Bloodinfested Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Definitely pick up Morrowind it's quite easily one of the better games out of the series they got more right then wrong in that game. The games would have been better in general graphics or more npcs rendering and so on if it was an PC exclusive but can't really blame them if you look at the sales they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Morrowind can be an exceptionally difficult game to go back to, if you were introduced with Oblivion or Skyrim... It's combat system in particular has driven off more than a few people who have tried to move backwards along the timeline... If you aren't a fan of ineffectually swinging at an enemy for a minute and a half before finally hitting him, you may be better off waiting for Skywind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRRaff Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 If you aren't a fan of ineffectually swinging at an enemy for a minute and a half before finally hitting him, you may be better off waiting for Skywind.I'll wait then. I'm an action gamer and if the action is borked, I'm out. I still have the CatWoman DLC for Arkham and I've never played it. It might be time. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cipherthe3vil Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Most guesses are we won't hear about Fallout 4 until around Christmas at least, and TES-VI until next summer at the earliest. Sounds wishful. I can only hope. The short answer is, of course there will be more TES games - Bethesda is a business, and a business is out to make money. And Skyrim made them millions and millions, so they will certainly make TES6 and they will continue to make TES games until the series stops making money. They won't be beholden to creating all of Tamriel for any future games because TESO is an MMO which carries different expectations and, as others have said, TESO has a different developer. Bethesda has a 2 1/2 - 3 year development cycle on its games. Morrowind-Oblivion-Fallout 3-Skyrim were released in 2003-2006-2008-2011. They're due for announcing a new game soon, presumably Fallout 4, which will probably happen late this year or early next for a 2015 release. I think we're all crossing our fingers that the reason they're a bit overdue on a new release is because they're building a new engine. But.. I'd wager on The Elder Scrolls VI: Dominion in 2017 or 2018.Tell that to Valve, for example, with the lack of HL3. For some reason game companies don't seem too interested in making games that people actually want. (HL3, Fallout 4, TES6, ect). TES6 will be out when it's done. And please no co-op. It definitely needs Co-Op. If you don't like it, don't touch it. But Co-Op in Skyrim is essentially what ESO should have been. Something along the lines of Diablo 3's multiplayer, without the always online. Server-hosted mods would be nice. Skyrim is great on it's own ( And by that I mean singleplayer. Vanilla Skyrim isn't actually all that) but sometimes you just wish you could share the world you've crafted up with whatever mods and your lil hero with others. The longer they take too create new TES the better IMO. If game would be rushed and set to simple prodution line, that would be worst thing to happen. Much like Skyrim was. But I'm acting like a Bethesda game is actually finished on release and they didn't cut half of the content. We can expect the same for FO4 and TES6. I hope Psykers make a feature in the next fallout. Even as a main flavor to the game as a whole integrated with the MC and main plot.http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Psyker Psykers would have so much potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 It definitely needs Co-Op. If you don't like it, don't touch it. But Co-Op in Skyrim is essentially what ESO should have been. Something along the lines of Diablo 3's multiplayer, without the always online. Server-hosted mods would be nice. Skyrim is great on it's own ( And by that I mean singleplayer. Vanilla Skyrim isn't actually all that) but sometimes you just wish you could share the world you've crafted up with whatever mods and your lil hero with others. No, it does not NEED co-op. However, I do recognise there is an inexplicable body of individuals who, for some reason, want it. Fine, that's your perogative. I would personally rather time be spent on some more meaningful fixes and concepts, but... Eh... That said, Diablo's multiplayer is an absolutely horrendous base for any multiplayer in a game like TES. The only model I have seen which may work is Farcry 4, though that system still has problems. Look, story telling, decision making, quest and mission activation... There a a number of high hurdles to get over to make multiplayer in TES viable, considerably more above that to make it good. And all that word will, WILL come at the expense of other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saurusmaximus Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Some of the loose ends, like the Civil War, could be tied up with careful writing. To use the Civil War as an example, they could have it where the war was decided, but at a later date the people of Skyrim decided they wanted to be a part of the Empire after all (or not). I realize that example does NOT count as careful writing, but you get my point. On the other hand, considering that the next installment of TES (and likely the one after that) won't be set in Skyrim, or even have anything to do with it, it really doesn't matter who wins the Civil War. Yes, it leaves a hole in the lore, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a small one. At least for now. The Dark Brotherhood is trickier because they either, were destroyed or, they killed the Emperor; it will be interesting to see how they handle that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saurusmaximus Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 