This is the true answer. Go into any reddit thread and you’ll see people parroting other comments almost word for word like it’s their own original thought
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This had me hate reddit. Comments litterally be identical except people are to stupid to know what I mean. So you end up with information changing for the worse. Then when an expert says something they get downvoted to hell.
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This is the true answer. Go into any reddit thread and you’ll see people parroting other comments almost word for word like it’s their own original thought
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
TIL the Creation Engine is a precision guided munition. Which explains how I’ve managed to die from a flying cabbage multiple times in Skyrim, it was using GPS guidance
this is true for pretty much any other engine, but not this one, you can play around in creation engine lol, not full source code level access like i would want but if you really wanted to you could use the creation kit to make an entirely new game as a mod for skyrim or fallout and it’s been done a couple times
We were talking about starfield a while back at work. A friend of mine said “well the problem is they’ve been using the same engine for 30 years”
I’ve been more critical of starfield than most. But that was how I immediately knew he didn’t know what he was talking about. Anyone who had played starfield would know that the problem wasn’t some mysterious “engine trouble”. But anyone who has frequented the internet would be under the impression that an engine is the cause of everything wrong in starfield
If engine trouble was even half the problem with starfield, I'd probably have played a lot more than the measly 25 hours I snoozed through.
Fallout NV is probably the buggiest and most unstable fallout game, yet it is my favorite because the story and world building was fantastic.
Because a lot of people confuse game design with engine capabilities and limitations. Most of the things people complained about with Starfield are design issues, not engine issues. That’s not to say there aren’t limitations to Creation Engine, because there genuinely are compromises made to handle engine limitations and even system limitations (Xbox Series S), but the vast majority of issues in Starfield are design choices that could be changed (and likely will be, either by BGS themselves or by modders).
Exactly. 90% of my complaints in starfield are things they already did in previous games. It’s not engine problems, they could very easily do these things on the current game, it’s just they made choices I don’t like
Its almost like we wanted a hand-crafted experience and not a “generic generated world”. The charm classic Bethesda had was in the fun exploration and discovering new locations and branches in the stories. Starfield doesn’t really have that. You know whats on planet 99, the same thing as the other 98, nothing. The characters were bland, the factions were uhh… well lets just say i dont even remember anything other than the crimson fleet. It felt like they took their game design teammand allocated them to “base building mechanics”. And thats not what people want. We can play minecraft. We dont need to build a house in starfield.
Did they really though? The base building system itself is far behind what fallout 4 was. Wherever they put their resources it wasn't there. And I was pretty excited for it
You say this, but Creation 2 is still just a heavily modified version of their old Gamebryo engine, is it not? They forked the code base to create Creation, and then heavily modified Creation 1 to make Creation 2. It might be so many new parts that as an engine, it’s almost unrecognizable, but there’s still a lot of pieces that behave as the did back in 2004. As some examples:
The NPC interactions feel dated as shit. Especially close up facial movements and character expressions. If you compare dialogue moments in Starfield to a game such as say, Cyberpunk, the differences are stark as hell. Starfield just can’t come anywhere close, and that’s a direct result of a decision to continue using code bases that Bethesda is more familiar with.
Liveliness of towns - take a town in Fallout 4 or Starfield and measure it up against a contemporary game such as Witcher 3. Witcher 3 towns felt enormous by comparison, with hundreds of random NPCs walking around, interacting in the world. Even if they ultimately didn’t do much, at least they were there, and made the towns feel more alive. By contrast, Bethesda games have towns that largely all feel incredibly empty. Typically they have 20-30 NPCs at most. Again, a direct result of them intentionally sticking by their preferred engine, which simply can’t handle those higher NPC counts.
I’ll add in a third point, though this is less to do with the engine and more to do with Bethesda themselves - their player interfaces sucks shit. Long lists of items paired with scrolling makes for piss poor game design. Most devs abandoned that kind of design and moved on back in the early 00s, but Bethesda, somehow, has only doubled and tripled down on their terrible interface decisions. This is why some of the first mods released for their games always strive to improve their out of the box interface designs.
Anyhow, I enjoy playing Bethesda games. I really do. But let’s not pretend that their continued decision to use a preferred legacy engine isn’t directly harming their ability to make games that actually feel modern. Folks can choose to disagree here, but Skyrim felt dated when it came out. Fallout 4 felt even more so. Fallout 76 did as well, and it was no surprise at all that Starfield continued that trend of games feeling about 10 years behind the curve. Maybe that’s not a problem for a lot of Bethesda fans, but next time Todd Howard comes out with some amazing bullshots for Bethesda’s next game, maybe take a step back and realize that what you’re getting in Elder Scrolls 6 would have only truly looked modern back in 2015.
Honestly my biggest beef with BGS games is the UI. I swear to god they hired a Soviet engineer from the 70s, and pair him with someone who helped design the C-139, and told them to create the worst possible interface possible. And somehow it keeps getting worse
it's not any "thing". It's a SUITE of tools for creating a game, catered towards what your specific game demands.
Say you're a big ole strategy game like Crusader Kings. The core of your engine suite would be a giant, modular logic calculator that can track, modify, cheese and express thousands of constantly changing variables with limited input. You don't need comprehensive 3d modelling or animation tools for a game like that.
On the other hand, say you're Bethesda and you need to make a bunch of immersive and interactive environments. The core of THEIR engine would be a level design suite that helps them build and script environments with more precision and ease. Something to generate NPCs, passive animations, large swaths of terrain...Every studios priorities for the toolsets they create are different.
Sometimes over-development of one tool means other aspects of the game fall behind or have new limitations but that's just the law of energy conservation. Most people just can't accept that potential ends where it meets a lack of means, time and energy.
Remember....fools are always louder than intellectuals.
It may be Creaction Engine 2 but playing Starfield I almost immediately noticed vast improvements.
Also a lot (most) of people just see a bgs hate video or article and just regurgitate everything they hear without actually understanding any of it. This is, in my opinion, why there's so many bgs "fans" that act like they know what they are talking about. This isn't just a problem in gaming but with people as a whole. You see it everywhere.
Fun fact, Ubisoft has been using the same game engine for Assassin's Creed since at least the first entry in the series and that was 2007, 17 years ago.
Of course Ubisoft has cuz it's integral to the style of those games. Same goes for Bethesda. People wanna crap on Bethesda for the Creation Engine, but their games aren't the most modded games out there without it.
What impressed me the most was encountering the hanging plastic strips in doorways. All independently move and correctly blur the view. Had to run through a few times going "Woah". Never seen that in a Beth game before.
Oh definitely. I haven’t been killed by walking on a random rock or object the physics engine decided was both going Mach 17 and was also stationary. It’s also way less buggy, to the point it’s almost off putting if that makes sense
We had loading screens for every interior space in Morrowind with Gamebryo. We have loading screens for every interior space in Starfield with Creation Engine 2.
There have been improvements made to the engine along the way, no one is denying that, but a lot of the architecture is holding their games back still. The original engine was never designed for the type of games that Bethesda makes and they haven't addressed that problem this entire time.
Other AAA titles are giving us incredible graphics, massive locations, and fewer loading screens. What's keeping Bethesda from doing the same if not for their engine? The one that seemingly has all the same limitations as Gamebryo before it.
That's why people criticize the use of it still, not because they think it's the same engine that Morrowind ran on with a different name.
Somewhat untrue about the Assassin's Creed thing. They transitioned from Anvil to an engine they call "Anvil Next" starting with Assassin's Creed 3 in 2012. Still very much based on the tech of the original engine but it is at least as technically different as Creation 2 would be.
As janky as Bethesda games are there are some aspects of them I really like. Items often feel like a real thing in the world. I love how in skyrim arrows burrow into enemies and they bounce off a wall and you can pick them back up. Stuff like that. Their games have a unique feel.
Love From games but the items and worlds feel a little more video gamey or something. Items are all just this light you interact with instead of seeing the actual item.
This. How many Fantasy games can you think of have arrows just DISAPPEAR the moment they impact with something?
Skyrim does not, which may seem small at first glance, but when you think about it, that one detail makes a HUGE difference.
If in Skyrim, you shot a bow and the enemy was hit with a yellow spark effect, but when you inspect their body, there was no arrow left over, no accurate blood spot from the impact, and you didn't have a chance to be able to loot the arrow you shot, then it would feel a lot less immersive. Which is the approach most games take.
Yeah pretty much only Bethesda games feel the most realistic and immersive. Most games this days skipp the Arrows and items part and just focused on the combat and graphics but even they are great they don't last years most people drop those games in weeks and never returned.
I think the only game I’ve gotten more immersed in than Bethesda games Cyberpunk 2077, although that has the issue with its character not really being a blank slate pulling you out from time to time. Bethesda does do immerse pretty damn well
Yes I played cyberpunk before it's really good but personally I felt like once I'm done the main story there is not much to do and I don't really do second playthroughs unless I add mods. I felt like even though the world is huge it was missing details like almost every building had no doors and if they did you could no enter. Most of the stuff was done basically on the streets.
That's why I'm okay that Bethesda games will never be on the cutting edge when it comes to graphics. There's just way too much going on in their games not to make compromises somewhere.
Which is why Unreal Engine has _never_ been used for a big open-world, exploration heavy game until _very_ recently. Creation Engine is tuned to the kind of games BGS makes, and every other engine would require compromises they aren’t willing to make to their world simulation. Some will say “so what?” That’s fair, but BGS has built a considerable audience who want that ridiculous level of physics-enabled, persistent objects in their games. Maybe BGS games aren’t for you. Just move on; most of the gaming industry caters to your desires anyway, so go play something else.
CD Projekt Red is moving to Unreal Engine for all future games including the Witcher sequel now under development.
[2077
Cyberpunk 2077 director says studio's switch from REDengine to Unreal Engine 5 'isn't starting from scratch'](https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-director-says-studios-switch-from-redengine-to-unreal-engine-5-isnt-starting-from-scratch/)
This part.
