I think it's high time Bethesda joined the rest of the gaming world and started using a graphics engine that's actually up to date and not 3-5 years old. I totally understand they want to use their own "Gamebryo" or "Creation" engine because it's something they can call their own, but the sad truth is - it's so terrible. Take for instance Fallout 4 -they used a "modified" version of an already obsolete Creation engine, when they could have used something VASTLY superior in every way (CryEngine 3 or higher comes to mind). Crysis 3 was released almost 3 years prior to Fallout 4, and that had orders of magnitude better graphics and physics.

I don't understand why Bethesda absolutely refuses to adopt a current generation engine instead of using an old, bugged, realism-destroying engine that they just keep updating and citing it as some sort of revolutionary breakthrough when the truth is - it really isn't.

P.S. - Crytek just released CryEngine 5 to the public to use on a donation-based system, so there really is no excuse why something like this can't be used. This is an example of a massively superior technology to the latest Creation engine non-sense.

I know next to nothing about game engines. This engine you are talking about can do all of the things that need to be done in a TES game? The biggest "reason" Beth gave for Fallout4's graphics not being as good as some other current titles is that the engine has to do much more than those games (for the record, I thought Fallout4 looks fine. Definitely the best looking Bethesda game to date out of the box).

I completely disagree. The Netimmerse / Gamebryo / Creation engine is perfectly suited to Bethesda's open-world, non-linear games. It has served them brilliantly for 14 years and I see no need to change. This engine is the most flexible engine I have ever modded. I adore the engine and I hope they continue to use it for many years and many games to come.

Don't know how Engines work, do ya? I'm still hazy on some of the finer details, but even i can say that this is total hogwash.

Graphics and Physics in particular are modular components of the engine. Creation isn't the limitation, it's the graphics and physics systems which Bethesda CHOOSES to implement into their engine.


Similarly, the bugs are not a product of the Engine, but rather something unique to Bethesda. If they were Engine-Specific, they would affect all games made on the Netimmersive/Gamebryo system. They don't. So the problem isn't the engine, but rather those using it.

Changing to a radically different engine would probably just make the problems worse.

The Engine is not, it's self, a strict limitation. Particularly one which Bethesda has total control over. Rather, it's their choices in terms of what modules they implement into their engine, and their skill with those tools, that forms the limitations.

A game engine is more than just "graphics and physics." I will go farther and say that I think "graphics and physics" are the most superficial aspects of video games. Unfortunately shiny gimmicks like graphics and physics seem to be all that many gamers care about these days. And that, I believe, is why games look better but get increasingly shallow every year.

A game engine also controls gameplay. If Bethesda were to licence the CryENGINE, they would have to re-write the engine to support the roleplaying game mechanics they need for their Elder Scrolls games.

Personally I would rather they keep the game engine that is designed to support Bethesda's game mechanics (which is what I care most about) than have to write their game mechanics into a new game engine.

I think they should stick to the engine they are using now.

Particularly since they may not even be ALOUD to do so. You don't get to just take someone else engine and rip it apart to suit your needs. The licensing determines what you can and cannot do.

The actual graphics system may not even really need an upgrade. Just look at what people have been able to do with it in Skyrim.

PS... Unreal > Cryengine

Bethesda Game Studios made the PC version of Fallout 4 run on a 64-bit .exe and it has DirectX 11 support as well as support for Physically Based Rendering (PBR).

Although some PC gamers who are modders are saying that Bethesda Game Studios didn't fully implement Physically Based Rendering (PBR) like when Todd Howard said it does at their E3 2015 conference.

I won't expect them to use/create another engine according to their own records. They'll continue to use what's left of their rebrand in house 14 years old Creation/Gamebryo untill they can't fool people anymore also too outdated, that's BETHESDA! After that we might see a new engine. Well at least I hope they add DX12 support for ES 6.

I think on of the main reasons they keep using their old engine is because they know how it works and can easily reuse assets from previous games.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying I hate Bethesda games, I've loved every single TES game since Morrowind and every Fallout game since Fallout 3, but if you actually read feedback from the community, one of the top 3 complaints about TES and Fallout games has been the graphics, as well as the physics. When you do a side by side comparison of Beth games to other games in their respective generations, both the visuals and physics are many years behind than that of other popular games.

