Elder Scrolls VI - No New Graphics Engine

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
You have an SKSE plugin for it. Tested it a bit, didn't find any issues.

Yeah, I've tried that and it was buggy, but that could be a problem on my end.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
Well, the Unreal Engine is based on the same engine we saw in 1998.

The Creation Engine is based on Gamebryo - which has been around for many years as well.

The engine is not the problem, really.

I don't think the problem is the evolution of game engines in general but the evolution of this particular engine. In case of Unreal and idTech (even Unity if you remember it from its infant days) the gradual upgrade went well, but in case of Bethesda's engine (what ever they decide to call it next) it started to show its age with Skyrim (even Oblivion, if you ask some people). And I can't speak about latter games, but people say it hasn't progressed much.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
I don't think the problem is the evolution of game engines in general but the evolution of this particular engine. In case of Unreal and idTech (even Unity if you remember it from its infant days) the gradual upgrade went well, but in case of Bethesda's engine (what ever they decide to call it next) it started to show its with Skyrim (even Oblivion, if you ask some people). And I can't speak about latter games, but people say it hasn't progressed much.

Well, I think the strength of the Creation engine is more about the data structure and how they handle the amount of items combined with the size of the world. As well as the interactivity level of items, including physics and what not.

We must remember that idSoft and Unreal games tend to focus more on visuals and performance - where Bethsoft games are largely about very big worlds and huge amounts of data.

To me, Fallout 4 was a decent evolution over Fallout 3 - and Fallout 3 was a decent evolution over Oblivion.

So, I expected FO76 to be a decent evolution over Fallout 4 - and, instead, it seems to have regressed.

But a lot of people seem to be underestimating what it's doing in terms of data integrity and the multiplayer environment.

It's not easy to handle thousands or - potentially - perhaps even millions of items that physically exist within the game world - in a multiplayer environment where all 20+ players must be aware of all items, in all states - at all times.

That's key to the design - and something which might not translate exceptionally well to an entirely new engine.

To me, Bethsoft games have always had problems with the balance and the finer points of the mechanics - and they won't be solved by fancy engines.

I would be happy to see visual upgrades - but that's not really my primary complaint when it comes to their games.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
Well, I think the strength of the Creation engine is more about the data structure and how they handle the amount of items combined with the size of the world. As well as the interactivity level of items, including physics and what not.

We must remember that idSoft and Unreal games tend to focus more on visuals and performance - where Bethsoft games are largely about very big worlds and huge amounts of data.

To me, Fallout 4 was a decent evolution over Fallout 3 - and Fallout 3 was a decent evolution over Oblivion.

So, I expected FO76 to be a decent evolution over Fallout 4 - and, instead, it seems to have regressed.

But a lot of people seem to be underestimating what it's doing in terms of data integrity and the multiplayer environment.

It's not easy to handle thousands or - potentially - perhaps even millions of items that physically exist within the game world - in a multiplayer environment where all 20+ players must be aware of all items, in all states - at all times.

That's key to the design - and something which might not translate exceptionally well to an entirely new engine.

To me, Bethsoft games have always had problems with the balance and the finer points of the mechanics - and they won't be solved by fancy engines.

I would be happy to see visual upgrades - but that's not really my primary complaint when it comes to their games.

Personally, I got tired their formula for games. Even Fallout 3 looked like a reskin of Oblivion to me but I played it since it was the new Fallout. It was fun, but it was more of the same. Then Skyrim came along and I still wasn't tired of it. About that time I got into modding and it was a lot of fun that way, but I nowadays can't imagine playing it vanilla.
By the time Fallout 4 came out, I watched a lot of gameplay videos of it, read a lot of the reviews, opinions and forum posts and yet again it looked like more of the same. This time, not even the prospect of modding it to hell could get me interested so I skipped it.
I will still follow the news of their new games (Starfield might be interesting since it is a completely new game) but they are no longer a must play before their release like Oblivion and Skyrim were.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
Personally, I got tired their formula for games. Even Fallout 3 looked like a reskin of Oblivion to me but I played it since it was the new Fallout. It was fun, but it was more of the same. Then Skyrim came along and I still wasn't tired of it. About that time I got into modding and it was a lot of fun that way, but I nowadays can't imagine playing it vanilla.
By the time Fallout 4 came out, I watched a lot of gameplay videos of it, read a lot of the reviews, opinions and forum posts and yet again it looked like more of the same. This time, not even the prospect of modding it to hell could get me interested so I skipped it.
I will still follow the news of their new games (Starfield might be interesting since it is a completely new game) but they are no longer a must play before their release like Oblivion and Skyrim were.

That's fair enough

Not all games are for everyone.

Seems a lot of people really, really dislike their games - and that's ok.

Personally, I'm not tired of the formula as of yet - but maybe it comes later.

I can't disagree that a new and shiny engine would certainly suit their games - but it's not my primary concern.

I love the core concept - so I'm likely to like most of their future games.

