play FPS games will be playing Counter Strike.

 

The link you posted is also flawed, Valve doesn't share their sales so it's hard to confirm the sales figures for PC.

[iNero]

Im on PC myself, though I am not as delusional to believe that PC has the lead in any AAA games sales.

Any yes, Valve doesnt show them. But we know it 20 Million sold units. Those numbers come from Bethesda a year ago: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-27-skyrim-has-sold-over-20-million-copies

 

Ofc its a bit higher now but we have the 360 and PS3 sales numbers. Summarize them and the rest is PC.

[sivispacem]

Skyrim had sold a smidge under 6 million copies on Steam alone by their own figures circa April 2014. VGChartz is showing 3.67m physical sales today. Take into account the inevitable growth in Steam sales over the last 8 months thanks to various discounts and you've got PC sales not far off the cumulative total of PS3 and 360.

[Tampa]

Please be FO4....

[D3ADSH0T]

Fallout + Overhauled Creation Engine = Hooked for Years!

[Eurotrash]

Fallout + Overhauled Creation Engine = Hooked for Years!

 

You mean re-overhauled Gamebyro engine.

[iNero]

 

Fallout + Overhauled Creation Engine = Hooked for Years!

 

You mean re-overhauled Gamebyro engine.

 

 

I really hope not... Creation is just the slightly improved Gamebryo with the same problems. The different name was just marketing.

They should better use a new engine. The old one has way too many issues. Many of them are present in multiple games so I guess these are problems laying more deeply in the engine.

 

With the new engine they could also get rid of the loading screens.

[Th3MaN1]

New engine? Yes. But no to the fluid shooting you suggested back. Fallout was never a fast-paced action game. Think about V.A.T.S. That's what made the combat unique.

[Eurotrash]

I really hope not... Creation is just the slightly improved Gamebryo with the same problems. The different name was just marketing.

They should better use a new engine. The old one has way too many issues. Many of them are present in multiple games so I guess these are problems laying more deeply in the engine.

 

With the new engine they could also get rid of the loading screens.

 

And if not, at least make some decent LOD's like Vice City had before Rockstar nerfed them so San Andreas would run on the consoles.

 

New engine? Yes. But no to the fluid shooting you suggested back. Fallout was never a fast-paced action game. Think about V.A.T.S. That's what made the combat unique.

 

Unique and dumb. I'd rather rely on my own no-scoping skills than some stupid RGN. Problem in Fallout 3 is combat seems to be decided by RGN even when you're not using VATS, hence why you could miss a point blank shot as well as hit someone a mile away despite aiming all over the place.

 

I actually prefer VATS too, but that's precisely because live combat is so bad at the moment...

Edited February 21, 2015 by Eurotrash

[Guest]

f*ck V.A.T.S. I want fluid shooting. I want combat to be genuinely intense and a great contrast from the exploration, not just staring at a pause screen clicking the highest number, rinse repeat.

[iNero]

This. I get why some people like VATS but I want some proper/fluid shooting mechanics and not that weird feeling you got from FO3 and NV gunplay. If they dont want people to play it like an FPS they should probably make combat roundbased or VATS-only and see how many people actually would play the game...

 

I barely ever use VATS cause it just boring.

[FullMetal]

NV was a big step up to what FO3 was, just with the proper iron sights. But then again it still wasn't as close to what the franchise really needs concerning shooting mechanics.

 

Something along the lines of Insurgency and/or Red Orchestra 2 would be perfect and would feel great within Fallout.

[D3ADSH0T]

 

 

 

 

Fallout + Overhauled Creation Engine = Hooked for Years!

You mean re-overhauled Gamebyro engine.

 

I really hope not... Creation is just the slightly improved Gamebryo with the same problems. The different name was just marketing.

They should better use a new engine. The old one has way too many issues. Many of them are present in multiple games so I guess these are problems laying more deeply in the engine.

 

With the new engine they could also get rid of the loading screens.

I know that it has traces of Gamebryo, and I was probably not giving enough details. The reason why I loved Skyrims version was the radiant quests, modding and the graphics. But I will agree that the combat in Fallout/Skyrim does suck. In fallout the aiming mechanics weren't really that good and you needed to rely on VATS. A better combat system and more fluid animations would be a good start.

[MikeyBelic]

A new IP would be the sickest thing out. I've yet to get Oblivion, finish Skyrim or even start with the Fallout series, I can wait for a new Fallout wink wink

 

But on a serious note it'd be awesome for them to make something new for current gen consoles. Though I wouldn't get it for yonks I'd really like to see what they can manage on the current gen with a game like Skyrim. Obviously not Skyrim but you get what I mean. They probably wouldn't make it for the previous generation but I'm sure they will for PC.

Edited February 22, 2015 by MikeyBelic

[Th3MaN1]

f*ck V.A.T.S. I want fluid shooting. I want combat to be genuinely intense and a great contrast from the exploration, not just staring at a pause screen clicking the highest number, rinse repeat.

So you want the same thing 99% of today's games have. I suppose you're not familiar with Fallout 1 and 2.

