http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

This.

And I thought the graphics for Skyrim looked fine. Not as good as Bethesda claimed, but much better than Fallout 3.

You mean also by the fact that you compare this game to crysis in almost every other thread? HM.......

Our lack of agreement lies more in the fact that Cryegine 3 has never proven itself in a sandbox RPG. It's not optimized to handle such a game. It's as simple as that. Showing an RPG character in a tech demo does not mean it possesses this capability.

I remember playing crisis and being like wow...I can't even shoot through sheet metal...

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

I was impressed with the screenshots presented in the magazine article. Bethesda has approximately 11 months to continue to refine its engine, and even if the game shipped looking like the screenshots, let me reiterate: I'd still be impressed.

The game engine is more than graphics, a game engine also allows the developer to provide a robust toolkit for modding, artificial intelligence systems and routines, and a plethora of other attributes besides the visual nature of the game.

I think the in-house game engine will be fantastic because it was built upon the shoulders of giants, so to speak. Bethesda has a lot of experience with game engines dating back to when it was a fledgling company, I have no doubt they will pull this off with flair.

When I first saw dragon age II graphics in GI, I thought the game had crap graphics. When I saw the real hd images, my mind was completely suprised. Im guessing the same thing here, and it even seems like this has better graphics than DAII. RPG of the year for sure, but you need to wait for hd!

The CryEgine is a great engine, but I like the looks of the gamesas Engine just fine. Looks pretty good to me from the screenshots that have been released.

Hmm not to double post, but I am rather taken aback by all of the negative comments going on here. So I'll reply to some of them to save OP some of the trouble:



Not sure if you were serious, but anyway, sure it can. The CryEngine is capable of a lot and if it calls for a sandbox RPG, it can be geared towards that. At the most you might see a little downgrading, but that is only natural given the scope of the Elder Scrolls and other similarly large games. Hell, if Morrowind wasn't as big and detailed as it was, it probably would have looked closer to Oblivion than it did. And considering the capabilities of all 3 cryengine variations, I would say that losing a level of detail isn't saying much.



That may be, but that does not mean that CE3 isn't capable of doing just that. As I said above, worst case scenario the level of detail gets lowered by a considerable amount. And despite that, it would still be astonishingly good looking, probably looking a lot similar to the Skyrim we are going to get, if not a bit better than it if we assume that it loses a lot of the detail and effects that the engine is capable of. (as far as the actual effects and details go, naturally)



Sometimes people get bored of playing the generally plain FPS multiple times in a row. Especially when most Crysis players that still play it usually only go through the first level only. So naturally for us it would be nice to see different types of games with more replay value with the same sort of engine we all enjoy.



This is a good point, and I do agree. I would much rather see Bethesda stick with Gamebryo (or whatever variation of it engine they're using now) than move on to another engine, even if its CE3. However, as far as having a new game with fresh developers go, making an open world RPG with the scope of the Elder Scrolls on the Cryengine would not be impossible, and would probably be one hell of a game if both sides (graphics and gameplay) are developed well.



Yes, but that does not mean that it cannot be made to have that capability. If you had a team of Dev's working on it, CE3 could easily be turned into an engine capable of supporting an Elder Scrolls sized game. And it pretty much already can. Its a matter of changing how interacting with your PC works and inventory/menus/etc that are the real problems, which are things that a dedicated team could most certainly solve.

@ZzAr.:hu - thanks, thats the kinda posts i enjoy reading, not just 'you svck sentakai, TES isnt crysis! '

I would love to be proven wrong, but I don't believe there is any proof whatsoever to back up this statement. Bethesda knows better than us as to what kind of capabilities the engine behind Skyrim needs to possess, and I would like to think they designed their own to address these specific needs. In addition, Skyrim has been in development for longer than the availability of Cryengine 3, no?

NO!
We need something BETTER!

Cryengine 2:

http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/171110_russia2028/pic1.jpg
http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/171110_russia2028/pic2.jpg
http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/171110_russia2028/pic3.jpg
http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/171110_russia2028/pic5.jpg
http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/171110_russia2028/pic9.jpg
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9105/screen10g.jpg

People clearly don't understand the difference between simple environment generation vs "game generation". A game is much, much more than just the environment it takes place in.

