Upcoming games and E3

[InFlamesForEver]

I'm hoping the Todd Howard is going to repeat his 2015 E3 stage show performance with some new juicy Bethesda stuff... But I fear it's too soon for Elder Scrolls, and it will just be Prey DLC and no Todd Howard.

Is it really though? The last in the main series Skryim, was released in 2011, so surely its about time for a new instalment? I mean the time between Oblivion and Skyrim was about this length.

[Morkonan]

...The last in the main series Skryim, was released in 2011, so surely its about time for a new instalment? I mean the time between Oblivion and Skyrim was about this length.

We've had Fallout 4 since then, though.

[pjknibbs]

We've had Fallout 4 since then, though.

We had Fallout 3 in between Oblivion and Skyrim, so it shouldn't be beyond their abilities to produce another TES now. I imagine Elder Scrolls Online is more the reason why there's been an unusually long gap since the last TES game, though.

[Jericho]

You have to be the only person I've ever heard of who thought the planet scanning stuff in ME2 was fun...unless you're talking about something else?

I really liked it too.
Nice to take a break and try to get that super-high resource.

Also the hacking was fun.

I really miss the pipe-mania Bioshock hacking.

I did like the Andromeda alien sudoku though. That was fun.

[Jericho]

Is it really though? The last in the main series Skryim, was released in 2011, so surely its about time for a new instalment? I mean the time between Oblivion and Skyrim was about this length.

I'm hoping they have a new engine. I'm so, so, so, so, (repeat 4098 times), so tired of their old engine.

"We've made so many changes to the engine in Skyrim, that it's effectively a new engine!!!"

No it wasn't. Take a loaf of bread off the table, everything else on the table still jumps up. Stand in front of someone, wait 24 hours, they are still standing there. Nothing changed.

I loved Skyrim though and never found any bugs (while the rest of the world complained about Skyrim bugs). (Found plenty of bugs in Andromeda. Grrrrrr).



So, yes. Hoping for a new engine, which would no doubt slap a couple of extra years of development time onto any game.

Would love a new Elderscrolls, but I think they will be hyping the Morrowind expansion for Elder Scrolls Online instead.

[Corbet]

I guess I have to be the negative one and say that I'm not looking forward any game in E3. Most of the games I'm interested are coming via Kickstarter (Wasteland 3, Stygian, Copper Dreams, ...) but I hope there will be many positive surprises in E3.

What I would like to see is more complex and ambitious games and less "the same old stuff". I don't like Skyrim at all but I would like to see Bethesda releasing a new TES with huge villages, simulated NPCs with daily tasks, etc. Make the game world a place where gamers actions matters and makes difference.

... and of course Egosoft with X4.

There should be some PC show this year again but as far as I know it is heavily Microsoft sponsored which most likely shows. I think the show has been pretty good earlier years. Relaxed talking with the devs while demoing the games.

[Ketraar]

You have to be the only person I've ever heard of who thought the planet scanning stuff in ME2 was fun...unless you're talking about something else?

Well compared to ME:A its fun, if you like it. Meaning if you (like me) like to chill and search for mineral spikes, you can do it. But in ME:A you waist 15-20 seconds watching a boring animations to "scan" a planet and if you are lucky you get 2 findings, in most cases you get 1 or nothing.

So yeah, the scanning in M2/3 was way better, if you didnt like it, you could just skip it, which you really cant in ME:A since some of this boring stuff is tied into missions, both main and side-quests.

MFG

Ketraar

[CBJ]

What I would like to see is more complex and ambitious games and less "the same old stuff".

Wouldn't we all, so how do you think such projects are going to take off?

Option 1. Traditional publisher model. Developer goes to publisher and asks for several million £/$/€ for a "complex and ambitious" project, because that's how much it's going to cost. Publisher laughs and tells developer to go away and write something that they know will get completed in a predictable time frame (i.e. not too complex and not too ambitious) and has a decent-sized and fairly predictable market (i.e. same old same old).

Option 2. Early Access model. Developer does what work they can without funding and then puts what they have up on Steam under Early Access. Players try it out and complain that it's not far enough developed and then complain some more that it's taking too long to get finished (it's complex and ambitious, remember, so it will take time). Good communication helps but it's not a magic bullet and it also increases the cost and the time it takes, meaning the developer has to get even more Early Access take-up to fund it. Being complex and ambitious, unless things go remarkably well and they are very lucky, the developers get bad press and the Early Access income fizzles out. Already-jaded players get even more tired of taking a risk on Early Access projects.

