Skyrim Special Edition - 6 years of arrows to the knees

[norrisnick]

The way I look at it...

The more money Bethesda makes from Skyrim as it's cash cow, the more money they'll invest into making ES6 a ridiculously good game.

If they see a successful game as something that will make them over a billion dollars spanning the next 6 years or so, they'll put the extra time into making it something special. Like Skyrim was.

The exact opposite of this is true.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Elder Scrolls 6 will take a very long time. The engine they use to make those games is just way too old. It was good in its day but we're talking about something that from Morrowind to Fallout 4 changed very little outside of visuals and slow mo. And even in that case, the visuals in fallout 4 looked absolutely awful compared to other games released at the same time and performed badly relative to those visuals. Don't get me started on the load times.

If its going to be done right, I'd expect it to be at least 2-3 years away.

 

[Osprey]

The exact opposite of this is true.

In the near future, you may be right, as more money going to milking the current game means less money going to the next iteration, but, eventually, he's right. The more profit that they make on the current game, the bigger budget that they'll allot for the next iteration. That's the case with movies. If a movie has a $50M budget and grosses $200M, the sequel might get a $100M budget, and if it grosses $500M, the next sequel might get a $200M budget with the hope that that extra expenditure might help it become a $1B film.

The flip side of the coin, however, and which is probably not the case with movies, is that it may persuade them to go more slowly. Because the budget will be so big and expectations will be so high, Bethesda will want to take their time to make it as strong and perfect of a game as they can. There's a great deal of risk in that endeavor, while there's low risk in milking the current game. So, the success and milking of the current game may mean that we'll be waiting a long time for a sequel, but, when it comes, it'll be very ambitious.

Elder Scrolls 6 will take a very long time. The engine they use to make those games is just way too old. It was good in its day but we're talking about something that from Morrowind to Fallout 4 changed very little outside of visuals and slow mo. And even in that case, the visuals in fallout 4 looked absolutely awful compared to other games released at the same time and performed badly relative to those visuals. Don't get me started on the load times.

If its going to be done right, I'd expect it to be at least 2-3 years away.

That's what I think that they're doing: creating a new engine. They like to debut new engines with Elder Scrolls games. Morrowind was the debut of the Gamebryo engine, and Oblivion and Fallout 3 merely used an upgraded version of that, while Skyrim debuted the Creation engine, and Fallout 4 merely used an upgraded version of that. It stands to reason that they're working on a new engine for ES6, since that's their pattern and they need one, especially for next generation consoles. They might be able to plausibly deny working on ES6 at the moment, but they're likely deep into crafting the engine that will power it, so they're surely working on it, in a manner of speaking.

 

[Commander Clueless]

How have they milked it? They had already ported it over trying to figure out things for Fallout, and the public was begging them to release it. So they eventually did. If anything, they tried not to milk it

The public may be lapping up the milk, but I must admit watching E3 feature the game I played (and loved) 6 years ago so prominently did seem like milking it.


That's not to say they shouldn't milk it, but why people are still so excited about Skyrim is beyond me. I mean, for the Nintendo side I sort of get it because it's now on a handheld, but still...

I'd love a new one, though....just a hint, even.


I will also admit the VR stuff is boring to me because I don't want to drop the money on a VR set, but kudos to Bethesda for bringing big games to the VR platform.

 

[Warden of the North]

The public may be lapping up the milk, but I must admit watching E3 feature the game I played (and loved) 6 years ago so prominently did seem like milking it.


That's not to say they shouldn't milk it, but why people are still so excited about Skyrim is beyond me. I mean, for the Nintendo side I sort of get it because it's now on a handheld, but still...

I'd love a new one, though....just a hint, even.


I will also admit the VR stuff is boring to me because I don't want to drop the money on a VR set, but kudos to Bethesda for bringing big games to the VR platform.

People are excited about it because its one the greatest games made. Ever. If I bought a Switch, I would be hard pressed not to buy Skyrim for it because I love it so much. I already own 2 versions of it.

 

[norrisnick]

In the near future, you may be right, as more money going to milking the current game means less money going to the next iteration, but, eventually, he's right. The more profit that they make on the current game, the bigger budget that they'll allot for the next iteration. That's the case with movies. If a movie has a $50M budget and grosses $200M, the sequel might get a $100M budget, and if it grosses $500M, the next sequel might get a $200M budget with the hope that that extra expenditure might help it become a $1B film.

And how many times has that actually garnered anything extraordinary?

