[Taylor Thompson]

I believe they will be, let's not forget how many peoples jaws dropped when they first saw oblivions screen shots and went OMG that looks real.

They did it with the Morrowind engine to create Oblivion, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and believing them. GameBryo has such a bad name in the game industry right now because they've used the Oblivion engine for three straight games... I really hope it's every bit as great as they are saying, simply to get people back on board the "Bethesda makes beautiful looking games" thought. That's how it used to be. Now... people play connect-the-dots when they see the visually ugly and buggy mess, New Vegas. It's a shame.

You both completely missed my point. While the contrast is significant, Morrowind and Oblivion still both used the SAME engine (albeit different versions). Perhaps I was not clear in my reply, for which I apologize for ambiguity.

I'm no where near saying that the final engine isn't going to look gorgeous. I quite highly rather expect to be. My response was whether to call the their game's engine, based on current information, a NEW engine. To me the term 'new' means a completely different product, not just something that's been heavily updated or revamped. Unreal and Tech5 are different engines. However, Unreal 1.0 and 2.0, are the same engines - 2.0 is just an updated version of the other. This was my point.

To say that their game is going to have a NEW engine, from what we currently know, is misleading and should be avoided.

[NAtIVe GOddess]

What's the difference between a "new" engine, designed from the ground up, and one entirely redone, based on a previous iteration? If it's completely retooled from the ground up, wouldn't that achieve the same goals?

Haha so true! I can't believe they have a knight with his sword drawn on top of a horse, when one of the complaints about the game was that there was no horseback combat.

Why was that game so full of false advertising? I'm pretty positive that they won't make the same mistakes again though.

It's not "false advertising" - those are likely mock-up shots, done by artists in order to provide inspiration to the rest of the team. Sometimes they're not able to get everything in, especially with a game as aspirational as Oblivion was.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yeah, based on the tweet from GI's Andy McNamara and Pete Hines' reply to one of the members of this forum, I'd say February is the month to look out for. I'd also bet that the cover reveals nothing about the game - they'll probably even go so far as to use art in lieu of in-game content, or even just the logo. That way they'll still be releasing the information all at once (in the GI issue) instead of providing material for people to speculate about.

[Skivs]

What's the difference between a "new" engine, designed from the ground up, and one entirely redone, based on a previous iteration? If it's completely retooled from the ground up, wouldn't that achieve the same goals?

A fair point. It's a connotation issue to be sure, so perhaps not worth deep discussion. That said, however, I will still respond to the question.

The difference has to do with what's going on "under the hood". Unless it is a complete, from the ground up, and from scratch rewrite then I would be more inclined to call it a revision rather than "new". However, I HIGHLY doubt they've gone this far from what we know - though it would be awesome if they did. Unless it truly is a complete rewrite, then they have surely reused large portions of the code base, which means many of the same quirks all the way from Morrowind can be expected (rain through the ceilings anyone?); hence why I hesitate to propagate the term "new".

But I've made my point so let us be done with this now.

[Anne marie]

TES III: Morrowind(2002):
vertex lighting ~ DX 8.1
water with EMBM
dynamic lighting with day night cycles, weather effects

TES IV: Oblivion(2006)
dynamic lighting with day night cycles, weather effects
Per-Pixel lighting with:
specular lighting
normal mapping
parallax mapping
HDR lighting
havok physics
fake tree canopy shadows, actor shadows, self shadowing on actors
x100 view distance compared to morrowind

I think we could call it a new engine. MGE did Distant land only from there. Dynamic lighting and weather are pretty much everything they have in common for renderer side. Oblivion released too early maybe.(same can be said for Morrowind.) Oblivion graphics when it first arrived was WOW(same can be said for Morrowind).

HDR rendering could have been improved. Needs polishing post process effects.
havok physics were underused. Or overused... No gameplay value. Traps were all preset. Who set them? Why can't we set them?
Shadows lacking, very visible.
Texture quality, very low for PC.