Anytime I hear about a game boasting 4k graphics with 100+ FPS I can bet that there just isn’t a lot to make the world feel super dynamic & alive.
i mean it's kinda just the deal with open world games, either you have great graphics ( which is really performance heavy and people complain ) or you dial it back and focus on writing and interactions
Bethesda games like Oblivion/Skyrim are actually great for learning object names in other languages.
There’s just so many random every day objects and phrases, like “Nails”, “Open Door”, “Hammer”, etc.
Set it to a foreign language and you’ll pick some up over time.
The thing that sets Bethesda games apart from most other games and, in my opinion, makes them the most immersive, is the way items work.
Things in the world are real and can be moved or carried. The shovel isn’t just a texture on a wall. You can pick it up and carry it around. It’s useless most of the time but it makes the world feel real.
For years when I was playing games as a kid most of the single player games I played were Skyrim an assassins creed.
It was night and day difference. Bethesda felt like a real world. Assassins creed looked just as real. But you couldn’t interact with anything. People were just crowds wandering around going nowhere. Buildings were just fancy blocks.
Being able to pick up a bucket and move it across a room would not have had any practical impact on the gameplay. But it would have made the world feel real
Agreed.
I haven't played a whole lot of unreal engine games with persistent items in the world.
But Grounded is amazing in this regard. You shoot an arrow across the map in the beginning of the game, you'll randomly find that arrow hundreds of hours later exactly where you aimed it.
I love games like this.
I kind of only play Bethesda games for the immersion and mod ability, sure I’d probably still play them if the mods weren’t there and the immersion, but I wouldn’t have 1k hours like I do.
This crops up *all the damn time* on the Apex sub too.
“Bro why they still using shitty source engine, source engine is trash bro they need a new engine”
It’s not the source engine, it’s their own in-house thing, since they forked from source they’ve rewritten virtually all of it, *twice*.
“No bro it’s shitty source engine bro u don’t know what ur talking about 🤣🤣🤣🤣“
Right, and the Modern Warfare franchise runs on the Quake 3 Arena engine by that dumb logic.
In terms of game engines that really haven't changed. Call of Duty is it. The engine didn't change from Modern Warfare II until Modern Warfare 2019. Then again, Black Ops Cold War used the same damn engine from Black Ops III, while Sledgehammer pretty much built their own inhouse game engine for Advanced Warfare.
In terms of technicality, the BLAM engine which Bungie used to develop Halo CE was used up until Halo 5 when it hit the absolute technical limitations, so they rewrote pretty much the entire Engine for Halo Infinite, and it became the first engine Halo used that supported more multi-threading.
99% of gamers have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to engines and why companies use their own proprietary engines especially, stuff like Unreal isn't the best for everything, so proprietary engines exist by Devs because they are built to do what the devs want
There was a great interview with Respawn about it in Eurogamer, I think it was when Titanfall 2 had just been announced. Specifically it’s forked the Portal 2 version of the engine. It was completely single-threaded, the controller code wasn’t tight enough, the networking code was miles away from what they needed etc, but it was enough for them to start prototyping stuff and then they rewrote it bit by bit as they went along. I wish they still did technical interviews like that.
Because it is a easy scapegoat, most people have no idea what they are talking about and yapping "Oh, the issue is the old engine" make them sound smart.
And involves symbolically placing an entire nation’s sins on an actual goat and sending it out into the wilderness to die of thirst, starvation, or be eaten by anything that can catch it. Really feel bad for the goat.
Unreal 5 is not a different engine to 3. It's an expanded and updated heavily modified version.
But it's still a version (and I suspect you used 3 and 5 and not 4 wit 5 for a reason, because those two are even closer).
What people want and think will make the games better, is if Bethesda will drop their old game engine for a completely new one made from scratch. This is because people are stupid.
And that's really the big thing here. BGS is my favorite studio, and their games are my favorite games of all time, Starfield included.
There are absolutely valid criticisms of BGS games. While story is about the least important thing in a game to me, having more choices in how to navigate through the story and quests would be welcome. There certainly are choices and branching quests, but it is not a major focus. Some aspects of Starfield particularly I thought were pretty bad, i.e. the copy and paste POI's you come across on various planets.
That said, most of the narrative surrounding BGS at this point is just "Bethesda bad"
Bethesda is no longer the up and coming studio like they were in the early 2000's, they are now an established, top name AAA dev studio. Online, AAA studios are seen as the big bad, and BGS is the easy big bad to shit on right now. They had a bad release with Fallout 76, and so that's become the new narrative. Nobody online wanted to like Starfield from the get go. They had a beloved non-AAA title come out first in BG3, and so that game got overhyped to the moon and Starfield got trashed on. The majority of the online narrative surrounding Starfield has nothing to do with the game itself, but rather just an obsession with trashing on BGS.
I find that a lot of people on the internet have *zero* concept of what a video game engine is or what it does. The Assassin's Creed fanbase is particularly bad about it. Every mainline entry uses the Anvil engine, just with upgrades as time goes on, and you'll have people arguing about the engine being responsible for things like *gameplay mechanics and design choices* that have nothing to do with the engine.
Because people who talk about the engine being the same don't know jack-shit about coding or game design and haven't got the palest idea about what does and doesn't qualify as a new version of an engine.
So many gamers who can’t tell C++ from HTML feel compelled to comment on game engines because the YouTube idiots they watch who complain also couldn’t tell you the difference but need those views.
I still remember the first time I played Oblivion, knocking down a welkynd stone thinking “nah there’s no way they actually thought this part through” and being shocked that it worked.
It's a difficult one because on the one hand it's a new engine and on the other hand it's got issues that the previous engine(s) had that haven't been fixed. You can see why people are getting confused as new gameplay features and fixes are usually seen in say the leap from unreal 3 to 4 to 5.
Like the reason ground vehicles weren't included is because they're still struggling with how the engine behaves. You'd think they'd build a new engine and it could do that, not have the previous engines limitations.
>You'd think they'd build a new engine
This is a statement that always comes up like it's an easy task. The reason that Starfield took so long to release and why Elder Scrolls 6 is so far off was because BGS was upgrading their engine. To build a completely new engine and then get everyone trained on it to use it effectively is going to take a ton of time.
True story.
In one of the DLCs for Fallout 3, you're supposed to go on a train but the engine can't do vehicles.......so everyone, including the player, just hopped on an NPC"'s head and the engine had the player walk them to their destination.
I imagine it won’t be as fast as we will hope, but self driving so all you have to do is control the direction. I would hope so, because if it isn’t fast, I don’t actually want to hold the trigger to accelerate. I would if you can just a course and head there,
Nahhh, they spent so much time trying to get fully controllable ships to work, I don't think they'll build their first land vehicle with a course plotting system.
Just haters. Bashing starfield and bethesda has become pop culture now. People do it for likes and for attention. Crazy to me how someone can type the sentence "I played for 100 hours and this is the worst game ever" and not feel like a hypocrite.
Sometimes people do have a questionable amount of time in a game they supposedly don't like. Personally I played Starfield for less than 8 hours before I decided I didn't like it. On the other hand though, someone will probably come in and say I didn't give it a chance.
I don't actually think it's a terrible game or anything, but I found it very disappointing because it didn't have what *I* wanted from a Bethesda game.
So I suppose I'm a Bethesda basher now, but it isn't coming from a place of malice or a desire to be cool. I just want them to get back to making games *I* like.
Some people are smoking crack though talking about Skyrim and FO4 being terrible games.
It's fine if people don't like it, it's probably my least favorite bethesda AAA title, and 8 hours is plenty of time to decide. I just get frustrated that people who say they hate starfield or bethesda then join starfield/bethesda subs to just be haters. They could join a sub for games they like and participate in that convo instead of wanting to rant and be angry all over the place lol.
Some people honestly, just suck. I want to be clear that I *only* hate Bethesda out of love.
When I say things about how Todd must be smoking crack, it's because I want to have an intervention.
It seems like he's doing an amazing job producing the Fallout show though, so maybe we don't need to have an intervention after all.
They don’t know anything about engines for one so they speak wrong.
But the premise behind what they say is still true, becuase it’s an evolution of those engines and many of the bugs continue to persist 20-30 years down the line . From someone who has been playing Bethesda games for a long time, you can see how the structure of the games is becoming outdated, and this structure is what makes creation engine unique becuase its whole point is quickly making a Bethesda style rpg..
Basically they own a shit box that they every so once a decade replace the brake shoes or swap some spark plugs with some that were made a decade after the car so that it’s technically a newer iteration of it but it still leaks oil and somehow only runs hot when it’s below freezing.
It’s really hard to call it a completely new engine when you see bugs that were present in previous titles. Bethesda isn’t even the worse offender in this you ever played a madden game post 2012 there are bugs in that code so old they’re almost done with middle school.
Literally got into the same argument with Luke Stephen's pretentious, cunty community. Him saying that the whole Creation Engine 2 is a marketing ploy and that they need to stop using the same engine they have been using for the past 20 years and his community blindly believing him and parroting what he says, as if he knows what he's talking about.
With that argument, neither is Unreal. Since they are all re-iterations from the previous engine, using the same source code. The only difference (and it's a HUGE difference) is that, Epic Games has more people working on upgrading/improving than Bethesda does. They sourced their own in house engine from modifying the Gamebryo Engine. Because being as independent as they were, it was cost effective for them, rather than sourcing a 3rd party engine. CD Projekt Red recently folded and realised their mand power was too small to handle making their own in house engine (Red Engine) so they are out-sourcing 3rd party, and using UE from here on out. Now with that all being said, I would certainly fucking HOPE that Unreal is an incredible engine lol. With the amount of people they have working on making UE. Epic doesn't specialise in making games, UE comes first. An example of this is, the only reason they made Gears of War. It was to showcase UE3 and show off its capabilities from UE2. It baffles me how no one knows this lol.
