Quantcast
Bethesda Is Doubling Down On Creation Engine. What Gives?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bethesda Is Doubling Down On Creation Engine. What Gives?

pokoko said:
Modding is a part of it. The modding scene is a massive part of Elder Scrolls and Fallout. With Fallout 4, people had limited mods ready on day one. People have been able to transfer some types of mods between Skyrim and Fallout 4 relatively easily.

The other part is probably time. Getting everyone trained up again and then transferring all the systems and assets over would probably add a huge amount of time to development, where we already have to wait many years as it stands.

And, to be honest, Fallout 4 right now is incredibly stable and by far the best shape any of the games have ever been. They've obviously done a lot of work. The major problem is how inefficient the engine is with certain modern techniques, such as the way it handles shadows. However, it could be that they think that will be solved with next gen hardware upgrades.

As for the usual "I hate Bethesda, they're going to crash and burn" people, keep telling yourselves that. The next Elder Scrolls game is going to sell like hot cakes.

The next elder Scrolls game is going to be massive

A lot of people in here are way over exaggerating what's going to happen with Bethesda. But I can see the negativity around their engine causing then some issue and lot sales. Open world games next gen will see a huge boost. And games like Horizon, RDR and The Witcher already outshined Bethesda's work, and the gap night grow even more next gen (just looking at cyberpunk gives an idea of how much effort CDPR are putting into their game and engine). Not being on the cutting edge of technology will certainly not be a good thing for Bethesda. And I can see their reputation seriously taking a hit. (it has been for a while in fact)



Around the Network

The shortsighted nature of Bethesda's approach is becoming a serious hindrance especially as we're in an era where more and more developers are entering the first person open world space they used to dominate and are having good results. The likes of Metro, Cyberpunk 2077, Rage 2 and The Outer Worlds are looking to be serious competition that don't rely on an ancient engine that that is at this point a game engine's equivalent to a Pyramid only one that coming apart at the joints chances are these games may not have close to the amount of potential issues Bethesda may get if their track record is anything to go by.

If any of the developers behind these games decides to make their games as modifiable as Bethesda's offering alarm bells best start ringing because at this point I'm not looking forward to the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout because of the reasons I used to but purely to see what the mod scene does because at this point it feels like the modders are the developers and the game is outsourced to Bethesda. It's all well and good that engine being easy to put a game together and so on but if it's fighting with modern hardware and architecture causing them to struggle to run a game with less technical fidelity than other games it's time to move on and invest in maybe building something ground up with similar features that's more compatible with modern tech.



shikamaru317 said:
outlawauron said:

The games have passed long ago though. They haven't made a technically solid game in well over a decade, and the last few games they've have been just straight up awful.

Skyrim and Fallout 4 were both great. Sure they had technical issues like all Bethesda games do on release, but aside from that they were fantastic games that got great reviews. Skyrim even won GOTY in 2011. 

Neither were technically solid and Skyrim doesn't qualify as their last few. Have to remember that was 8 years ago.

I disagree on the quality of Fallout 4. I don't think it was a good game.



Dulfite said:
pokoko said:

There is a relatively small group of anti-Bethesda people here but they show up in every single thread that even sideways mentions Bethesda or Bethesda games.  Rather than just not play those games and move on to something else, they circle around like vultures and chant "DOOM".  There are still a few others but they'll likely show up soon.  

I don't really have a vested interest in this argument, but I have to ask you something. Is it ok for a gaming studio to keep using the same engine over and over again with crazy amounts of bugs when other companies are moving on with far better engines? Just curious what your thoughts are here.

Well those companies are also the ones that don't come close to making a game that sells like Skyrim. That's basically the issue, one group says Skyrim was so unplayable while others would name it one of the best games of all times. 






Ill complain about Bethesda as soon as any other developer makes the kinda games they make and have less bugs.



Around the Network
outlawauron said:
shikamaru317 said:

Skyrim and Fallout 4 were both great. Sure they had technical issues like all Bethesda games do on release, but aside from that they were fantastic games that got great reviews. Skyrim even won GOTY in 2011. 

Neither were technically solid and Skyrim doesn't qualify as their last few. Have to remember that was 8 years ago.

I disagree on the quality of Fallout 4. I don't think it was a good game.

The main Bethesda studio in Bethesda Maryland has only released 1 game since Skyrim, Fallout 4. It got a 90 meta, far from bad. Fallout 76 wasn't developed by the main Bethesda studio, it was developed by the new Austin Texas studio they opened, and it was apparently rushed out with only 1 year of development, seemingly because Starfield got delayed out of 2018 at the last moment because Bethesda decided they wanted to release it on next-gen with the new revamped Creation Engine build, instead of on current gen with the old Creation engine build, and Zenimax wanted a game to fill Starfield's place in the 2018 release schedule.



shikamaru317 said:

Supposedly it's getting a near complete overhaul for Starfield and TES 6 and will basically only be Creation Engine in name only, or so I've heard.