It definitely needs Co-Op. If you don't like it, don't touch it. But Co-Op in Skyrim is essentially what ESO should have been. Something along the lines of Diablo 3's multiplayer, without the always online. Server-hosted mods would be nice. Skyrim is great on it's own ( And by that I mean singleplayer. Vanilla Skyrim isn't actually all that) but sometimes you just wish you could share the world you've crafted up with whatever mods and your lil hero with others. No, it does not NEED co-op. However, I do recognise there is an inexplicable body of individuals who, for some reason, want it. Fine, that's your perogative. I would personally rather time be spent on some more meaningful fixes and concepts, but... Eh... That said, Diablo's multiplayer is an absolutely horrendous base for any multiplayer in a game like TES. The only model I have seen which may work is Farcry 4, though that system still has problems. Look, story telling, decision making, quest and mission activation... There a a number of high hurdles to get over to make multiplayer in TES viable, considerably more above that to make it good. And all that word will, WILL come at the expense of other things. I agree. If you go back to when Arena was introduced, it was made as an open-world game that you explored on your own and they have kept to that. As to your "if you don't like it, don't touch it' comment goes, they would to have to gut the core game to make the co-op work, so even if I never use co-op, I will still be suffering for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Some of the loose ends, like the Civil War, could be tied up with careful writing. To use the Civil War as an example, they could have it where the war was decided, but at a later date the people of Skyrim decided they wanted to be a part of the Empire after all (or not). I realize that example does NOT count as careful writing, but you get my point. On the other hand, considering that the next installment of TES (and likely the one after that) won't be set in Skyrim, or even have anything to do with it, it really doesn't matter who wins the Civil War. Yes, it leaves a hole in the lore, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a small one. At least for now. The Dark Brotherhood is trickier because they either, were destroyed or, they killed the Emperor; it will be interesting to see how they handle that one. They actually did quite well in setting up the stories with variable endings for a clean continuation. Regardless of who you choose in the Civil War, the fighting continues. Just say both Tullius and Ulfric are dead, and the conflict continues. With the Dark Brotherhood... Regardless of if you side with them, or kill them, the Falkreath sanctuary burns and most of its members are killed. The survivors can kill Mede regardless. Whether you side with the Dawnguard of the Vamires, Harkon is defeated. Skyrim actually has no loose ends that really need tying up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saurusmaximus Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Some of the loose ends, like the Civil War, could be tied up with careful writing. To use the Civil War as an example, they could have it where the war was decided, but at a later date the people of Skyrim decided they wanted to be a part of the Empire after all (or not). I realize that example does NOT count as careful writing, but you get my point. On the other hand, considering that the next installment of TES (and likely the one after that) won't be set in Skyrim, or even have anything to do with it, it really doesn't matter who wins the Civil War. Yes, it leaves a hole in the lore, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a small one. At least for now. The Dark Brotherhood is trickier because they either, were destroyed or, they killed the Emperor; it will be interesting to see how they handle that one.They actually did quite well in setting up the stories with variable endings for a clean continuation. Regardless of who you choose in the Civil War, the fighting continues. Just say both Tullius and Ulfric are dead, and the conflict continues. With the Dark Brotherhood... Regardless of if you side with them, or kill them, the Falkreath sanctuary burns and most of its members are killed. The survivors can kill Mede regardless. Whether you side with the Dawnguard of the Vamires, Harkon is defeated. Skyrim actually has no loose ends that really need tying up... You make a good point, other than the civil war; I'm not sure I would call a never-ending conflict a tied-up thread. I don't know what the time-line for TESVI is, but if it's more than a few years, that would be a hard sell. I suppose you could do a Korean-war type thing where the war stagnates instead of stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godmodeplayer111 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Im Hoping TES6 will be all the lands combined ( like Hammerfel, skyrim, oblivion, morrowind, etc) but if they are doing/planning on doing this it could take years and i wouldnt expect it out until 2016+ The only thing is that how are they going to make a Story line to fit into this, they could continue the Civil War and take it over sea's, but as it has been mentioned skyrim has not many loose ends and its hard to think what could be next. Possibilities.-The Civil War Continues.-Dragons are becoming serious problems in other lands.-Possibly guild related.-Family or Friend related.-Maybe we go back to Morrowind and Oblivion in TES6.-Kidnapped or Taken from skyrim (this is probably highly unlikely)-Doesn't continue the story at all and just starts new (like skyrim did except for some basics, like races, gods,etc.-Religion related wars, like World Wars instead of Civil Wars.-Possibly even Dwemer based. Edited December 23, 2014 by godmodeplayer111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts