• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

E3 2018 Discussion Thread

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Which is a bad idea. When it comes to marketing, something is better than nothing, if you can show whatever you can afford to keep the game fresh in people's minds then it'll keep them excited and anticipating the game until it releases. As it stands now they're letting these games disappear from the public consciousness and hindering sales.

But showing off Metroid Prime 4's logo again would have somehow made a considerable positive difference? You act like these games won't get all the publicity in the world as they get closer to release, as if the nano-glance at MP4 last year and its cursory mention as "still in development this year" are all we'll see of the game until they stealth release it on us one day.

The point you're trying to make here seems to ignore that E3 is no longer Nintendo's sole platform for showing off the goods, as if we don't get 5-6 Directs a year where Nintendo can beam direct-feed footage of any game they want to millions upon millions of screens worldwide via YouTube.
 

CyberBlaziken

A Greater Evil
2017: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Mario Sports Superstars, Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, ARMS, Splatoon 2, Ever Oasis, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, Metroid: Samus Returns, Super Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Pokemon Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon
2018: Detective Pikachu, Kirby Star Allies, Mario Tennis Aces, Super Mario Party, Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu/Let's Go Eevee, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

2017 had more and it's not even close.

Yeah no. Nintendo doesn't need to rush their titles, it's not launch year anymore.
You can keep on disregarding indies and third-party games as much as you like. Unfortunately for you, Nintendo is taking them as important releases for their console.
And why include 3DS titles again?
 

Hydrohs

安らかに眠ります、岩田さん。
Staff member
Super Mod
The franchise specific Directs are usually more in the "revealing new features and gameplay modes" variety. Most of the actual announcements and first looks at the games? Those happen at E3. Within the last 5 years, there's been many more announcements that happen at E3 as opposed to throughout the year. Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart 8, Smash 4, Splatoon, Captain Toad, Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Kirby and the Rainbow Curse, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Star Fox Zero, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Breath of the Wild, and there's probably a few I'm forgetting there. That's the majority of Nintendo's first party offerings from the last generation and all of them were reserved for E3 announcements. That doesn't bode well for the prospects of games like Yoshi, Metroid Prime 4, Pikmin 4, and Retro's game. Pokemon will probably have a dedicated Direct in Q1 2019 and then go dark for a for a few months as usual, but that's about it. And even then they might choose to save the usual mid-year blowout on basic info like the region, early game characters, and basic gameplay features for E3 seeing as it's probably going to be the biggest game of 2019.

Right, and the games that you're currently complaining about have already been announced at an E3, which means they have free reign to make a direct actually showing them off.

2017: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Mario Sports Superstars, Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, ARMS, Splatoon 2, Ever Oasis, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, Metroid: Samus Returns, Super Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Pokemon Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon
2018: Detective Pikachu, Kirby Star Allies, Mario Tennis Aces, Super Mario Party, Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu/Let's Go Eevee, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

Slow down there, friend, I'm only talking about the Switch.

Which is a bad idea. When it comes to marketing, something is better than nothing, if you can show whatever you can afford to keep the game fresh in people's minds then it'll keep them excited and anticipating the game until it releases. As it stands now they're letting these games disappear from the public consciousness and hindering sales.

Right, and they have nothing, because they games aren't ready to be shown. They will show us something when they have it, perhaps, say, in a Nintendo Direct. No one is going to forget about Metroid Prime 4 etc, they were silent about Metroid for years, no one forgot in the least. People still haven't forgotten about F-Zero.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
But showing off Metroid Prime 4's logo again would have somehow made a considerable positive difference? You act like these games won't get all the publicity in the world as they get closer to release, as if the nano-glance at MP4 last year and its cursory mention as "still in development this year" are all we'll see of the game until they stealth release it on us one day.

They should be ready to show much more than the logo at this point. The full name and a CGI trailer would've been reasonable at this point. At least then there'd be something more to go on then "Metroid Prime 4 exists" that could hold people off until they're ready to share more concrete details.

The point you're trying to make here seems to ignore that E3 is no longer Nintendo's sole platform for showing off the goods, as if we don't get 5-6 Directs a year where Nintendo can beam direct-feed footage of any game they want to millions upon millions of screens worldwide via YouTube.

And you seem to be ignoring what I said here:

The franchise specific Directs are usually more in the "revealing new features and gameplay modes" variety. Most of the actual announcements and first looks at the games? Those happen at E3. Within the last 5 years, there's been many more announcements that happen at E3 as opposed to throughout the year. Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart 8, Smash 4, Splatoon, Captain Toad, Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Kirby and the Rainbow Curse, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Star Fox Zero, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Breath of the Wild, and there's probably a few I'm forgetting there. That's the majority of Nintendo's first party offerings from the last generation and all of them were reserved for E3 announcements. That doesn't bode well for the prospects of games like Yoshi, Metroid Prime 4, Pikmin 4, and Retro's game. Pokemon will probably have a dedicated Direct in Q1 2019 and then go dark for a for a few months as usual, but that's about it. And even then they might choose to save the usual mid-year blowout on basic info like the region, early game characters, and basic gameplay features for E3 seeing as it's probably going to be the biggest game of 2019.

Again, those Directs are mainly focused on giving us a more in depth look at the features of previously announced games than spacing out their reveals throughout the year. The lion's share of actual game reveals have taken place at E3.

Yeah no. Nintendo doesn't need to rush their titles, it's not launch year anymore.

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

Right, and the games that you're currently complaining about have already been announced at an E3, which means they have free reign to make a direct actually showing them off.

Again, it's not just the announcements that are withheld for E3. It's the full game reveals, the name, the release date, details on the premise/gameplay, the first look at the actual gameplay footage, etc. Those are the reveals we're waiting on for the games in question and even those tend to be reserved for E3 as well.

Slow down there, friend, I'm only talking about the Switch.

And why include 3DS titles again?

You can't really divorce the 3DS from the conversation though because this is about Nintendo's output and that includes the 3DS. And actually it's very relevant to include the 3DS because part of the reason for the Switch being a hybrid is so they can pool their resources together to release a steadier stream of games. So... where are those games? Why are we still getting Wii U levels of first party games now if we have Nintendo's full force behind the Switch now? What are all of the 3DS developers working on? I can understand the output being slightly less than 3DS + Wii U because of the jump to HD and the increased amount of time it would take but we're getting maybe slightly more than half of 3DS + Wii U.
 

Hydrohs

安らかに眠ります、岩田さん。
Staff member
Super Mod
They should be ready to show much more than the logo at this point. The full name and a CGI trailer would've been reasonable at this point. At least then there'd be something more to go on then "Metroid Prime 4 exists" that could hold people off until they're ready to share more concrete details.

You have no idea how game design works. At this point they still may not even have a title or a concrete plot.

You can't really divorce the 3DS from the conversation though because this is about Nintendo's output and that includes the 3DS.

Well you can because we're not talking about that console at all. We are in fact talking only abiut the Switch and its games.
 

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
Fallout 76 is a big disappointment. It's online game - without any single player options in it ( solo =/= single player). What do you think will Bethesda remake Fallout 1 and 2 before Fallout 5? Also, it seems Fallout 5 will come out in 2025. I doubt 7 years will pass without any new Fallout game - so only logical conclusion is a remake of F1 and 2( and as you guys notice many games are getting remake/remaster nowdays; Crash, Spyro, RE,FF etc. Look at movies - so many remakes or even reboots. I wouldn't be surprised if we get Fallout 1 and 2 remake in 2021. Likely will have fancy name like Fire Red/Leaf Green or adding after name; Source or Overdrive.I am thinking Fallout 1/2: The Beginning. It's a beginning of Fallout franchise plus I put 1/2 instead of 1 & 2 because it's fancier. ( Yes that would be one game instead of two which would remade FO 1 and 2, so 2 in 1.)
 

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
The problem with Bethesda's development cycles - and consequently why I'm sitting here feeling silly to even be entertaining the idea of two games, Starfield and TES VI, that won't come out for several years at least - is that they get bigger as the ideas get bigger, but they're not hurting for money so there's no reason for them to speed it up. Skyrim and Fallout 4 both sold ridiculously well, and as such the next entry in each series has to not only measure up, but be even better; so, the ideas get bigger, and the development takes longer. Much longer.

What frustrates me a little is that they've suggested Starfield is going to be on the next main line of consoles... which, by all indications, are probably two years away at the bare minimum, for both Sony and Microsoft. And yet, it's been in development for a substantial length of time. So they show off a quick teaser of this Big New Thing, which they know has to measure up to the success of their other major IPs, and... it's at least two or three years out. It just bugs me. Sure of all game studios they can afford to tease for however many years they want, and yeah I'll buy it regardless, but I wish we were focusing on the here and now more - or like, at least things coming before the decade is out.

