So what was wrong with GameBryo?

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:05 am

Outdated in just about every facet you can think of.
User avatar
Steph
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:44 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:18 am

I think the issue may have been because it was only a rendering system and file format. It couldn't do everything the developers wanted. But I don't know anything about the subject.
User avatar
Sabrina garzotto
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:58 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:27 am

I'm going to side with Freddo.
User avatar
Laura Hicks
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:21 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:15 am

Q: What was wrong with Gamebyro?
A: A lot.
User avatar
Hilm Music
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:36 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:26 pm

Q: What was wrong with Gamebyro?
A: A lot.


How enlightening.
User avatar
Fiori Pra
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:30 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:23 am

How enlightening.

Need elaboration? Outdated physics, outdated graphics, glitchy, corrupts many saves. Need I write a 7 sentence paragraph elaborating further?
User avatar
Spencey!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:18 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:30 am

Did Gamebryo have anything do with my game locking up every 15 minutes? If so, I hate Gamebryo. If not, then I guess it was ok, but certainly not the best.
User avatar
Max Van Morrison
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:48 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:12 am

Did Gamebryo have anything do with my game locking up every 15 minutes? If so, I hate Gamebryo. If not, then I guess it was ok, but certainly not the best.

Unless it was a disc fault, yes.
User avatar
Miguel
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:32 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:11 am

honestly, game byro is my scapegoat for when there is something in TES that i dont like, and have no where else to put blame.
sad i spose, but true.
User avatar
stevie critchley
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:36 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:31 am

Its simple.. they could only go so far with gamebryo. So they dropped it and went farther with something they cooked up.

From what they are saying the new engine handles changes in detail of far away thingies MUCH better and allows for alot more detail far out.

It also and this is a big freaking deal.. it allowed them to change the lighting.

Back early ob they had this kind of lighting and it made things look a hell of alot better... but it ran too slow on the consoles.

Also I wouldnt be shocked if the new engine takes up less memory space or cpu power and thus leaves more room for more npcs on screen or more effects running.

That is because one thing most everyone was sure of was gamebryo was nboth a memory hog and just plain slow. It is quite likely even given the adding of begtter lighthing and more details that this engine might be running the game faster and smoother on any given system then the old one could,
User avatar
Francesca
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:26 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:37 am

I think there's some pretty good marketability in the Creation Engine. All the better for Bethesda to have two engines under their belt, idTech and Creation. They each have their own benefits, their studios will use them as they see fit, and they will be licensed out to other interested parties. Because they are under the same banner, I can see some collaboration between the two, such as when they got advice on the shadows, for mutual benefit of both of them. But I don't think they'll ever be merged together.
User avatar
Stacy Hope
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:23 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:32 pm

Need elaboration? Outdated physics, outdated graphics, glitchy, corrupts many saves. Need I write a 7 sentence paragraph elaborating further?


As others have pointed out, Gamebryo wasn't responsible for those aspects of the game - it's just a renderer. For instance, physics were handled by Havok.
User avatar
Damian Parsons
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:48 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:59 am

That is because one thing most everyone was sure of was gamebryo was nboth a memory hog and just plain slow. It is quite likely even given the adding of begtter lighthing and more details that this engine might be running the game faster and smoother on any given system then the old one could,


I've put 1m polys worth of meshes in OB and walked around it at 50+ fps no prob (on a P4 no less). Add 3 NPCs and the fps drops to 15 fps. I don't think thats a render engine problem. More of an AI/scripting problem but there's no convincing folks: GameBryo didn't cause save game corruption, level design bugs (ex: Salmo the Baker), gridpath errors (NPCs walking into walls), strange physics (all Havok), 2D trees (Speedtree), etc. I'm sure BGS has created a killer engine but any flaws in Skyrim will somehow be blamed on the 'spirit' of GameBryo at least.
User avatar
Wayne W
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:49 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:23 pm

Hel borne you cant argue with the very simple fact the new game with its new engine is doing things they couldnt do on the old engine on a console.

And that is what matters. Its doing more.
User avatar
Amiee Kent
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:25 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:48 pm

Hel borne you cant argue with the very simple fact the new game with its new engine is doing things they couldnt do on the old engine on a console.

And that is what matters. Its doing more.

This is basically the summation of this thread. Gamebryo had it's faults, most of the things it got blamed for were not it's fault and the people who blame it are less than competent. RIP Gamebryo, and we shall welcome the new engine with open arms.
User avatar
Hope Greenhaw
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:44 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:56 am

Hel borne you cant argue with the very simple fact the new game with its new engine is doing things they couldnt do on the old engine on a console.

And that is what matters. Its doing more.

Yeah, and FO3 did a lot more than OB and that was still the Gambryo renderer. Again it has nothing to do with Gambryo and everything to do with how Bethesda pieces together the portions of middle ware to create an engine.
User avatar
Claire Mclaughlin
 
Posts: 3361
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:55 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:32 am

I don't have time to explain, but I will just start with that it's over 10 years old, and has a simply HORRID lighting system.
User avatar
Floor Punch
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 7:18 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:19 am

I'm sure their implementation files and code snippets are loaded to the brim with 'pointers' already.


:biggrin:
EDIT: Ah who'm I kidding, lame programmer joke is lame. -_-


i almost **** my self when i saw this :) well done my friend, i personally am hoping for a bubble sorted inventory.... because while were at it lets take advantage of all CPUs by making this as inefficient as possible
User avatar
Tinkerbells
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:22 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:22 am


Even better, seems their making it open to modding of coarse, a staple for the PC TES community. Think iD in terms of a great internal engine and yet good modder support.



Like idtech 5...o wait yeah mega textures lawl.
User avatar
Britney Lopez
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:22 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:04 pm

Todd pretty much said idTech wasn't ideal for what BGS was doing (ie not best for open worlds) but did mention talking to Carmack about shadows.

Yeah, he did. But I think he was mainly talking about id tech 5 then. But if (and that's a big if) Carmack tailored id tech 6 for TES-like games, it would be ideal :)
User avatar
Dark Mogul
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:51 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:08 am

Yeah, he did. But I think he was mainly talking about id tech 5 then. But if (and that's a big if) Carmack tailored id tech 6 for TES-like games, it would be ideal :)


Having in mind that Carmack said something about playing with some way of ray-tracing for id tech 6, I doubt it'll be appropiate for a TES game...
User avatar
Chica Cheve
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:42 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:39 am

You never know maybe TES 6 will have iDTech 6.5 or even BethTech 1 seeing as how iD is now part of Zenimax, the owners of Bethesda (and Bethesda is their main company so BethTech would be more appropriate than ZenTech, though that does sound cool)
User avatar
Vahpie
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:07 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:00 am

only a rendering system and file format. It couldn't do everything the developers wanted.

Why is it called Game Engine, not rendering engine?
User avatar
Yama Pi
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:51 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:15 am

Crap lighting, crap shadows, crap optimization, crap LOD handling, crap memory management. These are but a few reasons Gamebryo svcks the big svck. Carpeting over them with more layers of complexity to mask all this really wasn't going to help.

Bethesda made the right move in ditching it and going with something they wrote and know inside and out. They won't have to play dancing with lawyers to sort out licensing and legal BS to get things into a working state.
User avatar
JLG
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:42 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:28 pm

I saw no fault with it. The only thing that should have been better were the animations but they use Havok Behavior now so they should be good.
User avatar
meg knight
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim