-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Controversy Over Bethesda's 'Game Engine' Is Misguided [Kotaku]
- Thread starter ToddBonzalez
- Start date
Lol it completely kills the PS3 the more saves you have and the longer you play the game, and you cannot avoid it, I mean what kind of "works fine" is that.
That's all well and good and technically correct, but I don't trust Bethesda at all to actually upgrade the various tools and middleware involved in developing their games to a meaningful degree that will improve their games to the level I would like.
I mean they "improved" their tools for Fallout 4 and that was still a steaming pile of shit.
I mean they "improved" their tools for Fallout 4 and that was still a steaming pile of shit.
Do you even understand how modern manufacturing even works? Like seriously do you think stuff is made these days without complex programming.
Yeah its been...interesting. I've gone from fighting off a pack of wolves with fur, in a deforming snowy environment at a solid 30fps to fighting a group of mole rats that look like turds at a slideshow frame rate.
The complaints about the engine are a proxy for expressing disappointment over the fact that the next couple of Bethesda games will still have the same bugs, issues and problems as those that came before. Arguing over whether or not the word being used to describe the issues is technically accurate or not is Hermes-from-Futurama level of strict adherance to technicalities and semantics. The point of the matter and the thing actually worth discussing is that Bethesda is going to deliver the same faulty product again in the future. The games press' time would be better spent, I think, criticizing that fact instead of debating whether the giant mess before us is better described as a trash fire or a garbage fire.
Great post.
They've been on Gamebryo since Morrowind I believe.
It got buggier and buggier with each new release. At this point, switch engines is a better solution, as it seems to be too big of a mess to actually fix.
Exactly...
For years, people have been using the term "engine" to refer, inaccurately or otherwise, to the horrible lack of optimization in these games that share the same engine-but-with-updates they've been using to make their games...
Making an entire article over the misuse of a single word when you clearly understand the intent of the criticism you're decrying makes it seem like a "slow news day" over at Kotaku...
Read the other posts, it is.
When your best argument is "well it is selling so it must not be broken/bugged", there's not even a point in arguing.
Then they should really stop talking about game development related things then..
Yeah, doesn't matter what the fuck they call it because at the end of the day they're complaining about the bugs that keep showing up in game after game and the same jank that shows up in game after game. What terms should people use so they can complain about the same old problems that keep showing up more accurately??
i admit i have no clues about game development, i am just a player.
but still i think i can tell if a game has tons of bugs and glitches, bad frame-rate, horrid animations and looks outdated compared to its peers and all this keeps getting worse with every iteration - i call it a bad engine.
if it would be better to say the developement tools dont seem to be that good compared to what orher studios produce, so be it. But the outcome and the reality for me as a player is the same, wether im using the exact right technical term or not...
please update for future projects bethesda!
but still i think i can tell if a game has tons of bugs and glitches, bad frame-rate, horrid animations and looks outdated compared to its peers and all this keeps getting worse with every iteration - i call it a bad engine.
if it would be better to say the developement tools dont seem to be that good compared to what orher studios produce, so be it. But the outcome and the reality for me as a player is the same, wether im using the exact right technical term or not...
please update for future projects bethesda!
Right, and people should go to film school before having an opinion on movies, should be trained as a chef before having an opinion on a meal, and be trained as a plumber before pointing out a dripping tap.
This. Also, I'll eat my hat if Starfield isn't a buggy mess and looks remotely in the same boat graphically as the other next gen games.
Great post, hand-waving very real issues with a dev based on a technicality is a bad look. I'm starting to really not like the way Jason leans in some of these discussions.
StuBurns doing good work in this thread.
https://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731
Look at all those comments about how the engine is at fault.
To be honest I don't understand Schreier's point with the Bethesda article.
https://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731
Look at all those comments about how the engine is at fault.
To be honest I don't understand Schreier's point with the Bethesda article.
Actually it's worse - the article misinterprets the topic just as much as the audience it talks to about misinterpretation.
There's a massive amount of inertia and existing constraints in legacy codebases that resists most manners of iterative change, helped by humans working with said tools being resistant to change as well. Gameplay systems usually being the slowest to change because they tend to be the most fragile and have most iteration built-in them.
And sure, ultimately the reasons behind it don't matter as much as results speak for themselves.
if this is what he spends his time getting riled up about just wait until he finds out about some of the real problems in the world!