The same is true of TES VI - they've said the technology for that game doesn't even exist yet, apparently. So that's sure as heck not coming for like five years or so. And that's going to be what, a decade or more since the last installment in its series? Ugh.

Fallout 5, if it's in any stage of development right now, is going to be in the same boat. Make the idea bigger and better, wow the pants off everyone... and take like half a decade or more to make. It wouldn't be all that surprising to go seven years without a major title in a franchise - Elder Scrolls fans only got lucky because they were willing to let someone else take charge for ESO (which, honestly, is phenomenal and just might tide me over until the next time they tease us).

Their E3 was both the best, because they teased these huge new games in addition to what they're doing more immediately, and the worst - because I want the new games so, so badly already.
 

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
Not rebooting - remaking.Remaking 1 and 2 would appeal to older fans and make a gateway for new fans to see how FO 1 and 2 were.Reboot is like like a whole new stuff rewriting old stuff.

Yeah, that's why I don't think we won't get anything from 2018 to 2025.It's just too big of a gap.I stated FO1 and 2 because they'd be no-brainers plus easy money, reason is - they would already know the drill in FO1 and 2( setting, map, story, characters) just remake it into better graphics and FPS-RPG unlike ITB-RPG.Reason why I said remake and not remaster is that not many people like ITB system like they did back in the day.Plus, ITB system in Fallout doesn't mean it'd be better, look at NV. FO1 and 2 in FPS-RPG would work extremely well.
 

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
I see, but that doesn't mean they would never do it, though. Patterns can be broken, prime example is; Pokemon.
 

oarfish

#1 Lanturn Owner
Ok, I have been considering posting my thoughts on E3 2018 on this thread ever since it ended. I wanted to collect and assess my thoughts first, and here are some of what I have concluded.

Overall, I was not highly impressed by this year's E3, but it has been some time since any particular E3 truly stood out to me (this is my opinion, just like pretty much all of this post). Even though this is how I felt, there were still several parts of the event that I found interesting. Just to clarify, I watched most of the presentations live. I think the only ones I missed were the PC show and the Devolver Digital show (<-- is that the name of that company? If not, feel free to correct me). I was not only unaware of the times for those presentations, but I did not necessarily even know about them at the time. I did read over some material about them, but nothing from them really interested me.
I am generally a highly open-minded person, and that includes what I think about the video game world. If I am not interested personally in any (or interested in only very few) games for a console, I will most likely not buy it. I buy consoles for playing video games, and not necessarily for other things such as television / streaming / etc. (I do watch Netflix on a video game console, but I have other methods of watching Netflix if needed).
So for this year's E3, I gave more considerations toward games for consoles I currently own. I did watch all the presentations except the ones I listed above, and even though I did not plan on becoming convinced to buying consoles I do not have, I did not keep my mind closed to the possibility of becoming interested in games for said consoles. (Another clarification -- for the current video game generation, I own an original 500MB Xbox One and a Nintendo Switch -- I also have multiple Nintendo 3DS's, but if I remember correctly, nothing was really shown for the 3DS.)

For the games that were shown this year, I came up with many sorts of mental organizations for my opinions. One of the main sorts was categories of the type of material shown of a particular game. This categorization was based on concepts including length of shown material, information provided, and other such things. Here are my conclusions on this organization (these are my personal favorites of this E3 for each):
1. Teaser trailer (or similar material): Halo Infinite. I have been playing Halo since the series began, and even though I feel the series has its highs and lows (I try to be as objective as I can, even though I know I cannot be completely objective), I have enjoyed all the series I have played (the ones games I have not played are the two-stick top-down whatever-they-are pair of games -- they do not look that interesting to me).
2. More regular amount of material shown for a game (somewhat ambiguous grouping -- more than a teaser, but not an extended look): The Last of Us II. As I said, I do not own a PS4 (I also never had a PS3), but even though I have not played the first game, I have researched it a lot, especially since E3. I went into detail on this game on the thread created for it on SPPF earlier, but here are some of the main points: Not my genre of game (notable violence / survival / post-apocalyptic / similar things), but still really good presentation for me -- Positive emotional connection with characters, storytelling, etc. (as I writer myself, I found such connections here done well) -- Comparisons between feelings (hopeful socializing with dark world-reality of survival, etc.) -- Connections with personal feelings -- others I may remember later.
3. Extended look: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. I have been waiting for a Smash game for the Switch, and this one looks fascinating to me. I am not sure what I could say currently that has not been discussed in the Smash thread, but I am looking forward to the game.
I did not plan for each of these categories to end up with one per main console, but that is how it happened. I plan on following all three here, but there are others I plan to as well.

