Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Creation Engine 2 is at least as much of an update as UE5 was (UE5 actually wasn't that huge of an update though. Most of the underlying code and functionality is the same as UE4, which is why some of the first few UE5 games have the same stutter/shader compilation issues).
Are they using creation engine 2, wow no wonder why the game looks like ♥♥♥♥, they only had 2 and a half year to make the game.
Also, not a chance in hell have you been playing modern AAA games on a 14 year old PC with "minor" upgrades.
So with your own logic, the title of this thread is inaccurate. CE isn't a 20 year old engine, in your own words.
I do. But the updates from each version is extreme and is not just simple updates like you see with the CE. Hence it is not really comparable.
It is almost like a new engine, because it has so many new features and changes.
CE2 has little extra to offer right now (we can´t say if this will change with TESVI, as I said we might just have seen basically CE with a few added CE2 in Starfield, that would explain a lot)
I can´t see the use of Phogogrammetry in Starfield, but many its because I did not explore to much in my 12 hours of gameplay, but it sure was nowhere to be screen on the planets or cities I visited.
I have the source code for UE. I don't have the source code for CE. I would not presume to know what has changed or not. How simple or complex.
idsoftware's tech has changed immensely from game to game over the years, they aren't the same game engines. doom eternal is not built on the same engine as for example rage. it's not the same thing.
this isn't really the crux of my argument.
my argument is some multi millionaire from a major game dev who released a game that is AMD sponsored has told PC gamers to upgrade. the PC market is less than 30% AMD used. XBOX/Microsoft use AMD tech. It's a marketing scheme and im sick of it.
PC gamers are being fleeced and you should be on my side.
Why arne't they using a superior game engine?
Because they've have to give up a percentage of the profits to them. Well thats part of it. But clearly there is more to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA-JX6olTIA