Overall sense of things being improved a little or none on all accounts. So people even call it the same engine while there are drastic changes.

TES V:
Oblivion+(fake shadows out)
Terrain, statics, actor shadows with penumbra renderings
GI(II,SSAO, etc.)
BDRF lighting model, subsurface scattering for realistic faces
volumetric lighting effects(true space godrays, volumetric clouds, smoke, fog, mist with realistic light scattering etc.(missing link in current gen graphics.))
Bokeh DOF, Motion blur
Color grading
advanced sky rendering, weather effects
advanced physics, procedural animations(natural motion alike), destructible environments, flowing water effects with rivers and cascades
procedural environments, procedural moss grow on statics(dynamics )

Pretty much a sealed deal. I would be disappointed for less.

PS. http://ui22.gamespot.com/1493/11403754973_2.jpg is false advertising. Not that I fell for it. Besides, final game looks better http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/30054-1-1289262291.jpg.

[Lisha Boo]

Unfortunately that scene is staged. You can't actually achieve that pose ingame. :toughninja:

For Oblivion, some of the tech wasn't finalized when it was announced, and naturally some things were cut from the final product. This is most likely why they STILL haven't announced TESV yet, to avoid false promises.

I believe whole-heartedly that Beth learns from their "mistakes," and it's one of the reasons why Elder Scrolls games tend to improve drastically between each game in the series.

On topic, I think a February GI cover sounds hopeful, but I'm not going to convince myself yet. A big reason why I think this is taking so long to announce is that Beth doesn't want to push the release back after announcing it. That tends to depress us ES fans.

[Victoria Vasileva]

I think we could call it a new engine. MGE did Distant land only from there. Dynamic lighting and weather are pretty much everything they have in common for renderer side. Oblivion released too early maybe.(same can be said for Morrowind.) Oblivion graphics when it first arrived was WOW(same can be said for Morrowind).

Here's the flaw in your argument: If you put a turbo on your car's engine, is it a brand new engine? NO. If you put in new pistons, rods, lifters, and cams do you have a new engine? NO. You may have a rebuilt engine, but unless you replace the fundamental engine block then it is still the same engine. Period.

A comparison of features constitutes nothing than that Oblivion has an UPDATED version of Morrowind's engine - which is true because they both used Gamebryo. Despite the additional and improved features, Oblivion STILL RENDERED ITS GRAPHICS THE SAME WAY!

This is my point. You people can't seem to understand what I've attempted to communicate. If you want to take "new" as simply being a cleaned-up version of the previous (like taking a junk car and fixing it up), then fine - but good luck trying to sell it under the guise that it's a "new" car.

[Sasha Brown]

I imagine that at one point the game engine supported having a weapon drawn while mounted on a horse.

It might have supported it, I don't know, but if you read interviews from before Oblivion came out they were talking about how they were not going to have horseback combat for gameplay reasons, not because they couldn't achieve it with their engine. Something about having combat being more involved. I just found it kind of funny that you see somebody riding like that with a sword drawn when it was a big complaint before the game came out that people wanted horseback combat.

It's not "false advertising" - those are likely mock-up shots, done by artists in order to provide inspiration to the rest of the team. Sometimes they're not able to get everything in, especially with a game as aspirational as Oblivion was.

They never wanted to add horseback combat. It's not like a feature they didn't get to or something. False advertising might not have been the right words, I was kind of joking anyways, but it was more based on the other things they actually did advertise in their demos that never ended up in the game.

[emily grieve]

This debate over new vs. revamped engine is just about the most hilarious waste of time I've yet encountered in the speculation threads. It's terminological. Some people want to say that the engine is new because lots of its parts have changed. Some people say that an engine can change lots of its parts while remaining the same engine. Here's an idea: forget about trying to legislate usage of "new" and "revamped", and discuss what the specific changes and improvements might be. After all, that's what matters.

