Will Bethesda get a new Game Engine?

[Vagrant0]

 

Don't fix what isn't broken.

The thing is - it is kind of broken, the problems that stem from the gamebryo engine are the same problems that stem from putting a fresh coat of paint on a hundred year old house. the foundations arent getting any better - and we will see continued issued stem because they are at the core of the engine. issues like physics locked to the FPS for instance, there are just far better - much more efficient ways of programming ai, physics and graphics - not to mention taking advantage of multithread (something youll find in the ini but very poorly implemented), sli/crossfire configs, the list goes on.

Let's be completely honest here. Most game companies are not looking at 60+ fps gaming yet. Hell, we've just barely gotten to where games are moving beyond a hard-lock at 30fps. There are a multitude of reasons for this "limitation" that I won't bore you with. But I would not call it a limitation of the engine so much as it is the fact that there hasn't been any real need to invest the time and money into fixing (just like the 4gb memory issues which were present in FO3, NV, and Skyrim).

 

When you look at the things that they are doing right here, non-scripted combat, detailed environments where you can not only go off and explore, but also disrupt or build upon, detailed and accessible scripting and quest system, AI control that allows for dozens of individuals within a scene to react to what is happening without being individually instructed, or for that matter, persistent NPCs who remain in the game world at all times. There really isn't any engine out there where these things are being done. Even if you look at the shining example of The Witcher 3, areas within that game are not persistent, combat is mostly scripted encounters, NPC AI is individually scripted, and environments are mostly static. DAI isn't any better. Mass Effect isn't either. DayZ et.al. may have some of the environment stuff, but is severely lacking in the AI category. Ark has AI and persistent animals, but still has a mostly static environment... In addition to having the server itself manage the majority of the processing. The engine used in Batman, Assassins Creed, Shadows of Mordor doesn't have the level of interactivity or the persistent NPCs, while also being heavily area based.

 

The Creation Engine isn't perfect, it may even have some noteworthy cracks in its foundation, but it still does what it does better than everything else out there.

[delmalki]

You are absolutely right Vargrant0, but don't forget that when trying to patch things up too much and successively, that creates a cost where as trying to debug and improve foundation becomes more and more tedious. In other words, the CK has been built by Beth but a long time ago and the number of patches they done to it must be quite important and Im sure some of them are hacky or even follow an old programming mindset/framework. They have the expertise now of their fellow devs, some of them originally created that CK, starting from scratch while keeping in mind what has been learned from the CK could create an even better, much optimized engine than they currently have and more open and consistent with agile programming.

 

The first time is always the learning time, the second time is where you apply and avoid all the previous errors and expertise you gained from past experience. I don't see why implementing a new engine is a bad thing except for cost and time for sure.

Edited November 24, 2015 by delmalki

[Vagrant0]

The first time is always the learning time, the second time is where you apply and avoid all the previous errors and expertise you gained from past experience. I don't see why implementing a new engine is a bad thing except for cost and time for sure.

Cost and time is really the big factor here. It's not only the time it takes to code and make the engine working, but also the time to migrate your tools and production guides so that the rest of your staff can work with it. Then the months of additional development into the engine to replace/add components which weren't added the first time around because they were minor or overlooked. Then there are more months spent adding in those components which are specific to that particular game. Then the months spent trying to get most of it to a workable state. All with a staff of maybe 30 programmers who do both engine side programing as well as game scripting. Meanwhile you have a development cycle which doesn't give you much time to work on an engine before it needs to be in a state where the team working on the actual game content can use it.

 

As a gamer it's easy to point at an engine and say how easy it is to fix things which seem obvious to you, but as a developer there comes a point where you have to accept the engine with its flaws and try to make due with that you can so that other parts of the project don't get delayed.

[Lachdonin]

Engines aren't some sort of set-in-stone system that wears out. They're collections of development modules that serve to facilitate game design. The Engine doesn't limit coding, graphics, audio or any other feature. The specific module that governs that system does. when you license an engine, you are limited by the contract to the changes you can make to it. Bethesda doesn't have this issue, and has full access to the Gamebryo suite, allowing them to make any changes they want to suit the game they please.

 

The only problem that older engines can develop, when kepy up to date with newer modules, is background code which looks for systems that are no longer there. This is relatively easy to correct, however, and really just requires an occasional sweep for old code.

 

The Engine isn't a limitation. The specific systems that Bethesda chooses to include are.

[Boombro]

Engines aren't some sort of set-in-stone system that wears out. They're collections of development modules that serve to facilitate game design. The Engine doesn't limit coding, graphics, audio or any other feature. The specific module that governs that system does. when you license an engine, you are limited by the contract to the changes you can make to it. Bethesda doesn't have this issue, and has full access to the Gamebryo suite, allowing them to make any changes they want to suit the game they please.

 

The only problem that older engines can develop, when kepy up to date with newer modules, is background code which looks for systems that are no longer there. This is relatively easy to correct, however, and really just requires an occasional sweep for old code.

 

The Engine isn't a limitation. The specific systems that Bethesda chooses to include are.

Well, I learned something today.

[Lachdonin]

Well, I learned something today.

 

To be honest... systems like Unreal and CryEngine are more product-rackets than anything. The companies release new Engines, because they can 'sell' them as a new product. if they were to just tweak the old engines, like Bethesda does with gamebryo, it would still be covered under standing usage contracts, meaning they couldn't milk it for more money. Since their primary source of income IS the usage contracts, they release entirely new engines, just like Apple releases new I-Phones.

[delmalki]

I think when the cost of patching things up on an old engine exceeds the time needed to develop a new engine is the moment you should invest in a new one.

 

They can also code the new engine in such a way that old api still works with new api.

Collection of modules true, but the core engine is what makes these modules work between each other. And I'm sure these new modules are limited by the actual interrelations the framework of the core engine give.

 

What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that they could move from a procedural engine to a model controller view(mvc) concept of programming where the modules are easily interchangeable, and where the logic is not hard coded in a spaghetti type of code.

[PG1]

Before Skyrim was announced, when the rumours were rumbling, Todd Howard said they had a license for Gamebryo tech for two more games. Fallout 4 is the second.

[Lachdonin]

Before Skyrim was announced, when the rumours were rumbling, Todd Howard said they had a license for Gamebryo tech for two more games. Fallout 4 is the second.

 

What he actually said was they had created a 'new engine' which they called the Creation Engine, which would be used for at LEAST 2 games.

[Deleted3507349User]

I dunno...playing FO4 all I see are huge improvements everywhere. This runs orders of magnitude smoother than previous Bethesda games, and it looks pretty darn great to boot. I stood in awe the first time I saw rain make something wet. It's not as taxing on my system as I expected it to be either. My two-year-old ROG laptop is running FO4 on ultra with all the sliders maxed out, and I'm getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-45 FPS (looks plenty smooth on 60hz displays). Haven't noticed any stutter looking down at the Duchy Of Grand Fenway (sorry, Diamond City) from the mayors office either...even during a radstorm.