Not Dragon It Out: Bethesda Declares Skyrim Done

By Nathan Grayson on April 16th, 2013 at 10:00 am.

That Skyrimajigger, huh? Who’d have thought it’d ever catch on, what with all its burly men, dragons, viking imagery, and infinitely memeable sights and sounds? In an industry that prizes quiet, civil ruminations on modern issues and abhors such savage flights of fancy, the very notion was ludicrous from the get-go. And yet, somehow, for some reason, people ended up thinking it was OK. So Bethesda stuck around and churned out buttery dollops of DLC, even though it desperately wanted to move on to its next speculative installation about a world in which nuclear bombs were never used nor created, and you explore places like Washing D.C. while constantly remarking how normally proportioned all the roaches are. Now, however, Bethesda feels its next big thing demands every last bit of energy it can muster, so Skyrim’s a done deal. Next up, something completely unknown and shrouded in mystery but no seriously it’s probably Fallout 4.

The reigning heavyweight champion of open-world RPGs explained its decision in a blog post:

“Skyrim has been a labor of love for us since we started designing it in 2006. We never imagined it would become the phenomenon it has. And that is because of you, the fans. It was all of you who made it a success. We can’t thank you enough for embracing the game, spreading the word, and making it your own.”

“For the last year and a half we’ve been working on new content for Skyrim; from the game updates, Creation Kit, Steam Workshop, Kinect support, to DLCs. Parts of our team have also been in pre-production on our next major project, and that game is at the point where it requires the studio’s full attention to make it our biggest and best work yet.”

That said, Bethesda does plan to continue monitoring its role-playing phenom, applying patches and small fixes as needed. Which sounds about right, especially given that it’s leaving Skyrim capably (though not unprecedentedly) updated and expanded. Yeah, it still has some glitches, and it’s a shame we never got to explore all of Tamriel, but what we got certainly beats the tin haunches off Horse Armor. And hey, modders exist. So maybe someday…

As for the “next adventure” in question, yes, it’s probably Fallout. And, if so, consider me ecstatic, even if a large part of me wishes Obsidian was calling the shots again. I can’t complain too much, though – at least, so long as Fallout doesn’t get hit by Skyrim’s bland-ification beam.

I suppose, too, that it always could actually be something entirely new. I doubt it, but crazier things have happened. For example, that one time when [database error: file not found].

__________________

« | »

, , , .

128 Comments »

  1. Col Sanders says:

    This is a sad day I was hoping for at least another DLC or two.

    Still I manged in excess of 100 hours on it without really touching the main campaign…

    • portchd says:

      I can’t say i played much of Dragonborn, but it seems a shame to me that we never saw anything as lovingly crafted as the Shivering Isle…get on it modders!

      • waaaaaaaals says:

        All of the DLC didn’t seem like it got anywhere near the same level of effort as Shivering Isles.

        I never even knew what to make of Hearthfire other than it seemed to be a quick attempt to cash in on what a few mods were doing.

        • pocketlint60 says:

          A more optimistic view of that idea is that Bethesda wanted to take ideas from mods and make them accessible for console players.

        • Universal Quitter says:

          If we don’t give credit for improvement over the Horse Armor days, how do you expect Bethesda to give two shits about complaints from their community? If everyone seems impossible to please, they’re not going to try.

          And as to Shivering Isles, a large part of what made it so great was the bizarre nature of the island itself. They could have spent as much time and money on Dragonborn as they did on Skyrim itself, and it still wouldn’t be as compelling as Shivering Isles because Sheogorath, et al were just COOL.

          • kaishilaidan says:

            So…yeah. The game did all right. And the sales by now (and we’ve not even gotten to the GotY/Ultimate/Complete Edition yet, which always adds huge numbers on top for Bethesda) must be much higher than 10 million.
            http://youtu.be/NL8X0KnxwWc

    • The Dark One says:

      On the plus side, the existing DLC is more likely to go on sale more often now. The content often looked interesting, but the price was always too high for me,

  2. Ernesto25 says:

    “As for the “next adventure” in question, yes, it’s probably Fallout. And, if so, consider me ecstatic, even if a large part of me wishes Obsidian was calling the shots again. I can’t complain too much, though – at least, so long as Fallout doesn’t get hit by Skyrim’s bland-ification beam”

    Yeah me too, but was fun while it lasted got bored of dragonborn dlc and never could get into the green hills of oblivion but skyrim gave me tonnes of fun , now is the right time to stop though. Not fussed about the online one but hopefully in 5ish years they’ll take me somewhere else exciting.

    • Chalky says:

      Yeah, this seems like a pretty good call. Really looking forward to a new fallout.

      Here’s to hoping the vanilla UI is less of a disaster than skyrim’s.

      • Rumpel says:

        they already made the npc’s pretty. if they deliver a decent ui, how will you even know its a bethesda game?

        • sinister agent says:

          All the characters will be terrible and sound identical, the player character will be an idiot, the AI will consist entirely of “CHAAAARGE!”, etc.