[k a t e]

This debate over new vs. revamped engine is just about the most hilarious waste of time I've yet encountered in the speculation threads. It's terminological. Some people want to say that the engine is new because lots of its parts have changed. Some people say that an engine can change lots of its parts while remaining the same engine. Here's an idea: forget about trying to legislate usage of "new" and "revamped", and discuss what the specific changes and improvements might be. After all, that's what matters.

I agree completely. This thread is to discuss the more tangible pieces of information that we know. However, it is also to dispel the less-than-credible pieces of information. Since Bethesda has NEVER used the term "new" to describe their engine, and have only said that it is heavily updated, I believe it is important not to jump to using a potentially misleading term here.

But this has now descended below even the merit of the direct vs. chronological sequel argument, so I am content to not pursue it further (and I highly encourage those of you itching to click the reply button to likewise refrain).

[Julia Schwalbe]

Here's the flaw in your argument: If you put a turbo on your car's engine, is it a brand new engine? NO. If you put in new pistons, rods, lifters, and cams do you have a new engine? NO. You may have a rebuilt engine, but unless you replace the fundamental engine block then it is still the same engine. Period.

A comparison of features constitutes nothing than that Oblivion has an UPDATED version of Morrowind's engine - which is true because they both used Gamebryo. Despite the additional and improved features, Oblivion STILL RENDERED ITS GRAPHICS THE SAME WAY!

This is my point. You people can't seem to understand what I've attempted to communicate. If you want to take "new" as simply being a cleaned-up version of the previous (like taking a junk car and fixing it up), then fine - but good luck trying to sell it under the guise that it's a "new" car.

I agree completely. This thread is to discuss the more tangible pieces of information that we know. However, it is also to dispel the less-than-credible pieces of information. Since Bethesda has NEVER used the term "new" to describe their engine, and have only said that it is heavily updated, I believe it is important not to jump to using a potentially misleading term here.

But this has now descended below even the merit of the direct vs. chronological sequel argument, so I am content to not pursue it further (and I highly encourage those of you itching to click the reply button to likewise refrain).

I don't have to repeat myself. You can read my previous post again. It is all factual. And for the record, I just said "can be called as a new engine" and "people call it the same engine". My post was vague in the beginning to be called flawed and it didn't warrant a response like I was calling it a new engine, with credibility checks. :glare:

[Brandon Wilson]

I don't have to repeat myself. You can read my previous post again. It is all factual. And for the record, I just said "can be called as a new engine" and "people call it the same engine". My post was vague in the beginning to be called flawed and it didn't warrant a response like I was calling it a new engine, with credibility checks. :glare:

I read your post several times. I intend no insult, but your argument is flawed if you're arguing that Oblivion used a new engine compared to Morrowind. People can call it red lollipops and clover sticks (or whatever other nonsense they wish to attribute it) but it doesn't make it true; despite the claims of post-modernists truth is not a matter of opinion. What you compared were features, not the skeletal structure of the games themselves. I don't have time to dig up the research but I know for a fact that both Morrowind and Oblivion used the Gamebryo rendering engine. It for sure was an updated version in Oblivion, but it was still the same engine. This is a fact.

I am going to attempt one last time, through anology, to express this point. If you take a home, gut everything, move walls, install brand new appliances, put on a new roof, and replace the guttering; what do you get? Do you get a new house or a renovated house? No matter how you shake it, it is still the same house (albeit completely revamped to the point where it feels new). It uses the same foundation and basic skeletal structure. Because the skeletal structure and foundation are permanent (I realize anything's possible but let's not constrain the purpose of this anology here) there are certain restrictions and limitations which are insurmountable unless the house is completely demolished and a new one put in its place. Gamebryo represents that basic foundation and skeletal structure, and there are certain constraints and limitations inherent to its ability to render graphics (such as rendering everything including things not in view, or rain falling through walls and ceilings). If you want to completely eliminate these quirks, then Gamebryo needs to be entirely obliterated and a completely different (i.e. NEW) engine needs to replace it.

Since Bethesda's interviews have not indicated this level of change, it is therefore prudent to restrain ourselves from making that leap of calling it "new" and assume this is just another revamp.

