Not having any problems with the Creation Engine currently. Appreciate some people are. Have built a huge settlement with the "size" glitch, not crashed once:

[WARNING: Rude Word Commonly Used in the UK and Australia in the Flashing Billboard. If you are under 16 Please do not click]

http://giphy.com/gifs/xTk9ZAf4kfPz3WPWOk

The only real problems with the engine I have are petty and they are mostly related to how Havok works within it.

Edit: My hardware is comprised of a 3770k CPU overclocked, GTX980 and 16 GB of RAM.

Did you not fully read what he typed? Why does it need to? Maybe it's just me. But the game looked great, it played great. It impressed me from the get go, the entire Fallout series runs better, looks better, and performs better then a lot of the other series out there (In my opinion anyways) Look at the KOTOR series (Which is rather old, I admit) Look at the Dragons Age series, look at series like Call of Duty. All of those games really don't look that much better then Fallout, if at all! All of the Dragons Age games are a bit on the clunky side as far as movement and stuff goes.

There are some problems with every Fallout game that comes out, but at the same time. I still think the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series is way above the other series that comes out as far as playability goes. So I'm fine if they keep using the same engine. Fallout 4 is a pleasure to play. And honestly I cant say that for most games now a days.

"Let them do what they want to do"..
Fallout 4 is basically Fallout 3's apology for everything that was wrong;
- it was easy on very hard
- there was no "hardcoe" mode
- there wasnt masses of locations
- the economy was messed up
- untill the 3rd DLC, the game ended when thehe main story did (i was one of those who saved in the chamber - then realised. The horror on my face when that save was basically useless)

You're refering to the poster that claims humans can't see above 24 fps? Yes I saw that. Its false. I can't link to anything on these boards, but google it, there's plenty of evidence including moving images that disprove the 24 fps thing. Ask any semi pro fps player and they'll tell you what I'm telling you and the other poster: the higher the fps, the smoother the game and better the feel.

Its not even debatable, this argument has been shot down so many times now that many people post it in jest. Its practically a meme.

Personally I thought DA:I looked awful. The characters all look waxy/oily, hair was beyond bad, and they made a big world that was really empty. Bio's worst by far imo. Really quite worried about Andromeda. W3 was also pretty empty outside towns/cities but the main characters do look pretty good.

I do wish Fallout looked a little better but I'm more willing to overlook it because Boston is so jam packed with locations. You know, things to see and do that are so far above and beyond the other games you mentioned that they really can't even be compared.

I do think the engine needs work. I'm also thinking Beth making an official statement saying the next TES game won't be out for a very long time means the engine is going to be worked on. Waiting to see what happens. I'm pretty hopeful because FO4 is less buggy than any other BGS title I've played to date. This statement from a person who refers to them as "Bugthesda" btw.

+1 I rarely have framerate issues and I'm on a gaming LAPTOP (and yes, the settings are high), nevermind peoples using bulky PCs and somehow still having issues.

People need to stop playing on potatoes.

I know right?

the engine is improving as far as I can tell, better 64 bit support, better lighting engine, (still relies on Havok eww) much better and more fluid command structure.

I can't wait to get the GECK and explore every facet of what I can do.

What do you mean better 64-bit support?

The PC version of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim on PC doesn't even support a 64-bit executable it only has a 32-bit .exe, but it does run on 64-bit Windows Operating Systems (OS').

The PC version of Fallout 4 is the first video game developed by Bethesda Game Studios to support a 64-bit .exe.

As for the Havok physics engine I agree 100% Bethesda Game Studios should support Nvidia's PhysX physics engine or develop their own physics engine entirely from the ground up from scratch in their own studio.

Yeah, I do always wonder if these complaints would be the same if they'd done like all the other companies and named their engines "Gamebryo 3", "Gamebryo 4", etc.

I think you made a number of good points. Or, I suspect that they are good points.

But this, statement of yours, I know for a fact, is misleading. When watching movies in theatres, in some scenes, I can see the individual images spread across the screen when there's fast motion, or when my eyes are moving across the screen.

