I think the phisics in fallout3 need more work, i mean the bodies on the ceilings should move.

I know, it's like dude, phisics is a made up word to Bethesda or something.

Limiting which objects have physics takes work off the CPU, allowing for better graphics, AI and other such things.

Like everything in game development, it's a trade off. Even games known for their amazing physics often have tons of things in the enviornment with no physics at all, like Half-Life 2 or Red Faction Guerilla.

Like StingingVelvet said - there is the matter of resources. If you've messed around with the GECK to any degree, you'll have seen how physics objects have an effect on the available resources. You even have to take into consideration your lighting when you're designing a level, because everything you add in is going to be a draw on the available resources. Those with physics attached to them even moreso. Those hanging bodies aren't going to be interacted with very often in general - it's just a trade-off. They very would could have made it Havok-enabled, but the question would be would it be worth it?

Would it be nice if everything was physics-enabled? Absolutely. We're already getting to a point where a lot of game engines can work just fine in that manner. Fallout 4 will probably be able to pull it off. Using Havok with the Gamebryo engine doesn't quite cut it for that sort of usage, though. It's getting to be a kind of old engine, though. I'd be suprised if they didn't at least use an updated version for a hyptothetical Fallout 4.

Bethesda recently commented that they intend to keep using Gamebryo I believe... at some point they will have to change their engine of heavily modify it I would think, probably when making a game for the next generation of consoles, which could be Fallout 4 depending on certain factors.

Valve has been pushing Source forever now and insist that only subtle upgrades are needed, rather than a whole new engine, but personally I find Source to look pretty tired... I hope Valve, and Bethesda, take that to heart.

Yeah, I wonder how scalable Gamebryo is. It doesn't seem like it was put together with physics and destructible enviornments in mind - though I'm not an expert on the subject (and a lot of people do get game programming confused with game engines...) It does seem quite good at keeping track of lots of different unique objects, though (judging from what I've seen in the GECK and other games that use Gamebryo.)

It's just a game, and it's fun the way it is. If you wan your character worrying about hunger and having to take a piss, then go play the Sims.

Uhm... I don't think the OP was talking about simulation stuff - just the physics...

I believe Source would be great if tweeked. I have seen good things from it, as in Hλlf-Life, and expanding its capabilities, as I'm sure Valve is doing, or has/will be; would make a perfect choice for Fallout 4. Most of the physics in Fallout however are run by Havok, and the same is for most Source games. And I believe we where talking about physics, and the problem with that is that MOST games that have had good physics are using Havok. I cant think of any physics engine better.

As for ANIMATION, witch the OP seems to be talking about, yea, Source would probably be better than Gamebryo... I mean, really, what does Gamebryo have to their name. Not really anything that makes them stand out more than Source.

Source is very tired... it looked good when Half-Life 2 came out... not amazing, but good... and that was like 6 or 7 years ago now? Something like that? Oblivion and Fallout 3 look a LOT better than any Source engine game, for my money, and have the huge open world aspect pretty nailed down...

The only engine I could see them switching to is the new id engine for RAGE. Now that they are owned by the same company it would be free to use, and more important RAGE is supposed to be open-world, and thus must be optimized for large open areas on console and PC. Throw in the added benefit of Carmack in-house as a consultant and it seems like a no-brainer to me... Bethesda made comments recently about sticking with Gamebryo though, so I bet that is exactly what they will do, at least for another couple games.

In Gamebryo's defense, Morrowind and Oblivion look worlds apart, technically, so that svcker can really scale when upgraded.

Bodies on the ceiling moving seems an odd thing to be concerned about....

I like how RAGE (Game) looks, but it isn't out, so we don't exactly know if it works well, and it is a first party engine developed by the makers of the game. This makes it unlikely to be available to anyone else.

Gamebryo does look like it does upgrade well, but Source has been getting better all the time. I also think it would be neat to see the Frostbite engine, but that would likely never happen. Graphically the Frostbite engine has made one of the best looking set of outdoor scenery on a console I have ever seen; Battlefield: Bad Company, but it may not be able to handle larger areas than that.

Rockstar's RAGE (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine), in combination with Bullet open source, and Euphoria created GTA4, witch has one of the best large world:Animation quality ratio, but it's proprietary to Rockstar, well, RAGE is. If they could find some way to intergrate Euphoria with Gamebryo, there might be hope for the OPs complaint about animations. Euphoria doesn't use standard Ragdolls, and produces non-set animations, making them feel more realistic.

Well, as I said, since id is now owned by Zenimax, it is essentially the same company as Bethesda now. The Bethesda Blog now even updates with id information. I can't imagine Bethesda Softworks would be prevented from using the RAGE engine if they wanted to. You are right though, we don't really know how well it will look and run, on console or PC.



Battlefield BC did look pretty good on Xbox, and had large open areas... another engine would be the new Techland engine, used for Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, which I have said elsewhere is probably the best looking Xbox 360 game I have ever seen, Gears of War and such included... it just looks stunning, and has massive open world enviornments in certain levels, with even sidequests and such. Also, let's not forget Crytek has ported over Cryengine 2 to consoles, called it Cryengine 3, and might be geting some interest.

I just don't see Bethesda switching from Gamebryo for any of these though... the benefits to them do not outweigh the risks and extra dev time, whereas the free engine from id might.



It's a stunning technical piece of work, no doubt... the complainers on PC about performance really have no idea what all that engine is pushing on a consistent basis. Still, on consoles they burdened that svcker down with so many processing and blurring effects it makes my eyes bleed... drives me nuts. I look forward to seeing what they do with Red Dead Redemption though, which is said to be an open-world game like GTA but set in the west... the original Red Dead was more of an arcade shooter.

Also, Voilition's engine for Red Faction Guerilla is really impressive on console... tons of physics, everything is destructible, and it runs at a steady clip in true 720p with AA and AF and looking really sweet. That game looks better than GTA4 in my opinion, since it lacks the insane blur and such... the physics on people are not as good though, naturally.

There is always a trade-off.