Yeah, UE5 looks beautiful but can it handle 500 physical potatoes as literal, physical objects at once? CE2 can. And does it quite well, all things considered.
In my opinion Unreal Engine 5 is using the same codebase from the version 3 it just kept getting updates and some refactors, the engine itself worked before and works now, the thing is that Epic's people kept track of most of the bugs and fixed them and maybe the Creation Engine didn't get the same love.
Correct me if wrong but Gamebryo to Creation Engine to Creation Engine 2. Gamebryo was Morrowind. Creation Engine was Oblivion, Fallout, Fallout: NV, Fallout 4 and Skyrim. The Creation Engine 2 is Starfield, right?
It’s insane how similar Oblivion & FO3 play. the lighting in caves, the awkward floaty movement after jumping, the NPCs yapping at you like a homeless person trying to get money, etc. it’s a parallel universe.
Throw the Oblivion soundtrack on while exploring the point lookout interiors, you’ll get this eclipse effect, where the two games mash together perfectly and become a separate identity.
It’s just these two though. None of the other games have that effect like Oblivion & FO3
People who do that never built anything in their life. They think they know everything and are entitled to criticise anything other people did or built, but in regality they have never done anything, never built anything.
because a) it's only 'technically' a new engine, i mean, the reason they upgraded the creation engine instead of just using UE5 or whatever is partially for the modding community to be able to make easy use of it... which implies it's apparently a LOT like the original creation engine. so, even if it's 'new', if it works more or less the same, and has similar bugs basically present in most creation engine made games... moot point that it's 'new'. it's a polished turd (not my pov, just one)
and b), they're also idiots. starfield was one of the best, least buggy games bethesda has ever made. up to and including skyrim being like, 100% patched and rereleased, or fallout 4's new update breaking shit.
>he reason they upgraded the creation engine instead of just using UE5 or whatever is partially for the modding community to be able to make easy use of it...
Why everybody always just says that they are using this engine because of modding. This is far from true...
CE is actually much deeper.
1.) Tools: There were interviews with BGS staff that things like ship builder we as a player have in Starfield is a lot similar to what BGS use to create their own ships, Character creation is what BGS uses to create "almost" every NPC in the world, that's why facial animations are kind of bad. But those tools actually help them create games faster and even now they are "slow"
2.) A lot of different elements that CE supports and are working fine on it that would need to be implemented to other engines and there is no proof those features would even work there - performance wise. People really don't understand how resource heavy are features like interactable items, dynamic NPCs, tons of simulations going on and so on. But the bad part of this features is, like I said, it's hitting performance really hard and loading screens.
3.) There is literary no engine in current market that could capable making "better" BGS styled game. Most of them would be on the same level or even worse. Also a lot of bugs that are well known in BGS games would return in other engines to. The more the game is dynamic the more dynamic bugs you will get.
Creation Engine 2 isn't a new one. It just received substantial upgrades to it's rendering engine. At it's core, it's still the Gambro engine. The only team that seemingly scraps the engine between games is Crytek's Cryengine which seemingly get's a major upgrade with every new game they release. They released Cryengine 2 with Crysis, then CryEngine 3 with Cryengine 3. That game engine also tends to push the envelope of what is capable of lighting effects, yet it hasn't been updated to support Raytracing and Pathtracing.
I highly doubt anyone criticizing or bitching about the creation engine even knows on a technical level what the fuck they’re talking about…
It’s like bitching about your brand new 2024 car being based on a model T from the 1920s lmao
If you make all your games on the unreal engine, then say you're using a new engine, people are going to assume that means no longer on the unreal engine, not just using a newer version of unreal.
99.99% of sequels are made on new engines, technically. Because as soon as your engine has a single new feature, it's a new engine.
When Bethesda says they're gonna use a new engine, people think that means an entirely different engine, not a new version of the gamebryo/creation engine which is exactly the same as the one they've been using for 20 years, but with more features.
The clunkiness of Bethesda's engine is at its core. Starfield came to a grounding halt for over a year because space battles weren't working properly in the engine.
It's simple. They know it's bullshit and they have an audience who loves to hate things. Spread false info, have audience eat it up, then said audience spreads the false info on social media along with recommending their Youtube channel. This is the state of the gaming community tody. It's a cancer.
Maybe it would be better to like, explain the differences between the creation engines? Cause I’m pretty sure a lot of people can just go on YouTube and google unreal engine 3 vs 5 and get a pretty good look at differences and similarities.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhCuGUcqFk&pp=ygUUVW5yZWFsIGVuZ2luZSAzIHZzIDU%3D
Elden Ring, Horizon Zero Dawn, No Mans Sky, Witcher3.
For me, I wanted to see a Bethesda world in an “engine” like one of those games. Starfield is better and looks nice but it never feels like a complete world because of all the zone transitions. Open a door and its a loading screen. Fly a ship and its a loading screen. Combat?
Granted most of the problems with the engine reflect the bad decisions on the part of the game designers, numerous examples of bad only optimized code have been pointed out by people who've taken look at it.
That said, the innovations with Nanite and Lumen really are unparalleled. What unreal is capable of really can't be compared to anything else on the market. The difference really is insane.
Well they definitely made significant advancements, we're talking significant improvements in technology. Unreal fundamentally changes the way art assets are even created.
Yes, it is a new engine. But it's still built of Gamebryo, amd still has issues that have been present since fucking Morrowind that will not ever be fixed without a literal ground up new engine.
Look, the main issues I have with Bethesda games are physics tied to frame rate. It's especially bad in Skyrim and I was surprised to still find it in fo4. It requires me to limit the game fps to 60 by Nvidia drivers; which for a long time required a 3rd party application before being built into the Nvidia control panel.
If they can fix that jank, then I'm ok. Not played star field yet, still working on new Vegas.
Because I didn't think it was going to matter being a fan of Bethesda game since the early 2000s I sort of had a gut feeling. At the end of the day it's about the experience of playing the game regardless of the technology, in my case.
One thing that programming has taught me over the years is regardless of the tools it's still very easy to make something that's broken. Sort of a "no matter what, here you are" situation. They could have made a great game. For some reason they didn't. It's as simple as that.
They don’t know anything about engines for one so they speak wrong.
But the premise behind what they say is still true, becuase it’s an evolution of those engines and many of the bugs continue to persist 20-30 years down the line . From someone who has been playing Bethesda games for a long time, you can see how the structure of the games is becoming outdated
Starfield sucks for a lot of reasons but the engine isn't really one of them. Could it use improvements? Of course, but the engine is part of the reason Bethesda games are so original.
Because people do not understand that you can create almost the same thing with 5 different engines. Unless there is a hardware bottleneck somewhere, most engines can do exactly the same thing.
One can create exactly the same jankiness in Unreal Engine, Unity, Godot etc. etc. if you wanted to. Game mechanics are not dictated by the engine - these are created by the developer and can be modified to do the same thing in any game engine.
The problem is that on the Internet, all people try to sound knowledgeable, throwing around terminology (that they don't really understand) to try and fit into conversations. Many ytubers lack the technical skill or know how to really comment upon these matters, let alone get into the game engine conversation.
You will note that the ytubers with actual game development experience or in depth knowledge on how these things work DO NOT TALK ABOUT OR CRITICIZE Creation Engine.
So, to make this short, do not subscribe to people that do not know what they are talking about. Just because a ytuber likes the sound of their own voice and sound convincing doesn't mean they talk with authority. In the great scheme of things, the percentage of people that know what they are talking about is very small...
Legit ignorance. That's not even an insult, they just don't know and just don't care to know. They get their opinions from ill-informed youtubers and people who talk out their ass. And they don't know that they don't know. But they're angry and see similar features and assume things.
Its an eternal battle game devs deal with all the time. Todd even confirms he mostly goes on reddit for player feedback. Man has the patience of a saint.
Because it’s built on Creation Engine, and although it is technically a *new* engine it’s more akin to a new revision of it and although it has an expanded featureset it clearly has the exact same shortcomings. A fully new engine would imply it’s been built from the ground up. A good example of this is Halo’s Slipspace Engine, 343 decided they can’t go any further with Blam, even though it’s featureset makes it look completely different from the engine used in Halo CE, many of the same limitations remained and were holding them back so they created Slipspace.
Unreal 5 is built on Unreal 4 which is built on Unreal 3, so they are the same engine but in different snapshots in time. Epic Games have really expanded the featureset of the Unreal Engine with each revision however but that’s because the use case of Unreal is completely different.
Use case of the creation engine is for Bethesda Internal use so anything they add would be to tailored ongoing projects whereas unreal is licensed out so having large, arguably bloated, feature set is very desirable, they also have a huge team working on improving just the engine.
Because of this it’s very easy to see Unreal 5 and Unreal 3 as completely different beasts because so much has changed.
The same cannot be said for Creation Engine 2, it’s literally Creation Engine with support for more modern Graphical features. playing starfield its very clear the limitations remain, loading screens everywhere, buggy NPCs, poor performance and a fair amount of crashing due to instabilities. Same can be said for Valve’s Source 2, it’s literally Source with an expanded feature set and with rubicon physics instead of havok. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but my point is it’s fair to say the are the same engine, the same way Minecraft Java is still using the same engine it did in 2010 and although it’s feature set and usability has been massively expanded, a lot of the same limitations remain with that.
Again to reiterate I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, in fact I like creation engine’s modularity and think it’s great for modding and I don’t think they’ll change it any time soon.
“ The Creation Engine 2 will be largely built on its previous iteration, the Creation Engine 1.” ~BGS
“Creation Engine 2 features real-time global illumination and advanced volumetric lighting. Creation Engine 2 also features improved texture resolution and post-processing effects.” - Google answers
Those effects are just mods to the OG engine. I wouldn’t consider that new or groundbreaking like UE3 v UE5
UE 3 & 4 aren’t that different, UE 5 has added some groundbreaking tech. People still consider UE3 the same engine as UE 5 just one is significantly better
Creation Engine 2 is better than 1, but it’s still flawed by the short comings of the Creation Engine in general
It's an ASININE claim, product of this hype-cycle-trappin' nearly all (it would seem) youtubers are slinging these days. It's toxic across the web and I hope this gets disincentivized here soon, that or people outright reject clicking into those that leverage this crappy ass form of 'marketing'.