This possibly means that my eyes persist images even longer than this "critical limit" - but that's why I claim your statement is misleading. There are other criteria besides that critical limit.

Of course, I also think people whining about how the engine should be changed are being incredibly misleading - and I think they are way off base, and have been misled, which is why I was mostly pleased to read your writeup.

Nevertheless, that last paragraph of yours made me think you should be aware that there are indeed other relevant issues.

(thanks)

Photoshop just keeps upgrading the same base it has had for pretty much forever... Is Photoshop a bad program because of that, or is it pretty much the only standard in the industry?

In the software world you don't just throw away an old engine, you can continue to upgrade it for decades. Does the engine have down sides and weaknesses, yes, but anyone who thinks that has to do with it being old doesn't understand the basics of what make a videogame.

Most of the things people blame on the engine have nothing to do with what a game engine actually is anyways. But the things that are wrong with it can be upgraded, you don't just re-invent the wheel every time you want to have better this or that...

Play an online multiplayer PvP game on PC, preferably an FPS so that you have to look around a lot. Something like CSGO or TF2 where you can limit your max FPS. Compare 10 hours of gameplay with FPS limited to 24 with FPS limited to the default 300 (you may not get 300 though). I guarantee you will notice a difference. Players with 60 or more FPS definitely have an advantage over players with 30 or less. Aiming is smoother, not just the visuals. 24-30 is fine for videos (excluding some speedruns) because you don't need to react to anything as fast as possible. The motion blur you see in movies also smooths everything out. Motion blur gives the player a disadvantage in video games though, so if you're playing a game where new frames have to be rendered a lot and very quickly, the visuals will appear choppier if you play with motion blur off.

The Creation Engine and the Gamebryo engine before it may have certain features that are still fairly unique, more developed than other engines or it may be the feature set as a whole that is just right. I'm sure Bethesda has a good reason for sticking to a modified Gamebryo engine even if the reason is they're just used to it. If they have talented developers that are used to working with what they've been working with, it may be more efficient to stick with what they have and modify it to keep it going. Sure, it has some annoying issues, but how many other games out there are like TES and Fallout 3/NV/4? Surely there must be a good reason for the lack of similar games. It could be other engines aren't quite as good or harder to use for making the kind of games Bethesda creates. It could be that most developers just don't want to deal with the potentially buggy messes that games on the scale of Bethesda's games can be.

I think with all the bad press from some reviewers and fans(and haters) for the bugs,glitches,and horrific loading times.Yeah...I think they will! This is really the first time Bethesda reputation seems to be on the line.

If your having an issue with Loading Times you should consider a Solid State Drive, its just better and no I'm not interested in arguing or discussing at length why people should have actual good hardware.

With an SSD,

What Loading Times?

I haven't noticed an issue, this is due to having the right hardware.

If they change the game to meet your needs it wont be anywhere close to what we have today but really your in no position to declare that they need to change the engine when your own stuff isn't up to the task at hand.

I barely have time to read the loading screens these things fly by so fast on my machine. Why is that? Cause I have the game on an SSD.

If they use something else to generate their world you cannot say for certain that "new engine" can produce an open world environment of the likes of their previous titles. Simply put your not qualified to declare that they should do this.

A Dunia 2 Fallout would be interesting. Not sure how good Dunia 2 would be at complex cityscapes, but for an open world it would be nice. Kyrat is a MUCH larger world than FO4 in terms of landmass, and it has a build it engine already installed for all the settlement building nonsense.

Not sure Ubi would be cheap though....

Are those other engines you guys mention (Cryengine, Unreal, etc) as mod-friendly as Creation Engine is? If not, then mentioning them is a moot point as moddability is a large part of what makes Bethesda games so unique.

