this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
133 points (96.5% liked)
Gaming
20004 readers
41 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, the yearly ritual continues. Bethesda makes a game that needs bug fixing, let's the players fix it with mods, then B tries getting players to pay for the mods in the hopes they can finally charge money for mods that are needed to fix the game.
Classic Todd. Can't wait until he quits making games. Bethesda might actually use a new game engine besides the Creation Engine.
Just call it what it really is: Gamebryo.
The Creation Engine is not bad. It's very purpose built for RPGs and has all the frameworks for worlds, NPC AI behaviour, quests, dialogue trees etc already in it.
It also has in-built support for creating addons, which is why the modding scene is so robust.
You should install the Creation Kit on Steam to check it out.
Imo it’s not about having a new engine, it’s that they don’t make enough changes to it and it’s very apparent. On launch, their games are some of the most lackluster games visually. I remember the update from Skyrim to fallout was just that they added god rays to the engine, that was basically the only difference.
Then Fallout 76 came out and not only was it extremely ill equipped for multiplayer and online, but graphically the game suffered.
Then we talk about the quest systems in the engine, and that’s great and all, but the quest systems haven’t been fundamentally updated since Oblivion came out. Go play any other RPG, they’re running circles around Bethesda in quest design.
What’s worse is that Starfield was met with mixed reviews and showcased their inability to modernize their engine with the loading screen problem. So ES6 is set up to make or break Bethesda.
What you described are game design issues. The art is always only as good as the artist who makes it and the Bethesda game design team are not very good (or perhaps Todd is a mediocre director since he is directly responsible for almost all aspects of the game).
If you see how ENB and Sweetfx enhance the visuals you know that the engine is capable of much more. There is a mod called Enderal which is a total conversion of Skyrim that uses the same engine but improves the visual in almost all aspects: better models, better post processing, new game mechanics, etc. There is also a team working on porting Vampire The Masquerade Redemption to the Skyrim engine with all new assets (guns, etc).
So basically Bethesda games being mediocre is due to a mediocre team and direction. Even if they start using Unreal their games will still be mediocre.
Edit: Before someone points it out, I know that ENB is not a part of the Creation Engine, but an external postprocessor that hooks into the DirectX API and modifies the rendered output. I was just saying that Bethesda could use something like this to enhance the lacklustre visuals but they deliberately chose not to perhaps due to their artistic vision for the game.
This is sort’ve true but post processing isn’t where the game struggles per se. Both Skyrim and Fallout 4 lacked LOD lighting and featured prominent Z-fighting of many textures, that’s an inherent way that the LODs are calculated in the engine.
So most of what I’m talking about like lackluster quest design and poor visuals aren’t unfixable by the engine, but they’re direct results of developing using it. The quest structures are mostly the same as they have been for decades.
And yes, they could easily code something like an ENB mod but they just don’t. They’re so bad at this in fact that they can’t even get proper anti-aliasing working. If I remember right, Fallout used TAA and it was so awful that I preferred a 3rd party FXAA to their solution.
Also to be fair, ENB is similar to other graphics injectors which aren’t new on the block but you dont really want to use an injector so they’d have to code something like an ENB into their DLL and that would affect the engine so they don’t do it. It needs a big update to add stuff like that and this will be the third game they haven’t bothered to significantly change it.
Makes sense. Though I would still rather they not abandon the Creation Engine and improve its underlying technical features. The modding community has more than a decade of experience with its underlying subsystems and what actually contributes to the robust modding scene of Bethesda's games.
Hi, Bugthesda employee! Poppa Todd forced you to expand the totes-not-publicity to the fediverse, did he?
I'd rather have the easily moddable engine it's on now than turn their games into cut and paste UE5 clones with no mods.
I very much agree with what you are saying. If the engine changes we will lose mods, or at the very least there will be significantly fewer. I don't make a habit of playing many games from 2012... except for Skyrim. I also dont play many games from 2001, except for Morrowind. I will spend hours or even days setting up a modding environment. Please let me have that for future Bethesda titles.
