Pete Hines: BGS won't announce next game at E3

WorstUsernameEver

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
In an uncharacteristic Twitter conversation Pete Hines explained to a fan that Bethesda Game Studios won't be bringing their next game (which everyone expects to be Fallout 4) at E3, and won't be talking about it for a long time. I always knew that this was a possibility, but I'm a bit surprised he shot down the idea before E3. The full quotes (the quotes in bold are from the fan asking and not Pete Hines):

1) I don't reallly pre-announce our announcements. 2) BGS will not be talking about its next game for a long time. we simply wanted people to know not to expect any kind of announce any time soon. i don't know for certain when it wold be

so E3 is out if the question? I am just hoping it's Fallout. Dishonored 2 or something different is not what we need. Look at Ubisoft. After FarCry 3 was a great success FarCry 4 is coming out this year only 2 years later not 4,5,6, etc. Same thing of what you guys did with Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I know Obsidian did most the work for NV.

good for them. Different teams, different types of games. It will take as long as it takes.​
 
Yeah, I think people expected this based on the fake teaser site, even though it was revealed to be bogus. Bethesda probably wouldn't make an announcement at E3. They wouldn't want to get lost in the shuffle.
 
Part is me is wondering what the hell is taking so long but the other part of me hopes they take as long as they need to blow me away.
 
Well they are most likely doing PC/new gen, which should hopefully finally force them to do it on new engine, so no wonder it will take longer.
What sucks is that they did not give Fallout license to Obsidian again to make (superior) game for them in the meantime.
 
Paul_cz said:
...which should hopefully finally force them to do it on new engine, so no wonder it will take longer...
Click to expand...

They already have a new engine though, it's the one they did Skyrim on. I'm assuming they're using that unless they're re-inventing it again for the xbox one.
 
Korin said:
Paul_cz said:
...which should hopefully finally force them to do it on new engine, so no wonder it will take longer...
Click to expand...

They already have a new engine though, it's the one they did Skyrim on. I'm assuming they're using that unless they're re-inventing it again for the xbox one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they probably want to show some significant advancement on the new consoles. And with Bioware and CDPR both releasing big RPGs relatively soon, it's probably a good idea.
 
Korin said:
Paul_cz said:
...which should hopefully finally force them to do it on new engine, so no wonder it will take longer...
Click to expand...

They already have a new engine though, it's the one they did Skyrim on. I'm assuming they're using that unless they're re-inventing it again for the xbox one.
Click to expand...

That was not a new engine. It was just improved Gamebryo with some shadowing and new animation system thrown in. And that engine is extremely defficient for new generation.
 
Paul_cz said:
Korin said:
Paul_cz said:
...which should hopefully finally force them to do it on new engine, so no wonder it will take longer...
Click to expand...

They already have a new engine though, it's the one they did Skyrim on. I'm assuming they're using that unless they're re-inventing it again for the xbox one.
Click to expand...

That was not a new engine. It was just improved Gamebryo with some shadowing and new animation system thrown in. And that engine is extremely defficient for new generation.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim#Engine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the link itself explains it well:

I also want to stress, once again:


  • Creation is most certainly not the same thing as Gamebryo.
  • Skyrim has the same engine as Oblivion only in as much as it’s still the same engine as Morrowind.
  • Gamebryo is not an old, dated engine, it is constantly updated with new features, much like Valve’s Source.
Click to expand...
To say it isn't a new engine is a bit short-sighted. Just because it is based on or contains Gamebryo code (or Lightspeed, which is what Gamebryo is now) does not mean it's the "same" engine. It was very much a new engine. All of their "engines" are the same insomuch as every game they make is an open-world RPG with similar characteristics (large distances, clutter, etc).

It’s a brand new engine called Creation. Not Gamebryo.
Yes, it’s a brand new engine called Creation, based on Gamebryo. There’s nothing wrong with that. Bethesda has the source-code for Gamebryo and makes big rewrites and adjustments, and they may well consider the result as a brand new engine.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, there are some changes in the Creation Engine, yet it's just modified Gamebryo, not a brand new one. There's old interview with Todd Howard talking about the Creation/Gamebryo evolution:

http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/3076322
AusGamers: Okay, now going from Gamebryo to Creation, what was the outset goal for you guys, in terms of the features that you wanted and the stuff that you didn’t want anymore -- the kind of hang-ups that you had. What was the process going forward?

Todd: Well we came off of Fallout 3 and we’re always moving our own technology forward. Whether that’s using a piece of middleware or doing AI or things like that. We had a pretty big list of what we felt the 360, the PS3 and the high-end PCs could do, and it wasn’t like we said “we’re going to re-write the engine”; we just sort of started with “okay, let’s do this to the graphics; let’s do this to the gameplay”.

