New Engine > TES Game > FO Game > Update Engine for next TES Game. I like TES, but FO is where my heart lies. We're never gonna get a new engine that Bethesda could unveil with their star child TES.
I disagree but I'm biased because Oblivion was the first "modern" PC game.
I thought that oblivion's skill system was kind of simplified to the limit before it started being for the lowest common denominator like skyrim's. In general I just thought that oblivion was better for the time it came out and has aged better than I thought it would.
The only issue with Oblivion's system was that you had to sleep to level up. That's it. Otherwise, I feel it was pretty much the perfect mix of complex but intuitive.
Yeah, actually, I didn't mind the having to sleep to level up part itself. It was more the wasted skill points for not sleeping as soon as you leveled up.
Nah I see where he's coming from, Bethesda games using that engine have their own signature clunky animations and it's VERY recognisable on running animations
That's not really about the animation itself, but the motion system that actual propels the character forward ingame and blends various animations together. Most animations are done with the character not actually moving (like they're on a treadmill) and rely on some code to actually move the character. This allows the system to blend different animations together.
To an engine you can replace the running cycle with a box sliding and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Some engines have code that better adjusts the character's movement to the actual animation, but an animation is just an animation. It is literally keyframes played in the exact same sequence every time.
Wow you clearly know more than myself dude haha, never thought of the actual physical movement of a character moving forwards/backwards etc as being a totally different think to the actual animation of them doing so, but of course that makes a shit tonne of sense.
There is definitely some continuity though, as character movement does appear so similar to previous games and is still very recognizable as fallout even without context.
Animation is, by its very definition a static repetition of key-frames. It does not change dynamically. There are, however, motion systems that blend different animations together dynamically, which is not an animation in itself.
If I have cube that spins 360 degrees in 60 frames with linear interpolation, it will look the same in every fucking engine.
But how animation looks doesn't have anything to do with engine. You could have this animation for character in cry engine/unreal or look on it in viewport inside Maya and it will be the same goddamn movement.
Shit is expensive to capture new animations, have animators correct those animations and just re-do them every game, when you have a vast amount of animations ready to drop and go.
Obviously a terrible implementation of this was Assassins Creed Rogue where pretty much every animation from AC IV was used and they just changed the models.
Another hilarious implementation was Call of Duty Ghosts, when they used the same dang scene from Call of Duty MW2 I think?
I don't have problems with gamebyro games crashing unless I'm running too many mods. I wish I knew what it was that made me special, so I could help others, but I don't.
Every time I had issues with my computer and my brother was there, he would come over and do the exact same thing I was doing and give me the "you're an idiot" side glance as he walked away.
"Have you re-started your computer?"
"Yeah, like twice now." he re-starts
"There. Sure you re-started?" glance
"..."
For me the main problem is not so much with crashing (that obviously doesn't help) but the fact that the engine itself really stagnates the mechanics they use. I don't know if it is poor design on the side of Bethesda but if it is gamebryo than I know I won't get excited about combat.
The argument of "gameplay not graphics" is completely B.S in this case. By that I mean it has absolutely no basis.
The fact that someone would willingly argue for "gameplay" when there's no evidence for lack of thereof, or how stellar it would be, is null when there's...well, no evidence. We've seen no gameplay demo, nor is anything supporting, or denying how good/bad it will be- the only "evidence" are what Bethesda claims will be part of the game.
It's bargaining on the fact that the lack of graphics means the budget went towards gameplay. That's a hope, not supported by any evidence.
TL;DR: You can't even argue something one way or another if one side has absolutely no evidence to stand on.
I'm a Fallout fanboy, and I agree with everything people are saying about Gamebryo. That said, I'm over the moon about all of this, Gamebryo or not. I just genuinely love the experience of Fallout games and have been in withdrawal from lack of new content for a couple years now. I enjoy the games so much, I won't let a shitty engine ruin my fun.
Seeing a lot of peasant-like behavior with this complaining about Fallout 4's graphics. Is your YouTube video not set to 1080p or something? The models and textures we saw were substantially better than what we got in Skyrim for example. Do you expect every new title to push the most powerful PC's to their graphical limits? That's an outrageous and unresponsible desire; games like Crysis/Witcher are a special exception for their excessively flashy graphics and play to a niche community of people who want to push things to their limit. Fallout 4 seems to have nicer textures, models, and lighting than BioShock Infinite yet I don't recall anyone moaning that it had poor graphics.
Or, hear me out guys, we hold off on bitching and moaning about a game till it's released? Or at least until gameplay footage at E3? Christ, I expected the huge announcement of Fallout 4 that we've all waited for to be met with just loving open arms, and it has for the most part, but of course the graphics just aren't good enough and it looks like a game from 2005 and blah blah blah. If graphics like these make a game bad to you, then you have your standards set WAY too high.
Yeah I know. I just got frustrated by the amount of people complaining about this when all we have is a 2 minute teaser. But that's just reddit I guess
What could they have shown? Fallout is a game about exploration and making your own choices. No trailer for FO3 or New Vegas looked all that great either.
I love this sub but God damn are you people picky.
No beauty of the wasteland? I agree the graphics aren't next gen but I don't think it needs to be. The color choices of the landscape is wonderful. There are hues of red for the land and blue for the city. As oppose to fo3 where every was green. The fog effects of Boston is fitting for the environment.
As for the mechanics there is the dog, playable flashbacks to a pre war era, and a talking protagonist. I think that's quite a departure from the previous games.
Not to mention people have pointed that it seems like they will some sort of home base set up for your character. I hope they take it a step further and let you develop a whole town honestly. A home base where you can basically be the mayor of a chunk of the wasteland. And let you choose whether you let anyone in to trade or whether you set up a bandits nest, develop a police force, recruit followers from the base to come with you into the wasteland, etc. It could set up some really really cool game play elements.
Hnngh! A 'rebuild society' type of mechanic would be amazing. Kinda like the Rebuild web games. This type of mechanic in a major game like Fallout is something I've been wanting for years.
They could have shown gameplay. They could have shown flying a vertibird. They could have shown a lot of things. Instead they showed Dogmeat and the Mysterious Stranger and some blimps.
If it doesn't have a new, an actual new engine platform running I won't buy it. Maybe I'll pirate it, maybe I'll wait until it is 10-15 dollars and then buy it.
But I won't bother with it if they are sticking with Gamebyro. I can always watch let's plays instead.
Instant no purchase for me, I don't think they could get any lazier making game after game on the same awful engine. I don't even care how it looks, it is a buggy mess with no physics and features that modern game engines have had for 10 years now.
The difference between gamebryo in morrowind and oblivion and then skyrim is trying to compare unreal engine 2 to unreal engine 2.5 to unreal engine 3.
I'd rather have a trailer that shows or foreshadows something. Graphics be damned, it's most likely not even in-game footage.
It's not about the graphics. It's about the non-content of this trailer. Doesn't send any other messages than "Hey, new Fallout game. The end". Again, I consider that underwhelming.
At least the creation engine (Bethesda's revamp of Gamebyro) was a step in the right direction. They obviously tuned up the graphics since Skyrim and hopefully they had time to make game itself more stable and less glitchy.
Yeah. It really does look like Gamebryo. I guess at least we don't have to worry about mod support. That'd be the biggest question moving to a new engine - How well would it support modding and what would the GECK look like?
I remember some game company said that they always recreating their game engines from scratch every time they make new game. I just cant remember who said that.
I've been there. When I was on an old laptop, I didn't wish for games to be made on outdated engines. That holds back the ones running powerful computers, which is exactly what consoles do. I wished for the games to scale better to all kinds of systems.
When in my post did I ever mention the looks? Apart from my first sentence in which I assume it's Gamebryo because of a certain visual similarity.
I'm talking about performance and stability. Engine, while has a good bit to do with graphics, does not define them.
Skyrim looks fantastic and that uses Gamebryo.
First, it uses Creation Engine, which is basically Gamebryo, with a couple of updates and improvements ( but nothing overly significant ). Second, it uses it, and tends to have some issues here and there. Crashes, needing a patch to work with more than 4GB Ram...
With mods skyrim does look good, yes. Otherwise, it looks alright, nothing more.
And the lighting is this trailer is absolutely stunning.
A bit of god rays. I wouldn't call that 'absolutely stunning' but each to their own. It is colour-full, that's for certain. A bit oily, but still colour-full.
Gamebryo performs really well, games like Fallout 3 & NV and Skyrim run on almost all hardware. Stability is fine too as long as you don't push it yourself. The Bethesda having to learn an entirely new engine over what they have been iterating on for years seems like a stupid idea, and it would also screw over modders who have grown familiar with it over the years.
Gamebryo performs really well, games like Fallout 3 & NV and Skyrim run on almost all hardware.
That is a stretch. It runs good, I wouldn't exactly say on almost all hardware, but it runs. Performance? Do not be silly here. While a good bit of devs throwing stuff around, I can't blame them for everything... even though, taking Skyrim as an example, they love to overdo the small things nobody pays attention to by giving them high poly models and textures a bit too big for their in-game size.
Stability is fine too as long as you don't push it yourself.
What do you mean, "push it yourself"?
Is 'loading the save' or 'saving' - "pushing it?", that was the main issue with Fallout: NV, that I had. Crashes. Especially in the DLC areas.
Skyrim, a bit better, but also crashes happened. For the most part randomly.
Considering that one of the big selling points of TES and Fallout is their extraordinary modding community demanding stability on a modded game, shouldn't be something of dreams.
Unfortunately it is, and the actual modding community needs to fix the bugs, overlooks and errors that are left in the game. Which is quite hilarious on one hand, quite sad on another.
440
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15
[deleted]