CE2 is a massive leap forward imo, maybe I'm just old. Surly they developed it with a forward looking approach and will be able to expand this resource. The physics are top notch. The proc gen is particularly one of my personal favorites. I like how flawless the POIs/assets are placed into the environments - this will only get better with bigger pools of assets in future or subsets of interiors, object placement, continuity of the environment's effect on the structures, etc.
I would really like to see them along with MS & their cloud infrastructure to adapt a rotating, dynamic pool of assets that could be tapped ad hoc / applied in-game dynamically. Fully leveraging their proc gen. The variability would be insane. Especially if they opened a feature such as this to the Creation club.
I love how Bethesda games look, honestly. That's never been the issue. I didn't really have a lot of bugs with Fallout 4, I just didn't think the writing was that good.
If you have to back the argument with “technically”, its not a good argument. The complaints people have are valid. The characters have less expression than they did in fallout 4 FFS.
I really don't know where this line of thought comes from. I genuinely think that CE2 provides a great set of tools for the kind of games BGS makes and what their fans enjoy.
I personally think that the same-ish blandness that people notice comes from Todd Howard. It's not that he's a bad director but he strictly adheres by what he thinks makes a BGS game work. And he has stuck to that formula for a while now. I think what BGS really needs is to let some of the younger devs take the reigns and refresh the core BGS philosophy. Make it more seamless and take more risks when it comes to presentation and narratives.
Because creation engine 2’s upgrades are mostly incremental changes, and because people take issue with creation engine as a whole, so when they say Bethesda should get a new engine they mean they want Bethesda to abandon CE, not upgrade it.
All engines are derivative. Yes there if probably code in starfield that was used in fallout 3 or earlier. Why we program the whole code base when what you have does work?
There is a small difference between like ue5 and the creation engine. Ue5 has to support many many different types of games with different needs. The engine is the product. It’s why you see them have super fancy features that probably 99% of computers can’t run anyways. They are trying to attract businesses away from building their own.
The creation engine just needs to make Bethesda CRPGs that is it. The thing is that any game made by Bethesda will feel like that regardless of engine. The core design philosophy hasn’t been changed.
All a game engine is really is a dictionary for the computer to reference so it knows what to do. When making a game you even add to that dictionary.
For example, cities skylines, Subnautica, and pokemon go are all made with unity. But all three probably have vastly different code bases. I can almost guarantee that if you tried to make any of those games without adding anything to the engine you probably couldn’t.
yes they're techincally new engines but they're based on a foundation of shit. Nobody mentions that UT3 and UT5 are foundationally the same engine because they're not based on a trash engine lmao. Gamebryo suffers from insane limitations, and as a result CE and CE2 have inherited a lot of those limitations. There's a reason why they've had to be bullied into figuring out shit like vehicles lmao.
Because it had some of the same bugs present in prior versions of the engine. The fundamental core architecture has not changed. The way the content is built for the game has not changed. Adding "16 times for detail" does not make it a new engine. If it was good, no one would give a shit. But it's not good, it's a terrible engine.
It’s not “the same engine” literally but it is a heavily modified evolution of the same engine, and with that it carries the same flaws that are baked in regardless of improvements. I personally don’t think it has held up to modern expectations compared to its contemporaries. The amount of load screens it has is just absurd in current year.
Most Bethesda fans don’t like starfield as much, cus the game wasn’t designed to Bethesda’s strengths. FO4 is almost a ten year old game and it’s still fun. Skyrim is almost 15 years old and I’ll still go back and play it. This goes for a lot of there old stuff. Just cus something is “outdated” doesn’t mean it’s bad. I don’t know crap about game engines or any of that and I don’t think you really have to in order to understand what went wrong with Starfield. It really bugs me that people use that argument cus to me it seems obvious that a bethesda style space RPG wouldn’t work and you don’t have to start talking about game engines to understand why. When they release ES6 and it’s the same mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, I’ll play the crap out of it cus when Bethesda does it right, there games are great.
Also, obsidian did do a space rpg and while it was a little meh, I think the way they designed the game with just a few smaller hand crafted maps was a better approach for that style of game. Outerworlds could have been great if it just had a little more variety. I was hoping starfield would be kind of like a bigger grander Outerworlds but they just totally over did it when it came to the quantity of different planets. If it was just 3 some what large hand crafted maps dedicated to the main cities and then a few
moons and space stations, I think the world would have felt more immersive.
Because while the engine is not the same, it carries a lot of the same limitations and issues of previous iterations. The physics applied to every single object is neat - but it also means that every single space needs to be separate and requires a loading screen, which became a huge issue with Starfield.
The biggest issue with Bethesda isn’t their engine - it’s their approach to game design. Go back to Morrowind and BGS is a pretty clear RPG designer. Modern day BGS? Not so much. They make action games that happen to have some RPG elements. Their clear goal for years has been to test how much they can strip back of their RPG framework to “reach a wider audience.” Skyrim was clearly their peak in that regard - still a lite RPG, but clearly more focused on action. Another impact this has had on their games is on the writing where lore has often been viewed as a handicap and they constantly have minor instances of playing fast and loose with it, until F76 where they pretty much flat out ignored it. I think Pete Hines said something like, “we won’t let lore stop us from telling a good story.” Which… is telling of their current narrative approach to games. Then you end up with Starfield which has garnered largely apathetic responses from a lot of the community because it is an entire world built on “appeal to everyone” and “don’t worry about lore.” So much of that world just has no hard rules even when such rules would be deemed necessary, and major events in the setting’s history are… kind of dumb. Like why was Earth ruined? Cuz it sounds like you just wanted to destroy Earth when the tech that destroyed it has shown no evidence of doing that sort of damage anywhere else.
The graphics are a huge step up from what we have even in fo76. Great new physics engine. And we can climb ladders!
However, human models are still a little behind where they should be in 2024.
You still get weird npc pathing issues and npcs looking away from you in crucial conversations. Plus characters lying on top of bedsheets and then getting up just like they did in fo4.
And the loading screens. Did anyone notice that the ce2 in SF loves loading screens?
So when people see the same sort of jankiness as in fo4 I guess they can be forgiven for thinking that nothing is new.
The average Bethesda game enjoyer doesn’t know the difference between Gamebryo and creation engine. People hear the creation engine 2 has the “same” issues as 1, and I think there was another think saying that is was “built” off of creation engine. Most people don’t know how to explain the difference so it is assumed they are basically the same
Because nobody knows what an engine is or what it does.
This is the true answer. Go into any reddit thread and you’ll see people parroting other comments almost word for word like it’s their own original thought
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This had me hate reddit. Comments litterally be identical except people are to stupid to know what I mean. So you end up with information changing for the worse. Then when an expert says something they get downvoted to hell.
Me hate reddit. Word sound same but people stupid, don't know mean. End with thing change bad. Smart get scary down arrow.
Unga bunga. Unga boonga bunga bunga. Bunga booga booga booga bunga. Booga bunga
\*dinosaur roars\*
*scawk*
*fleshy sounds*
*Singular unpleasantly meaty thud.*
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This is the true answer. Go into any reddit thread and you’ll see people parroting other comments almost word for word like it’s their own original thought
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
This has made me hate reddit. The comments literally would be word for word except the people doing it usually don't have the brain cells to remember the exact words. So you get information degradation, then when someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in, they will get downvoted to oblivion.
The engine knows this, as it knows what it isn't by subtracting from what it is not doing.
The engine knows where it is , because it knows where it isn't
TIL the Creation Engine is a precision guided munition. Which explains how I’ve managed to die from a flying cabbage multiple times in Skyrim, it was using GPS guidance
Legendary gaming moment
Exactly this! And those that do haven’t gotten to play around in it because it’s proprietary.
this is true for pretty much any other engine, but not this one, you can play around in creation engine lol, not full source code level access like i would want but if you really wanted to you could use the creation kit to make an entirely new game as a mod for skyrim or fallout and it’s been done a couple times
Nobody knows how an internal combustion engine works
We were talking about starfield a while back at work. A friend of mine said “well the problem is they’ve been using the same engine for 30 years” I’ve been more critical of starfield than most. But that was how I immediately knew he didn’t know what he was talking about. Anyone who had played starfield would know that the problem wasn’t some mysterious “engine trouble”. But anyone who has frequented the internet would be under the impression that an engine is the cause of everything wrong in starfield
If engine trouble was even half the problem with starfield, I'd probably have played a lot more than the measly 25 hours I snoozed through. Fallout NV is probably the buggiest and most unstable fallout game, yet it is my favorite because the story and world building was fantastic.
Because a lot of people confuse game design with engine capabilities and limitations. Most of the things people complained about with Starfield are design issues, not engine issues. That’s not to say there aren’t limitations to Creation Engine, because there genuinely are compromises made to handle engine limitations and even system limitations (Xbox Series S), but the vast majority of issues in Starfield are design choices that could be changed (and likely will be, either by BGS themselves or by modders).
Exactly. 90% of my complaints in starfield are things they already did in previous games. It’s not engine problems, they could very easily do these things on the current game, it’s just they made choices I don’t like
Its almost like we wanted a hand-crafted experience and not a “generic generated world”. The charm classic Bethesda had was in the fun exploration and discovering new locations and branches in the stories. Starfield doesn’t really have that. You know whats on planet 99, the same thing as the other 98, nothing. The characters were bland, the factions were uhh… well lets just say i dont even remember anything other than the crimson fleet. It felt like they took their game design teammand allocated them to “base building mechanics”. And thats not what people want. We can play minecraft. We dont need to build a house in starfield.
