339
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
339 points (100.0% liked)
Games
32586 readers
1126 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No Man's Sky has had no loading screens during gameplay, and space to planet transitions on full planets, since what... 2016?
The Creation Engine is just too damn old.
Edit @Dark Arc: You're right. Creation Engine is just too damn shitty, I guess. I called it "old" because the gameplay feels so antiquated.
"Engines" are not static things. What we call "Unreal Engine" goes back to the 90s.
These comments always bug me as a programmer because it's like someone calling a 2023 Camero old because it doesn't have the acceleration of a 2023 Mustang... The "age" almost certainly isn't the problem, it's where the effort has or hasn't been put in to the engine and more importantly the game itself (e.g., carrying on the metaphor, the Camero might be slower getting up to speed because all the R&D for the last 3 years was on a smooth ride).
Yeah to be honest what strikes me the most about companies like Bethesda is just how little they've improved over the decades. There's nothing stopping them from making major improvements like removing loading screens, adding vehicles finally (I wonder if the ships are really a hat like the train in fallout 3), fixing the buggy ass collisions and physics, or any number of dumb shits they just keep leaving in game after game. It really speaks to the institutional inertia and spaghetti mess their code must be.
I would assume those things are just not prioritized by management because they've never been things that have caused sufficient outrage and/or aren't seen as things that can increase sales... You can't exactly use "look we fixed physics" in a marketing video to sell a new game. Maybe you can use "look we have vehicles"... but what's the number of people that will really care? What % will that increase sales?
e.g. maybe someone would care if EA made your need for speed character able to get out of the car and walk around... Do I care? Nah.
(I bothered to look at the Wikipedia page and) they added multiplayer support to Creation Engine for Fallout 76, that was a huge undertaking.
I mean fixing these things can definitely increase sales, but you're right not in the sense that they are directly marketable. The thing that makes games really blow up is word of mouth, people recommending them to their friends, and you get that best by making a game with overall quality. It's basically a given at this point that Bethesda games are buggy messes that get fixed by modders. Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you're playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less. All of this hurts sales, if not today in the future. So yeah, they probably aren't prioritized by management, but management is wrong. They often are.
Fair assessment, though I'd critique:
These aren't the improvements you said you wanted ;) Fixing physics, adding vehicles, etc are features/major changes that can increase instability/take a lot more time to QA.
That's true, but the comments are valid when talking about Bethesda games
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine
Case and point
Case in point
Huh, thanks for the tip!
Casing point
Points out it does change.
It is... By a lot, ask any web developer. Even before they switched to using Blink under the hood it was a significantly better browser. Now it's literally a reskinned Chrome. Meanwhile IE11 is a complete mess that requires a ton of hacks to get it to do what you want.
In both cases IE -> Edge and Edge -> Chrome Microsoft changed the literal browser engine. ... This just kinda makes my point even more so, the general public has no idea what constitutes an "engine change" and can't judge whether that will yield the results they want.
You've seen how low poly Half-Life 2 is right...? Destiny 2 only allows certain areas to have the flashlight on because if they don't plan for it the flash lights can tank their frame rates (seriously) -- but hey "Left 4 Dead 2 had a flashlight in source engine!" /s.
I can almost guarantee Half-Life two also didn't have "Global illumination", maybe real time lighting for the flashlight, but Global Illumination is a much bigger thing.
This is Half-Life 2 with global illumination: https://youtu.be/WWYpKRETv8k?si=9eTDmx10m3l9nwdR
Here's an old forum from 2005 talking about how "real global illumination isn't yet possible" https://gamedev.net/forums/topic/348797-half-life-2-global-illumination/3282572/
Really? So Chakra was just a fever dream I had? (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-edge-gets-better-against-chrome-and-other-browsers-javascript-benchmarks)
"Minor bump" that fixed 4,000 bugs, and added HTML5 and CSS3.
I suppose ES6, C++11, Java 8, Python 3, etc are also just "minor bumps."
I didn't even buy the game, it didn't seem interesting to me. I just am frustrated by the fundamental lack of understanding about what an "engine" is and the fact that they're almost always being iterated on in different ways.
Diversity of engines is a good thing, everything shouldn't be Unreal Engine, Blink, V8, Clang, etc
No man sky also barely has a story and has zero voice acting. It's apples and oranges, just because they're both fruit doesn't mean they can be compared
Except you just compared them in saying they are both fruit. In fact, saying they are both fruit is finding a commonality between them when comparing. There are many metrics on which Apples and Oranges can be compared. They are different colors, have a different internal structures, and different juice content. These are negatively correlated comparisons. More positive correlations would be that they are both roughly spherical, provide vitamin C, and grow on trees.
I have always hated that expression. You can compare anything since comparison is just the act of identifying similarities and differences (positive and negative correlations). One can make meaningful comparisons between and apple and a suspension bridge if the situation calls for it.
Ohhh my godd, me too. It's so anti-intellectual.
To anyone who might care, you can identify an apple as a low-quality orange, but that doesn't also mean the apple is a low-quality apple; they're optimized to different ends. That is, I think, the point of the expression.
But, if we're trying to evaluate them on something like taste, which is entirely subjective, yeah, I'm comparing those shits. And, I'm going oranges all the way.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges because they are both great but for different reasons and purposes. It isn't anti-intellectual to recognize that apples are way better for pies than oranges are but if you want some amazing juice and don't want to go through a whole process to make it good; oranges are the way to go.
This and the many other examples I didn't want to fill this page with are the reason why it's a saying. It's much faster than prefacing what exactly said apples and oranges are going to be used for before giving a real answer and I personally feel it shouldn't at all be taken literally.
While I don't disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.
It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with "big words" as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.
So why not stand on that hill when it's relevant?
I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn't. Such is the curse of my superpowers.
Captain Pedant AWAAAAYYYY!
This made me giggle like a little girl
It's relevant because it's there. If you don't play those parts it doesn't mean it's there. They put the time in other things more important to the game than transitions. Also, the engine is completely different.
If you don't like Bethesda games just come out and say it. Those are two games that provide completely different experiences to anything Bethesda has ever made.
Do I wish Starfield had less loading screens? Sure, but the only thing I'm really upset about is that it doesn't show the ship animations every time I take off and land. But that's an immersion issue and Starfield is more immersive than either nms or cyberpunk either way.
As far as technical issues go, I couldn't play it when I had popOS installed but since I switched to Windows I've had zero issues on a 3080ti
They are completely different games though. Watchdogs 2 had less loading screens than Hitman 3, but that doesn't really mean much to say.
They are compared because they both are advertised as filling the same niche, of space exploration with emphasis on exploration.
Except they don't really? And I didn't see that much. Starfield to me seemed like it was being advertised as for RPG fans, and that they would have a lot of dialogue. And that space was just a setting, not the main character.
I'm not saying it to justify it, I'm saying that not having loading screens doesn't make No Man's Sky a better game. I think Star Citizen is a better comparison to Star Field in terms of style- and is much more empty.
It makes it better in terms of loading screens.