          I am still sort of interested, though. The improvements over the last few games haven’t been spectacular, but they’ve been steady.

          I also think that the engine is better suited to shooting than melee. Or at least, Bethesda’s way of doing melee, which is pretty lousy.

    • Iskariot says:

      “even if a large part of me wishes Obsidian was calling the shots again”
      -
      Personally I do not. I like what Obsidian did with the weapon modding, but I perceived the world of Fallout 3 to be much more epic. The city of new Vegas was a horrible boring construct as opposed to the monumental Washington. Also Fallout 3 featured an extensive underground world. And I liked the Enclave infinitely more as a main opponent. I loved their drop ships and general high tech approach. I felt Ceasar’s army was a laughable embarrassment. I never took them seriously and their presence just annoyed me.

      • rb2610 says:

        Hooray, someone else who prefers Fallout 3 to New Vegas! It seems the majority of people prefer New Vegas.

        Personally, while NV did have plenty of cool features with the factions and things, FO3 seemed to just have a better atmosphere. The soundtrack was far more memorable, I can’t really remember any of the tracks from New Vegas. Also, I missed Super Mutants and the Enclave being the main antagonists.

        • thegooseking says:

          My take on it is that Fallout 3 was better in the “big picture” sense, while it got creaky if you looked closer, while New Vegas was a lot better in the attention-to-detail sense, but its overall structure sucked. I reckon which is better just depends which of those two things you find more important, and either is valid. But I prefer Fallout 3, too.

          • Ernesto25 says:

            You summed it up well there, im happy with both i think f3 did what it needed to do to reintroduce the franchise and ive replayed them both countless times so i wouldn’t be like “oh no not fallout 4″ but i would hope it would be another new setting.

        • Ernesto25 says:

          I did like fallout 3 but having really got into the originals i appreciate new vegas alot more, it felt more alive. People treat the factions as if they were a new idea dreamt up in new vegas but they were a staple mechanic in F1 and F2 to my surprise when i played them. fallout 3 had more memorable moments but New vegas was a world i could believe and roleplay in.

          • thegooseking says:

            Yeah, speaking of roleplaying, there are three types of roleplayer. There’s the Audience, who is barely a roleplayer at all; they just want to be told a story, and their participation in it is almost incidental. Then there’s the Actor, who wants to actively participate in a story that responds to them. And then there’s the Immersionist, for whom participating in a story is less important than inhabiting a reactive world.

            Standard disclaimer about player types is that people may not fall neatly into one of these categories, but may embrace all of them to different degrees at different times. Nonetheless, I do get the feeling FO3 is better for the Actor type while FO:NV is better for the Immersionist type.

          • Klingsor says:

            Huh, very nice summary “thegooseking”. That sounds indeed like it’s capturing most of the player types.

            I personally go with the “Immersionist”. Sadly Bethesda’s games never really provided a huge level of immersion. Too many mainstreamed features just broke it – Why the hell has almost every house in NV running water?

            But I’m thankful to Bethesda for always providing a broad range of mod kits. Modders made those game for me immersive.

          • thegooseking says:

            @Klingsor, I wish I could take credit for it, but I actually read about it in a paper by Craig Lindley, and I think he cited someone else for it.

          • HadToLogin says:

            I’d say it’s around. “Nobody” plays FO3 for story, because it’s just not there, you do it to see nuked Capitol, while you play New Vegas for story.

          • thegooseking says:

            @HadToLogin, I don’t think that’s true at all. New Vegas didn’t have a story. As I said above, it had lots of little (very good) bits of story, but they didn’t come together to create a unified whole. Even though the bits of story weren’t as good in Fallout 3, they were a lot more connected to the overall thing.

          • Enkinan says:

            thegooseking I think nails it here, which is why I preferred NV slightly more than FO3. The card playing, the factions, and the hardcore mode where you had to eat and drink to stay alive immersed more than FO3. Regardless, they are both fantastic games that are up there in my all time favorites list.

          • phuzz says:

            I’d put myself in the Audience category, and I think I enjoyed Fallout more than NV. The hardcore mode in NV (or the mods for it in Fallout or Skyrim), just didn’t interest me at all.
            Each to their own!

          • scatterbrainless says:

            Quite apart from these excellent points it is worth noting that the games are, from a fiction and narrative standpoint, actually from two different genres. F3 played far more on a sci-fi post-apocalyptic trope, thus its more epic narrative sweep and grimier tone; while FN:NV tended far more towards the Western, thus why there was a much stronger sense of being a loner amongst warring factions, ala Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars, rather than being at the centre of a hero’s quest. It seems like people overlook this difference because they share a fictional universe, and thus get perhaps unfairly treated as strictly comparable.

          • welverin says:

            I find it’s quite common for people to confuse setting for genre, e.g. if something is set in the future it’s always considered scifi regardless of what it’s about.