[ILy- Forver]

I read your post several times. I intend no insult, but your argument is flawed if you're arguing that Oblivion used a new engine compared to Morrowind. People can call it red lollipops and clover sticks (or whatever other nonsense they wish to attribute it) but it doesn't make it true; despite the claims of post-modernists truth is not a matter of opinion. What you compared were features, not the skeletal structure of the games themselves. I don't have time to dig up the research but I know for a fact that both Morrowind and Oblivion used the Gamebryo rendering engine. It for sure was an updated version in Oblivion, but it was still the same engine. This is a fact.

I am going to attempt one last time, through anology, to express this point. If you take a home, gut everything, move walls, install brand new appliances, put on a new roof, and replace the guttering; what do you get? Do you get a new house or a renovated house? No matter how you shake it, it is still the same house (albeit completely revamped to the point where it feels new). It uses the same foundation and basic skeletal structure. Because the skeletal structure and foundation are permanent (I realize anything's possible but let's not constrain the purpose of this anology here) there are certain restrictions and limitations which are insurmountable unless the house is completely demolished and a new one put in its place. Gamebryo represents that basic foundation and skeletal structure, and there are certain constraints and limitations inherent to its ability to render graphics (such as rendering everything including things not in view, or rain falling through walls and ceilings). If you want to completely eliminate these quirks, then Gamebryo needs to be entirely obliterated and a completely different (i.e. NEW) engine needs to replace it.

Since Bethesda's interviews have not indicated this level of change, it is therefore prudent to restrain ourselves from making that leap of calling it "new" and assume this is just another revamp.

I think srk made a good point. The "new or not" argument is largely over semantics, not facts. Whether or not the engine can be dubbed "new" doesn't matter - either way, if we can trust Todd at his word, then the engine will still be a step forward, an improvement over what came before. And, due to how development works, the game will follow suit. That's all that matters, really. New or not.

[Hilm Music]

Why was that game so full of false advertising? I'm pretty positive that they won't make the same mistakes again though.

When those screenshots were released Bethesda explained in detail what was in game and what was augmented, and we learned very early on that mounted combat wasn't in (the GameSpy interview I think? Which was the second Oblivion preview.) The original Morrowind screenshots look little like the eventual game (they were renders, which again Bethesda was up front about) and even many of the early in-game screenshots include placeholder art. In fact there's a Dremora weilding a Kit Rae longsword (later heavily altered and turned in to the daedric claymore) and the original picture of the silver spear had a White Wolf klaive on the end although this was removed and replaced with the final art a few days later.

Oblivion's RAI and shadow systems were scaled back but this wasn't planned. We learned about the RAI problems not longer after the game was unveiled and Bethesda said they'd have to scale it back. We also heard about the shadow system changes months before the game was intended to be released (and it was delayed a further four months).


Unless a developer waits until very late in a game's developement you'll get screenshots with rendered/posed elements and placeholder art and the features you hear about may change. The more developement time a game has left the more things are likely to change, or the less you'll hear about. I think Bethesda has been getting increasingly more conservative in this regard so yes I do believe they're learning their lessons - although given that this means protracted periods of nothing are you really sure this is what you want?

[casey macmillan]

I think srk made a good point. The "new or not" argument is largely over semantics, not facts. Whether or not the engine can be dubbed "new" doesn't matter - either way, if we can trust Todd at his word, then the engine will still be a step forward, an improvement over what came before. And, due to how development works, the game will follow suit. That's all that matters, really. New or not.

Yes, a point to which I agree. But there is a misunderstanding over what I am defending. Let's be clear that I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it's going to look great.

[Christine]

I read your post several times. I intend no insult, but your argument is flawed if you're arguing that Oblivion used a new engine compared to Morrowind. People can call it red lollipops and clover sticks (or whatever other nonsense they wish to attribute it) but it doesn't make it true; despite the claims of post-modernists truth is not a matter of opinion. What you compared were features, not the skeletal structure of the games themselves. I don't have time to dig up the research but I know for a fact that both Morrowind and Oblivion used the Gamebryo rendering engine. It for sure was an updated version in Oblivion, but it was still the same engine. This is a fact.