I agree that Creation Engine is fine as it will continue to be improved upon. Until you can find me an existing engine that can do all the things that Bethesda games are loved by e.g: the freedom to pick up and interact with almost anything, the mod-friendly engine, the modular systems, etc. All the eye-candy that the other engines provide won't mean jack-[censored] if the worlds created in them are static and lifeless, like a pretty painting and nothing else.

An overall nice post that will most likely fall on deaf ears. But with regards to fps: ask progamers whether they prefer to play at 60 or 120 fps. Because with the latter, aiming is smoother.

Why should it be able to handle more than 60fps? Seeing as how Bethesdas customer base nowadays is mostly on consoles, implementing such a feature is cost prohibitive. You think it′s a simple line of code, but that 1 line can change the behaviour of the engine in unexpected ways, leading to numerous changes in other lines. As for some settings, certain things should be adjustable either in the launcher or ingame, yes. What I′d personally like to see is the option to change the default run to walk and turn off tutorial tips without having to edit the ini. As for graphics settings: Even nowadays you have engines that require a restart after changing graphics and/or soundrelated settings. Depending on game, such a restart can take awhile, whereas a launcher doesn′t need to be restarted at all. But in case of FO4 I seem to remember to have seen settings ingame.

One word here: Drawcalls. None of the engines you mentioned have the amount of drawcalls than Skyrim or FO4 have. The reason for this is all the dynamic clutter in the world. That comes at the cost of graphic fidelity. I haven′t played TW3, so I won′t comment on it, but I did play DAI and found it′s world lifeless and bland. In terms of openworld, I know which engine I prefer.

I played The Witcher 3 for at least 150 hours so I feel like I must have missed all those hidden dynamic interactive objects in its game world. I know what I didn't miss, I saw that there were tons of complaints about its graphics being too much on peoples hardware. I sure as heck didn't forget that the game had to be downgraded so it could run on a console. I also noticed that my only choice for a protagonist was in fact Gerault of Rivia, who is a well known womanizer who what collects women like they are some sort of card game? There is no denying that.

I could go on at length how Witcher 3 and GTA series are simply not my cup of tea and certainly not appealing for everyone but that will of course just fall on deaf ears.

Its like why bother, its a game so of course some person out there figures that each company has a moral obligation to ensure that their game not only includes said features but also implements it better than.

Firstly, Skyrim sold over 9 million copies on Steam, and for 4 years its remained in the Steam top 10 most played games. Bethesda's pc versions don't burst numbers as high as consoles, but they have a huge tail in terms of sales on the PC, its a constant source of revenue. It's unwise to ignore the numbers there.

Secondly, in regards to "you think its a simple line of code". I don't know if you're confusing me with someone else, but I didn't ever say that, nor did I infer it.

And finally, the reason I brought up the launcher was to show (in part) how Fallout 4 is not a brand new engine at all, as one poster tried to claim.

Put the old dinosaur of an engine out of it's misery already. They have more than enough money to make a new and better engine from scratch. They won't though as Bethesda thinks people will buy their games all the same, old engine or new. I'm sick of it honestly, if the next TES uses "Creation" *cough* gamebyro, I'm done.

You shouldn't do that. Each item that gets moved from it's original position gets saved in the save file, and causes performance issues if the bloat from all that gets too high. See the need to clean up weapons dropped by enemies in Skyrim after every fight (fixed on PC by the unofficial patch)

So no, no it's not.

And how many of those 9 million copies were day1 sales or rather full price sales?

That wasn′t directed at you specifically, but rather intended as a general argument. I often had to read that it is as simple as that, when in fact it is not.

It was rewritten, but I have to agree that to name it brand new is a gross exaggeration.

Because new doesn't have to mean more power. New can mean streamlined and coded correctly to maximum efficiency. The current engine was designed for ps3 and xbox 360 standards not the current generation console. It's been cut and wielded and patched and Jury rigged to process better graphics. It's not processing data in an efficient manner. There are new engines that offer more and work better right now. Beth don't need to design and development a new engine. They can lease of the shelf solutions for future games. Ok the saying goes if it ain't broke don't fix it. Problem is it is broke and has always been broken.