        • Ringwraith says:

          One notable omission from New Vegas was many of the “dungeons” Fallout 3 had in the form of its subways and almost every other abandoned place.
          However New Vegas plays so much better, which makes going to back to 3′s peashooters and such difficult.

        • flaillomanz says:

          I too prefer fallout 3. Just, something about it was always more… well, it felt more post-apocalyptic to me. I’m not sure why I feel this way, but it’s how I feel regardless.

        • kibble-n-bullets says:

          I enjoyed Fallout 3 much more and I’m pretty sure here’s why:

          I loved the first two Fallouts. So, with my critical eye back after beating Fallout 3 I couldn’t get past the game engine it and subsequently New Vegas used. Your character is clumsy and the controls are poorly implemented. (For example, ‘F’, mouse wheel, and mouse wheel click change the camera perspective.) The gun-play and melee is garbage compared to any game that does it well. Everybody looked the same. The inventory management system, and its persistent overuse turned me away as well.

          I’d happily play New Vegas from a top down perspective, but as a first/third person game it’s just awful.

          Edit: In F3 I felt like there was something bigger than myself going on, which was Project Purity. It drove me forward. I didn’t get that sense for the bit of New Vegas that I played. Sure I wanted to find out who’d shot me, but not so much after being shot another couple hundred times, and after killing so many.

        • fish99 says:

          Having replayed them both recently I still much prefer Vegas. F3s world, although it had a lot in it, seemed empty of anything meaningful, and the story was borderline silly.

          Basically it’s all about the writing. F3 is pure Bethesda quality writing, i.e. terrible.

        • blackmyron says:

          I liked both, but prefer Fallout 3 – because F3 was a post-apocalyptic game, which is what I’m expecting with Fallout. F:NV was more post-post-apocalyptic; a frontier of the new civilization emerging from the old. I’m less excited about that.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I’m definitely on the New Vegas side of things. Fallout 3 did many things well, especially the amazing opening, but it didn’t build a cohesive world. No one looked at roads and said “this is where traders go.” There were no fleshed out companions. It was just a playground of set pieces, but that can be fun in its own right.

        • Iskariot says:

          I do agree that Fallout 3 missed certain elements. It is not that I do not see Fallout 3′s shortcomings. On my second play through I used a lot of superb mods (thank the gaming gods for modders) to ad what I felt it lacked.
          But the world as such felt so much more complete and better designed with for example that extra exiting layer of the subterranean. It simply is the city itself that has that epic monumental feel with numerous impressive locations and buildings that New Vegas never could match. It did not even come close.

          • InternetBatman says:

            I think complete is the wrong word. The game is fun to travel in, but it doesn’t feel like anyone lives there. There’s an anti-slavery faction, but we never actually see any slaves. There are a lot of mercenaries with no explanation of how they’re being paid (bottle caps? where are the people paying them getting it from?). There’s a village of children that kick out people when they grow up, but where do more children come from?

            It’s like they made these things because they’re cool, and then no one thought of the ramifications. And the subways stunk. They had little correlation to the actual subways and were just a terrible, confused maze. Although, I grew up near DC, so maybe I’m just less impressed by the city.

          • welverin says:

            There are slaves and you do see them, there may not be a whole lot, but then there weren’t always a whole lot of people populating things (relative to what was implied).

            And I seem to recall there was some explanation for the kids, but it’s been to long for me to be sure.

          • Enkinan says:

            Yeah, there were definitely slaves, I’m pretty sure in one of my play throughs I owned one. You could also gather slaves up and sell them.

      • werix says:

        Having recently gone back to play a bit of Fallout 3, I have to agree. Fallout 3 had the better world and atmosphere, in my opinion. The downtown area was just so fun to get lost in, and the area outside of the Capital was so varied, what with Tenpenny Tower, the slavers of Paradise falls, Rivet city, etc. The Capital Wasteland was so much more fun to be in.

        New Vegas is awesome because Obsidian knows how to write and the factions and characters were really well made and deep in many instances. It’s just that the Mojave wasteland was such a bore. Vegas itself never felt as epic to me as it should have, and outside of vegas is a giant wasteland of the same everywhere. Now some of the DLC spiced things up, but the Mojave just wasnt as fun to be in as the Capital Ruins.

        Here is to hoping that Fallout 4 is located in the Midwest, Like St. Louis, Milwaukee, Chicago or Detroit. We haven’t seen it since Fallout Tactics, and if it is there, maybe some of Tactics can get some of the proper cannon position it deserves (yes I actually liked Tactics.)

        • kibble-n-bullets says:

          Agreed. If you’re going to do a desert you need to make it huge and to traverse it with vehicles. The Mojave wasteland can’t hold a candle to a bombed out suburbia.

        • welverin says:

          Rumors have implied Boston, so you may not get your wish there.

          I’ve always had the impression that the hate for Tactics is that people couldn’t accept the fact it wasn’t an rpg, and hated it for that rather than the actual quality of the game.

          • Enkinan says:

            Agreed. Once you accepted Tactics for what it was, it was an above average game. Some of the most fun I had with it was playing 1v1 LAN games of it against a friend of mine.