[http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

First of all, you obviously have no idea how expensive licensing a game engine is hint: for a game engine like cryengine 3, well over a million a year, possibly millions. Second of all, the only scene out of that video that blew me away was the tropical island, which was in Crysis. Secondly, you haven't seen the Skyrim world in detail yet. You saw it in GI on most likely the console version look (as I said before, I saw the low anti-aliasing settings I typically see in the GI mags for the console) and you haven't truly seen the gameplay or how it actually looks. Wait until you get to a look at Skyrim in true hd then make a thread complaining about the graphics if it turns out bad which I highly doubt. Dot printers are not flattering to HD pictures and that's what magazines use, which you can tell it is very well when you look at illegal scans.

Freak no.

Bethesda OWNS id Software and by extension their engines, so if anything they should have used idTech 4 or 5.

Considering how only 6 people vote for the Crytek choice...I think it's pretty obvious on what engine we like here. :rolleyes:

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

firstly, i was aware that liscensing was upwards of 1million, but i guess it comes down to higher price = know what your getting or developing inhouse engine = uncertain results.
secondly, i agree with you, i dont know and i your probably right when you say i should wait till i get a solid video to back up my assumptions (E3 perhaps?)



ill admit, ive played morrowind more (and possibly enjoyed it more) due to the fact that i only recently bought a PC that could play oblivion, so i haven't played OB besides xbox360 vanilla (how ever ive played 150 hours plus on that)

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/

You're welcome. Its always better to defend those that are being bashed when they don't deserve it then to stand by in indifference.



As I said, if a dedicated team of developers (IE, not Beth devs. Though if they hired a team to do that work for them, while Beth team focuses purely on everything else to do with the game (quests, content, etc etc) then may be. But that may indeed be costly) were doing it, then CE3 could be developed to that point. Not saying it will happen overnight, nor am I saying that we can just make a CE3 mod and call it a better looking Skyrim. Just making it clear the CE3, and indeed even CE2, are not engines on which games at the scope of the Elder Scrolls couldn't be handled. CE3 could relatively easily handle Skyrim if it is developed to support Skyrim and any other game of its scope.

And it should also be noted that while neither of the Crysis games (nor Crysis 2) are actually truly open world (ie, you can go anywhere at any time), this was more because:

1. The engine was developed with an FPS in mind that had virtually no roleplaying aspects. Having an open world in an FPS like Crysis would be fairly stupid and a waste of resources. However, if the game was developed with a game like Skyrim in mind, then we would see not a bunch of large and mostly linear levels that are loaded one after the other, but a base open world that encases all of Skyrim, and separate levels for most every dungeon. (buildings would likely not be on their own levels as that wouldn't make any sense unless it was incredibly vast, and I don't think there will be many of those in Skyrim that aren't dungeons anyway)

2. The engine and game(s) were created alongside each other (CE2 was developed alongside Crysis, Crysis 2 was developed alongside CE3. Same could probably be said about the first Far Cry) in an incredibly short amount of time, about four years for the first Crysis, and a little bit less (or may be more) for Crysis 2. If the Crysis games got the development time and the goals that Skyrim has set, then we would have seen a much different game.

rather than the actual limitations of the Cryengine itself.



This is true, and if I'm correctly getting what you're implying here, then I have already addressed that issue, more or less. The first steps in creating a Skyrim type of game in the Cryengine are overcoming player character interaction limitations and implementing the common RPG menu system. After that, combat (magic system, AI, etc) and world interactions. After that, its just a matter of banging out whatever kinks arise as you add content to the game.

Obviously this process will be a lot more complicated and drawn out than I portray it, but from my experience with the Cryengine itself and game development in general, it would not be the incredibly daunting task that it seems to be, assuming there are dev teams dedicated to each process. One for getting the Cryengine to support a game like Skyrim, and another for actually creating the game itself. And if my knowledge of Bethesda is correct, this isn't something that is entirely out of their capabilities, and would be incredibly easy for them if they were willing to hire a team of devs that already know how to work with the Cryengine.



Another good point. But this is up to Beth to decide. As far as my posts go, I am assuming Beth is willing to shell out that money and still have enough left over to not create a game with the same amount of content as Crysis, which wasn't a lot. (though you could do a lot with what you had, on the flip side)



Of course it isn't. It was originally developed for an FPS of limited scope, only to be hampered yet again by short development time and being developed alongside the game itself. But that's just ignorant if you believe that CE couldn't be optimized for Skyrim or any other similar game

I would rather Bethesda use an Engine they know, so that the game will play great. Cryengine seems more suited for linear games, not an open world game thats the size of TES.