But nothing is for certain in this world of ours.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
Personally, I got tired their formula for games. Even Fallout 3 looked like a reskin of Oblivion to me but I played it since it was the new Fallout. It was fun, but it was more of the same. Then Skyrim came along and I still wasn't tired of it. About that time I got into modding and it was a lot of fun that way, but I nowadays can't imagine playing it vanilla.
By the time Fallout 4 came out, I watched a lot of gameplay videos of it, read a lot of the reviews, opinions and forum posts and yet again it looked like more of the same. This time, not even the prospect of modding it to hell could get me interested so I skipped it.
I will still follow the news of their new games (Starfield might be interesting since it is a completely new game) but they are no longer a must play before their release like Oblivion and Skyrim were.

I don't get skipping a sequel to a game you enjoyed because it looks like more of the same. The most important factor in playing something is whether or not you're having fun. Who cares if it looks similar? Except for the engine, I thought FO4 was an improvement over FO3 in almost every way.

I don't recall many people skipping FO2 because it looked so similar to FO1.

That said, if Bethesda is indeed going to use the Creation engine for Starfield, I hope they manage to improve the visuals and animations by a significant amount.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't get skipping a sequel to a game you enjoyed because it looks like more of the same. The most important factor in playing something is whether or not you're having fun. Who cares if it looks similar? Except for the engine, I thought FO4 was an improvement over FO3 in almost every way.

I don't recall many people skipping FO2 because it looked so similar to FO1.

That said, if Bethesda is indeed going to use the Creation engine for Starfield, I hope they manage to improve the visuals and animations by a significant amount.

Bethesda games, with the exception of Morrowind never really had stories that were interesting to me and the big thing that pulled me in was exploration of semi-believable world and new and interesting loot around every corner. That is what I consider the Bethesda formula.

I think that the thing that bothers me the most is their insistence on dragging you all across the world during most questlines (main, faction, or some other) and on my (long) journey to the next location I always get distracted by a cave, a fort, a mine, a dragon, something shining in the distance, etc. But in the end, those distractions almost never lead to something useful and only prolong my play time and I ultimately found them tedious. Now I dread the site of such landmarks.

Regarding Fallout 1 and 2, well there were only two of them and they had interesting stories (to me, much more interesting than any Bethesda game) and were big on choice and consequence. I played 4 Bethesda games so far and only Fallout 3 had any meaningful c&c that I can think of, but was still a far cry from the first two Fallouts. Like I said, it felt more like an Oblivion reskin than a proper Fallout game to me. Fallout 4 would have been fifth such game to me (and I don't know how many times I replayed the previous games, my combined playtime is near 500 hours), but by that point I was already burned out.

If they decide to do something different design-wise with new games, I'll be all over them. Oh, and a new engine

I think their games do environmental storytelling better than most "open world" games - but obviously not as well as dedicated immersive sims, like Prey or Bioshock.

I fully agree that their main quests tend to be rather crap - or, at best, mildly interesting on occasion - but that's ok with me, as I spend very little time on those.

As for the locations, I think the reason they work for me is that you never actually know if it's going to be "one of the good ones" - or one of the more repetitive ones. There's enough quality in enough of their stuff that you never really know what to expect - and that's precisely what makes exploration worth it.

If you think about it, it's not that different from games like Baldur's Gate or Pillars of Eternity - when you go free roaming. The majority of the locations are essentially just mostly empty maps with a few potentially interesting encounters - but there's just enough there to make you go and check it out and sometimes you DO find a particularly interesting bit of quest or a nice dungeon.

For my part, I think Bethesda excel at doing distinct content within the formula of "huge open worlds" - and I can't think of other games of that kind of scope that even remotely provide as much interesting content - even if much of it IS repetitive and "samey".

As for the future, I'm still hoping they will tone down the amount of locations from hundreds to dozens - and, instead, focus all the content in fewer but more significant locations.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
Bethesda games, with the exception of Morrowind never really had stories that were interesting to me and the big thing that pulled me in was exploration of semi-believable world and new and interesting loot around every corner.

I think that the thing that bothers me the most is their insistence on dragging you all across the world during most questlines (main, faction, or some other) and on my (long) journey to the next location I always get distracted by a cave, a fort, a mine, a dragon, something shining in the distance, etc. But in the end, those distractions almost never lead to something useful and only prolong my play time and I ultimately found them tedious. Now I dread the site of such landmarks.

So basically exploration is a purpose but the invitations to explore are distractions.

Exploration pays itself off. Exploration is not plundering/ treasure hunting/ raiding or whatever. Exploration is its own reward.

Explorers gonna explore, streamers gonna not explore.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
I think their games do environmental storytelling better than most "open world" games - but obviously not as well as dedicated immersive sims, like Prey or Bioshock.

I fully agree that their main quests tend to be rather crap - or, at best, mildly interesting on occasion - but that's ok with me, as I spend very little time on those.