[iNero]

FO 1&2 are not even FPS/TPS so dont try to compare them with FO3 or NV.

Also I cant believe how some people go full defense force against proper shooting instead of clunky/sluggish/bulky mechanics from FO3 and NV.

FO is still a shooter and should have proper mechanics.

I bet people would also rather have loading screens just because thats what TES and FO always had... they dont want the benefits of new technologies because they apparently feat them. Im not even joking, there are people who rather want loading screens just because thats what they are familiar with...

If Devs would have this attitude FO would still be an top-downish game just like GTA would be...

[Coin]

If Devs would have this attitude FO would still be an top-downish game just like GTA would be...

 

You say that as if Fallout still being isometric would be a bad thing.

 

Imagine if the sequel to the game that inspired the Fallout franchise was isometric and won PCWorld's Game of the Year for 2014 and generally did very well in reviews across the board...

 

ffs

[Eurotrash]

 

f*ck V.A.T.S. I want fluid shooting. I want combat to be genuinely intense and a great contrast from the exploration, not just staring at a pause screen clicking the highest number, rinse repeat.

So you want the same thing 99% of today's games have. I suppose you're not familiar with Fallout 1 and 2.

 

Maybe there's a reason why 99% of today's games are like that?

 

Fallout 1 & 2 were isometric turn-based RPG's. GTA was 2D once. That means it should still be 2D? No. It's called evolution. Same as Fallout evolved from the obnoxious turn-based combat to real-time combat. The turn based gameplay and isometric view were flushed because they were already outdated.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Eurotrash

[iNero]

 

 

If Devs would have this attitude FO would still be an top-downish game just like GTA would be...

You say that as if Fallout still being isometric would be a bad thing.

 

Imagine if the sequel to the game that inspired the Fallout franchise was isometric and won PCWorld's Game of the Year for 2014 and generally did very well in reviews across the board...

 

ffs

And that would be a reason to rely on old things instead of having the balls to try new ones?

And if you would have read carefully you would know that with my previous post I wanted to say that with this attitude we wouldnt have Fallout in its present form. And I think most people prefer it this way over the isometric style of Wasteland or FO1&2.

That doesnt mean that FO1&2 is bad.

[TheMcSame]

 

Don't like the way the game plays? Don't play it.

 

I really don't understand why that should be pointed out, it should be common sense.

[Th3MaN1]

As I said, V.A.T.S.

 

There is a reason it's in the game. You're not supposed to always go guns blazing in Fallout. The problem is that Fallout 3 and New Vegas were too f*cking generous with the ammo, so you didn't care if 25 rounds missed.

 

I'm not saying every enemy you encounted should be killed with V.A.T.S, but you're supposed to use it often. It's purpose, sadly, isn't demonstrated because of the easy difficulty of the games.

 

Isometric or not, it's still Fallout. And Fallout is, primarily, and open-world RPG. The combat comes after.

 

New Vegas was honestly good enough for me. There were a sh*tload of misplaced sights, but it was still good.

 

A name like Fallout does not deserve the same kind of gameplay like the mainstream shooters.

 

In the current state, Fallout does need better shooting. But not the same bullsh*t that has been done by Wolfenstein and Call of Duty and whatnot. Fast paced shooting is a no no for me.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[Eurotrash]

There is a reason it's in the game. You're not supposed to always go guns blazing in Fallout. The problem is that Fallout 3 and New Vegas were too f*cking generous with the ammo, so you didn't care if 25 rounds missed.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, I think VATS was implemented precisely because Bethesda was too lazy to implement proper weapon mechanics.

 

Though to be honest I've mostly found myself switching between VATS in open combat or when sneaking up on someone and live shooting when using a sniper rifle, since no matter how good your gun stats are you'll still get under 60% hit chance if the target is far away, so when using a sniper VATS makes no difference.

 

I'm not saying every enemy you encounted should be killed with V.A.T.S, but you're supposed to use it often. It's purpose, sadly, isn't demonstrated because of the easy difficulty of the games.

 

I've yet to understand what that purpose is. If I could shoot someone point blank without missing because of some stupid RGN that decides my skill is too low for me to make that shot then I don't think I'd ever use VATS.

 

Isometric or not, it's still Fallout. And Fallout is, primarily, and open-world RPG. The combat comes after.

 

So it would be alright if Fallout turned into a dating sim (RPG without combat) but god forbid should it get some proper weapon mechanics? ok...

 

New Vegas was honestly good enough for me. There were a sh*tload of misplaced sights, but it was still good.

 

Well it wasn't for me, and a lot of other people. Forgive me if I sound unreasonable because I don't like pointing my gun at a target 50 cm away, pulling the trigger and missing because the game decided that my skill isn't high enough for me to make that shot.

 

A name like Fallout does not deserve the same kind of gameplay like the mainstream shooters.

 

In the current state, Fallout does need better shooting. But not the same bullsh*t that has been done by Wolfenstein and Call of Duty and whatnot. Fast paced shooting is a no no for me.

