what if bethesda took 10 years to make the next TES? : The Elder Scrolls Series Discussion

» Thu May 03, 2012 8:44 am

Hmm, sounded like "develop game for five years, then put it in periodic betas every six months, release at ten" to me. Public beta testing would probably help nail down their chronically buggy releases, but I doubt they'd let you play it for five years before releasing it. Especially if mods weren't supported. You could definitely finish a mod-less Elder Scrolls games in a beta period that long.

well i was thinking a long the lines of when ever you get to test it it wouldn't be the full game. just parts of it and a certin amount of people would get one part and then a nother certin amount of people would get anouther. so each time they realeas the new testing part of the game then it would be some thing different so you would never be able to see the actuall full game so when it finnaly comes out as compleat it wouldn't ruin the game for you and the only part you would know about is the partyou tested.

some thing like that and maybe that is to long of a time to tes but i was just throwing out ideas when i wrote this

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Starting from now? I would be 26 and would die of impatience.

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:44 am

i would be 30 by the time it came out if they took 10 years

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:42 pm

There is a point of spending too long on a game, as well as spending too short a time on a game. Time shorter than two years means it will be buggy and somewhat unfinished, longer than four years means it will be buggy and rambling. Adding more time just means they won't have a concise vision for the game, and it will dither wildly. Does anyone think extra time made Duke Nukem Forever a better game?

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:24 pm

I don't think time was the real issue, there is only so much additional time can do. I think a bigger problem is not having a focused vision. Some of their design choices, and other things seemed all over the place in quality, or lack thereof...a classic case of one hand doing something, and not watching the other. That they apparently managed to accomplish so much more in their week or so gamejam is a joke. "What if we worked like that more often?"

What indeed.

It is in my opinion, a problem with big named developers. Their head often becomes too big, they become unchallenged, unthreatened, complacent. Without contestation, without the drive to compete and outdo others, one can simply become lazy, and self assured that you have a stranglehold on your niche in the market, and often, they will still profit greatly regardless of the actual quality of their product. And that is a terrible thing.

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:10 am

Not trolling, but frylock my god your posts are hard to read.

Really 10 years is just plain damaging, hell I could imagine the dev team being far different by the time they finally finished it.

» Thu May 03, 2012 8:18 am

10-years, hmmm I'll be 72 and it may not matter anymore. But then again who knows for sure what 10-years will bring, maybe a Star Trek holo-deck perhaps?

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:24 pm

if they take 10 years to make it it better be a damned revolutionary game brimming with new ideas and innovative revisions of older concepts and downright stunning quests gameplay npcs and graphics. but if they dont put in just about every mideval weapon style there is then i will personnaly steal all there cheese and sweetrolls and fence them to the thieves guild. :stare:

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:28 pm

If that were to happen, the game better have complex narratives that explore politics and the moral grey areas therein. Bugs should be minimal. Combat (mainly melee) should be compelling and refined. And lastly, I'd want a metric tonne of content.

Basically, it should be the bastard child of Morrowind and Skyrim.

» Thu May 03, 2012 1:47 pm

I would be very happy if Bethesda took an enormous amount of time, like ten years, to make TESVI. They could spend eight years making it and two years polishing and bug-fixing it. Of course, the engine on which they built it would be severely obsolete, unfortunately.

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:09 pm

so emagin if bethesda were able to take 10 years to make the next TES game insted of 5 or 6 with demo that were made to the public or a select few maybe some thing like you would have to signe up for it every 6 months or so after the first 5 or 6 years so they could get the players feed back on how they were doing with it and would ask them to point out any flaws bugs or to say what they dislike about it what they think should be added or emproved upon and the people testing would be from the most hard core of TES gamers ( people who have played them since arena ) to the casual gamer ( people who started playing them from skyrim ) and in between. so that in the end result it would be the best or at least try to be the best TES game ever made so that parts of it for the people who want it to be an actual rpg and would get what they wanted and so parts of it would for the people who kinda don't care that much about the rpg aspect would get what they want. what do you all think

HI there frylock223. Good to see you.

I think there is an implicit premise to your post that is in need of deeper investigation: Longer development timee would equal better quality. But it does not, not necessarily. Longer development time under poor conceptual direction might just lead to a worse game. And I don't think we have to speculate too far off on this, for we have SKyrim Are most of Skyrim's major shortcomings rooted in short(ened) development time? No they are not, or at least I don't think so. They result from conceptual missteps. Plus, a game that takes 10 years to develop should lead devs to burnout. What dev can sustain enthusiasm for a whole decade? Marriages don't last that long these dys and 10 years equals 2 console lifecycles, so the game could be obsolete by the time it came out. Lastly, a game that takes 10 years to make should end up costing us gamers far more. So, thanks, but no thanks.