Option 3. Crowdsourcing model. Developer sets out their vision and hopes they will get investment, but it's complex and ambitious so they have to get a lot of investors. If they get lucky then the project takes off but it's going to be an even longer haul than Early Access because they're starting from a more basic position. Good communication is mandatory, but still increases cost and time eating into the funding, and crowds of investors are often impatient. Being complex and ambitious, unless things go remarkably well and they are very lucky, the developers get bad press and the crowd funding fizzles out. Already-jaded players get even more tired of taking a risk on crowdsourced projects.

The bottom line is that complex and ambitious projects are risky, and somebody has to be willing to take that risk. Publishers struggle with that because they have to stump up a large amount of money up front, that they might not see back. Crowdsourcing distributes the risk, but crowds are impatient and unforgiving. The result is that games that are not "same old same old" tend to be smaller and simpler, rather than complex and ambitious, and of course few "same old same old" games are complex and ambitious anyway.

[Corbet]

Wouldn't we all, so how do you think such projects are going to take off?

OK, you pretty much silenced me with your excellent arguments

But I still believe companies like Bethesda could push things forward greatly towards complex and ambitious games which I think they have not done. The series feels pretty stagnant. They could do anything with TES 6 and it would sell like crazy.

I personally think crowdfunding was best what has happened to gaming for a very long time.

Well, I don't know how but Egosoft has been able to do well and I'm exciting to see how the series has evolved in X4. More info about it can't come fast enough

[birdtable]

Surely (well from my perspective) is greater access for the modding community...Totally agree with CBJ's argument on risk, reward and investment plus how X2 sagt Bussi auf Bauch a purchasing public can be but the modder can take risks and challenge and can demonstrate new avenues of gameplay...I dislike the term "modder" as some are highly skilled technicians... examine what was developed from the X3 base game.

[UniTrader]

But I still believe companies like Bethesda could push things forward greatly towards complex and ambitious games which I think they have not done. The series feels pretty stagnant. They could do anything with TES 6 and it would sell like crazy.

here a suggestion what could help

[BugMeister]

FarCry 5 looks like a very interesting project..

[Golden_Gonads]

Is it really though? The last in the main series Skryim, was released in 2011, so surely its about time for a new instalment? I mean the time between Oblivion and Skyrim was about this length.

They said last year that a new Elders Scrolls game is still years away and that they've only just started to work on it.

I'm hopeful for another Fallout spin-off title to be announced, whether by Obsidian or anyone else.

[Ezarkal]

Darksiders 3!
I just saw they recently published an official trailer. It should be out in 2018.

[Morkonan]

What I would like to see is more complex and ambitious games and less "the same old stuff".

Wouldn't we all, so how do you think such projects are going to take off?...

This is where the indie dev is supposed to step in and work really hard at one-man coding to produce an innovative and "different" product...

Considering the track-record for indies, generally they don't succeed at innovation, fully. They come up with some neat mechanics or a different concept, but don't have the staff, money or time to explore it. Worse, they often have limitations in the amount of content they can actually produce in their games. Everybody has to eat, right?

For the traditional dev, I'm more in favor of traditional publishing models, to be honest. I think it provides them the best framework. But, I wouldn't say they should limit themselves, since if they can find the money elsewhere, why not go that route if it gives them more control?

Early access - I don't know why anyone does it other than they need the money. All it seems to do, most of the time, is generate disaffected fans who are upset that either certain bugs didn't get fixed or they didn't get their favorite idea in the game, so it must suck... I don't know what the sales figures are for Early Access games and how they compare to similar titles in a traditional model. I'd really like to know, though, since much of Early Access is based on marketing, purposeful or not, and "wow factor" because someone makes exciting claims. In any event, no matter how it's sliced, those are purchases. If someone is trying to sell a product, they'll sell it in whatever way gives them the most purchases of that product. So, in fact, that really makes two entirely different markets - The Early Access market designed to bandwagon customers into some sort of ultimate "Vision" for a product and an experience in "helping" to develop it and the "Traditional Sales" market, where a supposedly finished product is sold for its current real or expected value.

