Bumping since I found this additional world size comparison map and article: http://gamingbolt.com/ten-largest-worlds-in-video-games

Added to the OP as well.

this.

Totally agree with the OP regarding JC2, and how Bethesda should take notes. The game looked amazing at any distance. The textures looked great up close, and with the infinite draw distance, the map looked amazing even from miles away. There was no intermediate crappy looking area where the textures were scaled back due to LOD either like in Oblivion. If they can make a game that is 25 times bigger than Oblivion, has a great variety in environments, nice destructibility, dozens of vehicles, and even allows you to fly a jet across the world at full screen with limited pop in, then Skyrim has no excuse NOT to look amazing! I can't remember any other game besides JC2 where I could consistently just sit back and admire the beauty of the environment during a sunset.

I am also amazed that game engines like this go unnoticed. Every time I see a game like this with a great engine I get excited thinking about other games licensing it. Then I get depressed to see another 150 games come out using Unreal Engine 3 :thumbsdown:

Unnoticed or just unfitting for the task?

Just cause 2 didn't win game of the year though

Just Cause 2 crashed on my computer, like cavalry crashes on a phalanx.

That said, it ran really well when it wasn't crashing and looked just great, too. I also found it to be fun.

Just Cause 2 is just an example that even if you have a big world you still may have a mediocre game that had only one fun thing, skydiving. It's not the size of the ship(world) it's how you use it(implement gameplay elements that are fun for hundreds of hours without being repetitive)

Big boring useless world that seems randomly generated = no place in new bethesda games.

Guys, some of you need to stop trying to twist the sense of my OP. The subtitle makes it pretty clear this thread is more about the engine used in Just Cause 2 i.e. the Avalanche Engine 2, which could definitely be used to make an Oblivion/Fallout3/Skyrim-style RPG. Nobody's denying that these RPGs have a world much more full of interesting things to do than JC2, so full actually that many of us would like things to be slightly less crowded. The problem is that Oblivion and Fallout 3 have crappy terrain and draw distances, and we don't know yet if Beth found a good technical solution to these.


Sadly it's not always the best technical solutions that emerge, but rather the most hyped up. The only engine I know of that might compare is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine

There may be some unnanounced titles in the works using Avalanche Engine 2 or its successor though. Eidos published Just Cause 2 so that's already one big studio who knows well the engine's capabilities.


It won Zero Punctuation's game of the year, which is a pretty high award given that Yahtzee rips most games to shreds :trophy: .

Who's to say they haven't learned things from Just Cause 2?? Maybe they have. But the thing that you're forgetting is all the other stuff that goes on in TES that doesn't go on in Skyrim. The AI, for one, especially now that Radiant AI is being properly implemented. And the fact that every single item is pickup-able.

Also, Skyrim probably does have infinite draw distance. Remember the bit about the map, where the player presses the "Map" button, and the camera just zooms out?? Seems fairly infinite to me

It wouldn't be TeS type of game although that would be kinda cool to run up buildings (if you have the right skills) or look through windows. Never played Just Cause 2 although i was thinking about getting it so i'll have to try it to really compare it.

This is the main point to take into consideration. Sure, Just Cause 2 had a massive open world. But did every NPC in JC2 have a specific routine, with a specific inventory, their own place of work to go to during the day and a home to return to at night, stopping for dinner at the right times, visiting the chapel every Sunday?

Also, JC2 may have been big, but I bet if you ran through a forest in that game you wouldn't find anywhere near as much detail as you can in Oblivion. Not just tall swaying grasses and animated trees, but harvestable flowers, wildlife such as deer and wild boar, and dungeons and ruins.

It is disappointing to hear that Skyrim isn't any larger (I was hoping for double Oblivion's size) but it sounds like they've dropped the procedural landscape generation they used in Oblivion and created everything by hand this time around. So we've already been guaranteed incredibly detailed and beautiful environments with that, but we've also got a brand new tree engine, snow that falls and settles realistically, and a water fluidity system. I think I'll be okay with a similar sized world when they're packing in this much eye candy :happy:

Let me say this.

