Comment on Bethesda Is Responding to Negative Reviews of Starfield on Steam

• Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Bethesda revealed in June 2021 that they were working on a new iteration of the engine called Creation Engine 2, and that it would power their upcoming games Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI. Creation Engine 2 features real-time global illumination and advanced volumetric lighting.

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine

  Case and point

  source

  • Nihilore@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Case in point

    source

    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Huh, thanks for the tip!

      source
    • jomoo99@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Casing point

      source
  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Just slapping number 2 at the end doesn’t mean it’s better. That’s like how Microsoft made Edge browser by forking IE11 and it’s suppose to be better. And how big of a joke is volumetric lighting and “real-time global illumination”… hahaha. Oh my. Source 1 had that when Half-Life2 was released. Advancement.

    Here’s an in-game example of that global illumination.

    source

    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Creation Engine is static. Others, you are right, change.

      Points out it does change.

      jUst sLappInG a nUmbeR 2 aT tHe End dOesN’t mEan iT’s bEtTer

      That’s like how Microsoft made Edge browser by forking IE11 and it’s suppose to be better.

      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.

      Oh my. Source 1 had that when Half-Life2 was released. Advancement.

      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: youtu.be/WWYpKRETv8k?si=9eTDmx10m3l9nwdR

      Here’s an old forum from 2005 talking about how “real global illumination isn’t yet possible” gamedev.net/forums/topic/…/3282572/

      source

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Points out it does change.

        In case you haven’t figured it out, it’s a joke that their engine doesn’t change. Whether they want it or not, they have to at least adapt some things and am well aware of that. Joke is that they do so seldomly and we don’t see much progress in quality.

        By a lot, ask any web developer.

        I am a web developer and have been for 20 years almost. So I know what am talking about. I know IE, whether I like it or not, so intimately I can still quote all the bugs they had from IE6 onwards. All Edge did, was drop legacy compatibility mode, nothing else. Underlying Trident engine got a minor bump. Hence why I quoted it. But by all means please enlighten me with your Google skills in order to justify the fact Bethesda scammed you out of your money once again.

        You’ve seen how low poly Half-Life 2 is right

        Yes, and number of polygons means nothing. Which is why there’s an ongoing joke about people needing to upgrade their computers to run Starfield, when there are better looking games out there which run much much better.

        And you are equating global illumination with ray tracing, which is not the same thing. You can do partial global illumination without doing ray tracing. Only thing that means, coming from Todd Howard’s mouth is that they are not using baked in lights, which I don’t believe him either. Remember how FO76 had 16x the details? But in reality they copy and pasted foliage that many times and called it a day with same shitty textures. Yeah, that kind of Todd treatment is expected whatever he says. Even if they did do ray tracing it doesn’t matter one bit if game is boring, which it is.

        Also, I gave HL2 and Source engine as an example as a joke as well, since game looked awesome and ran on pretty much any hardware. With the release of Lost Coast, which is what you should be comparing Starfield to, it was demonstrated what Source can do. Lost Coast was released in 2005 and looks significantly better and demonstrates many things Bethesda these days boasts about.

        In the end, if all that matters to you is what Todd tells people and then pretends he didn’t and number of polygons so be it. I on the other hand like my games to be entertaining, regardless of how they look.

        source

        • -> View More Comments