Also people calling us folks that like user-made mods shills, when they are trying to force a shift to the very much corporate owned Unreal Engine is funny.
You very much missed the point of my comment. After the "professional" response the public got when leaving very justified negative feedback on Starfield, I now don't trust any comment supporting Gamebryo to not be a Bethesda employee. Nor was I advocating for shifting to Unreal, it was the next person who brought up a different engine which I said I'd prefer since it's reliable. I don't really care what engine the next Fallout is made with, for example, so long as it isn't made in Gamebryo by a bunch of hacks.
You seem alright and I agree that gamebryo is typically crash heavy. I really didn't mean it as an attack on you personally and apologize for conflating your opinion with someone else's.
I do feel very strongly that whatever engine they use should support user generated mods, but let's be real, I probably won't have the time to spend on it anyway.
Personally, I'd rather have games that "just work" like the ones on UE5. I guess I'm weird that way.
Whether a game is buggy or not depends on the competency of the developers building the game, not the engine.
The engine is just a platform, like a canvas to an artist. How effectively it is used depends on the skill of the person using it.
It's both.
The architectural decisions are at the engine level and that stuff has a massive influence on the likelihood of bugs in the code running in that engine.
For example, traditional Unity (not ECS) runs all game code (so the code provided by those coding the game) in a single thread, which avoids A TON of multi threading bugs (as that's one of the hardest parts in programming to master) but is very bad for performance in multi-core CPUs. Game programmers can fire up separate threads using the standard libraries of the programming language itself and manage them, but everything in the development framework that's part of the engine pushes them to use that single-threaded model, so only advanced devs bother and only for very specific things.
Also the choice of programming language forced by the engine itself has a huge impact in the likelihood of bugs, but since I don't want to start a Holy War I'm not going to star pointing fingers at specific languages and criticizing them ;)
True, resolving bugs depends on how effective debugging tools available to the developers are.
But there is no perfect game engine. All have quirks and bugginess of a game usually just comes down to how willing the team is to find and squash them. That's why all games need patches after launch.
Language is not really an issue here since the Creation Engine uses Papyrus for all game logic, which is good enough for what it does.
It's not about debugging tools.
Different, high level software designs (i.e. architectural designs) which are normally imposed by the game engine, have different probabilities of the developers who are making the code for those to produce bugs, because of lots of factors including things like of how they approach error validation and handling in the engine itself and in which domains does the engine leave the most freedom to coders and which ones does it leave less - some things are pretty safe to leave in the hands of even bad developers, others are not.
The example of multi-threading in Unity should've been clear: put a game engine that doesn't impose a single thread pattern in front of somebody with little or no experience in multi-threaded programming and you will have a huge rate of bugs (mainly critical race conditions) and as it so happens most developers out there have little or no experience in multi-threaded programming. Yet multi-threading can yield far more performance in modern CPU since they're all multi-core. For that specific game engine a software architectural choice was made to go with a structure that is not as performance but significantly less likely to lead to a higher bug rate when used by the average coder, probably because Unity targets less experienced coders.
Good Senior Designers and Technical Architects don't design the high level structure of the software for themselves as coders, they do it for the kind of coders that are likely to be coding for it.
Of course the developers themselves also have different capabilities and hence different baseline rates of creating bugs, hence why I said "both".
No, I'm saying from having used the Creation Kit and I modding Skyrim and Fallout.
I'm not defending the games or Bethesda. It's their game design and narrative team's fault, not the engine's.
Modders have been familiar with Bethesda's engines since Morrowind (Netimmerse and then Gamebryo, which form the basis of the Creation Kit), which is why the modders are able to make mods pretty quickly for these games. I'd rather still have the community use this experience with future Bethesda titles for modding than use something like Unreal that does not have the same level of customisation and tools.
Idk, last time they pulled this it was at least a game people liked. What's their angle here?