I'll give credit to http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/user/42164-gabba/ for his research regarding world sizes and his commitment to Just Cause II, which appears to be the latest and greatest of its genre of sandbox "Do What You Want (so long as its violent and explosive)" games. So that's there. The trouble is the arrogance of the idea that this thread ensues: "Bethesda Softworks could learn something from a rival competitor."

I'll be blunt: if you're an expert in the field of video gaming and development, you know EXACTLY how game design and collaboration works and you can compare two engines fairly and consider their pros and cons precisely and fairly conclude that Bethesda could do a better job, then I'm the first seat in the first row to listen to your opinions and give them consideration. But I know you're not. So why the hell are you here making JUDGMENTS and CONCLUSIONS about something that you're ASSUMING based on AMATEUR speculation?

Hell, if it were so easy to judge Bethesda for their craft, I'd be in here saying, "Hey! Crysis is a gorgeous game with a really big game world! Why not just use the Crysis Engine! Bethesda svcks cuz they don't!"

But it's not. I don't know JACK about the gaming industry. And I've read from several sources that the reason Bethesda is forced to ignore engines like Crysis and Id is because, in terms of coding and flexibility, the engine is simply incompatible for their goals. That's why they had to use the horrid Gamebryo engine, and that's why they've had to build their own.

But alas, if it were that easy, I'd still be in here making those accusations. Just like you're doing.

So unless you're an expert, I don't want to hear it. And THAT'S what I think of your thread - speculation and judgments based on ASSUMPTIONS and pre-conceived exactness based on your own observations that have NO expertise.

Darkstorne:


I'm pretty sure that a games graphics engine and AI are two separate things. There have been many games that have licensed one middleware for graphics and rendering, one for physics, and one for pathfinding/AI. I'm not saying Skyrim SHOULD use the avalanche engine necessarily, but having better AI does not prevent Bethesda from using a different graphics engine.



Actually, I think you would be very surprised at the up close detail in JC2 (I know I was). It handily beats Oblivion and FO3 in detail up close, and at a distance (the creatures would not be hard to add, and harvest-able items is merely adding an animation and a condition that allows it). JC2 also a very natural way of scaling the detail so that grass and object pop-in was very minimal, and the textures looked great at any distance. The only knock was that some of the environments were bland, but then again, deserts tend to be that way. The jungles were very detailed and atmospheric though.




Agreed about the size thing. Todd has actually stated that Skyrim is about the exact same size as OB, but with all the mountains, it will actually have less playable area. However, he said it should feel larger due to having to walk around all the mountains. As long as they made the playable land much nicer looking and more interesting to explore, than I am fine with this. Still a tad disappointed that it's not at least a tad larger though. The only thing I worry about is that the game will look like a beefed up Oblivion (to me the screens partially confirm this). I think the biggest improvement they are going for is how the game feels though. If they improve things like animations, weather, and water like it sounds as though they have, the game should be a stunner.

Anyway, I just hope the creation engine can at least rival the avalance engine. JC2 did have amazing detail, scenery, draw distance, skies with real clouds, amazing weather and storm effects, great particles, and stunning lighting. If Skyrim can check all those graphical boxes, I will be a happy man!

I've gotta say, JC2 is optimized like crazy. It looks like a dream and a computer MacGyver'd out of a shoebox, a clock radio and some refried beans can run it on high. Anything optimized that prefectly deserves respect, even if it is the only game made in the last 5 years with voice acting worse than Oblivions. Fun, too.

LOL. The voice acting was kinda cheesy, but imo in was good cheesy. Try playing Two Wolds 2 for SERIOUSLY bad voice acting. I head the first was even worse, but I never got around to trying it. TW2 is not the worst game, but the voice acting and boring story are really starting to turn me off to it. It's like they are trying too hard to be cheesy bad with the voice acting, and just end up being bad bad.

It's kind of surprising Skyrim will be like Oblivion, basically 16 square miles. I'd like to see Skyrim at least Just Cause 2's 400 square miles map scale, or even larger. It really seems like the future for all open world games to be around that scale aiming for enough realism like Skyrim. Having this scale sheds the feeling that you're inside a game, for me.

UT3, arma 2, STALKER, yeah lots of PC games

but yeah cool just cause is big.

Infinity the quest for earth is a 1:1 scale size of a galaxy i think it wins.