Skyrim lead designer says Bethesda can't just switch engines because the current one is "perfectly tuned" to make the studio's RPGs
The engine is suited for "the kinds of games that Bethesda makes"
You're viewing a single thread.
From experience I know I'll be downvoted but it is a pretty goddamned impressive engine. And yes that is even considering that Skyrim was buggy, what, 12 years ago?
Agreed, the way they can preserve the position of any object, anywhere, with thousands of objects and an obscenely large world, is exceedingly impressive.
What I don't get is why the hell any of that is a priority. It's a neat party trick, but surely 99.9% of the gameplay value of arranging items for fun could be achieved on the player ship alone.
Like... it's neat that I can pick up, interact with, and sell every single pen and fork on every table. But is it useful, with a carry weight system deincentivizing that? Fussing with my inventory to find what random crap I accidentally picked up that's taking up my weight? Is that remarkably better than having a few key obvious and useful pickups? Is it worth giving up 60FPS on console, and having dedicated loading screens for nearly every door and ladder around?
Again, it's cool that they have this massive procedurally generated world, that a player could spend thousands of hours in. But when that area is boring, does it really beat a handcrafted interesting world and narrative? What good is thousands of hours of content when players are bored and gone before 10 hours?
So like... from a tech perspective, I respect what Starfield is, and it's very impressive, but as a game it feels like a waste of a lot of very talented work, suffering from a lack of good direction at the top.
I could generally take or leave their clutter items, but persistent NPCs with dynamic schedules or the full stat and inventory systems of the PC are still extremely rare, never mind both. Most games simplify NPCs such that they don't actually have equipment or just have one item (typically an unlootable weapon) and reduce their stats to just HP and defense stats. By contrast, the only difference between an NPC and the PC in a Bethesda game is that the player has controll over the PC.
For me, if they moved to a new engine it would need those persistent fully-featured NPCs to feel like a Bethesda game. Ten years ago, there wasn't really anything else that did that. Now, there's got to be something they can make work. Hell, BG3 has all this stuff, it's just from a top-down perspective. And it can handle ladders, which Bethesda's engine still can't do.
See, that's one of the problems of using Creation Engine for Starfield. The game was supposed to be about exploration and space travel, but the big focus of the engine is clutter. All the things that made Skyrim and Fallout feel "lived in", like NPCs doing different stuff at specific times, were effectively disabled or removed in Starfield. Hell, NPCs' (complete lack of) reaction make them feel completely "dead"; pedestrians in GTA 4 feel more way more believable and "alive", despite serving the exact same purpose of filling the screen.
The proc-gen places also makes zero use of the engine's strengths, it doesn't create any "unique" places that could be filled with unimportant npcs and clutter. It's ironic that Daggerfall, more than 20 years ago, had better proc-gen
Btw, Gothic (2? 3 at least) had already holes without loading screens.
It's still buggy after 13 years of patches and re-releases.
People said that but I played the game I'm sure over 100 hours and bugs impacted maybe .2% of my playing time.
People remember Skyrim bugs because they're funny.
Well yeah, that's what happens when you make enormous games with basically no player safely rails. With unrestricted freedom comes unpredictable interactions and inevitable bugs. Feel free to point out any other game that comes close to the scale of a Bethesda game without being full of bugs.
How quickly people forget how common it was to see Roach on rooftops in the Witcher 3.
GTAas an entire series has tons of reels of people doing ridiculous and hilarious things.
I've never understood the weird hate for Bethesda games in that regard.
No one forgets that—the artwork for Roach’s Gwent card has her ON A ROOF.
basically no player safely rails
Skyrim is full of safety rails in the form of essential NPCs and places that won't unlock unless you're at the right part of a specific quest. Newer bethesda games are even worse in those regards.
Zelda TOTK?
Admittedly haven't played it yet, but BOTW was absolutely a masterpiece.
That said, the NPC scripting and interactions are way simpler than Bethesda games, and there's very little in terms of even marginally open ended quests. It's a great open world, but it's pretty on rails story wise outside the order in which you tackled areas.
Elden Ring?
I love Elden Ring and From Soft games in general, but the way they work is completely different.