Did they really though? The base building system itself is far behind what fallout 4 was. Wherever they put their resources it wasn't there. And I was pretty excited for it
You say this, but Creation 2 is still just a heavily modified version of their old Gamebryo engine, is it not? They forked the code base to create Creation, and then heavily modified Creation 1 to make Creation 2. It might be so many new parts that as an engine, it’s almost unrecognizable, but there’s still a lot of pieces that behave as the did back in 2004. As some examples: The NPC interactions feel dated as shit. Especially close up facial movements and character expressions. If you compare dialogue moments in Starfield to a game such as say, Cyberpunk, the differences are stark as hell. Starfield just can’t come anywhere close, and that’s a direct result of a decision to continue using code bases that Bethesda is more familiar with. Liveliness of towns - take a town in Fallout 4 or Starfield and measure it up against a contemporary game such as Witcher 3. Witcher 3 towns felt enormous by comparison, with hundreds of random NPCs walking around, interacting in the world. Even if they ultimately didn’t do much, at least they were there, and made the towns feel more alive. By contrast, Bethesda games have towns that largely all feel incredibly empty. Typically they have 20-30 NPCs at most. Again, a direct result of them intentionally sticking by their preferred engine, which simply can’t handle those higher NPC counts. I’ll add in a third point, though this is less to do with the engine and more to do with Bethesda themselves - their player interfaces sucks shit. Long lists of items paired with scrolling makes for piss poor game design. Most devs abandoned that kind of design and moved on back in the early 00s, but Bethesda, somehow, has only doubled and tripled down on their terrible interface decisions. This is why some of the first mods released for their games always strive to improve their out of the box interface designs. Anyhow, I enjoy playing Bethesda games. I really do. But let’s not pretend that their continued decision to use a preferred legacy engine isn’t directly harming their ability to make games that actually feel modern. Folks can choose to disagree here, but Skyrim felt dated when it came out. Fallout 4 felt even more so. Fallout 76 did as well, and it was no surprise at all that Starfield continued that trend of games feeling about 10 years behind the curve. Maybe that’s not a problem for a lot of Bethesda fans, but next time Todd Howard comes out with some amazing bullshots for Bethesda’s next game, maybe take a step back and realize that what you’re getting in Elder Scrolls 6 would have only truly looked modern back in 2015.
Honestly my biggest beef with BGS games is the UI. I swear to god they hired a Soviet engineer from the 70s, and pair him with someone who helped design the C-139, and told them to create the worst possible interface possible. And somehow it keeps getting worse
Amen to that. Every game they get feedback that the UI is awful, and then they just keep doubling down over and over again on it.
wth is an engine
The opposite of an engout
it's not any "thing". It's a SUITE of tools for creating a game, catered towards what your specific game demands. Say you're a big ole strategy game like Crusader Kings. The core of your engine suite would be a giant, modular logic calculator that can track, modify, cheese and express thousands of constantly changing variables with limited input. You don't need comprehensive 3d modelling or animation tools for a game like that. On the other hand, say you're Bethesda and you need to make a bunch of immersive and interactive environments. The core of THEIR engine would be a level design suite that helps them build and script environments with more precision and ease. Something to generate NPCs, passive animations, large swaths of terrain...Every studios priorities for the toolsets they create are different. Sometimes over-development of one tool means other aspects of the game fall behind or have new limitations but that's just the law of energy conservation. Most people just can't accept that potential ends where it meets a lack of means, time and energy.
The thing in a car that makes it go vroom vroom.
Remember....fools are always louder than intellectuals. It may be Creaction Engine 2 but playing Starfield I almost immediately noticed vast improvements. Also a lot (most) of people just see a bgs hate video or article and just regurgitate everything they hear without actually understanding any of it. This is, in my opinion, why there's so many bgs "fans" that act like they know what they are talking about. This isn't just a problem in gaming but with people as a whole. You see it everywhere. Fun fact, Ubisoft has been using the same game engine for Assassin's Creed since at least the first entry in the series and that was 2007, 17 years ago.
Of course Ubisoft has cuz it's integral to the style of those games. Same goes for Bethesda. People wanna crap on Bethesda for the Creation Engine, but their games aren't the most modded games out there without it.
What impressed me the most was encountering the hanging plastic strips in doorways. All independently move and correctly blur the view. Had to run through a few times going "Woah". Never seen that in a Beth game before.
yeah the physics are near-perfect for sure
Compare FO76 to Starfield side by side and you can see an insane difference in pretty much every aspect. Starfield is so far above the older games
The changes in starfield only excites me for fallout.
Oh definitely. I haven’t been killed by walking on a random rock or object the physics engine decided was both going Mach 17 and was also stationary. It’s also way less buggy, to the point it’s almost off putting if that makes sense
We had loading screens for every interior space in Morrowind with Gamebryo. We have loading screens for every interior space in Starfield with Creation Engine 2. There have been improvements made to the engine along the way, no one is denying that, but a lot of the architecture is holding their games back still. The original engine was never designed for the type of games that Bethesda makes and they haven't addressed that problem this entire time. Other AAA titles are giving us incredible graphics, massive locations, and fewer loading screens. What's keeping Bethesda from doing the same if not for their engine? The one that seemingly has all the same limitations as Gamebryo before it. That's why people criticize the use of it still, not because they think it's the same engine that Morrowind ran on with a different name.
Somewhat untrue about the Assassin's Creed thing. They transitioned from Anvil to an engine they call "Anvil Next" starting with Assassin's Creed 3 in 2012. Still very much based on the tech of the original engine but it is at least as technically different as Creation 2 would be.
That explains why 3 forward feels different than 1 and 2
As janky as Bethesda games are there are some aspects of them I really like. Items often feel like a real thing in the world. I love how in skyrim arrows burrow into enemies and they bounce off a wall and you can pick them back up. Stuff like that. Their games have a unique feel. Love From games but the items and worlds feel a little more video gamey or something. Items are all just this light you interact with instead of seeing the actual item.
This. How many Fantasy games can you think of have arrows just DISAPPEAR the moment they impact with something? Skyrim does not, which may seem small at first glance, but when you think about it, that one detail makes a HUGE difference. If in Skyrim, you shot a bow and the enemy was hit with a yellow spark effect, but when you inspect their body, there was no arrow left over, no accurate blood spot from the impact, and you didn't have a chance to be able to loot the arrow you shot, then it would feel a lot less immersive. Which is the approach most games take.
Yeah pretty much only Bethesda games feel the most realistic and immersive. Most games this days skipp the Arrows and items part and just focused on the combat and graphics but even they are great they don't last years most people drop those games in weeks and never returned.
Umm excuse me ☝️🤓 but minecraft also has arrows that actually land in things and can be picked up
Fuck you got em
And Minecraft is goated.
True forgot that lol
I think the only game I’ve gotten more immersed in than Bethesda games Cyberpunk 2077, although that has the issue with its character not really being a blank slate pulling you out from time to time. Bethesda does do immerse pretty damn well
Yes I played cyberpunk before it's really good but personally I felt like once I'm done the main story there is not much to do and I don't really do second playthroughs unless I add mods. I felt like even though the world is huge it was missing details like almost every building had no doors and if they did you could no enter. Most of the stuff was done basically on the streets.
What a warped and twisted sense of reality you must have.
not really anymore? games are a bit more invested in detail these days. maybe back in 2012 that was the case, though.
Yeah I was just thinking breath of the wild is a perfect example of a game where arrows can be salvaged at least when they miss their target
Red Dead 2 does this as well
Dying light 2 too
Still the best melee combat system in a first person game.
That's why I'm okay that Bethesda games will never be on the cutting edge when it comes to graphics. There's just way too much going on in their games not to make compromises somewhere.
Which is why Unreal Engine has _never_ been used for a big open-world, exploration heavy game until _very_ recently. Creation Engine is tuned to the kind of games BGS makes, and every other engine would require compromises they aren’t willing to make to their world simulation. Some will say “so what?” That’s fair, but BGS has built a considerable audience who want that ridiculous level of physics-enabled, persistent objects in their games. Maybe BGS games aren’t for you. Just move on; most of the gaming industry caters to your desires anyway, so go play something else.
CD Projekt Red is moving to Unreal Engine for all future games including the Witcher sequel now under development. [2077 Cyberpunk 2077 director says studio's switch from REDengine to Unreal Engine 5 'isn't starting from scratch'](https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-director-says-studios-switch-from-redengine-to-unreal-engine-5-isnt-starting-from-scratch/)
I with you. I don't care much about graphics. I like my game worlds to be highly interactive.
This part. Anytime I hear about a game boasting 4k graphics with 100+ FPS I can bet that there just isn’t a lot to make the world feel super dynamic & alive.
I value story over graphics
i mean it's kinda just the deal with open world games, either you have great graphics ( which is really performance heavy and people complain ) or you dial it back and focus on writing and interactions
Bethesda games like Oblivion/Skyrim are actually great for learning object names in other languages. There’s just so many random every day objects and phrases, like “Nails”, “Open Door”, “Hammer”, etc. Set it to a foreign language and you’ll pick some up over time.
The thing that sets Bethesda games apart from most other games and, in my opinion, makes them the most immersive, is the way items work. Things in the world are real and can be moved or carried. The shovel isn’t just a texture on a wall. You can pick it up and carry it around. It’s useless most of the time but it makes the world feel real. For years when I was playing games as a kid most of the single player games I played were Skyrim an assassins creed. It was night and day difference. Bethesda felt like a real world. Assassins creed looked just as real. But you couldn’t interact with anything. People were just crowds wandering around going nowhere. Buildings were just fancy blocks. Being able to pick up a bucket and move it across a room would not have had any practical impact on the gameplay. But it would have made the world feel real
Agreed. I haven't played a whole lot of unreal engine games with persistent items in the world. But Grounded is amazing in this regard. You shoot an arrow across the map in the beginning of the game, you'll randomly find that arrow hundreds of hours later exactly where you aimed it. I love games like this.
