beginning of this year I made a thread in this forum, suggesing Bethesda to acquire the right to make sequels of STALKER.

now there's actually an rumor about this flowing around, which surprised me

I don't hold much hope about it being true, but I see no other companies more fitted to continue making STALKER, and the STALKER game is way too big of a cake to pass on.

Why do I think Bethesda can pull it off? Because Bethesda has successfully revived the Fallout series and though some old fans of fallout don't approve this effort, the new Fallout games are successful in their own merrit.

STALKER series is dead for good anyways, why not revive it and turn it into something new, and equally successful?

In a world where single player games are declining, STALKER is no doubt worth reviving, though the new STALKER using Creation Engine may not feel exactly like the old STALKER.

The only challenge for Bethesda is the lack of experience in making horror games. STALKER is scary, it wins by its atmosphere which no other game can surpass. In a stalker world, no matter where you are, even if you are out in the open under bright day light, you still feel danger lurking around you. Do you think Bethesda has what it takes to achieve this?

Are we talking about Bethesda as a publisher or as a developer? Because as a publisher, Bethesda could get some other studio to develop the game.

I think it's better as a publisher. The developers who made TES didn't do very good job infusing element of fear in TES, so I'd say someone else can make it:)

I also see another problem with creation engine. STALKER doesn't have any character progression, but creation engine has a big emphasis on character development. it seems like using creation engine to make STALKER would be a waste.

I found the ghouls in FO3 incredibly creepy.

While I'm one of those people who strongly dislikes what Bethesda has done to Fallout, I believe that STALKER is a game they could really do well. Stalker was open world FPS, Bethesda already knows how to make those.

The problem might be that if they use the same engine for STALKER and FO4, those games might look too similar.

Again, they didn't "revive" the Fallout series. They won the auction for the IP. The series wasn't in need of rescue...except from the new "Interplay."

Does it need "reviving?" The last installment isn't very old. That said, I don't think Bethesda would be a good choice for STALKER. That's not a slam on Bethesda, it's just that Bethesda doesn't tend to do the things that are great about the STALKER series in their games. As with Fallout, I'm not sure if they would capture the setting and the feel properly (not that I don't like Fallout 3...I just don't think they did the setting or the RPG mechanics the way I would have liked).

It always bothers me when I buy a two or even one year old game from gamestop and the guy at the counter begins talking about how "old" it is. I don't even consider a game "aged" unless it's five years old, and that standard is getting bigger since graphical quality has peaked so much in the last 8 years.

That's because the people who work at Gamestop are complete morons.

I also didn't think Stalker was that scary. Of course, I didn't get very far into it; just didn't hold my interest. So, I don't know, maybe it got scarier? I'd like to see Beth try it's hand at making a new Stalker game. Maybe then it'll hold my interest.