I mean, game engines do have problems. We don't know what the extent of their changes are but maybe their engine needs a bigger refactoring that they are doing or willing to make.
Some decisions made 10 years ago might be biting them in the ass (as it's oh so common in software development) and we don't know how much stuff is just duct-taped together. Given how many weird issues their games have my guess would be "a lot" but I don't know obviously.
People's complains about "the same engine" might be misguided but at the same time sticking to the same base engine might be an issue given how many legacy problems seem to persist and take longer to fix than they should.
With that said, building a new engine from scratch would be super expensive and it would introduce their own set of problems so it makes sense to stick with it. Hopefully they can fix some of the technical shortcomings they have but can't blame people for not being optimist after Fallout 76.
Engines are re-written all the time and constantly changing but we can't ignore that legacy problems might persist and people are concerned about it. Even if the hyperbole is ridiculous most of the time.
Some decisions made 10 years ago might be biting them in the ass (as it's oh so common in software development) and we don't know how much stuff is just duct-taped together. Given how many weird issues their games have my guess would be "a lot" but I don't know obviously.
People's complains about "the same engine" might be misguided but at the same time sticking to the same base engine might be an issue given how many legacy problems seem to persist and take longer to fix than they should.
With that said, building a new engine from scratch would be super expensive and it would introduce their own set of problems so it makes sense to stick with it. Hopefully they can fix some of the technical shortcomings they have but can't blame people for not being optimist after Fallout 76.
Engines are re-written all the time and constantly changing but we can't ignore that legacy problems might persist and people are concerned about it. Even if the hyperbole is ridiculous most of the time.
Game engines can definitely be built with certain decisions that cause huge problems in the future. Every software does and that's why refactoring code is a thing and why some people reach a point of "let's throw it away and start over".
Iteration doesn't always fix those problems so blaming an engine for certain things isn't misguided if those things keep showing up despite they improving the engine.
Like, improving the rendering pipeline won't fix the other issues the game might have.
Iteration doesn't always fix those problems so blaming an engine for certain things isn't misguided if those things keep showing up despite they improving the engine.
Like, improving the rendering pipeline won't fix the other issues the game might have.
Pointless argument about semantics. Call it what you want, but the fact is the technical foundation of Bethesda games is well behind the competition and their releases lack in quality and polish. Game speed tied to frame rate in a 2018 AAA title? C'mon! No matter how you spin it, that's unacceptable. How do you fix that? You cap the frame rate at 63fps of course! What a joke.
Whether you call it engine or codebase or whatever, the point stands. The engine has fundamentally identical structure to Morrowind from 2002, based on separate cells. It retains many of the same issues. THAT is what people criticize, and deservedly so. There is no reason to think that if game from 2015 and then 2018 shares issues with game from 2002, that the game from 2021 using the same ENGINE (codebase, whatever) will be sunshine and buttercups.
Your talking about something that relates to a physical process/result. I never said that manufacturing did not envolve any sort of software or programming. But you really think that manufacturing is that similar to creating a video game? I guess that we could come up with some simulation use cases that would get pretty close in some situations. But unless I am way off base most of the time the desired outcomes are designed for fixed results whereas for games they are not.
It's clear.
The point of this article is to point out that clickbaiting by Forbes or YouTubers like YongYea that suggest Starfield/TES6 will have the same problems as Fallout 4 and 76 because "they'll use the same engine" is factually incorrect and misguided. And he's probably correct.
Of course, people in this thread are waving it off as a "semantics issue".
Is he just being pedantic about the term "engine"? The issue with Bethesda games is that they all share the same glitched physics and gameplay. I admit I know nothing about how games are developed, but it feels like the "core" of the games is the same. Fine, let's not call it an engine, but it still sucks.
I mean, it's kinda funny when the takeaway from the article is essentially:
"It's not an 'engine' issue, Bethesda just keep making the same mistakes over the course of decades with their First Person RPGs."
Why is this being hailed as not engine issues? The FPS game speed cap is literally at fault of the engine?
Why are we trying to shift blame. Gamebyro/Creation has lived it's worth the movement system is archaic and I fail to see how it benefits any of their games to keep using it. It has fundemental flaws that keep it from being a good engine.
Either rebasing the entire graphics engine to run properly and fix age old issues or tossing it to make a new one.
I mean ffs there is a valid reason behind Zenimax using another engine for ESO and not gamebyro because it isn't feasible for games anymore.
