shihonage said:
ID technology has been suited for rendering vast outdoor areas since Quake Wars, and Rage uses improved version of that engine.
So is that the reason why you have only I think 8vs8 as max players in Doom 3 multiplayer ? Because it can render vast outdoor areas ? How many of them had you in Doom 3 anyway ? Just as example (I know Rage is not Doom 3 and we have yet to wait and see what it can really deliver, so I dont have a final oppinion about it rought now, just doubts).
I am not used with the engine which was behind quake wars and I know the specifications for an engine which is as well used in multiplayer are not the same like with a singleplayergame from the performance. But still. Not every game engine is obviously suited for every task. Can you modify a mercedes so much to plow some acre ? Sure. But that doesnt mean its the best vehicle for the job.
I doubt IDs technology will deliver the same kind of gameplay like letz say Morrowind, Oblivion or Fallout 3 particularly for the Sandbox experience Bethesda is usualy aiming for.
One has to remember one thing a engine has to be modified before it can be used for what you want it. And neither Obsidian nor Bethesda have here shown some huge skill. Particularly not Bethesda which has neither done either some own engine nor did they learned how to correctly use the gameybro engine yet (sorry to the fans of Bethesda games, but it simply has to many bugs and that after they worked with the same code for more then 5 or 6 years). And even doom 3 with all its technology has shown the limts as you never had more then a handfull of enemies in singleplayer and the corpses dissapeared emidiately for example. You have always to keep hardware limitations in mind hence why you for example already have issues with places like the Strip in Vegas where you might see more then 20 NPCs on your screen (eventually) and even that is not enough to give you a "this place is full of life" feeling.
I have no clue if IDs new engines really can be used for it for example. But I havent seen them sell it to that many developers yet ~ though If someone has informations feel free to post them. Not like Unreals engine which is quite versatile. And even if you could do similar things I doubt it could do the same like the engine fir Arma 2 for example which is in that respect pretty unique since it can realtively easily render a few 100 objects on your screen without much problems. Well if you manage to get a game runing without bugs ... but thats another issue. And Arma 2 even features in multiplayer destroyable buildings.
I think it would be good for Bethesda to use somthing new OR modify what they have so much that it is almost something new. But as said, that requires knowledge and skill. Something which I doubt either Bethesda or Obsidian has with engines. Not when I see how much bugs they have.
UncannyGarlic said:
Crni Vuk said:
Obsidian would be doing a much better job then Bethesda over could. Hands down.
I don't know about that, Obsidian doesn't seem to have someone in charge with even decent project management skills. Bethesda skips the whole design phase and seems to have an "amusement park" approach to game design but I get the feeling that Todd and Emil are ultimately keeping to a time-line. They both produce buggy messes, it's just that one seems to be able to develop to a time-line, which is very desirable for publishers and owners.
This:
Tagaziel said:
Bethesda does the exact same thing. Personally, I never had major problems with Obsidian games.
I simply compare Fallout 3 and Fallout vegas. And since both games are buggy but worked for me I can only judge the "quality" of the content which was in Vegas in almost everything better then Fallout 3. As said when it comes only to the quality of the product. I cant really comment much on bugs because I was able to finish F3 and Vegas. Except for a few glitches here and there. So I think Obsidian while maybe not the best with their management is in pretty much everything better then Bethesda. Also one should not forget that without the help of the Zenimax in the past (a few times actually) Bethesda would not be around eventually as well anymore.
*Just to be a bit more specific about one thing:
Garlic ;
"Bethesda skips the whole design phase"
That is in my eyes actually a sign of bad management and planing as they seem to have no real intention here to do something either because they dont know it better or they simply think it saves them time but it hurts the product in the end badly beacause with a proper concept/design phase you can avoid such situations where you have to code your companions in a way so they refuse to do the job for you because someone wanted to keep the "player has to make a sacrifice" theme in the game. I would not be surprised if someone got the idea that it would be cool to have a ghoul/super mutant companion and as they have been half way trough the game development realised that they are imune to radiation which somehow makes the whole "kill your self for the purifier to work" obsolete. And since they had no time to rework it anymore simply chaging it. Even Emil admits that it was not a great choice and they knew about it. Hands down how the Legion was present in Vegas wasnt that great either, but at least it doesnt break your game in such a ridiculous way, you just feel a bit sad that they are so short. But thast all. But to not think about such things like with a roleplaying game Fallout 3 should have been is as said in my eyes a sign of bad management.
.