The flip side of the coin, however, and which is probably not the case with movies, is that it may persuade them to go more slowly. Because the budget will be so big and expectations will be so high, Bethesda will want to take their time to make it as strong and perfect of a game as they can. There's a great deal of risk in that endeavor, while there's low risk in milking the current game. So, the success and milking of the current game may mean that we'll be waiting a long time for a sequel, but, when it comes, it ought to be something extraordinary.

I'm pretty cynical as far as the motivations of these studios go. That they pimped out their IP to make an MMO doesn't leave me with warm and fuzzies regarding TESVI and the plans for it. I bought ESO. Played the **** out of with my gf. But the entire time I was wishing it could have been an actual fleshed out TES game with say 2-6 player co-op instead of the mess that is an MMO.

Oh yeah, and the paid mods fiasco... twice...

 

[aleshemsky83]

And how many times has that actually garnered anything extraordinary?

Elder Scrolls is a very uncommon example as there isn't many franchises on their 6th game but

Its not that uncommon for the first game to be stripped down version and the 2nd or 3rd game to innovate or be much better.

Halo 2, Half Life 2, Uncharted 2-4, Borderlands 2, Red Dead Redemption, Smash Bros, Diablo, GTA, hell mario kart 8 is arguably the best one.

 

[Osprey]

And how many times has that actually garnered anything extraordinary?

Well, that's another case where games and movies are different, because it's a lot easier to duplicate or improve on a game's success than it is to on a movie's success. I was only comparing the similarity of the economics, in which more profit usually leads to more investment into the next iteration.

Skyrim cost $85M to develop. I can't find how much Oblivion cost, but I guarantee that it wasn't $85M. It was probably less than half that, especially since they re-used the Gamebryo engine from Morrowind and needed only 4 years to make it. Elder Scrolls Online cost $200M, though. So, they went from probably $40M to $85M to $200M as the series got more popular. ESO was a dud and is a money loser, but that's likely not going to mean that they'll spend less than Skyrim's $85M on a true sequel to it, especially since they're recouping a lot of their losses by milking Skyrim.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you believe that, the longer that it takes, the more likely that Bethesda will spend less on ES6 than they did on ES5.

 

[norrisnick]

Elder Scrolls is a very uncommon example as there isn't many franchises on their 6th game but

Its not that uncommon for the first game to be stripped down version and the 2nd or 3rd game to innovate or be much better.

Halo 2, Half Life 2, Uncharted 2-4, Borderlands 2, Red Dead Redemption, Smash Bros, Diablo, GTA, hell mario kart 8 is arguably the best one.

The analogy was drawn to movies with multiplicative budgets and expected revenues.

With games, it's less a case of being stripped down and often times is a matter of technological advances allowing for more to be capable. Some times games hit all the right notes as they progress, but often they don't.

Even your list. Halo 2 wasn't the last one. Borderlands 2 wasn't the last one. Valve is scared of making Half-Life 3 because they've seen too many beloved series fail (that and they don't need to make games to make money). GTA wasn't a steady progression upwards. And the massive financial success of GTA Online in spite of the massive mess it is for players leaves me more and more concerned about what RDR2 will become... The last Diablo was the worst. Smash Bros and Mariokart... I have no real opinions on as what little of various forms I've played of them have been exactly the same. Hard to mess up a game when all you do is release a prettier version for every console you make.

 

[norrisnick]

Well, that's another case where games and movies are different, because it's a lot easier to duplicate or improve on a game's success than it is to on a movie's success. I was only comparing the similarity of the economics, in which more profit usually leads to more investment into the next iteration.

Skyrim cost $85M to develop. I can't find how much Oblivion cost, but I guarantee that it wasn't $85M. It was probably less than half that, especially since they re-used the Gamebryo engine from Morrowind and needed only 4 years to make it. Elder Scrolls Online cost $200M, though. So, they went from probably $40M to $85M to $200M as the series got more popular. ESO was a dud and is a money loser, but that's likely not going to mean that they'll spend less than Skyrim's $85M on a true sequel to it, especially since they're recouping a lot of their losses by milking Skyrim.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you believe that, the longer that it takes, the more likely that Bethesda will spend less on ES6 than they did on ES5.

I guess I could have been more clear. Milking Skyrim doesn't really make it less likely that they'd spend more money. But less likely that their efforts will result in "a ridiculously good game."

 

[Osprey]

I guess I could have been more clear. Milking Skyrim doesn't really make it less likely that they'd spend more money. But less likely that their efforts will result in "a ridiculously good game."