 

So let me get this straight, proper weapon mechanics automatically turns it into Call of Duty? I guess GTA is Call of Duty as well then.

 

To be honest I don't even consider Call of Duty good from that perspective. Or any perspective, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. The fact that you went straight for it kind of suggests you're jumping on the bandwagon, sorry

 

 

 

How about you play how you want to play, and let the rest of us do the same ok? At the moment I'm being forced to use VATS because the weapon mechanics are s*it. I don't want VATS removed I just want the weapon mechanic to be fixed.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Eurotrash

[Th3MaN1]

Much about the V.A.T.S isn't proper because of the difficulty. As soon as you get to control the character, you literally get 2 pistols, a shotgun, a grenade launcher, and 10 throwing spears in New Vegas, along with some ammo.

 

Now compare it to Fallout 2. You get one f*cking spear. And you don't even get a decent pistol until you started playing properly.

 

That's one of the reasons Fallout 3 isn't considered a good Fallout game. It's a masterpiece as an independent game, but comparing it to the first two... meh.

 

So of course you're not going to use V.A.T.S when you simply don't have to. In the older games, it comes off as a life saver in most situations. Not so much in New Vegas and 3. You may shoot a few Deathclaws with V.A.T.S so you can cripple them, but that's all.

 

The difference is heaven and hell.

 

Now for the second thing:

 

 

Isometric or not, it's still Fallout. And Fallout is, primarily, and open-world RPG. The combat comes after.

 

So it would be alright if Fallout turned into a dating sim (RPG without combat) but god forbid should it get some proper weapon mechanics? ok...

Man, who in this f*cking place was talking about a dating sim? I never said, or referenced, in any form that Fallout doesn't need combat. I said that it's not the primary selling point in the game. If you played Fallout specifically just for combat, you didn't play it like you should have.

 

 

 

So let me get this straight, proper weapon mechanics automatically turns it into Call of Duty? I guess GTA is Call of Duty as well then.

 

Well then give me an example of a mechanic that would suit Fallout's combat. Tell me what it should have, specifically.

 

 

 

Well it wasn't for me, and a lot of other people. Forgive me if I sound unreasonable because I don't like pointing my gun at a target 50 cm away, pulling the trigger and missing because the game decided that my skill isn't high enough for me to make that shot.

 

Actually, you can hit anything in V.A.T.S at 50 cm. But whatever.

 

And f*cking lastly, I was making a point towards iNero, who posted a video of the new Wolfenstein game and saying that's what Fallout's shooting should be.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[Eurotrash]

Much about the V.A.T.S isn't proper because of the difficulty. As soon as you get to control the character, you literally get 2 pistols, a shotgun, a grenade launcher, and 10 throwing spears in New Vegas, along with some ammo.

 

Now compare it to Fallout 2. You get one f*cking spear. And you don't even get a decent pistol until you started playing properly.

 

That's one of the reasons Fallout 3 isn't considered a good Fallout game. It's a masterpiece as an independent game, but comparing it to the first two... meh.

 

Probably, but it's also one of the reasons why it's considered a better game in general.

 

So of course you're not going to use V.A.T.S when you simply don't have to. In the older games, it comes off as a life saver in most situations. Not so much in New Vegas and 3. You may shoot a few Deathclaws with V.A.T.S so you can cripple them, but that's all.

 

Exactly! VATS is pointless, it's just a substitute for bad game mechanics.

 

Man, who in this f*cking place was talking about a dating sim? I never said, or referenced, in any form that Fallout doesn't need combat. I said that it's not the primary selling point in the game. If you played Fallout specifically just for combat, you didn't play it like you should have.

 

Not for you. Though I'm not sure you believe that either, mainly because you're defending VATS, which is a combat-related feature, if a very pointless one. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't give Fallout a second look if it were a dating sim (and I'm using dating sim as an example because I don't know any other RPG's that don't feature combat).

 

And how exactly should I have played it? Though more importantly, what exactly entitles you to tell me how I should and should not have played it?

 

Well then give me an example of a mechanic that would suit Fallout's combat. Tell me what it should have, specifically.

 

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'd be more than happy if the current ones worked as they should. AKA if the bullet followed the fire trajectory instead of being magically warped wherever the RGN decide it should, and so on.

 

Actually, you can hit anything in V.A.T.S at 50 cm. But whatever.

 

I know dum-dum, I was talking about live-mode. You can miss a point blank shot where the enemy covers your entire screen, simply because the numbers weren't in your favor. That's the only reason I use VATS, cause live-mode is broken.

 

And f*cking lastly, I was making a point towards iNero, who posted a video of the new Wolfenstein game and saying that's what Fallout's shooting should be.

 

It's been a long time since I've played a Wolfenstein game, I don't remember how combat works. agree that combat mechanics in Fallout should be a little more slow paced / tedious / realistic / whatever. At first anyway, so that if you can build up your skills up to the point where they'll work like they do in shooter games.

 

By "shooter games" I mean those that take gunfights seriously, not Call of Ditty.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Eurotrash