        • Werthead says:

          IIRC, Bethesda have said that their games will explore areas that the earlier games left untouched, and that they’d leave the Mid-West and other areas (presumably including the West Coast and California) to Obsidian, since it was many of their guys who created it.

          This was actually encouraging, as it suggests that Bethesda have in mind a similar release strategy for next time as well (i.e. them doing a FO4 and then Obsidian doing another game for 2-3 years later), and we know Obsidian have pitched what is effectively a NEW VEGAS 2 to Bethesda (and I believe the Obsidian guys have suggested that they’ve talked about a FALLOUT: LOS ANGELES project, which could be the same thing).

          It does mean that Bethesda are much more likely with FO4 to continue exploring the Eastern Seaboard. Since POINT LOOKOUT was the best-received DLC, I wouldn’t rule out a Florida/Everglades locale. New York must be tempting because of the huge scale of it. Boston is, of course, what all the rumours say and it does make a certain degree of sense. They could also perhaps go as far west as Chicago without intruding on the Mid-West locale of the earlier games.

          • buzzmong says:

            I wouldn’t be suprised if the original Fallout 3 aka Van Buren, is the next project from Obsidian.

            I expect they’d want to have a proper shot at that again as the tech demo was quite promising.

          • Werthead says:

            Apparently some of Van Buren was reworked into NEW VEGAS as it was.

  3. Teovald says:

    I can’t complain too much, though – at least, so long as Fallout doesn’t get hit by Skyrim’s bland-ification beam
    I don’t have very high hopes in that regard, but if a new Fallout game by Bethesda means that after that Obsidian gets to do one as well, I am all for it.

  4. RedViv says:

    I do wonder what they were doing since Dragonborn’s release, if they only now transfer more staff.

    Oh well. Let’s just wait for Game With Things You Know From Fallout Wot Has A Four In The Title.

    • Hardlylikely says:

      Maybe some of the people actually took holidays and had lives for a little while before the next big push?

      Also could easily picture R&D type activities that don’t directly tie into a shipping project.

  5. Didden says:

    You mean done with all the mods that fix or improve the game? :)

  6. philbot says:

    Thankfully, modders will always be there to create great content for years to come. Long live PC gaming :)

  7. megalosaurus says:

    Now that Skyrim is officially “done”, is there any word on how well it sold? Following that up I would be curious as to how many copies it sold on PC and then whether PC sales alone might have covered (or not) its development costs?

    Just curious in light of recent games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil failing to reach their bloated sales targets and various comments about how such innovations like “Always-on-DRM” and “Multi-player” (innovations Skyrim ignored) are unavoidable…

    • bigjig says:

      From memory it passed 10 million about a year ago. Either way I’m pretty sure they covered their development costs and then some no matter how high their ‘expectations’ were :P

    • Werthead says:

      SKYRIM’s combined budget (development and marketing) was apparently $85 million. The game made five times that amount back in the units shipped in the first week on sale :)

      http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

      So…yeah. The game did all right. And the sales by now (and we’ve not even gotten to the GotY/Ultimate/Complete Edition yet, which always adds huge numbers on top for Bethesda) must be much higher than 10 million.

      The figure in the link suggests that 14% of sales were on PC (compared to 59% and 27% for 360 and PS3 respectively), but AFAIK that does not include Steam sales, which would be substantial (I believe it’s still Steam’s fastest-selling ever game, and may be it’s biggest-selling title) and would skew the statistics quite significantly in favour of the PC. I’m also actually surprised that the 360 version has sold more than twice as many copies as the PS3 version.

  8. Yosharian says:

    “so long as Fallout doesn’t get hit by Skyrim’s bland-ification beam.”

    Yeah, not holding my breath on that one.

    I’m sure it will be worth playing, just like Skyrim. But I’m not expecting anything revolutionary.

    If they could just get rid of that fucking Gamebyro engine I’d be happy.. well, happier.

    • Nova says:

      With id under their belt and the next-next-gen consoles approaching there’s a pretty good chance for that.

    • Knufinke says:

      Hopefully they’re getting a new staff of writers along the way.

      A Bethesda game without the emberassing dialogue… wouldn’t it be great.

    • Werthead says:

      Bethesda said a while back they would make two games with its ‘Creation Engine’ (i.e. GameBryo GTI), so I suspect that FALLOUT 4 is going to be saddled with it as well. This actually makes sense since the engine is very scalable, and FO4 will presumably have both 360/PS3 and 720/PS4 versions. I’d also guess that the hypothetical next Obsidian FALLOUT game would also use this engine. Bethesda won’t likely move onto another engine until it’s time for ES6/FO5 (assuming they’re going to keep this cycle going indefinitely).

  9. Iskariot says:

    Time to give us an epic Fallout 4.
    Can’t wait.

  10. Drake Sigar says:

    We talkin’ about Three Dog’s little Twitter tease?

    Think I’d rather have another Fallout from Obsidian actually. Unless I can have both? That’ll be great.