There are no dialog trees in Elden Ring, no skills outside of combat, rudimentary crafting mechanics, rudimentary "enchanting" through things like affinity or ashes of war in ER.
Blatantly put, the focus is on completely different mechanics/systems that are much more simple, meaning much easier to not run into lots of bugs.
It's just not really a good comparison.
RDR2
Just look at the mod sites to see how many bugfixes are out there. It's been improved in the years since it launched, but it's far from a bug free game.
Because Bethesda didn't focus on fixing script bugs in those re-releases, only engine ones. The game logic remains a tangled mess of bugs and the unofficial patches that actually fix things barely needed to change at all to support each new edition.
Bugs be bugs, home slice.
Right, and they should have fixed them - especially since people literally put together wiki pages documenting every known bug in the game. But all Bethesda did was upgrade the engine a bit (make it 64-bit, add some new graphical effects, implement support for microtransactions) and release the same broken game again and again. The engine upgrades fixed a few crashes, but for some reason Bethesda refuses to patch logic errors in their Papyrus scripts (the code that controls the actual game content) even though those are way easier to fix than engine bugs.
If asked, I'm sure they'd say it was to avoid breaking mod compatibility or something, which is kind of bullshit considering nearly every mod works with the unofficial patches that do what Bethesda refuses to. And they've been like this since the very beginning. Their studio is synonymous with bugs.
It's mind-boggling how they get away with putting such little care into their multi-billion dollar franchises.
For all the complaints about Starfield, being Bethesda-buggy wasn't really one of them. It was possibly their most polished release.
Are you not from the same reality as me?
Not saying there weren't bugs, but the consensus seemed to be that it was the most polished, bug-free title they've ever launched.
Edit: ...which is a pretty low bar, I know. But it seemed more inline with the bugs that most "AAA" games tend to have at launch.
Did you even play it, or are you just jumping on the hate bandwagon? It's hardly perfect, but I literally didn't find any significant bugs in over 20 hours of playtime. The game has plenty of fundamental issues certainly, but the bugs are more of a meme than anything.
I did play it, thank you, and it did have multiple bugs I've experienced in previous games.
Literally the first time I played it, the very first planet told me I wasn't supposed to be seeing it.
And I waited a year to buy it.
Did that have any effect on your game? Minor UI issues are pretty common in plenty of games, I personally can't see that as much of an issue. Certainly not the game-breaking bugs of launch Oblivion and Skyrim
Yes. It affected my enjoyment of the game.
On my first playthrough, once I got the quest to find the first space temple it bugged, with the quest marker pointing to a specific place in a planet, but no temple spawning there. I had to start a new game as I didn't have any saves from before starting that quest. Not fun.
Yeah I feel like people like to just bandwagon against Bethesda games, but no one makes games with as much detail as them. Hell, even Starfield has an insanely robust physics engine.
Exactly. As a developer, the complexity of that engine blows me away. It's a miracle they got as solid as they did honestly. If these critics are developers, they're either lacking in empathy or they're the kind of prodigy who cannot even comprehend the inability to think about such insanely complex systems with ease
Also, having played hundreds of hours of their games, I would be content with the older game engine as long as there was a good story line, and decent mechanics ( not related to the op topic).
They can make bad games with this engine, for sure , but I do not want them switch out to photo realism to paint over problems .
It seems to my old self that games would be better if they were a bit ugly, and dangly, to not hide behind all that newness and flashy stuff
I get that but as a gamer I'm forced to ask why? They went through all this trouble and now they're unwilling to abandon it while other games are sprinting past them in tech, story, and graphics.
But! That's cool for a game like KSP, where people craft rotating rings to drive circles in the artifical gravity. But in an RPG? Why do they need to track every spoons position? It just looks like they spent too much money on a too capable/complex engine and can't really innovate because of it.
Play Skyrim and do fus to dah in a tavern or something, having all those physics objects feels amazing. Also being able to walk in a house and steal all the cutlery and junk just feels so immersive for being in the world imo. Not to mention the crafting systems in Fo4 and Starfield using those clutter objects for crafting systems.
Star Field does not use clutter for crafting. You just literally pick up crafting material. Most of your material comes from outposts growing or mining stuff.
That's true, I forgot they changed it