OK, but the person that you were responding to wasn't saying that their efforts will result in "a ridiculously good game." He was just saying that they would invest more to try to make it one, which is likely true. Also, while a greater budget doesn't ensure a great game--we agree on that--it does give it a better chance of being one in the hands of already gifted developers, since a greater budget means more staff to flesh out the game and more time to nail down gameplay, optimize performance and squash bugs.

 

[syz]

Bethesda has shown zero ability to make their games better over the years and expecting them to suddenly figure it out is a surefire way to set yourself up for disappointment.

 

[aleshemsky83]

The analogy was drawn to movies with multiplicative budgets and expected revenues.

With games, it's less a case of being stripped down and often times is a matter of technological advances allowing for more to be capable. Some times games hit all the right notes as they progress, but often they don't.

Even your list. Halo 2 wasn't the last one. Borderlands 2 wasn't the last one. Valve is scared of making Half-Life 3 because they've seen too many beloved series fail (that and they don't need to make games to make money). GTA wasn't a steady progression upwards. And the massive financial success of GTA Online in spite of the massive mess it is for players leaves me more and more concerned about what RDR2 will become... The last Diablo was the worst. Smash Bros and Mariokart... I have no real opinions on as what little of various forms I've played of them have been exactly the same. Hard to mess up a game when all you do is release a prettier version for every console you make.

I dont think whether those were the last is so much the point, the higher and higher production values did see some significant advances, and Skyrim is pretty much Bethesdas cornerstone franchise so you know theres money getting put into it. Witcher 3 made what they do downright archaic (as much as I have my gripes with the Witcher), if they come out with another fallout 4 or skyrim formula and try to pass it off as modern i see them bombing.

Halo arguable did get better and better up until Reach and they did push the envelope for some time. GTA I think got much better as it went along. The original top down was innovative, then came GTA III which took open world to another level, then Vice City and San Andreas which steadily improved, then GTA IV which I personally dislike but the engine they put together is undeniable, and it led to V which still looks fantastic despite being almost as old as skyrim. GTA is a perfect example of steady progression that Bethesda could take a note from. I can't comment on the online because I've never played it but its got a massive player base and from what I see online its a great sand box with great variety in game modes. Ive got no personal gripe with that the way some people do.

I'm not pretending production values=quality but you also can't fake production value. People are going to notice that you're just copy and pasting, it happened to Assassins Creed, its going to happen to far cry, and its might happen to elder scrolls if they aren't rebuilding this thing from the ground up as we speak.

 

[Osprey]

Bethesda has shown zero ability to make their games better over the years and expecting them to suddenly figure it out is a surefire way to set yourself up for disappointment.

What do you base that on? Daggerfall was better than Arena, Morrowind was better than Daggerfall, Oblivion was... OK, an improvement on Morrowind in some ways, but a step back in other ways, and Skyrim was an improvement on Oblivion. I could also point to the improvements in their Terminator series, though those games were 20 years ago.

Make sure that you're not confusing the games that they developed with the many more games that they only published. Bethesda Game Studios has made only 5 games in the last 10 years: Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Fallout Shelter and Fallout 4. If you want to argue that Fallout 4 wasn't as good as Fallout 3, OK, but that one example is balanced out by Skyrim being easily better than Oblivion.

 

[RandV]

The analogy was drawn to movies with multiplicative budgets and expected revenues.

With games, it's less a case of being stripped down and often times is a matter of technological advances allowing for more to be capable. Some times games hit all the right notes as they progress, but often they don't.

Even your list. Halo 2 wasn't the last one. Borderlands 2 wasn't the last one. Valve is scared of making Half-Life 3 because they've seen too many beloved series fail (that and they don't need to make games to make money). GTA wasn't a steady progression upwards. And the massive financial success of GTA Online in spite of the massive mess it is for players leaves me more and more concerned about what RDR2 will become... The last Diablo was the worst. Smash Bros and Mariokart... I have no real opinions on as what little of various forms I've played of them have been exactly the same. Hard to mess up a game when all you do is release a prettier version for every console you make.

I'd think from a greedy corporate perspective, Bethesda/TES is pretty unique here. Most studios are focused primarily on the first few weeks of sales, and in more recent years pumping out that DLC and micro transactions.

Skyrim on the other hand, Bethesda did such a good job with it they've been able to repackage and resell over and over again for six years running. The corporate suits must just love that, and are going to want a repeat with TES VI. But this is a situation where you aren't going to get that result with substandard work, the games gotta be really really good and well received for this to work. They're not going to get it by pulling a Diablo III.

 

[Warden of the North]

I wish more games would be re-released for modern systems, to be honest

 

[Commander Clueless]

People are excited about it because its one the greatest games made. Ever. If I bought a Switch, I would be hard pressed not to buy Skyrim for it because I love it so much. I already own 2 versions of it.