Why are we trying to shift blame. Gamebyro/Creation has lived it's worth the movement system is archaic and I fail to see how it benefits any of their games to keep using it. It has fundemental flaws that keep it from being a good engine.
Either rebasing the entire graphics engine to run properly and fix age old issues or tossing it to make a new one.
I mean ffs there is a valid reason behind Zenimax using another engine for ESO and not gamebyro because it isn't feasible for games anymore.
The point being made it's a ship of Theseus.
Honestly threads about BGS keep surprising me. Sure, there's things that need to be improved upon, but it's not like their games are extremely bad. I read a comment of someone who said Skyrim was a bad game yet he had put about 300 hours in it. What's going on there?
Yeah the internet was a mistake. Negative ass communities suck the fun out of hobbies. I truly think the people smart enough to stay away from online communities enjoy their hobbies more than the average forum goer, Reddit user etc. With gaming there's so much focus on glitches, frame rate and other performance issues that the average gamer not participating in these communities mostly doesn't even notice or care about and just has fun playing their games.
I don't support some of the vitriol that's going on, but I started playing Fallout 4 this year and some of the bugs that are still there are ridiculous. I can't use the elevators in settlements, something that was part of a paid DLC released 2 years ago, because the elevator and the buttons get separated after a while. How to fix? Oh just replace the whole thing and keep doing it everytime it happens, including the things you snapped it to. No thanks. I'm glad I didn't buy this DLC on release and just got it as part of the GOTY edition.
Yeah, that's why I wanted a source for those claims.
At first glance it seemed like reasonable complaints against general game engine design decisions, but I had no idea if any of them are actually valid. Seems like it was a bunch of malarkey in the end.
Do you mind explaining what the implications are? It seems that both are just shorthand and the article is just pointlessly condescending semantics. Does it -really- matter that people use "engine" for shorthand rather than "technology"?
I believe most gamers understand that making a game required tons of different tools and software but it's more easy to reference to it all as "engine".
We don't know what specific tool does Bethesda need to upgrade in order to achieve better looking games with less bugs, so we just use "engine".
We don't know what specific tool does Bethesda need to upgrade in order to achieve better looking games with less bugs, so we just use "engine".
I wouldn't say their games are all bad some are fine like Skyrim felt finished and worked fine for me.
It's the other games that don't feel this way and are broken as a result.
I have 0 sympathy for Bethesda when they could head off all this criticism by releasing games that are less buggy and less broken.
It matters because they are different things. If people are going to laugh at a company because they're using an engine perceived to be old or bad, they're not making an actual point. Black Ops 4 is using an engine that is a very heavily modified idTech 3 engine that was released in 1999. Their technology chain has modified it so heavily that it doesn't resemble the engine of 19 years ago. If YouTubers were shitting on whatever the current Black Ops' problems are because it's using a 20 year old engine, it would be showing a lack of understanding about what an engine is. Why not correct that?
The point is that it doesn't matter that Bethesda is using gamebryo/creation, because if they put enough resources into it, they could swap out the parts and rewrite aspects of it to match or exceed anything out on the market. If they were to simply "switch engines" the code and tech they've been writing for 15+ years would be completely thrown away and they would have to begin modifying this new engine heavily (there doesn't exist an engine which has what they need "out of the box"). These articles and videos that Jason is refuting are displaying a complete lack of understanding of the situation and putting forth nonsensical solutions. What is wrong with, as a a games journalist, laying out why those solutions are misguided and elaborating on what the problem actually is?
Your basically confirming you don't know what your talking about and that's fine but people really shouldn't speak as if they're an expert in fields they have little understanding of.
Criticism of the Call of Duty series for using the idTech 3 engine has already existed for years as well, there are limitations the engine but they have done a great job iterating on it and that's why criticism of it has been minimal. If it was actively interfering with the gameplay design of Call of Duty they would get tons of flack for it. Bethesda receives criticism for their use of an outdated engine because the problems with it have been prevalent for years and they are obvious even to a laymen, to say "the code and tech they've been writing for 15+ years would be completely thrown away" or "they could swap out the parts and rewrite aspects of it to match or exceed anything out on the market" is sidestepping the issue, either solution is what the community is asking Bethesda to do, the community wants the company to improve their "engine/technology" and has complained about it for years. Complaining about the "engine" is just the layman shorthand for that, youtube channels appeal to the layman.
