Whenever people criticise Bethesda games for their engine, I pretty much assume right away they know nothing about game development. Bethesda’s engine is something they have a lot of control over and can constantly improve and iterate on. It’s not as though Starfield and Morrowind are running on the exact same codebase.
Starfield is bad because of bad game design, not bad game development. Skyrim was buggy on release as well, and yet people loved it because the design of the game was good enough that people were willing to forgive the programming flaws. People overvalue the engine in discussions about Bethesda games and it’s become this meme among people to seem like they sound like they know what they’re talking about, but ultimately the flaws in Bethesda games that determine their success has very little to do with what engine they use.
Also, the Skyblivion team is constantly releasing dev diaries showing the progress, and the mod is nearly finished. It looks very well done, and the whole thing is out in the open. There’s no reason to be cynical about whether it will ever release when you can literally go look at the progress with your own eyes.
Skyrim has not the same engine as Oblivion and Starfield has not the same engine as Skyrim.
There always were huge upgrades and changes to the engine, saying that Starfield has the same engine is like saying that Unreal 5 is the same old engine as Unreal 1.
It is the same engine in the same way as I am the same as my father or grandfather. We share lots of features and DNA and have the same last name, but we are very different in many ways.
The DNA example might be a bad comparison to make, though, when hereditary illnesses are also a comparison you could make to an engine that has the same flaws as it’s predecessors.
Hopefully whatever they do next with their engine moves away from the cells and worldspaces model of their previous engines. After all of Starfield’s criticisms, they need to move away from loadscreen triggers as much as possible.
The cells and worldspaces are needed for a engine that allows huge amounts of persistent dynamic objects that can be removed from and added to the world freely., That is the reason why we don’t see games with large worlds like this in other engines.
Even more so when the game has to run on consoles too.
Neither No Man’s Sky, nor Outer Worlds or Cyberpunk have worlds or places full of persistent dynamic objects, nearly everything is static and hard baked into the world.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
deleted by creator
Whenever people criticise Bethesda games for their engine, I pretty much assume right away they know nothing about game development. Bethesda’s engine is something they have a lot of control over and can constantly improve and iterate on. It’s not as though Starfield and Morrowind are running on the exact same codebase.
Starfield is bad because of bad game design, not bad game development. Skyrim was buggy on release as well, and yet people loved it because the design of the game was good enough that people were willing to forgive the programming flaws. People overvalue the engine in discussions about Bethesda games and it’s become this meme among people to seem like they sound like they know what they’re talking about, but ultimately the flaws in Bethesda games that determine their success has very little to do with what engine they use.
Also, the Skyblivion team is constantly releasing dev diaries showing the progress, and the mod is nearly finished. It looks very well done, and the whole thing is out in the open. There’s no reason to be cynical about whether it will ever release when you can literally go look at the progress with your own eyes.
Skyrim has not the same engine as Oblivion and Starfield has not the same engine as Skyrim. There always were huge upgrades and changes to the engine, saying that Starfield has the same engine is like saying that Unreal 5 is the same old engine as Unreal 1. It is the same engine in the same way as I am the same as my father or grandfather. We share lots of features and DNA and have the same last name, but we are very different in many ways.
I mean hey they’re all a mod of the compiler if you look deep enough
Yeah and everything IRL is just a wild mix of gluons, mesons and other strange particles. I would say that going so deep down is a bit much 😄
The DNA example might be a bad comparison to make, though, when hereditary illnesses are also a comparison you could make to an engine that has the same flaws as it’s predecessors.
Hopefully whatever they do next with their engine moves away from the cells and worldspaces model of their previous engines. After all of Starfield’s criticisms, they need to move away from loadscreen triggers as much as possible.
The cells and worldspaces are needed for a engine that allows huge amounts of persistent dynamic objects that can be removed from and added to the world freely., That is the reason why we don’t see games with large worlds like this in other engines. Even more so when the game has to run on consoles too. Neither No Man’s Sky, nor Outer Worlds or Cyberpunk have worlds or places full of persistent dynamic objects, nearly everything is static and hard baked into the world.