But that's just my point - you already own it. I already own it. Yes it's a fantastic (buggy ass ) game but I can play it at any time already.


I'm not upset people are excited or anything crazy like that, I'm just confused. It was shown at half the press conferences and the whole time I'm just sitting there thinking it came out 6 years ago and I'd like a new one.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

I wish more games would be re-released for modern systems, to be honest

Nah only the legendary ones. Or if they are just really really old and outdated but are great (morrowind)

The handsome jack collection is stupid if you already played the dlc

 

[GoJackets1]

Now, Skyrim is my favorite game of all time. Which is surprising, because before it, I loathed RPGs.
I think the main reason I love it so much is because of the setting. It's beautiful, mountainous, and snowy. The exact kind of environment I would want to live in. While I have full confidence that gameplay-wise, the next Elder Scrolls game will be a huge improvement, I don't know if I'll be able to enjoy it as much as Skyrim if the scenery doesn't match up.

For example, I don't think I would enjoy the Black Marsh, which is unfortunate because it seems to be the likely setting. I would probably only enjoy another snowy/mountainous setting, or Hammerfell since it has the Alik'r desert.

I'm holding out hope, probably irrationally, that the next game will center on the story of the Dwemer.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

I think the "final" game in the series will revolve around the Dwemer, perhaps finding a way to bring them back and defeat the Thalmor.

 

[RandV]

Personally rather than stick to one location for TES VI I'd rather they go bigger. Daggerfall gave us High Rock and Hammerfell, so why stick to one of the Black Marsh, Elsweyr, Valenwood, or Summerset Isles? Give us a pair or just do them all.

Looking at the maps of Bethesda's games from Morrowind to Fallout 4 they've all been roughly the same size, usually just getting incrementally larger. I doubt there'd be any complaints if a 'new gen' game suddenly doubled or tripled in size.

 

[NyQuil]

Suggestions for making the next TES game better:

1. Spend more time on the post-quest consequences. That means more voice time, more changes to the game world and map, more changes to how NPCs interact with you. Some of the quests have world-shattering consequences but the actual impact is negligible. I get how the open-world concept restricts things a bit (so that you can do the quests in any order) but I think more effort in this area would be welcome.

2. Make forging/smithing less powerful and make artifacts more powerful. It kind of defeats the purpose to go out and get the Daedric artifacts when they don't hold a candle to what you can make yourself. I had fun collecting them, but did I use them? Rarely. Have more artifacts that have a unique function that can't be replicated in any other way.

3. Make the faces more attractive. Let's get with the program here.

4. Try to come up with some new factions of interest. I like the DB, Thieves Guild, whatever passes for the fighter's guild, mage's guild etc. - but it would be interesting to come up with more original factions that are specific to the game itself, and not just the same ones from previous TES games.

I have to admit that New Vegas and Fallout 4 did an interesting job in allowing you to join most of the groups in the game, with competing mandates, providing a lot of flexibility in how you develop your character.

5. Make magic more interesting. Some of the mods out there came up with impressive spells that really change how you can play the game - and not just 3 different varieties of damage (cold/shock/fire).

6. Give larger rewards for completing tiers/numbers of radiant quests for people who don't mind grinding. Bring back ranks in organizations (which they had in Oblivion but kind of did away with in Skyrim).

7. Have fewer but more well developed companions along the lines of Fallout.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Morrowind had the best faction system. They were still based around the Fighter/Mage/Thief archetypes, but there were simply so many factions in each, each having their own story line.

Fighter:
Fighter's Guild
House Redoran
Imperial Legion
Clan Quarra

Mage:
Mage's Guild
House Telvanni
Imperial Cult
Tribunal Temple
Clan Aundae

Thief:
Thieves Guild
House Hlaalu
Morag Tong
Clan Berne

How it went from that, to what was presented in Skyrim (basically half a Fighter's Guild, a short Mage Guild questline and only fully fleshing out the Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood factions), it's such a disappointment.

 

[Commander Clueless]

As a newcomer to the Elder Scrolls franchise (Skyrim was my first) and Bethesda in general (Fallout 4 was my first Fallout game), posts like the above really make me want remastered versions of the older ones. Morrowind in particular.

I wish more games would be re-released for modern systems, to be honest

I'm a fan of remastered games, actually. No problem with them whatsoever.

It's just weird to me to see Skyrim as a headliner for 3 conferences at E3 is all, especially when it's been relevant for the past 6 years.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I guess I should finally pick up Skyrim and give it a shot.