    • Sakkura says:

      Best we can hope for is Fallout 4 by Bethesda, and a spin-off by Obsidian.

  11. mildante says:

    I don’t like Fallout that much as TES but if they are really working on Fallout 4 I just wish they set it in some different environment than those boring deserts. Some forests and overgrown city ruins would be nice. Postapo world doesn’t have to be just a dull sand and rock.

    • Mollusc Infestation says:

      I’m with you on this one. Bleak is good, but nature slowly reclaiming the monuments of man is more interesting, to me at least.

      • Caiman says:

        I just couldn’t get into Fallout 3 at all, for precisely these reasons. Human wastelands are boring, depressing places, I hated exploring that hateful world. Elder Scrolls may be traditional fantasy, but it has life, and places that beg to be discovered. I’d like to see them apply their open-world approach to something new actually, although it certainly won’t happen anytime soon.

      • Jeremy says:

        Agreed. The wasteland setting was great for one go around, but I do really hope they change environments a little more. It’s been, what, a few hundred years since the wars? You would think that the effects of a couple of GECKs could be seen by now.

    • solidsquid says:

      Well, since we’re hitting number 4 we’re probably due an ice world level. Set it in the Arctic tundra? Possibly northern Alaska?

  12. analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

    I liked Fallout 3 in general, at the start it was amazing and challenging but as the game progressed it lost it’s balance.

    I hope with FO4 they can make a game that once higher level isn’t just about exploration…..fingers crossed

  13. Alexrd says:

    Then what are you waiting for to release it on GOG?

  14. thegooseking says:

    I’m really looking forward to seeing what Bethesda does in future. Particularly because Radiant AI and Radiant Story were kind of disappointing, but neat concepts but can be improved immensely with a bit more technical work and a bit more learning to use them properly.

    I don’t know about Fallout, but it’s emergence, rather than the embedded writing, that makes TES what it is, and improvements in how emergence is handled can only be a good thing.

  15. Nim says:

    Yay, I guess I can finally buy Skyrim and try it out!

  16. NathaI3 says:

    So when will Skyrim Goatee appear? I’m guessing in the next few months?

    Actually, I hope there’s a full DLC pack for those of us who haven’t bought any of it. I need a reason to go back to Skyrim other than fan mods, I gave up around the 60 hour mark but feel I haven’t explored it anywhere near enough.

  17. Persus-9 says:

    This is great news for me. I decided to wait till I could buy Skyrim with all the DLC since I find that generally delivers the best experience for me and so I still haven’t bought it. For me this isn’t the end, it is the beginning. That should surely be normal shouldn’t it? The developers have finished developing it so I will consider buying and playing it. I’m sure that used to be normal. I feel like I’m getting old.

    • Ernesto25 says:

      Heh, to be fair im oldish too and skyrim “dlc” really should be called expansion pack like in the old days where games had expansion packs that added or created new game like MOH etc. Only the sims seemed to have the release lots of expansion packs to make money model. basically the dlc adds to skyrim not taken away unlike javik in me3.

  18. roryok says:

    For example, that one time when [database error: file not found].

    ;

    SELECT there_was_this_one_time FROM dbo.NathansMemories WHERE back_when < GETUTCDATE()

  19. DickSocrates says:

    Having recently subjected myself to Fallout 3, and played about 15 hours of Skyrim, I can say with total confidence I will never buy aother Bethesda game. I don’t know how anyone can put up with the worlds they create long enough to get anywhere. The storytelling and characteristation is so utterly bland doing anything is a slog. There’s no spark interest, nothing magical despite all that magic.

    • bstard says:

      A witch! A witch! Burn the heretic!

    • Lobotomist says:

      Skyrim is not about storytelling or quests. Its simply a game simulation of fantasy world. And no other game made it that close as TES series. Skyrim is bit less complex than Morrowind, but it compensates with almost realistic looking world.

      • Nick says:

        Gothic 2 and Risen are much more simulated world than TES games which are more fantasy theme parks since Oblivion.

  20. Arbodnangle Scrulp says:

    Fallout 4, meet my new friend Oculus Rift. I spent 150+ hours in Skyrim and 200+ in F:NV, both extensively modded. Plug F4 direct into my eyeballs and I will never leave my house again.

    I spent 4 hours in F3 just trying to get it to work without glitching and crashing after which I gave up and binned it. Should I have another look?

    • Imbecile says:

      Depends how much you enjoyed Vegas. I preferred Vegas myself, but there are a few who really loved Fallout 3. Regardless, if you like Bethesdas games, its probably worth checking out if you can get it supercheap.

  21. Jason Moyer says:

    IMHO Bethesda’s next game should be IHRA Drag Racing 3.

