Attn Bethesda: Unreal Engine Exists

[AgisPsi]

EDITED FOR WHINING ABOUT PARAGRAPHS

Is the game alright? Yes, sometimes. Is it WAY below it's potential for the amount of time, money and effort put into it? Hell yes.

Another game that feels clunky because of the ancient creation engine that they update a little and call it something new. The limitations and bugs are so obvious.

People are saying they aren't finding bugs, i'm not sure what game they are playing because i'm running across people sinking into the ground, floating rocks (and not because of low gravity) getting yeeted out of the back of a pirates ship because I was standing in the boarding dock when it took off and thrown across the map through a solid metal wall, a man jumping over a counter getting stuck in mid air vibrating like he was the flash phasing thru a wall, a person trying to float their way to the heavens (and succeeding), people teleporting during conversations, people talking to each other while facing away from everyone in the conversation, a main character sounding like they are on intercoms while not in a suit aand standing right next to me, people shooting through doors, getting stuck in menus unable to press any keys, and more.

Those are just the things I came across in my short time playing, i've seen so many more from other players. Not to mention the nightmarish faces passing by in towns, the stiff animation, the terrible soulless feel to combat, janky ship and outpost building, game crashes and stutter (with a 4080 and 7900x3d), the god awful swimming and water "physics" and so on. $100 and the only people who are happy with it are injecting high dose copium IV.

All of this while Unreal is breaking the world of gaming technology wide open and creating things far beyond the expected advancement curve. But then Bethesda would lose a a little bit of money paying for Unreal, but come on, charge us a dollar or two more for the game and you close that gap. If i'm already paying an extortionate price for buggy pile of mess, Ill pay $102 for it to at least be made with the cutting edge game development tech.

[Pandora's Actor]

Originally posted by cywizz:

It is not about whether Engine A is better than Engine B necessarily. Yes, using an engine like UE5 gives you access to cutting edge tech, but you need to use the engine in the way Epic intended and you get everything, even if you don't use everything in the engine.

If you decided, like Bethesda, to rather go for your own engine, you opted out of the "plumbing" services an engine provides however you now become the plumber and need to do everything yourself. It is a lot of work and a ton of money to do this and if a new tech comes along, you will need to build that into your own engine, however it allows you to make the engine custom fit around your brand of games and you do not need to pay anyone royalties.

Is it the right thing to have done, debatable today maybe, but remember they started with the CE years ago for their games so it probably made sense then... and now, they have gone down a rabbit hole so deep and so integrated that it will take a massive undertaking to port their libraries they made over the years to fit into a new engine's architecture. So TES6 will still use and enhanced CE2 engine, but who knows... maybe they will start with a more general engine when Fallout 5 development starts.

they will never do it as no engine is as modable as theirs.

[Doctor Hades]

Hmmm, while I accept that Creation Engine dated in many ways, I would rather a Bethesda game use that than Unreal Engine personally, based on stuttering and performances issues with other games. Unreal Engine games can look pretty for sure but it seems problematic on PC since DX12, more so if you add ray-tracing to the mix. It is even more demanding on hardware too, especially Unreal Engine 5. Imagine how buggy an RPG would be from Bethesda if they transitioned to UE after years of using Creation Engine?

*shudders*

Starfield might not be ground-breaking visually, though I admit it can look very nice at times due to the improvements to the engine since Fallout 4, but I have had a 100% stutter-free experience with no crashes since I started playing it last Friday. That is a rarity with modern games. Even saving doesn't cause any stuttering something I wish was true of Baldur's Gate 3! I am also getting a locked 60 fps at 1440p on maxed out settings with FSR, DRS and VRS disabled at 100% Resolution. It feels great to play and combat is a lot of fun, especially in zero-G and low-gravity.

Creation Engine also allows for the individual placements of all items to be saved, which is something that would be difficult to do on this scale with other engines, I would wager. Starfield is, for me anyway, a very immersive and enjoyable game, even though it has dated design and loading screens (most of these are 1-2 seconds at most on my system and even resuming a 37 hour save only takes 10 seconds).

