it's Creation engine 2. Creation engine is what makes their mod scene crazy. They would be foolish to abandoned it. Creation Engine 2 is going to power all their games going forward.
Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
And nothing of what you said prevents the modding scene from thriving. Creation Engine 2 is essentially the same engine as Creation Engine, which is essentially the same Engine as Gamebryo.
A new engine can always be built with mod support in mind, so it wouldn't be foolish to create a modern engine not tethered to last-century technologies that also accounts for modding support.
Edit - Further proof that CE2 is just CE with a few bells and whistles added on top.
All the new Starfield Creation Engine 2 features and improvements
With a whole new universe comes the revamped Starfield Creation Engine 2 to power it. So, what are the Creation Kit 2 improvements, and where is it?
www.starfielddb.com
The point is: These engines were never created with Havok Physics, GE, Multiplayer, etc, in mind. By tacking those features on to an older foundation, and not developing your base code with that in mind, you're opening yourself to bugs being introduced across the whole pipeline. This is software development 101. For example, years ago Twitter moved from Ruby to Scala due to their needs. They rewrote their codebase to suit the evolving needs of their product. Bethesda must do the same, it's unacceptable that a game like this runs like a hog in almost any machine, and has very similar bugs to those Morrowind had eons ago.
Last edited:
He said he likes the game but gave it a 7. A 7/10 means the game is okay imo. doesn't really lined up with what he said in the article imo.
creation engine is 2 is vastly overhauled according to them and i don't doubt it. So its the same in some parts but vastly improved. Creation Engine 2 is the new engine lol. And it is modern
Hes upset because dan give it a 7 and not higher
And use the picture of him costplaying as kratos as an excuses to paint him as biass toward playstation
Everyone whos been long enough on ign knows that dan stapleton is not ps fan but pc enthusiast
i view 7/10 as a average game score. Not a good score. I think many would agree. Do you?
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
Anyone with a stake in seeing Microsoft fail, Bethesda included, will cheer that decision.
To each their own.
Xbox Game Studios
Playstation Studios
Playstation Studios
Disagree. They made great and good games with that engine. It also powers their mod scene. They have the best mod scene in Triple A single player games for a reason. Its one of the major reason why their games last so long.
I really don't want to sound rude, but let me try and explain this differently.
Let's say Gamebryo is the foundation you're building your house on. Your house is named Creation Engine.
Gamebryo came out in 1997 and went through constant changes as any game engine will. Nevertheless, its codebase is from 1997 and has not fundamentally changed, it's just been iterated upon.
The Creation Engine was built on that foundation and reworked to suit their evolving needs. This engine was released in 2011, and since then every single feature that has been added to it has been added to a codebase from 2011, which was already an evolution of a codebase from 1997. CE2 is just CE with a few things added on top.
Now compare it with Unreal Engine. While UE 1 through 3 all share the same baseline, and it's semi-easy to port between them, UE was developed over 11 years and is pretty much a new engine, with a new foundation. It's pretty much impossible to port your game from 3 to 4, and instead, you have to almost re-write your game from scratch. UE5 is an evolution of the foundation UE4 build
Some context: http://xingthegame.blogspot.com/2014/04/we-made-switch-to-unreal-engine-4.html
Your knowledge of Software design is, quite frankly, lacking. It's not the Creation Engine that makes their games special, it's actually their Radiant AI and Radiant Story technologies, as well as their Mod support. Anybody who understands a tiny bit of game/software development can tell you that said technologies and mod support can be rewritten from scratch and perfected, as well as integrated into the engine.
Both of these technologies were originally written for Gamebryo.
Exactly. Imagine Starfield with a modern, tailor-made engine, created with modern technologies in mind, free of legacy bugs (pretty much every single bug we've seen has been seen in bethesda games in the past, one way or another)
And Fiat made good cars with FIRE engines. Doesn't mean those engines are good.
Again, mod support has no bearing here since ANY game engine can be created to support mods.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
Allowing you to use a weapon on a hub?
Game design 101: Don't allow a player use weapons on a hub.
Empty a clip on a friendly = won't die = automatic suspension of disbelief. It's already a problem with NPC companions but at least every dev out there tries to minimize that effect everywhere else, specially on the most likely place to occur... hubs full of friendly NPCs.
Game design 101: Don't allow a player use weapons on a hub.
Empty a clip on a friendly = won't die = automatic suspension of disbelief. It's already a problem with NPC companions but at least every dev out there tries to minimize that effect everywhere else, specially on the most likely place to occur... hubs full of friendly NPCs.
Last edited by a moderator:
They needed to do more than just Fallout 4 in-space.
They promised revolutionary use of procedural generation and space exploration and hyped the game as such while from what reviews I’ve read so far claim it hasn’t delivered on that much at all.
i don’t engage in the meta dick swinging since it’s mostly bullshit but… this should’ve been mid 90s if it actually accomplished what it said it was.
In a review industry full of paid for shills and fanboys from all sides… I’m shocked. To me this means they dropped the ball big time.
Like is there no real space flight? I see that dogfighting is there but how does that play out? What’s the deal with the actual space aspect of things? Doesn’t seem like it’s offering much more than what Mass Effect has.
They promised revolutionary use of procedural generation and space exploration and hyped the game as such while from what reviews I’ve read so far claim it hasn’t delivered on that much at all.
i don’t engage in the meta dick swinging since it’s mostly bullshit but… this should’ve been mid 90s if it actually accomplished what it said it was.
In a review industry full of paid for shills and fanboys from all sides… I’m shocked. To me this means they dropped the ball big time.
Like is there no real space flight? I see that dogfighting is there but how does that play out? What’s the deal with the actual space aspect of things? Doesn’t seem like it’s offering much more than what Mass Effect has.
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
I give Guerrila so much shit for their mid story-telling, story structure arcs and their bad inclination to settle on cliche's but outside of that, it really puts shit in perspective - the gulf in talent, the engine, the tech, the attention to detail. Night and day. No corner cutting by hiding behind first person view either.Playstation Studios
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said i was a software expert. The only things i said was that creation engine 2 is vastly improved from creation engine , according to the acually devs that work on that engine. And thats its a modern engine according to Bethesda. Nothing i said is incorrect. Unless you're claiming to have more knowledge on the creation engine then the actually devs?