As for the locations, I think the reason they work for me is that you never actually know if it's going to be "one of the good ones" - or one of the more repetitive ones. There's enough quality in enough of their stuff that you never really know what to expect - and that's precisely what makes exploration worth it.

If you think about it, it's not that different from games like Baldur's Gate or Pillars of Eternity - when you go free roaming. The majority of the locations are essentially just mostly empty maps with a few potentially interesting encounters - but there's just enough there to make you go and check it out and sometimes you DO find a particularly interesting bit of quest or a nice dungeon.

For my part, I think Bethesda excel at doing distinct content within the formula of "huge open worlds" - and I can't think of other games of that kind of scope that even remotely provide as much interesting content - even if much of it IS repetitive and "samey".

As for the future, I'm still hoping they will tone down the amount of locations from hundreds to dozens - and, instead, focus all the content in fewer but more significant locations.

I haven't had a decent playthrough of BG in a while, but for Pillars I have to agree to an extent. It was also riddled with side areas with no meaningful rewards at the end of them, but I would personally rate PoE's story higher than any TES game, except Morrowind. Most of the side areas in PoE were tied to sidequests and those were mostly interesting to me (with some of them having multiple conclusions that would affect your playthrough). Loot-wise they were mostly a disappointment, the whole game was underwhelming in that regard (unique items never felt truly unique).

As for your last paragraph, I 100% agree, but I just don't see them doing that. Their marketing campaigns always revolved around how the new game is "huge, even huger than the previous one", and that seems to sell.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
As for your last paragraph, I 100% agree, but I just don't see them doing that. Their marketing campaigns always revolved around how the new game is "huge, even huger than the previous one", and that seems to sell.

It's hard to say, but I wouldn't be too sure.

I mean, their first two TES games were much, much larger in terms of scope - and then they started focusing on smaller areas - refining their approach to content creation.

Also, I wouldn't have expected the BGS team to develop a multiplayer Fallout, so that was another surprise.

That said, I do expect Starfield to be a huge open world game, for obvious reasons. I mean, even the name would suggest it. Probably wouldn't work well with a few dozen detailed locations.

As for ES6 - we'll have to wait and see.

I do like their current trajectory - with the continued emphasis on more ways to progress your character than ever before (perks of Skyrim and FO4), and they've finally wised up to the fact that their games can be great fun with more sophisticated difficulty settings (Survival mode). So, I hope they stay on track with those things.

FO76 is somewhat of an outlier (though not really), but it doesn't change anything about their approach to singleplayer games, I don't think.

Who knows, though.

A lot of great points in this thread to keep the engine or to start from scratch. There's also a lot of stuff on the internet with various Bethesda reps educating everyone about what their "engine" is which essentially a "collection of technologies" that each can be modified in perpetuity apparently.

Still, after having played AC Origins and quickly recognizing how fantastic that engine would be for TES games, I'm of the camp that Bethesda should sooner, rather than later, move on to a totally brand new "collection of technologies."

It all sort of reminds me of that scene in Star Trek First Contact where the captain and the black woman are arguing about blowing up the ship. The arguing goes on back and forth when it's so obvious what to do and finally she screams "blow up the damn ship." With the total horror show that is Fallout 76, It seems obvious at this point that it's time for Bethesda to blow up the damn ship already. Like Picard, I can already hear Tod Howard yelling back "NO… NOOOOOO!"

Originally Posted by joxer
Well my Skyrim with only two mods (SkyUI and norespawn) looks like Chrono Trigger.

Then again, is this thread about mods and modding effectivness? If yes, we can also discuss GTA 5 mods fixing $34785637845678367856 worth PC port visuals too.
But I don't think the title contains the word "reshade".

You’re right this thread is not about mods but, mods show that this engine while definitely dated is still capable of amazing visual.

Originally Posted by joxer
Explorers gonna explore, streamers gonna not explore.

Explorers gonna explore, plunderers gonna plunder, looters gonna loot, raiders gonna raid, treasure hunters gonna hunt and streamers gonna stream.

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer

It all sort of reminds me of that scene in Star Trek First Contact where the captain and the black woman are arguing about blowing up the ship. The arguing goes on back and forth when it's so obvious what to do and finally she screams "blow up the damn ship." With the total horror show that is Fallout 76, It seems obvious at this point that it's time for Bethesda to blow up the damn ship already. Like Picard, I can already hear Tod Howard yelling back "NO… NOOOOOO!"

It just takes to find that black woman equivalent in Bethesda, get rid of her and on to a new graphic engine.

Originally Posted by Drithius
Ask a streamer to add 2 + 2 if you still don't comprehend. A developer's choice, because an engine is rooted in archaic, poorly written code, that the "fix" to this is limiting frames altogether - it's utter foolishness.

My monitor is fixed at 60 fps. Now what ?

Probably the recommandation of buying a 144Hz monitor so that the useless technology of running a TES product at 144Hz can happen.