For all the games that really interested me this year, here are the ones that are on consoles I own (again, I am not against getting a PS4, but I have not seen enough to interest me). I ranked them in how much they interest me / how likely I am to get them / etc. I am not including games not shown at E3, but there are some games not shown that I plan on researching / getting. (They include Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Switch, Yoshi Switch, and Pokémon generation VIII.)
5. Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu / Eevee: From what is currently known on these, I am leaning toward skipping them. I am more of a deep / complex / "hardcore" / whatever Pokémon player. I do not really battle other real-life people much, but I do go into the more complicated parts of games. I am still researching LGPE, but I am not sure about them for me personally.
4. Super Mario Party: I have not played much Mario Party games, but I have researched them some. I have heard that the past few have not been as good, but it appears that this one is trying to be more traditional and less like the latest ones. I am open to getting this, depending on more information about it.
3. Anthem: Two things: 1. EA -- I never played SWBF2, but I have read about its issues. I was not that familiar with any public opinions of EA (positive or negative) last year when I bought Titanfall 2. I researched that game for itself, not the overall company. I looked into Respawn also then, but nothing stood out to me. I personally enjoy Titanfall 2 a lot. I am still following the lootbox issues going around, but I have played games with some forms of them and never bought any with real money. ---- 2. Destiny comparisons -- I have not played any Destiny game (they do not look interesting to me personally), but I have researched them some. I am not sure there is enough to make a fair comparison here, but that's just me. ---- Now to me, Anthem looks somewhat interesting. There are some things that sound good, and some bad. I often enjoy PVP in such games, but that is not a dealbreaker for me. I like the sort of customization that this game seems to include, and the game appears (currently from what we know) to not have any lootbox-ish things that are not cosmetic. I plan to continue researching this game, but I am remaining as objective as I can, for both the good and bad things.
2. Halo Infinite: I can go more into my thoughts here, but for now, see above opinions.
1. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate: See above opinions. The amount of material shown was great for me, even though some of it felt unnecessary currently, along with the possibility of more from other games being shown instead. Anyways, I would say that form all the games I saw at E3 2018, this is most likely my game of the show. (There was not really that much competition, especially considering the amount shown for the games that interested me.)

EDIT: Corrected a typo I noticed … five days later. Oh well.
 
Last edited:

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
That proof only applies to one company. Bethesda has not done it yet so it's useless to bring it up since it is just an "if."
Just because they never did it, doesn't mean it will never be done. Everybody thought Pokemon will have same patterns and look what happened to Ash's Greninja for example. Frankly, I'd say remaking Fallout 1 and 2 is a good idea, especially if we won't see anything between 2018 and 2026 Fallout-wise. If they decide to go for no-brainer( remaking 1 and 2 because it will likely pay of more than making new spin off - because they're occupied with Starfield and ES6), it'd be good because: a) many fans who don't really like 3 and 4 for some reason will start respecting Bethesda for this, plus it will make a lots of money and b)it will keep us occupied until 5 hits market.
Edit: I forgot - Activison remastered MW and Crash Bandicoot, so another proof.I don't remember Activision ever remastering game. So, if Bethesda wants they can remake 1 and 2 especially since they aged like a wine.
 
Last edited:

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
I mean, Bethesda still doesn't have the hugest staff out there, though. They're like 180 people. It's likely that the resources that would go to most high-production-value spinoff and new titles are already occupied with Starfield and, more than anything else now that its started, TES VI. Would they have the resources - in terms of manpower - for a kind of arbitrary set of remakes/remasters?
 

Hydrohs

安らかに眠ります、岩田さん。
Staff member
Super Mod
A remake of Fallout 1 and 2 would likely not be the best return on investment, they'd have to be completely redesigned from the ground up, they would essentially be new games and that just doesn't make any sense considering what Bethesda has on their plate. If people want to play Fallout 1 and 2, they still can, they don't need a remake to do it.
 