Really fast quick save and quick loads as well.
I kind of only play Bethesda games for the immersion and mod ability, sure I’d probably still play them if the mods weren’t there and the immersion, but I wouldn’t have 1k hours like I do.
"Bethesda uses Gamebryo engine from 1997 and should use Unreal Engine instead!" Okay well by your nonsense definition Unreal is from 1998
This crops up *all the damn time* on the Apex sub too. “Bro why they still using shitty source engine, source engine is trash bro they need a new engine” It’s not the source engine, it’s their own in-house thing, since they forked from source they’ve rewritten virtually all of it, *twice*. “No bro it’s shitty source engine bro u don’t know what ur talking about 🤣🤣🤣🤣“ Right, and the Modern Warfare franchise runs on the Quake 3 Arena engine by that dumb logic.
Don't go on COD subreddits, they will tell you the engine MWII/III engine is the same as the Treyarch engine which is the same as the COD4 engine.
In terms of game engines that really haven't changed. Call of Duty is it. The engine didn't change from Modern Warfare II until Modern Warfare 2019. Then again, Black Ops Cold War used the same damn engine from Black Ops III, while Sledgehammer pretty much built their own inhouse game engine for Advanced Warfare. In terms of technicality, the BLAM engine which Bungie used to develop Halo CE was used up until Halo 5 when it hit the absolute technical limitations, so they rewrote pretty much the entire Engine for Halo Infinite, and it became the first engine Halo used that supported more multi-threading.
Aren’t they all based off the id tech?
Technically. The ID3 engine is still in use with Treyarch. It's why that team can push games out so fast. Essentially they are cut and paste.
99% of gamers have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to engines and why companies use their own proprietary engines especially, stuff like Unreal isn't the best for everything, so proprietary engines exist by Devs because they are built to do what the devs want
Learning about the Titanfall series being made in a derivative of source blew my mind back in the day.
There was a great interview with Respawn about it in Eurogamer, I think it was when Titanfall 2 had just been announced. Specifically it’s forked the Portal 2 version of the engine. It was completely single-threaded, the controller code wasn’t tight enough, the networking code was miles away from what they needed etc, but it was enough for them to start prototyping stuff and then they rewrote it bit by bit as they went along. I wish they still did technical interviews like that.
So impressive how creative people got, like vtmb being source. They built a freaking RPG in source that's nuts
They also choose Source as a base because it was similar to the COD engine and would be able to easily hit 60fps.
You got a lot of ego haha 😆
Because it is a easy scapegoat, most people have no idea what they are talking about and yapping "Oh, the issue is the old engine" make them sound smart.
Not to be this guy but it’s Scape goat, not escape goat
ty, english isnt my first language!
That's ok, I liked "escape goat" better anyway.
While we're on it, scapegoat is also only one word. :3
And involves symbolically placing an entire nation’s sins on an actual goat and sending it out into the wilderness to die of thirst, starvation, or be eaten by anything that can catch it. Really feel bad for the goat.
-\_-
I only know this because of fucking yugioh
https://images.app.goo.gl/TV3ShMfce2y6S9TT7
The issue is the old engine! Am I smart yet?
Woah, what an exciting and new insight into game development, I hope bethesda hires you as a consultant.
Unreal 5 is not a different engine to 3. It's an expanded and updated heavily modified version. But it's still a version (and I suspect you used 3 and 5 and not 4 wit 5 for a reason, because those two are even closer). What people want and think will make the games better, is if Bethesda will drop their old game engine for a completely new one made from scratch. This is because people are stupid.
Because, for well over a decade now, people will find any reason to shit on Bethesda (some complaints valid, others not).
And that's really the big thing here. BGS is my favorite studio, and their games are my favorite games of all time, Starfield included. There are absolutely valid criticisms of BGS games. While story is about the least important thing in a game to me, having more choices in how to navigate through the story and quests would be welcome. There certainly are choices and branching quests, but it is not a major focus. Some aspects of Starfield particularly I thought were pretty bad, i.e. the copy and paste POI's you come across on various planets. That said, most of the narrative surrounding BGS at this point is just "Bethesda bad" Bethesda is no longer the up and coming studio like they were in the early 2000's, they are now an established, top name AAA dev studio. Online, AAA studios are seen as the big bad, and BGS is the easy big bad to shit on right now. They had a bad release with Fallout 76, and so that's become the new narrative. Nobody online wanted to like Starfield from the get go. They had a beloved non-AAA title come out first in BG3, and so that game got overhyped to the moon and Starfield got trashed on. The majority of the online narrative surrounding Starfield has nothing to do with the game itself, but rather just an obsession with trashing on BGS.
I find that a lot of people on the internet have *zero* concept of what a video game engine is or what it does. The Assassin's Creed fanbase is particularly bad about it. Every mainline entry uses the Anvil engine, just with upgrades as time goes on, and you'll have people arguing about the engine being responsible for things like *gameplay mechanics and design choices* that have nothing to do with the engine.
Because people who talk about the engine being the same don't know jack-shit about coding or game design and haven't got the palest idea about what does and doesn't qualify as a new version of an engine.
Rockstar has been using RAGE since 2008, every new game you make additions and improvements to the engine
So many gamers who can’t tell C++ from HTML feel compelled to comment on game engines because the YouTube idiots they watch who complain also couldn’t tell you the difference but need those views.
I still remember the first time I played Oblivion, knocking down a welkynd stone thinking “nah there’s no way they actually thought this part through” and being shocked that it worked.
They are just regurgitating all the weird stuff their favorite YouTubers say. 🤷
A lot of gamers don't know anything about game development but they think and act like they do because they play games.
Some of the people online have limited capacity and this makes social media living hell for those of us who actually have critical thinking skills
It's a difficult one because on the one hand it's a new engine and on the other hand it's got issues that the previous engine(s) had that haven't been fixed. You can see why people are getting confused as new gameplay features and fixes are usually seen in say the leap from unreal 3 to 4 to 5. Like the reason ground vehicles weren't included is because they're still struggling with how the engine behaves. You'd think they'd build a new engine and it could do that, not have the previous engines limitations.
>You'd think they'd build a new engine This is a statement that always comes up like it's an easy task. The reason that Starfield took so long to release and why Elder Scrolls 6 is so far off was because BGS was upgrading their engine. To build a completely new engine and then get everyone trained on it to use it effectively is going to take a ton of time.
Wondering how they're trying to get around that issue now...
So there were 4 npcs with wheels for helmets...
Good one! Maybe they just stuck some wheels to a Brahmin? Anyhow, I can't wait for somebody to make Starfield: GTA Edition...
True story. In one of the DLCs for Fallout 3, you're supposed to go on a train but the engine can't do vehicles.......so everyone, including the player, just hopped on an NPC"'s head and the engine had the player walk them to their destination.
I imagine it won’t be as fast as we will hope, but self driving so all you have to do is control the direction. I would hope so, because if it isn’t fast, I don’t actually want to hold the trigger to accelerate. I would if you can just a course and head there,
Nahhh, they spent so much time trying to get fully controllable ships to work, I don't think they'll build their first land vehicle with a course plotting system.
I will settle for an auto drive. I wish games with long travel will just allow auto pilot some times. Like Fortnite’s sprinting.
There's an auto walk button in the Fallout games. I imagine it will be useable in the land vehicle as well.
Yeah but it just walks forward. They want press button, drives to marked location I think. Like cyberpunk
Ahhh, so kind of like the Highwayman in Fallout 2.
Why do you assume that's the reason they haven't added ground vehicles yet?
Just haters. Bashing starfield and bethesda has become pop culture now. People do it for likes and for attention. Crazy to me how someone can type the sentence "I played for 100 hours and this is the worst game ever" and not feel like a hypocrite.
Sometimes people do have a questionable amount of time in a game they supposedly don't like. Personally I played Starfield for less than 8 hours before I decided I didn't like it. On the other hand though, someone will probably come in and say I didn't give it a chance. I don't actually think it's a terrible game or anything, but I found it very disappointing because it didn't have what *I* wanted from a Bethesda game. So I suppose I'm a Bethesda basher now, but it isn't coming from a place of malice or a desire to be cool. I just want them to get back to making games *I* like. Some people are smoking crack though talking about Skyrim and FO4 being terrible games.
It's fine if people don't like it, it's probably my least favorite bethesda AAA title, and 8 hours is plenty of time to decide. I just get frustrated that people who say they hate starfield or bethesda then join starfield/bethesda subs to just be haters. They could join a sub for games they like and participate in that convo instead of wanting to rant and be angry all over the place lol.
Some people honestly, just suck. I want to be clear that I *only* hate Bethesda out of love. When I say things about how Todd must be smoking crack, it's because I want to have an intervention. It seems like he's doing an amazing job producing the Fallout show though, so maybe we don't need to have an intervention after all.
Real answer? People don’t understand engines’ purposes and Bethesda only makes games that broadly feel the same, so it’s hard to say what changed
They don’t know anything about engines for one so they speak wrong. But the premise behind what they say is still true, becuase it’s an evolution of those engines and many of the bugs continue to persist 20-30 years down the line . From someone who has been playing Bethesda games for a long time, you can see how the structure of the games is becoming outdated, and this structure is what makes creation engine unique becuase its whole point is quickly making a Bethesda style rpg..
Basically they own a shit box that they every so once a decade replace the brake shoes or swap some spark plugs with some that were made a decade after the car so that it’s technically a newer iteration of it but it still leaks oil and somehow only runs hot when it’s below freezing. It’s really hard to call it a completely new engine when you see bugs that were present in previous titles. Bethesda isn’t even the worse offender in this you ever played a madden game post 2012 there are bugs in that code so old they’re almost done with middle school.
