Sigfried1977
Legend
Seriously, how is there not a thread for this already.
Possibly because we know bugger all about it? It was this E3's Metroid Prime 4 announcement basically. I find it really hard to get excited over a title card.
Possibly because we know bugger all about it? It was this E3's Metroid Prime 4 announcement basically. I find it really hard to get excited over a title card.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And yet I feel I have a much better idea of what this game will be like to play than Death Stranding.
And yet I feel I have a much better idea of what this game will be like to play than Death Stranding.
"Please sign for your package delivery."
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
Yeah, that's really quite poor. Their engine has looked relatively dated from the start of the generation, and it's not gotten much better with FO76.
Christ, it was showing its age towards the end of the last generation - it's a miracle that they've managed to keep it limping into this generation. To bet their farm on another miracle next generation seems to be flirting with trouble.
Maybe it'll be fine. But ~10 years of pent up frustration from customers is going to take its toll eventually.
Christ, it was showing its age towards the end of the last generation - it's a miracle that they've managed to keep it limping into this generation. To bet their farm on another miracle next generation seems to be flirting with trouble.
Maybe it'll be fine. But ~10 years of pent up frustration from customers is going to take its toll eventually.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
The obvious choice for performance/quality would be idTech 7 at first sight.
However, they might be trying to learn with the mistakes from EA, who forced a bunch of studios to use Frostbite. That engine was originally tailored for FPS games and had many features missing for RPGs, leading to a bunch of problems for Bioware when they were forced to adopt Frostbite for DA: Inquisition and ME: Andromeda.
Is there any hard limit on Creation Engine that prevents it from evolving to display high-end visuals?
Fallout 4 really did look dated during launch, but I understand that Fallout 76 can't be a visual breakthrough because it's a multiplayer game that needs to run well on many machines to succeed.
However, they might be trying to learn with the mistakes from EA, who forced a bunch of studios to use Frostbite. That engine was originally tailored for FPS games and had many features missing for RPGs, leading to a bunch of problems for Bioware when they were forced to adopt Frostbite for DA: Inquisition and ME: Andromeda.
Is there any hard limit on Creation Engine that prevents it from evolving to display high-end visuals?
Fallout 4 really did look dated during launch, but I understand that Fallout 76 can't be a visual breakthrough because it's a multiplayer game that needs to run well on many machines to succeed.
If they can adapt physically based rendering, along with newer lighting and shadowing techniques to their current engine pipeline, without breaking the majority of code for game play mechanics, collision, A.I., metadata/contextual systems, etc..., then they should be fine. Look at how well Rockstar's RAGE engine adapted to necessary changes for RDR2, and that engine is roughly 13-14 years old, while the Creation Engine is about 7-8 years old. Here's to hoping...
Sigfried1977
Legend
I seriously doubt Frostbite had a bigger influence on the way ME:A or DA:I turned out than last gen tech had an influence on Dragon Age Origins or the original ME Trilogy. The first ME game arguably had the worst texture loading issues of any somewhat prolific 360/PS3 game, and the sequels were mostly corridor shooters with loads and loads of chest high walls. They really weren't that far off from being UE3 - The Game. As for the first two DA games. Those never looked anything more than passable I'd say.
Here's hoping they can implement such features but as I understand it PBR would require a significant change to their rendering and content creation pipeline, the latter being something they're desperate to avoid. Also Creation Engine and its roots in Gamebryo and NetImmerse are at least 18-20 years old.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't know anybody who buys Bethesda Games RPGs for their visuals and this doesn't seem to be holding back Elder Scrolls or Fallout games. 
The version of the Creation engine used by Fallout 4 onwards supports PBR. It's used in Fallout 4.
The version of the Creation engine used by Fallout 4 onwards supports PBR. It's used in Fallout 4.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I don't know anybody who buys Bethesda Games RPGs for their visuals and this doesn't seem to be holding back Elder Scrolls or Fallout games.
IMO both Morrowind and Oblivion had revolutionary graphics for their time of release.
Morrowind was one of the first games with water shaders that made it look incredible, and Oblivion was one of the first games with HDR Lighting and Bloom.
