I recently read a couple of articles about Bethesda new "secret game". Bethesda is boasting that the FO3 engine has been updated so,that the new game will look like "its on a new console "! I'm sorry ,but that seems like a real big task.How old is this engine now?.......

They could be further updating the Oblivion/Fallout 3 engine but it's just as likely that they're starting fresh with a newer version of Gamebryo. (I suppose it's possible they aren't using Gamebryo at all but that does seem unlikely).

I don't see why a newer engine couldn't look much better than the old ones, even Fallout 3 looked substantially better than Oblivion.

Why do people keep raging over the age of the Gamebryo engine? Yes, it's the same engine that's been used since Morrowind to Fallout 3 (and now Fallout: New Vegas, but technically that's not BGS, that's Obsidian), but we've seen what the Gamebryo engine can accomplish whether it's from updated versions, revisions to the engine, or whatever matters Emergent puts into this engine.

Seriously, it's like DirectX. Just because there's a newer version people automatically think that games must have this version because it's automatically superior (not that the newer versions of DirectX are better or worse than the older versions).

Look, the Gamebryo engine has been used repeatedly by Bethesda for three overarching reasons:
1) The engine is great with working with open ended worlds, such as the ones that Bethesda has created wonderfully as evident by TES III: Morrowind, TES IV: Oblivion, and Fallout 3.
2) Familiar use of the engine. Bethesda's used the engine repeatively, so the guys over at BGS know how to work with it very well.
3) Respectful relations with Emergent. Bethesda supports Emergent and [possibly] gets a discount on their license to utilize the engine.

Gamebryo has been able to create amazing graphics with open ended worlds in Oblivion and Fallout 3, and more than likely this updated version of "the Fallout 3 engine" just means that the world can get bigger, the graphics can get better, etc.

In short, there's no reason to move away from the Gamebryo engine for Bethesda's TES and Fallout series.

Fallout 3 was built much differently in terms of exterior space than Oblivion. The whole downtown area were large exterior cells which had been closed off, not existing in the same world space as the rest of the world. Why Bethesda chose to do it this way boggles my mind, but apparently it was easier.

We now know that in order for any id tech engine to develop they needed to licence it out to any willing developers. Now that its being kept within Zenimax, you can expect future games to be sporting the id technology.

The id tech 5 engine is great for open areas which are still contained, but its not good for massive landscapes. I'd consider cyrodiil in comparison to the capital wasteland, an open area which is not contained.

Anyways, thats my two cents.

:)

What do you want the next Fallout game designed in, CryEngine 3? While that certainly would be amazing, we have to keep it realistic here. Bethesda wants their games to run on as many systems as possible, and they would rather spend time and money creating storyline content than rebuilding their codebase. I'd say that if New Vegas does well, then Fallout 4 will likely see a new engine- but that's probably going to be at least a good 2 years down the line.

Because the Gamebryo isn't a modern engine. it can't even render shadows or outdoor lights properly! A cinematic scene and set pieces are rare commodity, and the physics is laughable. The engine can not go much further without a major overhaul (As in the gap between Goldsrc and Source), It just doesn't work. it doesn't even have LADDERS or use mixed interior/exterior cells convincingly. It's more than showed it's age, it's downright FOSSILIZED! I love beth games, but their choice of tech baffles me.

I still think that (for the most part, and I'm sure this isn't the case with everyone here) the world would be better off if "engine" had never become a part of the everyday gamer's vocabulary.

For my own part, when I buy a book I don't expect to have had any input on what word processor the author used; I don't tell James Cameron what camera to film with, so I don't think it's really any business of mine - as a consumer - what engine the developers of the games I buy use in the construction of their products. This decision is probably a very complicated and multi-faceted one, likely takes a lot of thought and balancing of factors, and ultimately the people actually involved in that decision are going to have a much better idea of what best suits their overall needs than I certainly am. :shrug:

Gamebryo doesn't do the physics that is handled by the Havok engine

I think Beth would do well to use an Idtech engine.

I don't have a real problem with the engine,i just can't believe it could produce "next gen" looking graphics.

The animations aren't convincing enough, maybe plugging in the Euphoria engine as well?

Sure, but I don't see why they would.

I just have to "QFT" this.

I have no problems with the engine at all. Its very versatile, and the results speak for themselves :shrug:.

Ladders have been said to be an AI issue. I still think they could be done though.


http://www.emergent.net/en/Multimedia/Videos/Coldwood-Tech/
http://www.emergent.net/en/Multimedia/Videos/Gamebryo-Video-2009/

Looking at how much the Morrowind Graphics Extender can do on Morrowind's engine, I'm fine with Gamebryo.

Yes, I think it's less the materials you use, but what you do with them that counts.