I am going to attempt one last time, through anology, to express this point. If you take a home, gut everything, move walls, install brand new appliances, put on a new roof, and replace the guttering; what do you get? Do you get a new house or a renovated house? No matter how you shake it, it is still the same house (albeit completely revamped to the point where it feels new). It uses the same foundation and basic skeletal structure. Because the skeletal structure and foundation are permanent (I realize anything's possible but let's not constrain the purpose of this anology here) there are certain restrictions and limitations which are insurmountable unless the house is completely demolished and a new one put in its place. Gamebryo represents that basic foundation and skeletal structure, and there are certain constraints and limitations inherent to its ability to render graphics (such as rendering everything including things not in view, or rain falling through walls and ceilings). If you want to completely eliminate these quirks, then Gamebryo needs to be entirely obliterated and a completely different (i.e. NEW) engine needs to replace it.

Since Bethesda's interviews have not indicated this level of change, it is therefore prudent to restrain ourselves from making that leap of calling it "new" and assume this is just another revamp.

Well then Morrowind has a new engine now.

MCP fixed rain/snow through ceilings problem.
MGE XE project has the feature to exclude things not in view from rendering.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1114956-shelter-from-magnus-blaze-2/page__p__16366727__fromsearch__1&#entry16366727
http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=19510

Did you know id tech 4 was built on id tech 3, it only carried the file system?

As you see it is a terminology problem. But still I think these posts were informative and served a purpose.

PS. Stain, I read through posts again. There could be a little misunderstanding. I am talking about Morrowind and Oblivion here. They used different engines. NetImmerse and Gamebryo. They even switched directx versions. I see your point about different versions of the same engine and how calling them new engines might confuse people.

Off course I can't say a thing about TES V, we don't have any information about it to say something like "a new engine".

[Caroline flitcroft]

Etc. Etc.

Which is why they're waiting until next year to show off the game. After Fable 1/Duke Forever/Etc. marketing dudes have learned to become very conservative. The new "game marketing bible" goes something like "only show off actual screenshots" "Never reveal a game until you have a firm idea of the release date" "Never talk about features that aren't already working well and not going to be cut" "If possible don't reveal the game till >= 11 months from it's release"

Otherwise rabid fans get all upset when feature X get's cut, jump all over any hint of a faked screenshot like Obama on the chance to make another speech, oh and the general public loses interest if a game takes to long to come out. Pete even cancelled the first showing of Doom 4 since he knew it wouldn't be out till 2012.

[Austin Suggs]

Which is why they're waiting until next year to show off the game. After Fable 1/Duke Forever/Etc. marketing dudes have learned to become very conservative. The new "game marketing bible" goes something like "only show off actual screenshots" "Never reveal a game until you have a firm idea of the release date" "Never talk about features that aren't already working well and not going to be cut" "If possible don't reveal the game till >= 11 months from it's release"

Otherwise rabid fans get all upset when feature X get's cut, jump all over any hint of a faked screenshot like Obama on the chance to make another speech, oh and the general public loses interest if a game takes to long to come out. Pete even cancelled the first showing of Doom 4 since he knew it wouldn't be out till 2012.

This is true, and frankly it's a good policy.

I'd rather wait than have another "remember those cool dynamic soft shadows we showed off for all objects in the demo? Yeah, we cut that." situation like we had with Oblivion.

[Rob Smith]

This is true, and frankly it's a good policy.

I'd rather wait than have another "remember those cool dynamic soft shadows we showed off for all objects in the demo? Yeah, we cut that." situation like we had with Oblivion.

It may be good policy, but it's not very interesting for us in the meantime is it? A few screen shots could keep us pretty happy for a while, and brutally attacking Bethesda for any flaws is even more fun.