It's when Bethesda started adopting their in-house engines that things started to lag behind.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Agreed, what I mean is that people buying Bethesda RPGs are generally buying the game because it's an open world RPG with a variety of play options, not because it's full of eye candy.
With every generation the gap between gamebryo/creation engine and the rest of industry widens.
Fallout 4 was already awful.
Fallout 76 was supposed to be better but it's even worse.
They had 3 years to develop a dumbed down version of F4 with the same engine and on the same platforms.
They have clearly productivity issues.
The know how on a broken system is worthless. They need to invest time and money on a new system that works.
They should have done this after Skyrim.
Bringing their shitty engine into Gen. 9 is madness.
They are part of Zenimax, they have other engines and they have the money to invest on expanding their best engine to make it efficient for all their teams. What are they smoking?
Fallout 4 was already awful.
Fallout 76 was supposed to be better but it's even worse.
They had 3 years to develop a dumbed down version of F4 with the same engine and on the same platforms.
They have clearly productivity issues.
The know how on a broken system is worthless. They need to invest time and money on a new system that works.
They should have done this after Skyrim.
Bringing their shitty engine into Gen. 9 is madness.
They are part of Zenimax, they have other engines and they have the money to invest on expanding their best engine to make it efficient for all their teams. What are they smoking?
This is a bullshit excuse from EA and Bioware.
1) Bioware released Dragon Quest on current gen using Frostbite more than two years before Andromeda.
2) The Mass Effect triology was developed with Unreal Engine 3, made for fps/tps games. If you are old enough you will remember that outside of Gears of War, UE3 struggled for the initial of years on 360 and PS3.
I think that the real problem was extreme bad management and nothing else.
steveOrino
Regular
They aren't smoking anything. The Bethesda studio that is under Todd's management has a ~4 year dev cycle. As long as the games they produce from the Gamebryo/Creation engine are successful they will probably not switch engines because they would have some transition period moving to a new tool set which costs time and money. Right now there is no incentive for them to switch engines. I am not disagreeing with you btw, its clearly showing its age and I don't expect much from Starfield iteration of the engine either.
As far as 76 is concerned, whatever team was in charge of that mess was developing the game on the cheap. It's a pure asset flip otherwise they would have never tacked on MP to the creation engine. Considering a lot of Indy/small publisher multiplayer survival games look (and play) better than FO76 is a testament to how cheap they tried to make this game.
cheapchips
Veteran
For all the stick that the Creation Engine receives, I still think even the base Skyrim is an attractive game.
From what little there is of the Starfield (and ES6) teaser, the art lighting and level of detail are all nice enough.
From what little there is of the Starfield (and ES6) teaser, the art lighting and level of detail are all nice enough.
4 years dev cycle?
Their franchises are huge success, developing a new engine requires time but not big resources, they have known that gamebryo was not good for at least 10 years.
In 2018 they are developing 3 games and they are part of Zenimax that has both money and tech.
Right now they have all incentives to switch engine (they had even 7 years ago) but someone is stubborn and doesn't want to change until they are going to lose lots of money because of that.
The thing is that even if F76 were a wake up call, would be too late for Starfield and probably TES VI too. They are fucked up. Their last chance was after F4 shipped.
Skyrim is nowhere attractive, it's very ugly considering that the same platforms run GTA V.
The setting makes its uglyness less appparent.
Because of the engine is also a chore to play: loading everywhere.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
How would GTA V perform if it had to render 2,000 cheese wheels? Bethesda seemingly like to make the type of RPGs where all of the objects can be interacted with and moved about, which makes sense in a game like Fallout 4 where the crafting is predicated on scavenging junk from the environment.
That sort of environment puts different demands on an engine than GTA's requirement where pretty much nothing out of camera range is persistent. Kill 100 cops, destroy 20 cop cars, leave the street on fire then drive around the block and it's all gone.
if you think that all the cheese wheels in Skyrim are rendered all the times your learning on this forums in the past 11 years has been extremely limited.
Plus remember that cities and even houses are separate levels in Skyrim.
Similar threads
- Locked