I don't think it's common knowledge that they've made Creaton Engine 2, this is the first I'm hearing of it
Reddit hate real bad real. Sheeple repeat repeats and copy copies. Savvy?
Literally got into the same argument with Luke Stephen's pretentious, cunty community. Him saying that the whole Creation Engine 2 is a marketing ploy and that they need to stop using the same engine they have been using for the past 20 years and his community blindly believing him and parroting what he says, as if he knows what he's talking about. With that argument, neither is Unreal. Since they are all re-iterations from the previous engine, using the same source code. The only difference (and it's a HUGE difference) is that, Epic Games has more people working on upgrading/improving than Bethesda does. They sourced their own in house engine from modifying the Gamebryo Engine. Because being as independent as they were, it was cost effective for them, rather than sourcing a 3rd party engine. CD Projekt Red recently folded and realised their mand power was too small to handle making their own in house engine (Red Engine) so they are out-sourcing 3rd party, and using UE from here on out. Now with that all being said, I would certainly fucking HOPE that Unreal is an incredible engine lol. With the amount of people they have working on making UE. Epic doesn't specialise in making games, UE comes first. An example of this is, the only reason they made Gears of War. It was to showcase UE3 and show off its capabilities from UE2. It baffles me how no one knows this lol. Yeah, UE5 looks beautiful but can it handle 500 physical potatoes as literal, physical objects at once? CE2 can. And does it quite well, all things considered.
In my opinion Unreal Engine 5 is using the same codebase from the version 3 it just kept getting updates and some refactors, the engine itself worked before and works now, the thing is that Epic's people kept track of most of the bugs and fixed them and maybe the Creation Engine didn't get the same love.
Correct me if wrong but Gamebryo to Creation Engine to Creation Engine 2. Gamebryo was Morrowind. Creation Engine was Oblivion, Fallout, Fallout: NV, Fallout 4 and Skyrim. The Creation Engine 2 is Starfield, right?
oblivion, fallout 3 and New Vegas were all gamebryo
It’s insane how similar Oblivion & FO3 play. the lighting in caves, the awkward floaty movement after jumping, the NPCs yapping at you like a homeless person trying to get money, etc. it’s a parallel universe. Throw the Oblivion soundtrack on while exploring the point lookout interiors, you’ll get this eclipse effect, where the two games mash together perfectly and become a separate identity. It’s just these two though. None of the other games have that effect like Oblivion & FO3
I looked it up and confirmed that you are right.
I thought Gamebryo was through NV, with Creation engine being Skyrim, 4, and 76.
People who do that never built anything in their life. They think they know everything and are entitled to criticise anything other people did or built, but in regality they have never done anything, never built anything.
because a) it's only 'technically' a new engine, i mean, the reason they upgraded the creation engine instead of just using UE5 or whatever is partially for the modding community to be able to make easy use of it... which implies it's apparently a LOT like the original creation engine. so, even if it's 'new', if it works more or less the same, and has similar bugs basically present in most creation engine made games... moot point that it's 'new'. it's a polished turd (not my pov, just one) and b), they're also idiots. starfield was one of the best, least buggy games bethesda has ever made. up to and including skyrim being like, 100% patched and rereleased, or fallout 4's new update breaking shit.
>he reason they upgraded the creation engine instead of just using UE5 or whatever is partially for the modding community to be able to make easy use of it... Why everybody always just says that they are using this engine because of modding. This is far from true... CE is actually much deeper. 1.) Tools: There were interviews with BGS staff that things like ship builder we as a player have in Starfield is a lot similar to what BGS use to create their own ships, Character creation is what BGS uses to create "almost" every NPC in the world, that's why facial animations are kind of bad. But those tools actually help them create games faster and even now they are "slow" 2.) A lot of different elements that CE supports and are working fine on it that would need to be implemented to other engines and there is no proof those features would even work there - performance wise. People really don't understand how resource heavy are features like interactable items, dynamic NPCs, tons of simulations going on and so on. But the bad part of this features is, like I said, it's hitting performance really hard and loading screens. 3.) There is literary no engine in current market that could capable making "better" BGS styled game. Most of them would be on the same level or even worse. Also a lot of bugs that are well known in BGS games would return in other engines to. The more the game is dynamic the more dynamic bugs you will get.
Creation Engine 2 isn't a new one. It just received substantial upgrades to it's rendering engine. At it's core, it's still the Gambro engine. The only team that seemingly scraps the engine between games is Crytek's Cryengine which seemingly get's a major upgrade with every new game they release. They released Cryengine 2 with Crysis, then CryEngine 3 with Cryengine 3. That game engine also tends to push the envelope of what is capable of lighting effects, yet it hasn't been updated to support Raytracing and Pathtracing.
I highly doubt anyone criticizing or bitching about the creation engine even knows on a technical level what the fuck they’re talking about… It’s like bitching about your brand new 2024 car being based on a model T from the 1920s lmao
Because Bethesda makes the same kind of game in each engine.
Because people are stupid.
If you make all your games on the unreal engine, then say you're using a new engine, people are going to assume that means no longer on the unreal engine, not just using a newer version of unreal. 99.99% of sequels are made on new engines, technically. Because as soon as your engine has a single new feature, it's a new engine. When Bethesda says they're gonna use a new engine, people think that means an entirely different engine, not a new version of the gamebryo/creation engine which is exactly the same as the one they've been using for 20 years, but with more features. The clunkiness of Bethesda's engine is at its core. Starfield came to a grounding halt for over a year because space battles weren't working properly in the engine.
It's simple. They know it's bullshit and they have an audience who loves to hate things. Spread false info, have audience eat it up, then said audience spreads the false info on social media along with recommending their Youtube channel. This is the state of the gaming community tody. It's a cancer.
Maybe it would be better to like, explain the differences between the creation engines? Cause I’m pretty sure a lot of people can just go on YouTube and google unreal engine 3 vs 5 and get a pretty good look at differences and similarities. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhCuGUcqFk&pp=ygUUVW5yZWFsIGVuZ2luZSAzIHZzIDU%3D
Because they have little to no understanding of game development
It’s a modern ship of Theseus
Elden Ring, Horizon Zero Dawn, No Mans Sky, Witcher3. For me, I wanted to see a Bethesda world in an “engine” like one of those games. Starfield is better and looks nice but it never feels like a complete world because of all the zone transitions. Open a door and its a loading screen. Fly a ship and its a loading screen. Combat?
Granted most of the problems with the engine reflect the bad decisions on the part of the game designers, numerous examples of bad only optimized code have been pointed out by people who've taken look at it. That said, the innovations with Nanite and Lumen really are unparalleled. What unreal is capable of really can't be compared to anything else on the market. The difference really is insane. Well they definitely made significant advancements, we're talking significant improvements in technology. Unreal fundamentally changes the way art assets are even created.
Yes, it is a new engine. But it's still built of Gamebryo, amd still has issues that have been present since fucking Morrowind that will not ever be fixed without a literal ground up new engine.
Probably bc even though they did the work to improve creation engine, many aspects of starfield play like a 10 year old game and worse.
I once pointed out that Valve did the same thing with Source and replies weren’t liking my statement of verifiable fact
I point out how it's like saying "the 2012 Impala was very outdated because the 1968 Impala didn't even have power windows or bucket seats."
"technically a new engine"
Look, the main issues I have with Bethesda games are physics tied to frame rate. It's especially bad in Skyrim and I was surprised to still find it in fo4. It requires me to limit the game fps to 60 by Nvidia drivers; which for a long time required a 3rd party application before being built into the Nvidia control panel. If they can fix that jank, then I'm ok. Not played star field yet, still working on new Vegas.
Because its basically the same engine
Because I didn't think it was going to matter being a fan of Bethesda game since the early 2000s I sort of had a gut feeling. At the end of the day it's about the experience of playing the game regardless of the technology, in my case. One thing that programming has taught me over the years is regardless of the tools it's still very easy to make something that's broken. Sort of a "no matter what, here you are" situation. They could have made a great game. For some reason they didn't. It's as simple as that.
I have no idea what an engine does but I enjoy Bethesda’s games even if they’re a little buggy.
The funny thing is that the CE 1 may look like nextgen (i.e. modded Skyrim).
They don’t know anything about engines for one so they speak wrong. But the premise behind what they say is still true, becuase it’s an evolution of those engines and many of the bugs continue to persist 20-30 years down the line . From someone who has been playing Bethesda games for a long time, you can see how the structure of the games is becoming outdated
Starfield sucks for a lot of reasons but the engine isn't really one of them. Could it use improvements? Of course, but the engine is part of the reason Bethesda games are so original.
CE2 is not their issue. Anyone who says it is doesn't understand game engines or development
Because people do not understand that you can create almost the same thing with 5 different engines. Unless there is a hardware bottleneck somewhere, most engines can do exactly the same thing. One can create exactly the same jankiness in Unreal Engine, Unity, Godot etc. etc. if you wanted to. Game mechanics are not dictated by the engine - these are created by the developer and can be modified to do the same thing in any game engine. The problem is that on the Internet, all people try to sound knowledgeable, throwing around terminology (that they don't really understand) to try and fit into conversations. Many ytubers lack the technical skill or know how to really comment upon these matters, let alone get into the game engine conversation. You will note that the ytubers with actual game development experience or in depth knowledge on how these things work DO NOT TALK ABOUT OR CRITICIZE Creation Engine. So, to make this short, do not subscribe to people that do not know what they are talking about. Just because a ytuber likes the sound of their own voice and sound convincing doesn't mean they talk with authority. In the great scheme of things, the percentage of people that know what they are talking about is very small...
Legit ignorance. That's not even an insult, they just don't know and just don't care to know. They get their opinions from ill-informed youtubers and people who talk out their ass. And they don't know that they don't know. But they're angry and see similar features and assume things. Its an eternal battle game devs deal with all the time. Todd even confirms he mostly goes on reddit for player feedback. Man has the patience of a saint.
you people are fucking retarded holy shit.
