• ahornsirup
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Imagine having that little understanding of how and why people enjoy modding their games.

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Or what an engine is lol.

        UE5 is “the same engine” iterated on in the same way Bethesda’s is, there are plenty of games using UE that don’t run well, and it would take plenty of custom work to build to Bethesda’s scale using it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The current iteration of Unreal is completely unrecognizable from its original rendition, meanwhile this new version of the Creation Engine literally retains bugs present back in the days of Gamebryo. You simply can’t compare the two. But, in Bethesda’s defense, this isn’t due to incompetence or anything. It’s due to resource allocation and incentive.

          There’s a reason most devs have been moving towards Unreal and away from making their own engines, and it’s because making your own proprietary engine takes insane amounts of time and resources - time and resources that devs don’t get any return on mind you. For most, it doesn’t make sense to dedicate loads of time to polishing an engine, when that time could be better spent on your next game - a game that you actually do get a return on.

          Unreal is completely different in this regard, as Epic actually does get a return on their investment into the engine, as the engine itself is their product. So they have every incentive to polish Unreal as much as possible. That’s why it’s so insanely polished and indistinguishable from its original rendition. Not because all engines magically improve over time and at the same rate.

          I know Todd Howard said that engines are somehow meaningless, and then a bunch of Bethesda fans took that and ran with it as a way to defend any criticism of the Creation Engine, but unfortunately it’s just not that simple.

          And to be clear, I want the Creation Engine to succeed. I’ve been modding Bethesda games since 2013 and am still active in the modding community! The engine is rough but makes all of it possible, and the community at this point knows it so well that it’d be devastating to suddenly lose it all. But Bethesda needs to sit down and really dedicate some time to overhauling it, and unfortunately, albeit understandably, I just don’t see that happening.

    • conciselyverbose
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Imagine thinking that what is very probably the most hand-crafted content ever in a 3D game, with one of the broadest variety of choices for anything close to that scale, is a game lacking content.

        • conciselyverbose
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not an opinion. If you ignore straight procedural generation with no human input like no man’s sky, Starfield is very probably the biggest 3D game ever made. The fact that it’s an absolutely massive game isn’t debatable in any way.

          Nobody who’s played it is making the ridiculous claim that they ran out of content. It’s fundamentally not possible for “relying on mods for content” to be in good faith.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            I’m glad you enjoy the game but compared to the level of detail and polish Read Dead 2 had five years ago Starfield feels straight up antiquated imo

            • conciselyverbose
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Red dead 2 is obscenely tiny by comparison.

              Literally everything about game development is a trade off. It’s not possible to make a game at 5% of Starfield’s scale as polished as a rockstar game. The difference in scale is too massive.

              The scope of Bethesda games is a huge part of the point. Nobody else makes anything similar to what they offer.

            • conciselyverbose
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              BG3 is a top down CRPG. Having 3D assets and being a 3D game with full 3D movement aren’t the same thing.

              And whether it’s more content is debatable. There’s more pure story and production, with a lot of branching, but the overall amount of space (not counting Starfield’s use of negative space because of the setting) is significantly smaller. And even in terms of total number of quest lines, Starfield has a lot. Which you can get more time out of is all about personal preference. There will be people with 1000 hours in both, easy.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                You can literally play BG3 as a third person turn based action game, with an over the shoulder camera. It’s entirely 3D.

                • conciselyverbose
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Turn based and action are mutually exclusive. It is not and does not resemble an action game.

                  The assets are 3D. You do not play in 3D. You do not cast a spell and have the physics of your interaction calculated in real time while 10 other characters are simultaneously acting and having their spells calculated based on the real time movements of all the other characters. You do not hit a jump button and have where you land determined by your speed and direction. The actual gameplay mechanics are all pure dice roll. There are no 3D physics in play.