You're response to questioning your platform was "of course"... of course what? The PC is not the only platform afflicted by issues with this engine and if you think the PS3 is getting the love of Bethesda, you're ignorant.

Y'all do understand that the graphical engine only controls the graphics, right? Things like animations are just a bit different...

Skyrim doesn't have the best graphics on the market, no. On the other hand, I don't think the graphics inhibit gameplay in the slightest, so meh.

I don't care one bit about the console platform. Both can burn in hell. My thread concerns the PC version of Skyrim.

You make PC users look bad.

When you build them one.

BF3 may be technologically better than Skyrim, but aesthetically BF3 is like a Las Vegas [censored] while Skyrim is like Kate Upton.

Considering that the next Fallout will be on a new console, it will probably blow Skyrim out of the water.

I have good reasons for this opinion, that I wouldn't be allowed to expand upon here because precious feelings would be hurt.

You want better graphics, just wait till the modders get a hold of it. If your computer can handle it. Y'all are the one that complain about stock graphics. and then cry cause your computer can't handle high res. They build for the major market. And for all you complain, they are the ones laughing all the way to the bank. Gameplay beats graphics hands down every single time. And skyrim has gameplay. You want graphics so good that it looks like real life. shut off your pc and go get a life!

That's like asking when will Bethesda stop lying.

Not every game engine can deal with infinite worlds which have to be constructed entirely from scratch in several seconds. Imagine the other engine uses better rendering, but it needs several hours postprocessing the each designed zone.
It's rather stupid to compare sandbox RPGs with linear JRPGs.

You may have reasons, but I doubt they are good ones. (and I am a PC gamer too, btw)

I'd love to see Dunia source released so I could mod some sense into Far Cry 2. That game's potential was horribly under-realized.

As for Beth using a new engine? They do it every four-five years or so. Fallout used Oblivion's engine, Skyrim uses New Vegas...timeline wise they crop up at about that interval. I think the engine is fine. What they needed was deeper content.

Uhh... no, I'm pretty sure the Creation Engine is different than the version of Gamebyro Obsidian used.

Bethesda: Creation Engine 1
id: id Tech 5
Epic: Unreal Engine 3

Fans: BETHESDA, Y U NO USE NEW ENGINE?! ?(?益??

Your on about a game where people will defend every last one of its failings. "There is no choice in the quests" "there is, shut up", "the game is a buggy wreck", "No your just a whiney vocal minority", "the game is shallower than oblivion", "I can use spells AND a weapon at the same time, no it isnt". Bethesda could have a knife spring out of the box and stab you, and people would defend it, and compete to be Todds [censored].

You should just stop expecting them to improve games, low standards = GoTY apparently, so dont expect them to change any time soon. They can sell a [censored] product, get praised and defended for it. And at this point im sure they know it.
And I could care less about PC because of this attitude. "waah consoles get all the love" no, play skyrim on the 360, or better yet the ps3. Its [censored] on there, tleast you have mods, nd can enjoy modders fixing the game for you. Because you cant expect betehsda to do that anymore it seems.

That game looks almost as bad visually as Brink did at launch. Yet you say it looks better than http://www.skyrimnexus.com/imageshare/images/460051-1321140507.jpg that?


You're new to trolling, I can tell.


This.


As far as I can tell, you don't. Give me a good and proper argument as to why Bethesda needs to switch engines, not just a bit of text with insults hurled at console users. Frankly, Skyrim's graphics are some of the most stunning I've ever seen. Sure the Cryengine is impressive, as is Frostbite 2.0, but neither of them handle distant objects as well as the Creation Engine.

Bethesda's very familiar with this engine, and it shows.

Yeah whatever man.

"Marketing". When a corporation does it it's called marketing

Look at the characters when they talk: waving their arms about in a really odd manner like the puppets in Thunderbirds is pretty bad.

As others have pointed out, "Creation Engine 1" is a product of the marketing department: Skyrim's engine is the same thing that ran the recent Fallouts, Oblivion, Morrowind and bits of it most likely date back even further. Bits of it have been hacked about over that time, but it's certainly not something that fits any reasonable definition of "new".

While Mr Howard did overplay the whole "new engine" thing, it's certainly not New Vegas' engine. The Skyrim engine is a major upgrade on the Fallout 3 engine, which was a major upgrade on the Oblivion engine, which was itself a major upgrade on the Morrowind engine. There are huge, huge differences between each literation of the engine. Oblivion added worldspaces, proper AI, formIDs, proper combat, LOD land; Fallout 3 improved on this LOD ten fold, added editor optimisation, improved performance ten fold, added shaders and imagespaces, encounter zones; Skyrim has hugely advanced shaders, depth of field, overhauled dialogue and skills interface, improved disant land, better AI, water, weather etc.

And those are just a few of the major changes for each game. New Vegas' engine wasn't even used by Bethesda, it was literally Fallout 3's engine with crudely and badly added on extras.

Sure, they're all not new engines. But they have enough improvements, especially Oblivion and Skyrim, that I would call them a pretty much overhauled engine from their predecessors.

Actually I thought New Vegas' engine ran far, far better than FO3. Although I prefer the latter game overall, problems with smoothness, crashing and savegame corruption make me less than enthusiastic about going back to it, whereas NV seemed to largely cure those problems. I also thought elements like the companion system was rather slicker than what we have in Skyrim, too, and I miss things like hardcoe mode. I wouldn't describe it as a "crude" improvement at all (though Obsidian's approach to quest scripting is another matter.)

As long as they stop rain going through walls and stop the piss poor physics displayed when some enemies are killed they can use the engine for as long as they want imo

Skyrim has been the most stable Bethesda release on PC so far, for me at least. No crashes, good performance.

For me Oblivion at launch was stable to the point that I had no issue's whatsoever (apart from my pc then not being able to handle any AA, let alone HDR, so I basically ran it with no grass and medium textures).

Fallout 3 at launch was rather problematic with the immense slowdowns when entering VATS, but once that was sorted out everything was fine.

Can't comment on Fallout: New Vegas as I didn't buy it at launch (collectors edition was not available in the Netherlands)

Skyrim ran a bit iffy at launch on my current setup, and would freeze sometimes (mostly for a couple of seconds, sometimes permanent) and a few crashes but I'm not convinced that it was Skyrim's fault and not my particular setup. After patch 1.3 though I've only had one freeze and crash which probably had to do with a bad savefile as everything is running perfectly now.

I see no need for change.