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
That's why I am saying that they should do remakes of 1 and 2 because it's no-brainer and because they're working on other games.And many people like just Fallout and not ES. So those people( like myself) will wait for 7-8 years for new FO game which is huge wait. Imagine you/we waiting for Gen 8 until 2026.Pokemon fans would freak out, imagine what Fallout fans would go through. I am just saying the easiest solution which would:a) bring them easy money because they already know the drill( master, retrieving water chip, Hub, Junktown,G.E.C.K etc,they literally just need to made it in today's graphic and make it RPG-FPS.So like 2 years at max b) FO fans won't wait for 7-8 years for new Fallout game( they will wait for 4-5 years which is good, because I don't like Cod-cycle of releasing game every year or so, but 7-8 years is too much.5 years is good) c) it would make older fans - who are against 3 and 4, happy and would change their opinions on Bethesda. So basically this is 3 in 1. 3 birds with 1 stone.Also, I almost forgot - they can easy give it Obsidian or other company to remake 1 and 2 if they don't have time to do so.

I'd say they need to be remade, not everyone likes turn-based combat and isometric view like myself. Now before you raise a fork and chant me out because of Pokemon. I like Pokemon and turn-based system in Pokemon, but not in Fallout, though. Probably because I think turn-based system actually works for those fantasy level games such are Pokemon, Zelda, FF etc. Fallout is survival, post-apocalyptic game - which FPS-RPG genre works better like in NV and 3. Don't get me wrong - stories in 1 and 2 are pretty good, but system is awful, thank God Bethesda took it over and made it FPS with RPG elements.I mean look at numbers - Fallout 1 and 2 sold like 2 million copies and Fallout 4 sold more than 20 million.Based on those options above, I'd assume Fallout 1/2 would sell above 20 million copies - merging Fallout 4 lovers and 1 and 2 'oldies'.

EDIT; Fallout 76 is not everyone. Bethesda obviously wanted to expand their market by making PvP game. Good for them.. but similar how PvP players don't want to play Fallout 4, same way SP gamers won't play Fallout 76.I think 80% of problems would be solved if Bethesda made Fallout 76 a PvE game. Look at ESO - thousands of quests, millions of players, map is huge. Instead they made it PvP.So, based on all that we will wait 10-11 years until FO game hits us which is a long time that's why I think they should make one game or remaking 1 and 2 and remaking 1 and 2 would be no brainer - that's why I think it's more profitable. But like I said if they don't have time for FO game between 2018 and 2026, they could easily give other company or Obsidian to remake or make new game.
 
Last edited:

Hydrohs

安らかに眠ります、岩田さん。
Staff member
Super Mod
That's why I am saying that they should do remakes of 1 and 2 because it's no-brainer and because they're working on other games.And many people like just Fallout and not ES. So those people( like myself) will wait for 7-8 years for new FO game which is huge wait. Imagine you/we waiting for Gen 8 until 2026.Pokemon fans would freak out, imagine what Fallout fans would go through. I am just saying the easiest solution which would:a) bring them easy money because they already know the drill( master, retrieving water chip, Hub, Junktown,G.E.C.K etc,they literally just need to made it in today's graphic and make it RPG-FPS.So like 2 years at max b) FO fans won't wait for 7-8 years for new Fallout game( they will wait for 4-5 years which is good, because I don't like Cod-cycle of releasing game every year or so, but 7-8 years is too much.5 years is good) c) it would make older fans - who are against 3 and 4, happy and would change their opinions on Bethesda. So basically this is 3 in 1. 3 birds with 1 stone.Also, I almost forgot - they can easy give it Obsidian or other company to remake 1 and 2 if they don't have time to do so.

I'd say they need to be remade, not everyone likes turn-based combat and isometric view like myself. Now before you raise a fork and chant me out because of Pokemon. I like Pokemon and turn-based system in Pokemon, but not in Fallout, though. Probably because I think turn-based system actually works for those fantasy level games such are Pokemon, Zelda, FF etc. Fallout is survival, post-apocalyptic game - which FPS-RPG genre works better like in NV and 3. Don't get me wrong - stories in 1 and 2 are pretty good, but system is awful, thank God Bethesda took it over and made it FPS with RPG elements.I mean look at numbers - Fallout 1 and 2 sold like 2 million copies and Fallout 4 sold more than 20 million.Based on those options above, I'd assume Fallout 1/2 would sell above 20 million copies - merging Fallout 4 lovers and 1 and 2 'oldies'.