  22. Casimir's Blake says:

    “The reigning heavyweight champion of open-world RPGs”

    Dark Souls wants a word with you, Nathan. I imagine it will be a terse, courteous conversation followed by someone being clobbered. :P

    Much as I enjoyed some time with Skyrim, dungeon crawling is the main draw for me, and Skyrim’s dungeons were linear copy-paste dullards that were difficult to differentiate or enjoy. The quests? Ugh, same old same old, really. Dark Souls does make Skyrim appear, and play, rather bland.

    • Boosterh says:

      You seem to have disproved your own point. Dark/Demon Souls are not “open world RPGs;” they are a series of dungeon crawls. Well designed, gorgeously made, and richly imaginative dungeon crawls, certainly; but at base, they are a series of corridors to walk down, with some branching paths and side areas, and a hub to tie them together. Skyrim (and TES in general) dungeons are obviously weaker than Souls’, because they are ancillary to the open world, rather than being the primary focus of the game. If dungeons are your thing, then more power to you, and have fun; but you can’t claim that the Souls games are something they aren’t.

    • RedViv says:

      The Souls games are about a thumb’s width from being Metroidvania, and in no way open world.

    • Tancosin says:

      Agree 100%. I bought Skyrim last summer during the sale, and have played it about 15 hours so far. I bought Dark Souls during the winter sale, have played 163 hours of it, and feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. Skyrim feels like Oblivion 2.0: The Shiny Version, and it seems so dull, with the world so small. It should take me more then 10 minutes to ride across the entire map. Dark Souls just has such tight level design compared to Skyrim, and all the locations feel so different.

      • Grygus says:

        “It should take me more then 10 minutes to ride across the entire map.”

        Well, since it takes about 45 minutes using sprint and avoiding encounters, Skyrim should make you very happy in this regard.

  23. Lobotomist says:

    I can only say congratulations Bethesda ! Skyrim was truly a milestone game for whole gaming industry. Go on and make another game :)

    • Lagwolf says:

      Well it is the first game I ever put 150 hours in that is for damn sure (DLCs incl). Skyrim might not have been that uber on the story-line but it sure made exploring a great deal of fun. And better yet Skyrim felt like a game for PCs instead of a game for consoles that ran on PCs (like BIoshock Infinity).

    • Nick says:

      milestone how? I mean, I liked it, but I’m not seeing how it was anything new or special.

  24. Dowr says:

    No doubt Fallout 4 will spit and roar obscenities at poor Fallout 1&2 much like 3 did.

    Honestly, Bethesda are a terrible studio and I still cannot understand why they receive such high acclaim.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I agree with all of that except the part about Bethesda being terrible.

    • Imbecile says:

      I’m going to take a wild guess and say that its because Bethesdas games offer things that people enjoy but cant get elsewhere. They may not be your cup of tea, but I like the first person, open world exploreathon RPGs.

      • Dowr says:

        No, I love exploration oriented games, and Bethesda are very good at invoking that human urge to explore… for the first 20 hours and then the issues become more and more apparent (and as Bethesda games have gone on, those issues have gotten worse).

    • Enkinan says:

      You may want to look in to Wasteland 2

  25. trout says:

    I just hope they get an engine that doesn’t feel like the player character is a slow moving cardboard box. The gamebryo engine is one of the suckiest things ever, especially when contrasted with the sense of physical movement that something like, oh say; Stalker, or for a more recent example; Bioshock Infinite.

    Unfortunately, nothing can redeem their sloppy writing & stale attempts at world building tho.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      As far as I’m concerned, Bethesda need to drop Gamebryo completely and go with a third-party source. As much as I’m looking forward to the next Fallout game, the prospects of having to once again deal with their shitty in-house engine is tempering my enthusiasm.

      And since you mentioned it, they need to drop their writers too.

      • Bostec says:

        Here, here! I’m tired of looking at ugly tree Freefalling branch smashing NPCs. I don’t want to be looking in the mirror all the time I boot the game up. I do have the nude mod installed (tee hee hee) everyone shaves you know, must be the 1000s of swords I loot and sell. Got to have a use for them.

  26. ocelot113 says:

    Good. Now the DLC will go on sale.

  27. Mr Monotone says:

    Personally I could never get in to the modern fallouts, just as a result of the combat.

    It’s neither tactically engaging nor fun moment to moment.
    The enviroments range from good to great, but when I’m spending so much time shooting things it shouldn’t be a chore. So here’s hoping they fix that this go around.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I would recommend melee in New Vegas at least. Melee is surprisingly satisfying in a way that the guns are not. I would say that I enjoyed melee the most, then unarmed, then explosives, then energy weapons, and at a very distant last, guns.

      • Mr Monotone says:

        That makes sense actually, given the engine was originally made for Oblivion if I remember my history correctly. If I ever get around to picking it up on PC I might see if there are any combat modifications. Still though, I found energy weapons in both of them to just be guns with less variety myself. I’m curious as to why you prefer them.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Death animations. Leaving a pile of ash is cool. Also the ridiculous meltdown perk that made the hoover dam a joke. But melee is by far the most satisfying, they substantially beefed it up for NV.

  28. Malibu Stacey says:

    I’m impressed they fixed all the bugs in the game & can now move on to their next opus safe in the knowledge players can experience their game as they would like them to.

  29. engion3 says:

    Time for the next Fallout on the idtech5 engine. Best game ever.

  30. diamondmx says:

    Considering the buggy mess that this game was on release (and for PS3 owners still is), I hope people make the sensible choice and ~don’t preorder~ the next game.

    Bethesda have serious issues with coding quality, and have displayed a callous disregard for unhappy customers.

  31. Trudel says:

    One of the worst headlines I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. :-)

  32. jrpatton says:

    They really need to move on from Gamebryo. I hope they take this opportunity to make a new engine, or really overhaul the current one. The dialog system is old and clunky, same with the melee combat. The physics engine is a buggy mess, and the graphics, while gorgeous with certain ENB settings, lack some of the better DX9 and DX11 technologies.

    Please please please, leave Gamebryo behind. You own Id; use the Rage engine! All you have to do is make it moddable, and then bam! You have gorgeous open worlds!

    edit: Skyrim apparently uses the “Creation Engine”, but if that isn’t a modified Gamebryo, then my name is Sir Frilly Hammingworth… which it’s not.

  33. CutieKnucklePie says:

    Count me in the minority but I enjoyed FO3 much more than NV, so I’m glad that Obsidian is not on the helm of this one. The “human wasteland” angle was to me much more interesting than the twangy, boring deserts of NV; neat game, yeah, but not near as strong as FO3. Boston, is it you this time?!

    • jrpatton says:

      I always see Obsidian sequels like professional fan fiction. It works well, almost as good as the original work, but … it’s not quite right, and it doesn’t really feel right, because it’s fan fiction.

      • Arglebargle says:

        When based on something that’s not very good to begin with, fan fiction doesn’t have to go up too far to equal it. Of course, when you like the original anyway, there’s a likelihood that it will resemble it.

        There’s a lot of ‘professional’ fantasy dreck out there that appeals on an emotional level, but is real piss poor writing.

      • Werthead says:

        Except that NEW VEGAS was created by some of the same team that made FALLOUT 1 and 2, carried on storylines from those games and featured some of the same characters. It’s FALLOUT 3 that feels like fanfiction, because it’s the only game in the series that is not the work of the people who originally created the franchise.

        Bethesda don’t really ‘get’ FALLOUT. FALLOUT 3 is a good generic post-apocalyptic game, but it’s not a very good FALLOUT game. It’s the ALIEN 3 of the franchise.

  34. Devan says:

    Cool, now maybe they can put the game on sale, bundled with all DLC. I’ve been waiting for that :)

  35. Strangerator says:

    Now we just need to wait another year or two for some epic-level overhaul mods that take all the DLC into account. By that time you should be able to get a decent price on the game + DLC bundle. I’m really looking forward to what people can do in terms of making dragon riding work well etc.

  36. frey says:

    Well, maybe it’s time for a fallout worthy of the first 2, even though i don’t have high hope

  37. WHS says:

    What’s with this new thing where everyone pretends Skyrim was bad? Skyrim was fantastic, beautiful, and interesting. If you think you’ve seen everything it has to offer in 15 hours, you’re lying or wrong. But you spend 100-200 hours running around any open digital world and it’s going to start feeling a little same-y. In some ways, the very things that make Skyrim feel real–the little towns where nothing much happens, the way every house is full of worthless knickknacks, the endless gray mountains–are what make it feel a little inert after a while. You know, just like real life.

    If you want a crazy creative roller-coaster ride, there are games for that. But Skyrim does plausible world-building about as well as anyone ever has.

    Some of the quests were kind of boring, though.

    • WHS says:

      I mean, everyone loves Morrowind, but even its much-ballyhooed strangeness also ceased to amaze after hour 50. What it did have, along with Skyrim (and much more than Oblivion or Fallout 3) is a very distinct sense of place, with its own cultures, customs, and environment.

  38. Werthead says:

    On FO3 versus NV:

    A significant weakness of FALLOUT 3 is that it’s trying to be a post-apocalyptic game in a setting that isn’t really. I mean, it’s set after an apocalypse, but a LONG time after (200 years by FO3 and NV). What FO3 got wrong is that FALLOUT is about rebuilding and a new society arising built on the ruins of the old, and that process is some considerable way along. FO3 instead looks like the bombs fell three weeks earlier. NEW VEGAS got it more right with the factions, the rebuilt (and in some cases, decades-old) towns and villages and the central struggle between the Legion and the Republic, with the latter simply repeating all of the mistakes made by the old world. That FO3 is the better post-apocalyptic game in terms of atmosphere – it’s hard to beat walking down the nuked-out Washington DC Mall for that – is not in question. But in theme it falls significantly short. It failed to actually examine what the post-apocalyptic setting actually meant. It’s there for surface flavouring whilst you shoot Evil Super-Mutants (and they are all evil, apart from one who’s your companion character for comedy value) on behalf of the Good and Just Brotherhood of Steel. In retrospect, it’s basically a slower-paced BORDERLANDS (shoot bad guys, get loot, politely pay attention to bits of story, then go back to blowing stuff up).