[El Khatiri]

Did you know id tech 4 was built on id tech 3, it only carried the file system?

As you see it is a terminology problem. But still I think these posts were informative and served a purpose.

PS. Stain, I read through posts again. There could be a little misunderstanding. I am talking about Morrowind and Oblivion here. They used different engines. NetImmerse and Gamebryo. They even switched directx versions. I see your point about different versions of the same engine and how calling them new engines might confuse people.

Off course I can't say a thing about TES V, we don't have any information about it to say something like "a new engine".

It's definitely a terminology issue, but just as you said, the point here is that we shouldn't be so quick to call TES:V's engine completely new (although I very much hope so). By the way, NetImmerse was the predecessor to Gamebryo (made by the same company) - so the same basic engine just different names.

[Chris BEvan]

TES V:
Oblivion+(fake shadows out)
Terrain, statics, actor shadows with penumbra renderings
GI(II,SSAO, etc.)
BDRF lighting model, subsurface scattering for realistic faces
volumetric lighting effects(true space godrays, volumetric clouds, smoke, fog, mist with realistic light scattering etc.(missing link in current gen graphics.))
Bokeh DOF, Motion blur
Color grading
advanced sky rendering, weather effects
advanced physics, procedural animations(natural motion alike), destructible environments, flowing water effects with rivers and cascades
procedural environments, procedural moss grow on statics(dynamics )

Pretty much a sealed deal. I would be disappointed for less.

The trouble is... this game is being developed primarily for consoles, so if it doesn't run well on the 360, it won't be included in the PC version either (the same way soft shadows were bizarrely cut from the PC version of Oblivion as well as the 360 version). So although we're bound to get shadows this time around, and possibly SSAO, DoF, and advanced physics, we certainly won't be seeing subsurface scattering, flowing water, destructible environments, and procedural vegetation growth. I can imagine procedural snow laying however (since it's Skyrim), like you can see in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WtzP-y-Ua8 video for Aion (3.00 to 3.35). But unless Bethesda really change the way they handle the PC versions of their games... we're not going to see the more advanced tech being utilized in TES:V.

[Lauren Denman]

Is the game announced yet?

No?

Well do we have any confirmed news whatsoever?

No?

K thanx gais!

[J.P loves]

The trouble is... this game is being developed primarily for consoles, so if it doesn't run well on the 360, it won't be included in the PC version either (the same way soft shadows were bizarrely cut from the PC version of Oblivion as well as the 360 version). So although we're bound to get shadows this time around, and possibly SSAO, DoF, and advanced physics, we certainly won't be seeing subsurface scattering, flowing water, destructible environments, and procedural vegetation growth. I can imagine procedural snow laying however (since it's Skyrim), like you can see in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WtzP-y-Ua8 video for Aion (3.00 to 3.35). But unless Bethesda really change the way they handle the PC versions of their games... we're not going to see the more advanced tech being utilized in TES:V.

Not saying you're wrong, but I really hope you are. My current PC is up for a rebuild this coming summer and I would love for TES:V to be scalable for high-end computers. I'm not a console hater, I like playing certain games on them, but for TES/FO I prefer PC for the mods and traditionally the ability to run the game at higher res with everything cranked up.

[Vahpie]

Not saying you're wrong, but I really hope you are. My current PC is up for a rebuild this coming summer and I would love for TES:V to be scalable for high-end computers. I'm not a console hater, I like playing certain games on them, but for TES/FO I prefer PC for the mods and traditionally the ability to run the game at higher res with everything cranked up.

This is one of the reasons I just bought a new Alienware M17xR2 laptop

[Je suis]

Actually, none of us know weather it's being primarly developed for consuls or not...that's just whiny. Cry Engine 2 let's you create the same world for ALL platforms. So in theory, they could be developing it for all platforms equally.

[Jessica Stokes]

Well do we have any confirmed news whatsoever?

If you take a look at the first post of this thread, you'll see links to several "confirmed news" sources. I can personally confirm that these links are to real news sources. (but I know what you meant)