We started hitting that hard right after Fallout 3, so I’d say after the course of the next year and a half it turns out we’d re-written all of this -- look how it looks; we’re not using this anymore; we’re not using that anymore. So that’s when we actually decided to brand it; we should call it something of our own.

But it wasn’t from the get go “we’re going to re-write the whole engine”. It was a priority list and we ended up re-writing more than we thought we were gonna, but it worked out.
Click to expand...

edit:
Even most of the console commands remained the same as in Oblivion, they're still working in Skyrim.
 
Last edited:
They're never going to use a new engine by that definition then. If you can't consider creation new you might as well call it the Morrowind engine since they've been working with Gamebryo for over a decade.
 
That's right - there's a lot of new features added to the Creation Engine, yet the core code is more than one decade old. That's why I'm complaining about the similarity between Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout3/NV/Skyrim; it's still the same game for me in terms of mechanics.

Also, I'm not going to call the Unity engine used in Wasteland 2 with some different name, even if they've changed a lot of code in it. It's still the Unity engine for me.
 
valcik said:
That's right - there's a lot of new features added to the Creation Engine, yet the core code is more than one decade old.
Click to expand...

No... that's like saying the core code for Windows 7 is the same as Windows 95 just because it's "Windows". I would direct your attention to this line from the very article you linked:

Gamebryo is not an old, dated engine, it is constantly updated with new features, much like Valve’s Source
Click to expand...

valcik said:
That's why I'm complaining about the similarity between Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout3/NV/Skyrim; it's still the same game for me in terms of mechanics.
Click to expand...

Because that's the kind of game they make... every TES/Fallout game is going to be an open world RPG with the same mechanics. The mechanics of the game have little to do with Gamebryo and perhaps even less to do with a lot of things depending what you're talking about (like Havok). Gamebryo as an engine is used in a number of games that aren't even remotely similar to TES and Fallout mechanic wise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo#Games_Using_Gamebryo_and_LightSpeed

The nail in the coffin is that Creation is a new engine. It was a new engine developed for Skyrim and the next Fallout release will likely be based on the same technology, if not further developed by Bethesda. If anyone wants to disagree that it's not a new engine they're free to do so, the truth of the matter does not rely on consensus of opinion. Saying it can't be new because it's based on Gamebryo/Lightspeed is like saying I can't build a new house because I bought all my tools from Home Depot.
 
Alright, I do agree with some of your points. Just one more thing before I'll end this unexpected spamfest of mine:

Gamebryo is not an old, dated engine, it is constantly updated with new features, much like Valve’s Source
Click to expand...
This doesn't mean that every line of the source code is updated on a regular basis, it looks more like some fresh new and up-to-date features are attached to an old trustworthy beast every now and then.
 
The gamebyro engine for it self might not be bad, but I feel the way how Bethesda is using it makes it somewhat ... outdated. I have played Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim and thinking about it, over the years only very little has really changed between those games.

Sure, the visuals got better, some of the textures and they got finally the "faces" to look decent in Skyrim, not perfect, but better then what they had in Oblivion and Fallout 3. But a lot of things still havn't been touched. Like how the game still cant render more then 5 people on your screan simultaniously before the engine decides that its time to die, civil wars, big deamon invasions, incredible battlefields ... all with 10 people/fighters on each side ... I suppose the word epic battle means for Bethesda something entirely different for them then it does for me. As far as the gameplay goes they also made no improvements. A new engine should give you the oportunity to work on new gameplay as well, something that you could not do before because you had not enough hardware to do it. But the AI in Skyrim is basically still not more then what you had in Morrowind. And lets not even start about things that make RPGs interesting, what about social interactions? NPC behaviour and AI. This also has not improved.

To say it this way, Bethesda is not a company that is doing anything innovative, new or experimenting. Come to think of it, that is maybe not even really a problem, if the games they made would not be so bugged and stale, Skyrim is really the same kind of experience you had already with Fallout 3 and Oblivion, and I mean the same experience, runing around in a huge MMO like environment doing meaningless quests. The word hiking simulator somehow comes in to my mind.

Korin said:
They're never going to use a new engine by that definition then. If you can't consider creation new you might as well call it the Morrowind engine since they've been working with Gamebryo for over a decade.
Click to expand...

and have still a lot of trouble to get it right ... even after a decade of working with the gamebryo engine Skyrim had so many bugs its not funny anymore.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
.. they got finally the "faces" to look decent in Skyrim, not perfect, but better then what they had in Oblivion and Fallout 3.
Click to expand...
They're using the FaceGen middleware for face modeling in Oblivion, F3/NV and Skyrim; so not all the credit for good looking faces belongs to Beth's programmers.
 
Crni Vuk >
Are you masochistic ?
One crap is enough. If Beth get to make the next Fallout, i will read every review and member comments before even consider buying it.
Fallout 3 experience was painfull, not just a let down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top