[Berserk Belta]

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Would you expect Rockstar to ditch RAGE engine? Would you expect Valve to ditch Source engine? Same case here. They would never. The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

Of course they would, if it became the better option for them technically, as a business etc.

Of course that assessment is done by professionals against real life criteria, something that can never compete with what some random person "reckons" on a gaming forum about "which engine looks better (lol!)".

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by pr1mus:

Originally posted by cravnmore:

Go play The Outer Worlds to see what kind of space game is built on the unreal engine. Even with obsidian as the game writers it can't compete with creation engine.

Outer Worlds was made with a $10 million budget with a few dozen people working on the game, effectively an AA title.

Starfield is a $500 million budget game with hundreds of employees and all sorts of Microsoft studios putting their hands on deck to make this game and it still doesn't look a lot better than Outer Worlds somehow (lol).

sorry but Bethesda will always be 10 years behind the curve when it comes to the technical aspects.

While I like Outer Worlds (and the oft confused Outer Wilds), it in no way looks as good as Starfield does.

https://imgur.com/a/kwxVm6t

More specifically the material detail has been much improved since Fallout 4 or Fallout 76 and looks far better than what was in Outer Worlds.

[pr1mus]

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Would you expect Rockstar to ditch RAGE engine? Would you expect Valve to ditch Source engine? Same case here. They would never. The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

you forgot that both Rockstar and Valve ditched their precious engines to now work with the engines they currently have.

Rockstar ditched RenderWare (which they used for all 3D GTA's, III/Vice City/San Andreas) to work with an engine that could incorporate better physics (starting with GTA IV).

similarly Valve ditched GoldSrc (basically a modified Quake engine) to make Source which similarly incorporates better physics, it was previously used for Half-Life and it's expansions and was baseline for mods like Counter Strike.

even your two exampels got rid of their archaic game engines to make use of new ones because even they knew that their new games necessitated better technology, imagine if Half-Life 2 didn't have a gravity gun..

[jim]

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Would you expect Rockstar to ditch RAGE engine? Would you expect Valve to ditch Source engine? Same case here. They would never. The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

yeah we know,its krap!.

[Bonobo]

Originally posted by pr1mus:

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Would you expect Rockstar to ditch RAGE engine? Would you expect Valve to ditch Source engine? Same case here. They would never. The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

you forgot that both Rockstar and Valve ditched their precious engines to now work with the engines they currently have.

Rockstar ditched RenderWare (which they used for all 3D GTA's, III/Vice City/San Andreas) to work with an engine that could incorporate better physics (starting with GTA IV).

similarly Valve ditched GoldSrc (basically a modified Quake engine) to make Source which similarly incorporates better physics, it was previously used for Half-Life and it's expansions and was baseline for mods like Counter Strike.

even your two exampels got rid of their archaic game engines to make use of new ones because even they knew that their new games necessitated better technology, imagine if Half-Life 2 didn't have a gravity gun..

And Creation Engine was based off Gamebryo which which was used in Morrowind and Oblivion. So what's the difference? They all started off with commercially released engine before building and settling with their own specialized proprietary one.

[Bonobo]

Originally posted by jim:

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Would you expect Rockstar to ditch RAGE engine? Would you expect Valve to ditch Source engine? Same case here. They would never. The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

yeah we know,its krap!.

If you love playing Fallout, then it isn't crap.

[jim]

Originally posted by Bonobo:

Originally posted by jim:

The Creation engine is what makes Bethesda games a Bethesda game.

yeah we know,its krap!.

If you love playing Fallout, then it isn't crap.

i do like fallout76 i really do,but it took years to fix;ish? ie a playable state,but this is the all new creation engine 2 thats just the same krap.all hype and no hope.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

Originally posted by Legatus Lucanus:

Indiana Jones is not even developed by Bethesda game studios which is the only studio using creation engine even within the bethesda/zenimax owned development studios.

I don't believe that creation engine is going anywhere unless I hear the words coming directly from Todd.