They've already rebuilt the graphics component of the engine three times. For Oblivion to support per-pixel lighting and dynamic shadows, for Skyrim to implement a deferred renderer for improved performance with multiple lights, and then for Fallout 4 to implement physically based shading and volumetric lighting.

I do not share this opinion. For all I know Skyrim has good graphics. You have to ask yourself whether better graphics necessarily make the game better?

Have they really done this to any degree at all?

I would assume they have.

Or do you think they start at 0 with every new game?

Fallout 3 recycled quite a few of Oblivion's animations, but models and textures seem to be completely replaced with each game. (not counting New Vegas because NV wasn't made by Bethesda, no matter how popular of a misconception that is)

Anyway, the art and physics being 'behind' is because of two reasons: 1) they keep licensing the Havok physics engine while other triple-A studios tend to build their own physics engines, and 2) the art has more to do with the artists than the engine. You can give me the same stuff Picasso used, but I can't replicate his paintings. There are other things to consider, too. For instance, Bethesda's games have much more to look at at any given time because they are open world. For instance, when you are playing Halo, there's the immediate area and usually a bend that, when traveled through, causes the next section of the level to load while unloading the current section. If you can see a distant background, it's probably extremely low poly or just a flat texture. Therefor, tons of polygons, nearly up to what the GPU can render at a given time at 30 frames per second, can be concentrated in that one room. Skyrim, meanwhile, needs to render not just the immediate area, but also a pretty good distance beyond that. The only 2D background is the sky. Yes, distant terrain is simplified to ease the load, but it still eats polygons and therefor the immediate area can not achieve the same polygon density as Halo. And, of course, people tend to mistake the art direction for the art quality. While Skyrim's desaturated look dates it, that's not a failing of the graphics engine or the artists, but of the art director. There are custom shaders that replace the desaturation effect with finer bloom and more vibrant colors which combine to immediately make the game look newer. That doesn't mean that Skyrim's graphics are bad, but rather that the art direction favored a look that has fallen out of style. Considering that they don't crank out another one every year like Call of Duty, it's perfectly acceptable to me that the art style would be appropriate for the time that they began development, even if that makes it look somewhat dated when it comes out.

I would say they do not. You can have a beautiful game but if it plays like doo doo then all those pretty graphics are meaningless.

I agree entirely. And I would hate too see them lose a bunch of gameplay features and depth just to please the graphics crowd. However I also realize that the graphics have to be good to attract buyers, so its a balance they have to achieve. I doubt switching engine would be solution though.

I think you are right. I don't know of any other game studios that are doing what Bethesda are doing with their open worlds, so switching the engine may make for better graphics, but I'm not sure it would allow for all the little details (such as each piece of clutter being manipulatable) to be possible.

A vocal minority complains loudly, yes, but literally every poll I've ever seen, regardless of where it's been done, has shown that those complaints do not represent the majority. Ballance and volume of activities top the list, followed by bug control, writing and hardcoe elements.


Even then, we've already seen that the engine is more than capable of handling better graphics as it stands. Even without ENB modification, you can push Skyrim well beyond the texture resolutions and polygons and more mobjects than the base game.


This clearly shows that the engine isn't the limiting factor. Bethesda is. And changing the engine isn't going to solve that problem. On fact, because of a lack of control and familiarity, it would probably make it worse.

IDK anything about engine. I just want to see jiggle physics.

Why what ever do you mean? Please explain "jiggle physics"!

The ability for low-solidity objects to move when affected by forces, typically used in an exaggerated manner by people who have no idea how briasts actually move.

That work?

Drawcalls is what you need.

With DirectX 12 it can allow for millions of drawcalls.

3 million drawcalls can allow for thousands of objects to be rendered on screen, even thousands of NPC's.

Now go up to 50 million drawcalls which Microsoft claims they want to achieve for DirectX 12 in a decade. Then you can have like 50,000 objects rendering on the floor and be getting 60FPS if you got a good PC.

DirectX 12 is supposed to leverage the power of the GPU's we have today and the cores of the processors.

Thank you for the clarification, lol