While there are a ton of articles like this, most of which are low-effort, click-bait garbage, this at least makes a more compelling case by limitting it to RPGs. Maybe I’m just uninformed since I don’t generally like RPGs, but it seems like there have been a lot more quality RPGs released this year (esspecially in the “double A” budget class), and the two triple A releases both actually felt like a notable step forward (BG3 in design and content, Starfield in tech).
More just that Bethesda is the biggest maker of Triple A RPGs and they’re finally updating the creation engine in a significant way. That said, to my knowledge, its still one of the more technically advanced RPGs (even if it doesn’t do much with that tech) and could hopefully at least work as a proof of concept to more ambitious developers.
My point wasn’t that it was well made. It was that Bethesda is at least trying to update and expand their tech far beyond what they’ve been willing to commit to in the past. Compare the difference between their older games vs Fallout 76 vs Starfield. A lot more is clearly re-written and updated rather than just tacked on unlike their previous “updates”. The widespread use of procedural level generation, for example - something that wouldn’t have been possible before regardless of the amount of duct tape. To my knowledge, no one else is currently putting that much effort into trying new mechanics and tech in RPGs, and certainly not with a triple A budget. I guess you have something like Mount and Blade: Bannerlord, which is using their tech improvements to significantly increase scale and complexity of their battles, but thats a very different type of game, and I can’t think of anything else that is using newer tech to add to gameplay.
Well, give me an example then. I acknowledge I don’t play many RPGs, so maybe I am missing something obvious, but I have seen almost no innovation in big RPGs esspecially when it comes to integrating it with gameplay. All the examples that come to mind are more at the edge of what is considered part of the genre, like Mount and Blade, or RDR2.
Creation Engine is a great engine for Bethesda style games, no doubt about that. But it is not a particularly innovative engine. The main innovation was just how moddable it was. It’s basically a pretty SQL database, with the formids being primary keys. (Have you ever screwed with xEdit? It’s so easy to mod!)
BUT that being said, widespread use of procgen was in Dagger Fall. Aside from a few key dungeons, everything was procedurally generated, and that was in 1996. Hell, I’d venture that it had better procgen, because they had roads. And before that, Rogue was procedurally generated. Procgen just isn’t an innovation.
While there are a ton of articles like this, most of which are low-effort, click-bait garbage, this at least makes a more compelling case by limitting it to RPGs. Maybe I’m just uninformed since I don’t generally like RPGs, but it seems like there have been a lot more quality RPGs released this year (esspecially in the “double A” budget class), and the two triple A releases both actually felt like a notable step forward (BG3 in design and content, Starfield in tech).
Starfield did nothing to advance tech
It begs the question, did anyone at Bethesda see No Man’s Sky?
Uh how did starfield advance techn in a big way? Pls do elaborate on that one, cause i didnt see it
More just that Bethesda is the biggest maker of Triple A RPGs and they’re finally updating the creation engine in a significant way. That said, to my knowledge, its still one of the more technically advanced RPGs (even if it doesn’t do much with that tech) and could hopefully at least work as a proof of concept to more ambitious developers.
so technologically advanced it didn’t have DSLR until a month in
Sorry, but Starfield is built on the spit and glue that is creation engine and it shows painfully
My point wasn’t that it was well made. It was that Bethesda is at least trying to update and expand their tech far beyond what they’ve been willing to commit to in the past. Compare the difference between their older games vs Fallout 76 vs Starfield. A lot more is clearly re-written and updated rather than just tacked on unlike their previous “updates”. The widespread use of procedural level generation, for example - something that wouldn’t have been possible before regardless of the amount of duct tape. To my knowledge, no one else is currently putting that much effort into trying new mechanics and tech in RPGs, and certainly not with a triple A budget. I guess you have something like Mount and Blade: Bannerlord, which is using their tech improvements to significantly increase scale and complexity of their battles, but thats a very different type of game, and I can’t think of anything else that is using newer tech to add to gameplay.
Oh you’re trolling, gotcha
Well, give me an example then. I acknowledge I don’t play many RPGs, so maybe I am missing something obvious, but I have seen almost no innovation in big RPGs esspecially when it comes to integrating it with gameplay. All the examples that come to mind are more at the edge of what is considered part of the genre, like Mount and Blade, or RDR2.
Creation Engine is a great engine for Bethesda style games, no doubt about that. But it is not a particularly innovative engine. The main innovation was just how moddable it was. It’s basically a pretty SQL database, with the formids being primary keys. (Have you ever screwed with xEdit? It’s so easy to mod!)
BUT that being said, widespread use of procgen was in Dagger Fall. Aside from a few key dungeons, everything was procedurally generated, and that was in 1996. Hell, I’d venture that it had better procgen, because they had roads. And before that, Rogue was procedurally generated. Procgen just isn’t an innovation.