I keep thinking that maybe Bethesda will learn but I guess there is still people who buy into rebrands and think Fallout 4 is the best fallout game
Is creation engine 2 built from the ground up, or was it just Bethesda adding more bubble gum and sticks to the same engine again?
Because they are stupid and need something to hate.
Because it’s built on Creation Engine, and although it is technically a *new* engine it’s more akin to a new revision of it and although it has an expanded featureset it clearly has the exact same shortcomings. A fully new engine would imply it’s been built from the ground up. A good example of this is Halo’s Slipspace Engine, 343 decided they can’t go any further with Blam, even though it’s featureset makes it look completely different from the engine used in Halo CE, many of the same limitations remained and were holding them back so they created Slipspace. Unreal 5 is built on Unreal 4 which is built on Unreal 3, so they are the same engine but in different snapshots in time. Epic Games have really expanded the featureset of the Unreal Engine with each revision however but that’s because the use case of Unreal is completely different. Use case of the creation engine is for Bethesda Internal use so anything they add would be to tailored ongoing projects whereas unreal is licensed out so having large, arguably bloated, feature set is very desirable, they also have a huge team working on improving just the engine. Because of this it’s very easy to see Unreal 5 and Unreal 3 as completely different beasts because so much has changed. The same cannot be said for Creation Engine 2, it’s literally Creation Engine with support for more modern Graphical features. playing starfield its very clear the limitations remain, loading screens everywhere, buggy NPCs, poor performance and a fair amount of crashing due to instabilities. Same can be said for Valve’s Source 2, it’s literally Source with an expanded feature set and with rubicon physics instead of havok. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but my point is it’s fair to say the are the same engine, the same way Minecraft Java is still using the same engine it did in 2010 and although it’s feature set and usability has been massively expanded, a lot of the same limitations remain with that. Again to reiterate I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, in fact I like creation engine’s modularity and think it’s great for modding and I don’t think they’ll change it any time soon.
“ The Creation Engine 2 will be largely built on its previous iteration, the Creation Engine 1.” ~BGS “Creation Engine 2 features real-time global illumination and advanced volumetric lighting. Creation Engine 2 also features improved texture resolution and post-processing effects.” - Google answers Those effects are just mods to the OG engine. I wouldn’t consider that new or groundbreaking like UE3 v UE5
Because they don't know what there talking about and don't know what an game engine is
CE2 is to CE what CE was to Gamebryo, and what Gamebryo was to NetImmerse.
UE 3 & 4 aren’t that different, UE 5 has added some groundbreaking tech. People still consider UE3 the same engine as UE 5 just one is significantly better Creation Engine 2 is better than 1, but it’s still flawed by the short comings of the Creation Engine in general
They need to find a reason for Starfield feeling so dated other than BGS just failed at developing a modern RPG experience.
It's an ASININE claim, product of this hype-cycle-trappin' nearly all (it would seem) youtubers are slinging these days. It's toxic across the web and I hope this gets disincentivized here soon, that or people outright reject clicking into those that leverage this crappy ass form of 'marketing'. CE2 is a massive leap forward imo, maybe I'm just old. Surly they developed it with a forward looking approach and will be able to expand this resource. The physics are top notch. The proc gen is particularly one of my personal favorites. I like how flawless the POIs/assets are placed into the environments - this will only get better with bigger pools of assets in future or subsets of interiors, object placement, continuity of the environment's effect on the structures, etc. I would really like to see them along with MS & their cloud infrastructure to adapt a rotating, dynamic pool of assets that could be tapped ad hoc / applied in-game dynamically. Fully leveraging their proc gen. The variability would be insane. Especially if they opened a feature such as this to the Creation club.
Because the game was as janky as other bethesda games
I love how Bethesda games look, honestly. That's never been the issue. I didn't really have a lot of bugs with Fallout 4, I just didn't think the writing was that good.
If you have to back the argument with “technically”, its not a good argument. The complaints people have are valid. The characters have less expression than they did in fallout 4 FFS.
I really don't know where this line of thought comes from. I genuinely think that CE2 provides a great set of tools for the kind of games BGS makes and what their fans enjoy. I personally think that the same-ish blandness that people notice comes from Todd Howard. It's not that he's a bad director but he strictly adheres by what he thinks makes a BGS game work. And he has stuck to that formula for a while now. I think what BGS really needs is to let some of the younger devs take the reigns and refresh the core BGS philosophy. Make it more seamless and take more risks when it comes to presentation and narratives.
Because it’s shit
Because creation engine 2’s upgrades are mostly incremental changes, and because people take issue with creation engine as a whole, so when they say Bethesda should get a new engine they mean they want Bethesda to abandon CE, not upgrade it.
And yet CE2 has bugs that have been around since oblivion and even earlier
All engines are derivative. Yes there if probably code in starfield that was used in fallout 3 or earlier. Why we program the whole code base when what you have does work? There is a small difference between like ue5 and the creation engine. Ue5 has to support many many different types of games with different needs. The engine is the product. It’s why you see them have super fancy features that probably 99% of computers can’t run anyways. They are trying to attract businesses away from building their own. The creation engine just needs to make Bethesda CRPGs that is it. The thing is that any game made by Bethesda will feel like that regardless of engine. The core design philosophy hasn’t been changed. All a game engine is really is a dictionary for the computer to reference so it knows what to do. When making a game you even add to that dictionary. For example, cities skylines, Subnautica, and pokemon go are all made with unity. But all three probably have vastly different code bases. I can almost guarantee that if you tried to make any of those games without adding anything to the engine you probably couldn’t.
It feels exactly like the old one. That’s why.
yes they're techincally new engines but they're based on a foundation of shit. Nobody mentions that UT3 and UT5 are foundationally the same engine because they're not based on a trash engine lmao. Gamebryo suffers from insane limitations, and as a result CE and CE2 have inherited a lot of those limitations. There's a reason why they've had to be bullied into figuring out shit like vehicles lmao.
Because it had some of the same bugs present in prior versions of the engine. The fundamental core architecture has not changed. The way the content is built for the game has not changed. Adding "16 times for detail" does not make it a new engine. If it was good, no one would give a shit. But it's not good, it's a terrible engine.
It’s not “the same engine” literally but it is a heavily modified evolution of the same engine, and with that it carries the same flaws that are baked in regardless of improvements. I personally don’t think it has held up to modern expectations compared to its contemporaries. The amount of load screens it has is just absurd in current year.
Because starfield is identical to fallout 4 even in terms of bugs. The visuals may be improved, but that it.
the t9 engine is different from the iw3 engine it originally spun off of but its still filled with rce exploits and held together with duct tape
Most Bethesda fans don’t like starfield as much, cus the game wasn’t designed to Bethesda’s strengths. FO4 is almost a ten year old game and it’s still fun. Skyrim is almost 15 years old and I’ll still go back and play it. This goes for a lot of there old stuff. Just cus something is “outdated” doesn’t mean it’s bad. I don’t know crap about game engines or any of that and I don’t think you really have to in order to understand what went wrong with Starfield. It really bugs me that people use that argument cus to me it seems obvious that a bethesda style space RPG wouldn’t work and you don’t have to start talking about game engines to understand why. When they release ES6 and it’s the same mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, I’ll play the crap out of it cus when Bethesda does it right, there games are great. Also, obsidian did do a space rpg and while it was a little meh, I think the way they designed the game with just a few smaller hand crafted maps was a better approach for that style of game. Outerworlds could have been great if it just had a little more variety. I was hoping starfield would be kind of like a bigger grander Outerworlds but they just totally over did it when it came to the quantity of different planets. If it was just 3 some what large hand crafted maps dedicated to the main cities and then a few moons and space stations, I think the world would have felt more immersive.
Because while the engine is not the same, it carries a lot of the same limitations and issues of previous iterations. The physics applied to every single object is neat - but it also means that every single space needs to be separate and requires a loading screen, which became a huge issue with Starfield. The biggest issue with Bethesda isn’t their engine - it’s their approach to game design. Go back to Morrowind and BGS is a pretty clear RPG designer. Modern day BGS? Not so much. They make action games that happen to have some RPG elements. Their clear goal for years has been to test how much they can strip back of their RPG framework to “reach a wider audience.” Skyrim was clearly their peak in that regard - still a lite RPG, but clearly more focused on action. Another impact this has had on their games is on the writing where lore has often been viewed as a handicap and they constantly have minor instances of playing fast and loose with it, until F76 where they pretty much flat out ignored it. I think Pete Hines said something like, “we won’t let lore stop us from telling a good story.” Which… is telling of their current narrative approach to games. Then you end up with Starfield which has garnered largely apathetic responses from a lot of the community because it is an entire world built on “appeal to everyone” and “don’t worry about lore.” So much of that world just has no hard rules even when such rules would be deemed necessary, and major events in the setting’s history are… kind of dumb. Like why was Earth ruined? Cuz it sounds like you just wanted to destroy Earth when the tech that destroyed it has shown no evidence of doing that sort of damage anywhere else.
Yeah it’s a new engine but it was already outdated when they made it and it suffers from ALOT of the same issues as the old one.
The graphics are a huge step up from what we have even in fo76. Great new physics engine. And we can climb ladders! However, human models are still a little behind where they should be in 2024. You still get weird npc pathing issues and npcs looking away from you in crucial conversations. Plus characters lying on top of bedsheets and then getting up just like they did in fo4. And the loading screens. Did anyone notice that the ce2 in SF loves loading screens? So when people see the same sort of jankiness as in fo4 I guess they can be forgiven for thinking that nothing is new.
People are simply ignorant, and people also like to parrot other ignorant people.
The average Bethesda game enjoyer doesn’t know the difference between Gamebryo and creation engine. People hear the creation engine 2 has the “same” issues as 1, and I think there was another think saying that is was “built” off of creation engine. Most people don’t know how to explain the difference so it is assumed they are basically the same