Crowdfunding - Meh. Despite some successes, I don't think it's a realistic model for development. It could be, for certain exciting IPs or well-known developers who are drawing on either their own reputation or the reputation of other products they've already produced. But, IMO, the caveat there is that promises are made before the code is actually constructed and before anyone rolls up their shirt-sleaves to begin work... Those who sign up for it are likely going to be just as contentious as the Early Access customers who demand things that just can't be paid for.

But, these nontraditional financing methods do help games get made that would not have had a chance, otherwise. So, in that aspect, they're good things to have.

Decision processes seem to be like this:

Vision.
Will it sell?
Can it be made?
Who will pay for development?

These days, the barrier to market doesn't exist as stringently as it used to. Publishers don't have to buy shelf-space in chain stores. (They'll still have other fees, though.) Customers don't have to get in their car and drive to the software store. Nobody has to see the box on the shelf and packaging is nonexistent in many cases. (AND, few people actually produce useable game manuals even if the cost to reproduce e-copies is negligible.)

IOW, there's an entire distribution cost that no longer exists. But, because anyone can make a game these days, it seems, those costs have been transferred to marketing and other competitive advantages or strategic distribution deals.

Innovative, big, new, complex games with lots of gameplay content in them... are extremely rare and, these days, are either very rare AAA titles (They don't like to spend a bunch adding content, no matter how innovative things are) or the even more rare indie developer who relies mostly on random systems or emerging synergies with other game elements to produce the content.

Who's the most likely to make the really innovative and complex games? Small devs that have a good vision for their product. BUT, it is extremely unlikely that these games will have a great deal of actual gameplay content or extensive development, since they don't have the resources to do that.


PS - There's also an extreme possibility - Angel Investors. These aren't crowdfunding junkies, but people with deep pockets, themselves, who are willing to take a chance with a dev. It exists, but the history hasn't always shown success. Devs who plan poorly, don't know how to do what needs to be done or even who just want to steal as much cash as they can... these people exist and will defraud Angel Investors just as much as they'd defraud Early Access people or crowdfunders. (Kingdom of Amalar MMO, I'm looking at you !:) )

[Mightysword]

But I still believe companies like Bethesda could push things forward greatly towards complex and ambitious games which I think they have not done. The series feels pretty stagnant. They could do anything with TES 6 and it would sell like crazy.

But ... do we want to? I know I don't. IMO this is a case where one should be careful about what you wish for. You can't have a cake and eat it too, when I buy an ElderScroll game I don't expect something like a Bioware game, neither I want it to be.

[Morkonan]

...
But ... do we want to? I know I don't. IMO this is a case where one should be careful about what you wish for. You can't have a cake and eat it too, when I buy an ElderScroll game I don't expect something like a Bioware game, neither I want it to be.

^^---- This.

Successful franchises don't want to change a lot. They don't mind adding things, as long as it's in a DLC pack or a bunch of shleps will pre-pay for a Season Pass, sight unseen...

What "innovation" did they do for Skyrim that was "safe?" They changed the leveling and difficulty system, almost to universal praise. That was pretty much it, except for the engine improvements.

It was safe. "Safe" changes are what established IPs do.

[Corbet]

But ... do we want to? I know I don't. IMO this is a case where one should be careful about what you wish for.

Good point. Making big changes to game series could easily backfire and turn it something very different which fans wouldn't like. Making a new IP could be better option on these cases (just like Egosoft did with X Rebirth).
There are different types of complexity and in this case I was thinking more like making the world feel more living. Would you be against the idea that TES 6 would have for example big cities and villages, more depths on NPCs (24/7 life cycle, NPC having character traits, etc.)?

I'm interested to see if CDPR will continue pushing their games further. The Witcher series evolved nicely but TW3 is on the point that making games like that is very time consuming and expensive. I would like to see the living and breathing city in Cyberpunk 2077 and not cities like in GTA, TES, etc. In the other hand there is no urgent need for making cities "living and breathing" as more simpler ones seems to be enough, so investing lots of money for R&D could be too much to ask.

Well, my expectations for E3 is very low but I hope there will be some positive surprises.

[pjknibbs]

Successful franchises don't want to change a lot. They don't mind adding things

TES has been going for more than 20 years, and I'd say that, if anything, they've been gradually *removing* stuff over that time period. There's certainly no way that Skyrim plays even remotely similarly to Daggerfall, and it's arguably less deep and interesting than Morrowind was.

[Jericho]

FarCry 5 looks like a very interesting project..

Take your coat, and get out.

Now.