ll_Exile_ll

What exactly do you mean? What quests can't be done after after the credits roll or what quests would we recommended before you put the game down for good?

I'm pretty sure only the companion quests are lost post credits. If you're looking for insight into the better quests in the game I recommend you do each region's main quest line, since those tend to be the most involved and interesting.

These are ones like the Tomb of Fairel for the Hissing Wastes, clearing the quarry and reclaiming the keep in Emprise du Lion, helping Fairbanks and his group in the Emerald Graves, and just generally speaking seeing through the quest chain that is kicked off when you first enter a region. I also recommend killing all ten Dragons, they're the best combat encounters in the game if you're not too overleved (the level 23 Dragon in Emprise du Lion was a tense and lengthy battle, tons of fun).

I left the GB chat pretty early because I was sick of the snark overload. I hate that every chat for things like this on this site just becomes some race to see who can put out a snide comment the fastest, even on genuinely great stuff like Koji Kondo performing live. There's never actually any chatting going on, no discourse or discussion, just an echo chamber of cynicism.

They didn't specifically say who the second playable character was, but I assumed it was the white haired woman Geralt seemed to talking about in the narration.

New game from the Fullbright Company (makers of Gone Home) called "Tacoma".

"Adrift," an FPX (presumably first person experience) that looked like Gravity: The Game.

New untitled game from the guy that made Brothers.

"Before," described as a prehistoric group survival game.

Witcher 3 has a second playable character.

Godzilla The Game.

"Human Element," a post apocalyptic zombie survival game from Robert Bowling.

Some new-ish footage of already announced games like Battlefield Hardline, The Order 1886, and several others.

I was utterly convinced that Knack would be the first game with a disc version to be released on PS+ for PS4. I am actually shocked it hasn't been yet.

I certainly have Ubisoft open world fatigue, but that's more to do with the shitty way they structure all their open world games. I just put over a hundred hours in Dragon Age and enjoyed the hell out of it.

Whatever Bethesda invested in ESO, BGS is their money maker, their golden goose. They're not going to delay the next guaranteed hit from that studio to try and save what may or may not be a sinking ship. ESO was an attempt to leverage the Elder Scrolls name into a project not made by Bethesda Game Studios. If they then turn around and have those guys wasting time and energy trying to "fix" Elder Scrolls Online it defeats the purpose of establishing Zenimax Online as a separate studio.

Also, that game is what it is. There's nothing BGS can do to make it not an MMO, and having played some of it there's nothing offensively bad about it that screams for immediate fix. Throwing more manpower and money at it will not result in people suddenly being okay paying a monthly fee for an MMO.

Again, about the Fallout vs. TES thing. Fallout 3 sold a fair bit more than Oblivion, so saying Elder Scrolls is automatically a more lucrative IP because Skyrim did so well isn't necessarily the case. I think it's more that Bethesda style games continue to get more popular with each one, and whether it's Elder Scrolls or Fallout people simply like the games BGS makes. Elder Scrolls Online is proof it isn't the simply the Elder Scrolls name that sells.

Let's not act as if Fallout 3 was some niche game. BGS's games have only gotten more commercially successfully with each new release. Fallout 3 was more successful than Oblivion, Skyrim more successful than Fallout. At the time Fallout 3 was a massive hit, and I even remember people suggesting that it had much more sales potential than Elder Scrolls because of the broader appeal of shooting guns over swords and sorcery.

No one would have expected Skyrim to achieve the kind of sales numbers it did (COD and GTA territory), but to suggest that its success makes Fallout less attractive for the money dudes seems silly. Fallout 4 may buck the trend of each successful Bethesda game outselling the last simply because Skyrim was so hugely successful, but it's a guaranteed hit that will make many millions of dollars regardless.

Also, Elder Scrolls Online is a completely different studio, I'd be shocked if any of the core Bethesda Game Studios people were wasting even a second of time on it.

They are working on something, if not Fallout then what?

I think it's highly likely Fallout 4 is their next game, and I for one appreciate that they take so long to work on their games. Every time Bethesda puts out a new game it's an event, whereas it's incredibly difficult to get excited for yet another Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed every year. Furthermore, Bethesda games are more than worth the wait considering their amazing attention to detail, incredible scale, and huge amount of things to do.

I think the fact that it will wind up being 4+ years of development for Fallout 4 is a great sign, one that likely means they're taking great care with the generation jump and also hopefully producing a game closer to the size of Oblivion and Skyrim as opposed to Fallout 3, which while bigger than 95% of non-Bethesda games was noticeably scaled down compared to their Elder Scrolls games.

Hell, maybe they're finally going to a completely new engine with animations and scripting that aren't total ass.

Yes, I understand how the game's XP system works. Doesn't make it a level cap.