Why are battles so small?

K

KillerBee256

Still Mildly Glowing
So I've done some messing around with the console, spawning large amounts of NPCs to fight me and each other. Now I have a high end computer but I've gotten up to 400 npcs fighting each other and only had one crash from 600ish dead ragdolls. So it seem to me even the consoles must be able to handle more then we have in game, is Bethesda just lazy?
 
Either console limitations (which I understand, console is a huge market and it's best to release on all systems) or limitations in the GECK.
 
KillerBee256 said:
So I've done some messing around with the console, spawning large amounts of NPCs to fight me and each other. Now I have a high end computer but I've gotten up to 400 npcs fighting each other and only had one crash from 600ish dead ragdolls. So it seem to me even the consoles must be able to handle more then we have in game, is Bethesda just lazy?
Click to expand...

It is not outright laziness. The engine can only do so much. Those huge 1000 vs 500 NPC battles are short games without save files. That many dead NPC's on the map would bog down the game at some point. It can be done but not for long periods of time, and not without getting rid of the bodies after they die.
 
I'd imagine there must be a reason every dramatic Lord of The Rings-sized final battle, from Oblivion to Fallout 4, has only about 8 NPCs on the screen at one given time.

Also those moments where Kings or Presidents of the NCR are giving speeches to a massive audience of 6 NPCs.

If they could do more they probably would have. This engine should not have been used for Fallout 4 in my humble opinion.
 
Irwin John Finster said:
I'd imagine there must be a reason every dramatic Lord of The Rings-sized final battle, from Oblivion to Fallout 4, has only about 8 NPCs on the screen at one given time.

Also those moments where Kings or Presidents of the NCR are giving speeches to a massive audience of 6 NPCs.

If they could do more they probably would have. This engine should not have been used for Fallout 4 in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

The one part with Ulfric Stormcloak making a speech to around 10 NPCs made me laugh uncontrollably the first time I seen it.
Or fighting inside of Whiterun during a "civil war" with a few NPCs from each side fighting at a time with others spawning off screen when the others die.
 
Irwin John Finster said:
I'd imagine there must be a reason every dramatic Lord of The Rings-sized final battle, from Oblivion to Fallout 4, has only about 8 NPCs on the screen at one given time.

Also those moments where Kings or Presidents of the NCR are giving speeches to a massive audience of 6 NPCs.

If they could do more they probably would have. This engine should not have been used for Fallout 4 in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I can't help but think they are playing it safe, but then what are the specs on the xbone?
 
KillerBee256 said:
Irwin John Finster said:
I'd imagine there must be a reason every dramatic Lord of The Rings-sized final battle, from Oblivion to Fallout 4, has only about 8 NPCs on the screen at one given time.

Also those moments where Kings or Presidents of the NCR are giving speeches to a massive audience of 6 NPCs.

If they could do more they probably would have. This engine should not have been used for Fallout 4 in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I can't help but think they are playing it safe, but then what are the specs on the xbone?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's limited by the consoles. I think it's limited by the game engine itself. However, I personally do not know.
 
TorontRayne said:
KillerBee256 said:
So I've done some messing around with the console, spawning large amounts of NPCs to fight me and each other. Now I have a high end computer but I've gotten up to 400 npcs fighting each other and only had one crash from 600ish dead ragdolls. So it seem to me even the consoles must be able to handle more then we have in game, is Bethesda just lazy?
Click to expand...

It is not outright laziness. The engine can only do so much. Those huge 1000 vs 500 NPC battles are short games without save files. That many dead NPC's on the map would bog down the game at some point. It can be done but not for long periods of time, and not without getting rid of the bodies after they die.
Click to expand...

What if a NPC in a battle kicks a tin can? According to Bethesda it means you enable physics on the can and track its position for the rest of the game. If Bethesda lost its obsession with tracking tin cans they would be able to do more and have their game simply run better.

Also the game isn't designed around such big battles. They are rather unintelligent messes.

And it takes focus of the player(not a strict Bethesda criticism unless you go for something like Dynasty Warriors you can't have the player be a central focus and have hundreds of enemies).
 
Last edited:
Kilus said:
TorontRayne said:
KillerBee256 said:
So I've done some messing around with the console, spawning large amounts of NPCs to fight me and each other. Now I have a high end computer but I've gotten up to 400 npcs fighting each other and only had one crash from 600ish dead ragdolls. So it seem to me even the consoles must be able to handle more then we have in game, is Bethesda just lazy?
Click to expand...

It is not outright laziness. The engine can only do so much. Those huge 1000 vs 500 NPC battles are short games without save files. That many dead NPC's on the map would bog down the game at some point. It can be done but not for long periods of time, and not without getting rid of the bodies after they die.
Click to expand...

What if a NPC in a battle kicks a tin can? According to Bethesda it means you enable physics on the can and track its position for the rest of the game. If Bethesda lost its obsession with tracking tin cans they would be able to do more and have their game simply run better.
Click to expand...
Yea but I need those tin cans now for Fallout-craft/Settlement building...they are VERY important to Fallout now...
 
I still don't get it why Bethesda still hangs on Gamebryo like fleas to a dog. Despite all of the love that some people have for it here. It really, really, really is about timet hat they get to a new one. I think at least SOME issues could be solved in the future.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I still don't get it why Bethesda still hangs on Gamebryo like fleas to a dog. Despite all of the love that some people have for it here. It really, really, really is about timet hat they get to a new one. I think at least SOME issues could be solved in the future.
Click to expand...

Maybe they want to save money? Cause Jesus where do their fund go to? Back to their pocket?
 
Crni Vuk said:
I still don't get it why Bethesda still hangs on Gamebryo like fleas to a dog. Despite all of the love that some people have for it here. It really, really, really is about timet hat they get to a new one. I think at least SOME issues could be solved in the future.
Click to expand...

Gamebryo was never the problem. It is Bethesda's design choices and focus that is the problem.
 
Kilus said:
Crni Vuk said:
I still don't get it why Bethesda still hangs on Gamebryo like fleas to a dog. Despite all of the love that some people have for it here. It really, really, really is about timet hat they get to a new one. I think at least SOME issues could be solved in the future.
Click to expand...

Gamebryo was never the problem. It is Bethesda's design choices and focus that is the problem.
Click to expand...

And that they seem not to use their amount of money.
 
Possibily. Good programmers can do amazing things with engines. Still, doesn't explain why Beth is literaly the only studio out there still using Gamebryo. Particularly when you consider how old it is by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top