But from rendering to animation to pathing to procedural generation – I don't want to say everything, but it's a significant, significant overhaul.
Bethesda gamebryo engine mod#
The way we build our worlds, the way people can mod it – these are things that I think are fundamentally good about our tech stack. "So the overhaul in our engine is the largest we've probably ever had, maybe larger than Morrowind to Oblivion." Howard went on to explain that there are elements of Creation that Bethesda continues to like, but pointed out the sheer number of changes being made: "There are things we do that we still like. "We have more people doing engine work now, by a factor of five, probably than we've ever had," Howard explained.
Bethesda gamebryo engine mods#
You must have one or more mods that cause your game to bloat.
Whether that's because they missed it, or if it's because they saw it and didn't care to spend time on it.I don't know.It sounds as though this is a major rework, too – perhaps the largest leap for the engine in its long history (Creation was born out of the older Gamebryo Engine, which was initially released in 1997). As was said before, Gamebryo is the graphics engine, which ultimately shouldn't contribute to save game bloating (the game doesn't save the graphics, it only saves gameplay data). Basically Fallout 4 has one of the worst (if not the worst) implementations of PBR I've seen in a AAA game this gen.Īdditionally, some of the interiors they make have like literally no ambient occlusion making it look extremely flat with little to no shading, which I assume is because they just don't bake any of the shadowing in the textures. And that just makes it look like shit and undoes any good that comes out of their lighting. What is the main issue is that their PBR pipeline is all wack! The materials in that game just do not look right, wood that is shiny af, metal that's incredibly dull as hell, leather that looks like rubber, cloth that looks like leather, etc etc.
Bethesda gamebryo engine update#
So is it truly that bad of news if they stick with this engine (and update it) for Starfield and TES VI? We also have to keep in mind that TES VI will have photogrammatry and also will be using new animations, which begins with Starfield.Ĭlick to shrink.The lighting is not really the main issue with Fallout 4, it's actually pretty great all things considered, the evidence of this is that when it works it actually looks quite pretty. As for visual improvement, if we go from Oblivion to Fallout 3 we already see a real nice improvement, then on to Skyrim is even bigger and Fallout 4 was significantly better looking. Sticking with this engine means bugs, this engine is known for it but personally I never had all that many issues with bugs. If the engine isn't the problem though, why is everyone frustrated with BGS for sticking with their engine and bringing updated versions of it when it's exactly what other companies do too, apparently? Based on this Starfield has the potential to look miles better than Fallout 4 and 76. The easiest example is UE4 that is based on UE3. Anything can be implemented with enough resources and time.Īny engine you're familiar with right now is based on an older version. Every time the the studio makes a game it adds and adapts the engine to suit new. "the engine was never the problem, it's the bugs and they can be fixed. After that Bethesda created the Creation Engine for Skyrim by developing its own version of the Gamebryo engine. At one point the conversation went towards that it's a bummer they are still using Gamebryo/Creation engine for Starfield and likely TES VI as well. The other day on Twitter I was talking to a fellow BGS fan about Starfield and TES VI. I thought this here was the right place to ask such a thing.
0 kommentar(er)