As I said "published" by Bethesda.
I am well aware it is not developed by them, only TESVI is (as the next in line)

TESVI is scheduled for 2028.


If nothing progressive happens to the CE and this is what we get for TESVI, then I might be done with Bethesda.. well.. I am not even sure I am alive in 2028, so it is a bit to far away to even debate that.

It is just that I fail to see how Indiana jones being developed with unreal engine 5 is relevant to weather or not bgs will switch to a new engine.

Especially since bethesda game studios is the only bethesda/zenimax owned developer who uses creation engine in the first place.

[Quill]

Rage Post

Reason they use the same engine is for ease of modding from the player side and ease of use on the development side.

Why do you think Payday 2 was coded in Diesel Engine? It's because it's what the Devs knew best. Using a new engine means you have to give your developers time to relearn the ability to code or straight up hire new staff just to use the new engine. This also doesn't take into account the popularity of modding Bethesda games. A Project Zomboid Modder isn't expected to just be able to instantly swap over to Barotrauma modding

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by Legatus Lucanus:

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

As I said "published" by Bethesda.
I am well aware it is not developed by them, only TESVI is (as the next in line)

TESVI is scheduled for 2028.


If nothing progressive happens to the CE and this is what we get for TESVI, then I might be done with Bethesda.. well.. I am not even sure I am alive in 2028, so it is a bit to far away to even debate that.

It is just that I fail to see how Indiana jones being developed with unreal engine 5 is relevant to weather or not bgs will switch to a new engine.

Especially since bethesda game studios is the only bethesda/zenimax owned developer who uses creation engine in the first place.

I saw Todd talk about that they would leave CE2 behind, that is where it stems from.
But as I said, can´t find anything more than speculation, so might have been a misquoted tweet.

One thing is certian, if CE2 is used for TESVI and is not updated extremely, then I wont be buying it in 2028.

[Machine Spirit]

Bethesda will never move to Unreal, or any other engine unless they are forced to. I think their team is full of long time devs that prefer to use the Creation Engine, that is what they have expertise in, they can hit the ground running on projects and a change to Unreal would l mean a lot of upskilling, hiring, and changes to long established workflows. It would be a huge disruption.

So long as their games get good scores and sales, there is no reason for them to change anything. Starfield's reception has been mostly good, not the amazing reception MS were hoping for but good enough for Bethesda to think the Creation Engine still has life in it.

Could Bethesda keep up with evolving player expectations is another thing that may push them away from Creation Engine, but we are talking over a decade here. TES6 has officially started development, it will most likely be released in 5 to 8 years time. By that point we will have the next Witcher game (or games), probably another Cyberpunk game, and numerous other titles that will be pushing the limits. Customer expectations will evolve. It will become increasingly harder for Bethesda to "wow" us with TES6 because it will have the same tech limitations we have seen in all their other games including Starfield.

[zpc]

The day I just give those sorry "use UE engine" clowns a budget and an objective [to develop a fully fledged RPG, not some fancy looking prototype] is coming closer and closer ...

This is on so many levels ridiculous but suffice to say a proper tool chain for _ALL_ your team (not only the devs with a full programmer background) does matter a lot. <generic awesome engine of the year> only offers a default set of those, never fitting to the workflow you and your team have. The story about generic software solving business problems is as old as software itself. And it is - most of the time - a sad one. Spoiler: it starts (and ends) with "customizing". (so any advantage you might have gained is done & gone)

tl;dr: everybody praising <generic awesome software of the year> as silver bullet just fell for marketing bs (of said awesome software).

[pr1mus]

Originally posted by Bonobo:

[
And Creation Engine was based off Gamebryo which which was used in Morrowind and Oblivion. So what's the difference? They all started off with commercially released engine before building and settling with their own specialized proprietary one.

the difference is that RAGE for instance wasn't built upon RenderWare but was built up from the ground, Creation Engine on the other hand is based on the GameBryo architecture.

all i know is that TES6 in all likelihood is going to release in 2030 and it's still going to look and perform worse than RDR2.