    NEW VEGAS is a lot more unapproachable. For us Brits, Washing DC’s skyline and landmarks are something we know about, from many years spent watching US shows in which grim-jawed politicians and FBI agents fight crime/terrorists/aliens/Republicans. Most of the landmarks we know from Las Vegas (the giant glass pyramid thing) don’t even exist in FALLOUT’s alternate timeline. There’s less that’s familiar to latch onto. But when you give it some time, it’s a hell of a lot more complex. Thematically, yes, the Republic are presented as being more reasonable than the Legion, but the Legion actually do score some serious points when they point out that the Republic’s course could lead right back to another nuclear holocaust again, as they are making the same mistakes the USA did before the war. NEW VEGAS examines the theme of a post-apocalyptic society much more comprehensively, and crafts a considerably more complex narrative about it.

    Beyond that, the writing is vastly more competent. The characters are much richer and more three-dimensional. Your companion characters have their own lives, quests and personalities. They’re not just walking extra backpacks (like Lydia or indeed any Bethesda companion character from ES4, 5 or FO3) or walking massive plot holes (like Fawkes). The quests are more varied. Many quests can be solved through the use of skills or dialogue, rather than just combat. The game has alternate endings and states which adapt to what you want to do. NEW VEGAS for me won the argument as soon as the game made it clear that I didn’t actually have to side with either the nostalgia freaks trying to re-make all the same mistakes again or the racist, fascist, Roman-quoting nutjobs, but could go raise my own robot army and take over the whole world (well, city) myself.

    I liked FO3 a lot, but it’s a shiny and somewhat hollow game with not much going on under the surface (though with real glimpses of something potentially better, such as the complex replicant mission with lots of different ways of resolving it). NEW VEGAS is the inverse: it’s a game that can be obtuse and difficult to get into (i.e.: cazadores suck, not as badly as cliff racers maybe, but they’re definitely up there) but once you crack it, it becomes one of the most rewarding RPGs money can buy.

    Hell, I think NEW VEGAS may be my favourite RPG of the last ten years, certainly my favourite open-world RPG. I can see why it might not be for everyone, but what it certainly was not was a lazy reskin of FO3, and Obsidian I think need some thanks for that.

    Oh, and also OLD WORLD BLUES, one of the funniest expansions for any game, ever (that brilliantly then becomes a rather horrible tragedy the longer it goes on).

  39. belgand says:

    Wow, to think there was a time when I too would have been ecstatic about Fallout 4. Pretty much anywhere between the release of Fallout 2 and Fallout 3.

    Let’s just hope that Wasteland 2 delivers the goods. I don’t think I could stand to have my heart broken twice.

  40. Universal Quitter says:

    I don’t care what anyone else says. I’m absolutely stoked to play another fallout, and hopefully another obsidian spin-off. New Vegas was half the game Skyrim was, in stability, graphical fidelity, and writing, and I still invested ten times the hours in it.

    Fallout 3 was my first fallout (heresy!), and despite it’s glaring flaws (FUCKING SEWERS EVERYWHERE!), it turned me on to a great series of games, and made me to vow to try the first two games someday.

    Great news in a week that involved a friend losing his father, a wife losing her job, and countrymen being blown up by a fucking maniac.

  41. valczir says:

    It must be said: Yeah, Skyrim is actually kinda done. Too bad the fans had to do most of the heavy lifting.

    I’m sorry, but I finally got around to playing it for the first time this week (I wanted to wait for some really good overhauls to hit stable status), and it’s nothing special. Possibly worse than Oblivion, in some ways. The world is uninteresting, the voice acting half-assed, the graphics bland (this part really surprised me – I thought Skyrim was a screenshot generator, like Oblivion was, but it doesn’t even do that well), the level scaling actually invalidates it as a part of the RPG genre, and … well, I don’t think I need to even mention combat.

    85ish mods later (including three overhauls), and I’m starting to think it can be redeemed. Which, I suppose, is an improvement over Oblivion – there, I was sitting at around 250 mods, and instead of thinking it could be redeemed, I was feeling the crushing weight of sure defeat (and ended up just playing Morrowind some more).

  42. xirus11 says:

    Well i guess we can safely aThuum that Skyrim is done. At least it didn’t meet a fiery end, nor was it lost in Apocrypha. It ascended to the halls of Sovngarde, and still devours our souls to this day. Was a better fate than having it draugr out. I just hope Windows 9-900000000000000000000000 will still support Skyrim, as i intend to play it longer than Tetris has existed.. My 32GB flash drive is now a Tiid-capsule for my various 4E Nirn-related activities, so those memories don’t disappear, like the snow elves, or the sun thereafter. :P

  43. zentropy says:

    Obsidian or gtfo =/

  44. Eddy9000 says:

    Well it isn’t fallout 4 apparently so that’s that.