Firstly investing in better game engines isn't really optional. That all being said it isn't really a good excuse in so far as their business model is concerned. Not just the cost of developement, but the cost of retraining the staff to work with the new engine. The answer would seem to boil down to cost. They look nice and shiny because they ruthlessly corall you along a small path where they can control what you can see.
#HOW OLD IS GAMEBRYO ENGINE FULL#
I'm not saying BGS comes close to using the full power of this engine, but its better for most anything short of a linear, tightly scripted corridor FPS - which, if you've noticed, is most of them on the market today. NPC's are not unique, just a handful of randos that are dropped in a radius around your character. No other game engine supports the level of dynamism in the open world that Creation does - look at TW3, looks good, 90% of everything is a static piece of backdrop. And no other game engine in existence includes the scripting and AI packages that this one does. OP, keep in mind that Creation is *based* on gamebryo, but its been torn apart and rebuilt. Sames as any other AAA developer throwing their game with its shiny new engine into the ring. I'm the exact opposite - because I *know* they won't 'fix problems' or 'bother to give a fair amount of content'. Originally posted by Scarecrow:If bethesda bothers to fix problems that occur in the new engine, then I wouldn't care if it didn't have dev tools for awhile, and if they actually bothered to give it a fair amount of content, and avoid making the same problems they made with fallout 4.Ī fallout game in the Frostbite 3 engine would be fantastic, wait a minute.Ī fallout game in the Crytek Engine would be even better, Crysis was way ahead of its time back in 2007, and the newest rendition looks bloody fantastic
0 kommentar(er)
