Lets take FO3 for example(the more optimized engine). During normal game play memory usage is between 1.2 and 1.6 gigs and that is with at most 20 npc's(active AI packages) in one cell. Then The max memory a 32bit app can use is 3gigs and that is with a false header to surpass the default 2gig limit set on 32bit.That trick won't work on a console though because in order to use it you have to be in a 64bit runtime environment.

I am truly sorry but your going to have to wait until the next generation of consoles.

The new Gamebryo is actually capable of this, so are several other modern engines.

Once again, just stating something doesn't make it correct. 32/64 bit doesn't matter if you find a more efficient way of doing something.

Stumbled upon this forum while playing Stronghold 2 perfect timing haha...

And yeah, why not. I think if it was done right it could be fun.

Not in Bethesda's worlds they are not because the world itself is eating up more than half of the available memory.


That's a two way street.

And thus 64 bit is the future!!!



Ouch, I play the last quest in the main quest line with full settings and I don't lag. But that's an amazing feat seeing as Gamebryo is the reason a lot of people lag even with more than enough hardware.

"i dont want any epic battles", but couldn't vote only that.

reason: I'm able to run everything at max, finally. So hw isn't the best. However, kwatch and final boss is still very slow. Simply put, they strain too much. I've had only a few games where final boss battle has been unplayable.

When a 64bit Beth open world game drops it's going to be way beyond epic. I hope my heart can take it. :dead:

Developers right now are busy trying to work with what they have and what they have is a majority of people still using 32Bit OS and Xbox 360's. Bet your ass there is some stuff in the pipeline that will blow your socks off. Tessellation is a great example of new, efficient ways of rendering large, busy, detailed scenes. We know Bethesda have been working on this for quite a while and we know they have a desire to simulate large-scale battles. They could very well have something that is capable of doing this, we just don't know. Just shooting something down because the method we use right now is not capable of rendering these scenes is [censored] stupid.

If you work in this industry, you would understand how fast it moves, if you work in the industry you've probably seen some of the stuff on the way as well. Bethesda push boundaries every time they release a new TES game, I expect Skyrim to do the same. Even without technology to render vast amounts of NPCs there are ways around this. Simple environment design tricks and scripted events can add greatly to the scale of a battle. The final battle on the island in Crysis felt epic, although really there were only a handful of good guys and enemies to deal with.

In short, quit pretending you have an understanding of something, that is impossible to have an understanding of just yet. Wait and see, I think this is a great thread. Large-scale battles would add to the TES games greatly, the battle at Bruma was weak as hell. Bethesda are probably aware of this because they get paid to improve on previous titles and I think, as do many others, that this is a major weak-point of the series.

If you want I can start rattling off which games have large-scale battles, Mount & Blade is a good example, Crysis does a good job of simulating it with great level design, Gears of War, Project Offset, Battlefield Bad Company with good scripted events and layout.

There is so much evidence stacked against your statement it blows my mind that you can walk onto a forum and start proclaiming yourself Godking of technical requirements. There is a lot more to game design than sheer power.

I won't argue against the technical restrictions but design wise, it wouldn't make much sense having fully dynamic battles (like Mount & Blade) in Skyrim. However, having scripted battles (like Dragon Age) would be a nice backdrop while fighting with a handful of npcs on each side.

First of all, calm down.

Secondly, anyone that has had there hands in the CS and the GECK for a couple of years can attest to what I am saying.

Loading a Beth open world = all textures + all meshes + all items + all inactive AI + all active AI loaded to memory.

A 32bit program in a 32bit runtime environment is limited to 2 gigs of memory. Period. This can not be circumvented with clever optimized code.

So make your choice: Bethesda style open world or large scale battles. You can't have both.

:facepalm:

no, brood is right.


32 bit can use 4GB of memory. secondly, if everything is optimised then we need not worry, you can have both- look at brutal legend- the world is larger than cyrodil in oblivion, and yet there are epic battles . with optimization- textures,ai,models and all that stuff can use much less memory


i would greatly appreciate it if you thought before you typed, good sir knight

Sure a 32 bit OS can use 3.5gigs(windows) but a 32bit app can only use 2gigs. Look it up.

if you are right on that (i wont go into calling you a liar) then you still havent considered how optimization can make stuff use less memory

Sure I have and with maximum efficiency they may very well double the number of active AI packages in one cell from a targeted 10-15 to 20-30. Still far from 50-200.

Anyone with a half decent PC and the know-how to use the console commands will know that this is possible. I've made battles in Oblivion of around 40/50 NPCs against up and above 100 Daedra and its run fine.

People seems to have a weird idea on what 64bits tech really is... Look it up...

http://www.xgenstudios.com/game.php?keyword=castle, you say?

As for the matter at hand, I just don't feel it wouldn't work well in The Elder Scrolls, so no.

Well as for 'epic' battles on some grand military scale, I would have to say no. I would rather they make all the lesser encounters and fights a lot more varied, tactical, intricate, tougher; and the NPCs smarter.

With that said a Defend the castle 'quest' seems like it could be a good idea. I'm just not envisioning it on such an epic(Helm's Deep) scale. If it were done similar to the arcangel mission in ME2 I would agree. Defend against a few waves of enemies from the castle walls with ranged magic or bow and then after a certain amount of time the castle gets breached, and you have to work your way inside to fight off pockets of intruders in close quarters combat. That I think would be more reasonable and could be a lot of fun.

Awesome game, check it out, you'll have more than enough battles to keep you occupied 'till Skyrim

The battles do take place on a closed off (albeit large) map though, you join a "battle zone" of sorts.

You people are OUT of your minds: 'Wouldn't work in TES.' Who are any of us to say that?

We know that Beth try to reinvent the franchise in many ways each time around, and we also know that the stoyr centers around a civil WAR. Not a piddly little 'skirmish of Bruma' but a war, brother against brother.

So, I would hope that they are making every effort to portray the war as effectively as possible, and they have gotten over the stumbling block of 'no more than 20 active combat AIs at once' which was an engine limitation that has plagued Beth for some time. Whether you're leading an army or not is irrelevant, but the player should at least be given a taste of the war's scope, even if it's only 100vs100 which, on an open field looks like hardly anything.

There is no reason why any of this should be excluded, frankly, and if they don't manage to get it right, I for one will be sorely disappointed.

I clicked no epic battles.......not sure why but this really does not appeal to me at all for TES.

Wars shouldn't be fought by only a handful of men or a lone hero. I say yes.