• wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The overall point still stands though. No off the shelf engine will have all the features a game needs unless the game is staying within the bounds of what the engine already covers.

    At this point, switching engines means a hell of a lot of work only to eventually end up exactly where they are now again.

    It’s a legitmate question without an easy anwser, as to whether that work is better spent moving to a new engine or improving the existing one.

    Unfortunately the path Bethesda is seeming to go with is to do neither. I can’t imagine making a game like Starfield and not at least trying to find a way to make more of those loading moments “invisible” to the player rather than full on “yank you out” loading screens.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      If that’s the overall point, it was nested in several worse points. The problem is that they’re still using the same tech, and switching to Unreal is the fastest path between two points in time that anyone can propose. Really, they should have been working on a new engine after reviews criticized them for it in Fallout 4 back in 2015.