Do you think they will finally retire the engine they have been using for years? It's nice as we know our way around it but its getting old and comes with the same problems.

It works for them and lets them do what they want to do. They won't build a new one until they make design decisions that require them to build a new one, like making a map thirty times larger than what we've currently got or showing thousands of actors on screen at once.

It should have been scrapped before they began work on FO4. Gamebryo, despite tweaks and upgrades, is just huffing and puffing with the strain they put on it. When top end machines can struggle to squeeze enough frames out of it, it's a telltale sign, that it has outlived its use as a AAA engine, imo.

Unless there is another one that can do the same thing no. And I don't want them to. Despite what Angry Joe said it's not the engine that's the problem.

I doubt they plan to scrap it fully, but I imagen they plan to make a new engine using the current as a base, its a structure they are familiar with and so it cuts down on work time and development cost, compared to having each programmer having to learn a totally new, outsourced engine.

There was before The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim released for sale or after? Where Todd Howard said they will be using the Creation Engine for one more video game, which is Fallout 4, then after that they will be using a entirely new video game engine.

It was also written on wikipedia.org in the Creation Engine section as well from what I remember back in 2012.

Bethesda also said Creation was a new engine, so its likely this "new engine" for post Fallout 4 is just going to be an ungraded creation engine renamed something else.

Just like we are on unreal 4 engine or w/e.

Yep Bethesda Game Studios might call the "brand new video game engine" for The Elder Scrolls VI the Elder Engine or the Elder Scroll(s) Engine or something like that probably.

I was surprised they used the creation engine again for Fallout 4, I thought now that they have teamed up with id software they might get John Carmack to help build a new one. They can't go on with the creation engine, the same problems have occurred time & time again for years. People will grow tired of this, I know I have.

How can they not go on with the Creation Engine?

The new version of the Creation Engine for Fallout 4 uses Physically Based Rendering (PBR), Volumetric lighting, and DirectX 11 and a 64-bit .exe for the PC version of Fallout 4 on PC according to Gstaff, when I sent him a Private Message (PM) about 2 and a half weeks ago.

One thing about Physically Based Rendering (PBR) though. Some PC gamer who is a modder I read on neogaf.com said that Bethesda Game Studios did in fact not add full Physically Based Rendering (PBR), to Fallout 4 and that his work used Physically Based Rendering (PBR) since Summer 2014 when they switched to Unreal Engine 4.

Carmack hasn't worked at Id in forever.

Also, do you really want another Id engine when Wolf and Rage are PLAGUED with LEL MEGATEXTURE! problems?

iD Software got rid of the megatextures for iD Tech 6. At least I think they did.

Imagine if they used Dying Light's engine. That would be sick.

thank god.

I sure hope so...

No matter what they may call it or how much they tweaked it, Gamebyro is ancient and is showing it's limitations rather badly. It's time for a brand new engine build from the ground up, or if they are not capable or willing to do that, they can always get a licence for someone else's. Mhh wonder how Daybreak's ForgeLight engine would do with a single player game?

I find it interesting that people can make the claim that they have a "top end machine struggling with this game"

My computer doesn't struggle at all achieving a constant 60 FPS even after dozens of hours of the game being turned on at full settings so hmm, might want to upgrade your beast with you know better parts than those knock offs.

There is something a lot of you have to just accept,

Your likely not qualified to suggest that that the engine should be replaced and more to the point you have no real idea of what it would mean to change to another engine or develop a new one.

If they did such a thing the most obvious question that comes to mind is will they be able to continue supporting modding?

This likely would not be the case if they licensed some other engine from another company.

Getting tired of reading these thread titles or hearing hipster game journalists making this call as those people are most certainly not even remotely qualified to make such a statement. Its really just a waste of time so whatever.

They've already defended themselves as a company unconcerned with graphics, so it's doubtful. If they had the cojones to release a game that looks like Fallout 4 and was in development for some odd 7 seven year this close to 2016? Pretty sure they don't give the slightest crap.

Seing the introducing a massive addition to the engine like building settlements are making me doubt it very much. Seems like the sort of thing you invest in when you plan to expand it to future games.

It sure would be nice with an engine that could support more modern movement, face-rendering, models, etc. When it comes to modding, the engine is supreme though, and I wouldn't want that to go away.

Doesn't the latest Unreal engine suffer from some of the same issues as it's predecessors? Why does everyone pick on the Creation Engine for being "outdated" when it's iteration process is pretty much the same as any other game engine? Not to mention, some of the recurring bugs are pretty much specific to what Bethesda does - Gamebryo was used for tons of other games like Epic Mickey, Catherine, Civ IV, with generally little issues.

The reason Bethesda uses the Creation Engine is simple, and important. Their worlds are modular - built from thousands of little pieces, instead of a few large architectural meshes creating each "zone" like in an Unreal game. Not to mention all of the clutter that's physics enabled. And then there are the NPCs, who have fairly complicated AI, and stats and inventory almost as complicated as the player's. Other engines literally cannot do an open world on the scale of Skyrim or Fallout 4. So it's not even feasible to suggest switching to Unreal or idTech 6.

I don't know if that has anything to do with the engine, though. That's all middleware, and Bethesda's own MO (they can't feasibly custom-animate every face for every conversation, so they use a procedural lipsync system that mostly looks fine and not great, for instance).

