I find that almost all complaints from the fanbase tend to lay blame for prior game flaws on Gamebryo. Understanding that GameBryo was just the render engine please tell me what was actually wrong? Seriously.

a few minor things. the biggest was probably the fact that you and npcs could some times get stuck in walls. gambryo mostly became the pariar for all the things that went wrong with the game mechanics. it was to blame for most of them but ultimatly the problems for game bryo (as many as there were) were dramatized but were not game breaking. for most.

Not much, Gamebryo been complained at for all sorts of silly things that isn't related to Gamebryo as it's basically just a renderer and not a "full" engine like the Source engine, Unreal engine, Doom 3 engine and so on.

Issues that other Gamebryo games from other developers don't have (like Freedom Force, Civilization or whatever). And then there are many complaints are about it being outdated, yet Gamebryo Lightspeed was released back in 2009.

So basically, it's just a popular scapegoat for invalid reasons because a bunch of vocal people didn't do their research.

Outdated I think. Bethesda made the right choice.

Personally I never found it that bad. It had its flaws but it looked visually great in Fallout 3. The only problems I find is the glitches with NPC's, and AI quite clunky. It was a good move to change the engine though, Gamebryo would of been outdated for a new game.

change of pace

The biggest problem with gamebryo was the heavy compartmentalization. The cross-threading really got jumbled as you jumped from cell to cell at times. Gamebryo was one of the limitations that made BGS scrap parts of Radiant AI due to the family groups that caused mass genocide in the streets occasionally.

The Cell system isn't a part of Gamebryo, it's something that Bethesda wrote themselves.
The Radiant AI isn't a part of Gamebryo, it's something that Bethesda wrote themselves. A renderer won't cause an AI to commit genocide.

It just seems really unoptimized although a lot of that could be placed on BGS's programmers. Namely a lot of stuff is rendered whether you can see it or not. This is most noticeable in cities where you step out of a building and your framerate hits the floor even though you're only staring at a wall. It's still rendering everything behind that wall. Or in a dungeon where your framerate is all over the place even though you're just looking around empty hallways. It's still rendering the entire dungeon. There was some slight improvement here with Oblivion rendering only the stuff in the direction you're facing but it's still not enough. With some form of occlusion implemented we could have a lot more detailed areas with an actual improvement in framerate.

I see

Praise Freddo for actually knowing what he is talking about.

With given comments basically the answer is, outdated. Not to mention whoever they liscensed it from sunk under. Of coarse they could just get an agreement with the new owners. Also hm, didn't know Gamebryo was updated.

Basically yeah the version of Gamebryo that that brought back time and time again with internal upgrades wasn't doing the trick. And Gamebryo wasn't updating it as Epic does with Unreal, barring Lightning at which point Bethesda decided an internal engine was better.

Second being Bethesda's own programming. As I've stated before, even the best engine in your hands don't matter if you don't have a team technically educated and skilled enough to use it and put it through it's paces. Also, I realize as not being the programmer sort my terminology might be mixed here. I apologize, but you get my point.

And there's also the other technology combined with Gamebryo.

Overall I think ditching a 2nd/3rd party engine and creating a new internal one was a good idea.

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.

I think that if they write it themselves they will be able to better link everything like Havok and AI together

I see there is still a lot of confusion about just what Gamebryo is.

It's a renderer and a file format and that is IT.

All of the game mechanics and the development tools that let you create content are all Bethesda. The sudden absence of the Gamebryo renderer will have absolutly no positive or negative effect on Beth's ability to implement and mesh together the various game play mechanics with 3rd party middle ware such as Havok Behavior.

All of the flaws in MW and OB are unequivocally Bethesda's doing and Gamebryo is not to blame in the least.

The only thing the absence of Gamebryo has changed on the order of development is the cheese Beth is saving on licensing fee's.

Dan Ross care to comment?

Mostly, I'd say Gamebryo is just an old engine, and sometimes, you just need to switch out old engines for new ones, I think Gamebryo has reached this point. Sure, you can update an old engine to a certain extent, as happened with Gamebryo, but do we really want to keep using updated versions of the same engine ten years from now when all other games use new engines?

I'd also say it wasn't that well optimized, at least not the version seen in Oblivion and Fallout 3, but that may just be incompenent programming on Bethesda's part. The same engine being repeatedly updated also might be a culprit, I'm sure there's potential for some problems to develop in this proccess, now, there are some other Gamebryo games that avoid the problems that Bethesda's games using that engine suffer from, yes, but of the ones I've played, none of them have much of a resemblance to the Elder Scrolls, and most have much less advanced graphics than Oblivion, just something to think about. It seems to me that either Gamebryo wasn't doing the job, at least not fur Bethesda's needs, or Bethesda's programmer's weren't doing their job, if the former is the case, then I'd say it was time for a change, if the latter is the case, then I just hope Bethesda hired better programmers.

All things considered, it's hardly fair to blame all problems on Gamebryo, especially when the problems don't come from things that Gamebryo handles at all, but still, I'm glad that Bethesda decided to go with a different engine for Skyrim, a new engine means new oportunies for improvement, now, I'm not certain how well the new engine will work, of course, but if it's done well, I can certainly see benefits in the act itself.

Valves Source engine still have parts from the original Quake in it, same with other "modern" engines.

Wish they would have left it in then because that would have been cool to pull into town in the middle of something like that ^^ break up the boredom of fast traveling to towns...

Well that isn't surprise. Old code is almost always used in some form for new engines. That's what's to take of what Bethesda took and did different in creating this Creation Engine.

Anyways as to my opinion, refer to my last post above

Edit: As a side note. Carmack should come on down to BGS and give a few pointers

The Abomb bug, and lights/shadows bleeding through walls/floors were popular complaints I'd seen around the net.

It didn't help that the company that owned Gamebyro went under.

Hehe, it would be very cool if id Tech 6 was developed with TES games in mind

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. -_-

Maybe they needed a 'reference'

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.

Perhaps we should have a moment of silence for Emergent/GameBryo and consider that MW, OB, SI, FO3, and FONV were developed using this tech and all great games.