I'm not expecting that, though. They said similar things were happening during the hype buildup for Fallout 76 - and look what actually happened.



shikamaru317 said:

The main Bethesda studio in Bethesda Maryland has only released 1 game since Skyrim, Fallout 4. It got a 90 meta, far from bad. Fallout 76 wasn't developed by the main Bethesda studio, it was developed by the new Austin Texas studio they opened, and it was apparently rushed out with only 1 year of development, seemingly because Starfield got delayed out of 2018 at the last moment because Bethesda decided they wanted to release it on next-gen with the new revamped Creation Engine build, instead of on current gen with the old Creation engine build, and Zenimax wanted a game to fill Starfield's place in the 2018 release schedule.

88 average to be precise but tbh I think Bethesda got something of a pass with the problems F4 had the issue here is the more developers enter their space the more the problems their games have will be more and more scrutinized, the game barely ran on X1 until patches but was given an 88 average, a few problems is one thing but actual issues where we had reports of drops to 0fps should no longer be allowed to slide especially as technically the game wasn't on par with many others on the platforms it was on it was the engine fighting the hardware and architecture. F76 still uses the engine and it laid bare the issues that are present in Bethesda's games and more and more people are noticing now as developers put out similar games with out these issues.

Saying it's revamped means little if it's still the same framework that's hindering them.



Wyrdness said:
shikamaru317 said:

The main Bethesda studio in Bethesda Maryland has only released 1 game since Skyrim, Fallout 4. It got a 90 meta, far from bad. Fallout 76 wasn't developed by the main Bethesda studio, it was developed by the new Austin Texas studio they opened, and it was apparently rushed out with only 1 year of development, seemingly because Starfield got delayed out of 2018 at the last moment because Bethesda decided they wanted to release it on next-gen with the new revamped Creation Engine build, instead of on current gen with the old Creation engine build, and Zenimax wanted a game to fill Starfield's place in the 2018 release schedule.

88 average to be precise but tbh I think Bethesda got something of a pass with the problems F4 had the issue here is the more developers enter their space the more the problems their games have will be more and more scrutinized, the game barely ran on X1 until patches but was given an 88 average, a few problems is one thing but actual issues where we had reports of drops to 0fps should no longer be allowed to slide especially as technically the game wasn't on par with many others on the platforms it was on it was the engine fighting the hardware and architecture. F76 still uses the engine and it laid bare the issues that are present in Bethesda's games and more and more people are noticing now as developers put out similar games with out these issues.

Saying it's revamped means little if it's still the same framework that's hindering them.

Did it go down post-release? Could have swore it had a 90 meta back in 2015 when it released. 

The engine is a mess, that is for sure, but Bethesda is well aware of the technical issues now, they are also aware that the WRPG market has evolved with CDP officially dethroning them as the king of WRPG's back in 2015, and they are also aware that a brand new engine would ruin the mod support that they have carefully cultivated over the years. I don't think they'll release Starfield, their first new IP in decades and a game that will have 6 years of development if it releases in 2020 as rumored, on the heavily dated build of Creation engine from 2015 with the few minor improvements they added in 76. I have a feeling that they delayed Starfield from 2018 to 2020 specifically because they wanted to release it on more powerful next-gen hardware on a brand new, mostly revamped build of the Creation Engine. I'm expecting the leap from Fallout 4 and 76 to Starfield to be comparable to the leap from Oblivion to Skyrim, maybe even exceeding that leap. They will continue to use Creation Engine because it is familiar to modders and is the most mod-friendly engine on the planet, but it's going to be revamped in many ways. And TES 6 will use an even more advanced build of the Creation Engine, we already saw in the Anniversary video that Bethesda released for the Elder Scrolls series that TES 6 will use photogrammetry for realistic environments, maybe Starfield will be making use of photogrammetry as well.



konnichiwa said:
Dulfite said:

I don't really have a vested interest in this argument, but I have to ask you something. Is it ok for a gaming studio to keep using the same engine over and over again with crazy amounts of bugs when other companies are moving on with far better engines? Just curious what your thoughts are here.

Well those companies are also the ones that don't come close to making a game that sells like Skyrim. That's basically the issue, one group says Skyrim was so unplayable while others would name it one of the best games of all times. 

I believe the games that were compared to, engine and bug wise earlier in the thread, were Red Dead Redemption 2 and Zero Dawn: Horizon, if I understood people's letter's correctly.

RDR2, according to VGC, is just under 20 million copies sold.

H:ZD is just under 6 million copies sold.

Skyrim is at 26 million copies sold, which is fantastic, but not much better than RDR2 has done so far, and Skyrim has been out for a long time now and this is counting remastered versions as well as VR and Switch release. The original Skyrim games, which is probably a lot more fair to compare to, were at 16.52 million if we are including Switch, and just 15.37 million if we are just counting 360/ps3. I suspect RDR2 will be closer to 30 million when its all said and done, and H:ZD to be at least 7-8 million, so Skyrim is basically right between them but certainly not blowing either of them out.