Makes me giggle how so many are having problems with the game, blaming it on the engine and yet I have logged 100+ hours and not CTD once

Ofc I have encountered bugs here and there, big frickin whoop what a surprise a game as complex as F4 has problems.

BTW they won't retire the engine because theirs very few other engines that can do the exact same things but better, give it time however I'm sure something will come along.

Doesn't the game start falling apart if you go above 60 fps?

If so, doesn't that answer the "nothing wrong with the engine" defense?

The psyhics can't handle anything past 60 fps as far as i know. It was a problem in Skyrim aswell, flying cows etc. To be honest i don't mind as i never play anything past 60 fps and probably won't in many many years. As for the engine, i want it to stay, but it needs alot of polish going forward.

I love the engine and the graphics. Maybe I'm brainwashed by the genious artdesign. ^^

The irony of that spelling and the times it is used will never not amuse me.

(sigh).

As I have explained before (along with others here), this is not the engine used for Morrowind nor is it the engine used for Oblivion or Fallout 3. The engine is brand new. There is no need to retire it when it is a brand new engine.

The engine used in Morrowind was NetImmerse (that's where the ".nif" file format comes from, ".nif" standing for "Net Immerse File"). It was owned and licensed by Emergent. Emergent evolved it to GameBryo for the new consoles and new PC technology. This was probably at least in part because Oblivion was scheduled to be a launch title for the Xbox 360. Subsequent to Oblivion and Fallout 3, Emergent went bankrupt. Here's the critically important point: there is NO OTHER ENGINE on the market that can do what Bethesda needs for their games, particularly having hundreds, even thousands, of fully interactive objects scattered throughout an open world that the player interacts with freely throughout their play sessions. Read that again: NO OTHER ENGINE CAN DO WHAT THIS ENGINE DOES. Name another game that has this feature (i.e., that uses an engine that allows hundreds or thousands of fully interactive objects throughout on open world). There isn't one. Bethesda has looked, obviously, especially after Emergent went bankrupt. They had to because they would not be able to simply license the GameBryo engine any longer. The outcome was that they had to buy the source code or attempt to create their own engine from scratch. They chose to buy the source code. It wouldn't have mattered as far as the engine is concerned because the flowcharting of required features and the associated code for them would have been exactly the same either way. Once they owned the source code, THEY REWROTE THE ENTIRE ENGINE FROM SCRATCH. The original source code gave them a starting point for the features they required for their games, but the actual coding was completely rewritten. The result is the current Creation Engine. They could have done the same process by not buying the source code but it would have been more expensive and taken longer, and they would have wound up with the same engine to all intents and purposes.

Another very famous and very complex game that used GameBryo is Civilization IV, so perhaps you can see that claims of "old engine with same old problems" are totally false. People need to stop making these types of claims when they are not true. Learn a bit about the evolution and check the abilities of other engines today. No other engine can do what Creation (and formerly GameBryo and NetImmerse) does, it's that simple.

Let's also be clear about something else: Unreal. Unreal is the most popular engine in the industry, or was, according to polls of AAA game developers (in the West, mind you, not other markets such as East Asia). However, Unreal really stinks if you look at games made using it such as Bioshock. It suffers FAR worse texture popin than anything that was ever made with NetImmerse, GameBryo, or Creation. It suffers this even though it has almost NOTHING in the worlds using it that can be interacted with freely by the player; just a bunch of static, painted-on visuals that are immersion-breaking as soon as you have your character reach out to attempt to interact with anything and fail to do so.

Let's also be clear about something else: frame rates, or FPS (frames per second). There is NO POINT in claiming that "animation is smoother" when run at higher than 60 FPS. Heck, there's no point in making such claims for anything higher than 30 FPS. Actually, the human eye critical limit is 24 FPS. This is why major animation productions and minor animation production all over the world use 24 FPS as the standard for animated works of all kinds, including expensive movie production from studios such as Disney. It's why movies are filmed at a standard rate and why audiences complained when a movie series like The Hobbit was filmed at a higher rate. The higher rate isn't what the eye normally sees so it "looks wrong" (it's really just different, not right or wrong). Anyone who wants to play games at 60+ FPS can do so but there is no point to it as far as the human eye and brain are concerned. Bigger numbers do not equal better quality; different look, yes, but that's because of what the human eye and brain are accustomed to in day to day experiences, not because the quality is superior in any way. Companies often use bigger numbers to market stuff because the general public tends to think "bigger is better" (I will add that this trend is especially noticeable in America). For example, see what happened with HDTV and the falsity of 1080i being superior to 1080p (the technology behind the numbers explains why this is false but most people at the time didn't understand that fact). Same thing with CPU speeds and multiple threads. It doesn't matter how fast your CPU is or how many threads your CPU can use if the software isn't coded to maximize the use of that specific CPU (and mass market software is coded to be used on a wide variety of machines, not customized for a very specific CPU or couple of CPUs). There's a concept in research called "the placebo effect" which is all about subjective experiences leading people to believe that something has an effect when in fact it is only their own subjective delusion rather than any objective difference. That's what you have with "higher frame rates are always better". It's subjective, not objective.