EDIT; Fallout 76 is not everyone. Bethesda obviously wanted to expand their market by making PvP game. Good for them.. but similar how PvP players don't want to play Fallout 4, same way SP gamers won't play Fallout 76.I think 80% of problems would be solved if Bethesda made Fallout 76 a PvE game. Look at ESO - thousands of quests, millions of players, map is huge. Instead they made it PvP.So, based on all that we will wait 10-11 years until FO game hits us which is a long time that's why I think they should make one game or remaking 1 and 2 and remaking 1 and 2 would be no brainer - that's why I think it's more profitable. But like I said if they don't have time for FO game between 2018 and 2026, they could easily give other company or Obsidian to remake or make new game.

Since it seems you didn't actually read what either of us posted, I'll just say this.

Imagine someone doesn't like Fallout and just likes the Elder Scrolls, and these people have already waited 7 years for a new Elder Scrolls, and now they have to keep waiting for some unknown amount of time. Sucks, doesn't it?
 

CMButch

Kanto is love. Kanto is life.
Since it seems you didn't actually read what either of us posted, I'll just say this.

Imagine someone doesn't like Fallout and just likes the Elder Scrolls, and these people have already waited 7 years for a new Elder Scrolls, and now they have to keep waiting for some unknown amount of time. Sucks, doesn't it?
I did read what you said, thus I was responding to it - common sense, lol.
That's bad analogy. First off, since 1994 there are like 20 titles released concerning ES,while there are only 8(soon 9) in Fallout since 1997.Just check wikipedia.
ES has been updating almost every year - or even another year with expansion packs, DLC and other stuff, why Fallout doesn't. Since Fallout 5 we only got DLCs in 2016 and that is it. Now we will wet 76 and nothing for 7-8 years. As for ES, they have ESO which is PvE which is worth 4 years playtime. plus constant DLC packs for ESO and other stuff.So, while they wait for ES6 they get other stuff in ESO(new DLC's) or Skyrim( card games, VR), while we wait for Fallout 5 we will get 76 which is not for everyone, only for PvP lovers.Understand?We must rely on mods for Fallout to keep us occupied, why don't we rely on mods on ES?Double standard. Fallout is as popular as ES.So, I answered your question and debunked it about people "waiting" for new ES. Yeah, I'd say sarcastically; "They wait for ES6 while they get constant DLCs for ESO, card games , mini-games, mobile games etc - yeah 'waiting'.Real wait is for us Fallout fans, not ES ones.

Also, you obviously didn't read my other option which is giving Obsidian or other company to remake FO1 and 2 or make new spin off game between 4 and 5.According to wikipedia between FO2 and 3 we got two spin off games; Tactics and BoS. I don't see any problem of having two spin off games between FO4 and 5 - one being 76 and other being for us SP-ers(new) or FO1/2(remakes).I don't know why are you so against it. Are you Fallout fan?Hell, even by a math, history can repeat itself:
a) Fallout 2 came out in 1998
b) Tactics came out in 2001(3 years since 2, 76 will come out late 2018 and 5 came out in 2015= 3 years)
c)BoS came out in 2004 and 3 came out in 2008( so based on this in 3 years we will get new spin off game/remakes(so 2021) and 4 years later 5 - which adds on perfectly in 2025 or even 2026).
 
Last edited:

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
In what world are there 20 Elder Scrolls titles by literally any valid measure? And in what world is Fallout actually as popular as The Elder Scrolls? Or, at least, as popular as Skyrim specifically, of which no Fallout game has actually come within 10 million sales. But anyway...

There is no precedent for them remaking any core titles in a major Bethesda IP, and there is no reason for it when scheduled spinoffs are in development, TES VI is finally in development, and various other games and IPs are taking up their development resources and their usual partners' development resources (and Obsidian is hardly relevant to the conversation when they only worked on one game wirh Bethesda, eight years ago).

There's just not enough to go around. I want more as much as you do, but realistically it shouldn't be expected, and barely even entertained. The games they're currently working on - Starfield and TES VI chief among them - are huge not only in their need for manpower and human resources, but in their financial cost as well. It's probably not in their best business interest to remake games if they've decided not to do it, especially if those games are fundamentally different in their appeal from the more recent, more popular games in the series and could cost tons to remake.
 
Top