• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why doesn't Rockstar cheap out on tech like Bethesda?

Because people would buy their game anyway regardless if it's a 2005 engine. They don't care if the weaknesses of their engine carried out to another generation. Their fans would blindly accept it anyway.

Rockstar's engine isn't that good as well tbh.
 
Unless you count that time they tried to turn mods into paid mods so they could skim off other people's work.

lol you people have some short memories

They did not try to turn mods into paid mods. That was a decision to be made by the developer of said mod. Please get your facts straight. Bethesda supports their modding community pretty well.

But giving someone the option to sell their work is completely different from what you are saying.
 
And you know what I agree with you. Bethesda does need to step it the fuck up but you also solely created this thread as a drive by assault on Bethesda with no real discussion value from the jump. Gems like "GTA5 doesn't need mods to not be ugly." is just trolling.

There is already plenty of discussion surrounding the technical aspects of Fallout 4 and its shortcomings.

Yes, it would be better to just ignore the issue like the majority of game journalists. Also I think GTA5 looks far better than Fallout 4, PC version at least. After all it should only be fair to compare two games with last gen roots, no?
 
Bethesda doesn't cheap out on tech ffs. Their tech is unique and it's what makes their games possible.

Several aspects of their tech is not up to par for a AAA studio. Sound is one of the biggest ones which constantly feels like it's well over a generation behind their contemporaries.

Any indie dev with free FMOD or wwise middleware integrated into their Unity or UE4 project basically has exponentially more advanced sound functionality than what Bethesda uses internally.
 
GTA games have nowhere near the interactable object density, flexibility, and NPC complexity as Bethesda's Elderscrollesque titles. Apples to oranges.

I am not directly comparing the games, just the approach to not settle with "good enough".

Honestly, who can defend the clusterfuck that is the Bethesda engine?
 
What the hell kind of thread is this, seriously? Could the Bethesda hate be any stronger right now?

People don't understand why there are separate engines in the game developer world and think every game's "problem" is simply not being on UE4 (from reading similar threads)
 
Unless you count that time they tried to turn mods into paid mods so they could skim off other people's work.

lol you people have some short memories

I'm not against mod authors making money from their own work though, Bethesda just handled that very very poorly. Of course free is better for all :) In this day and age despite the issues I may have with their games I still appreciate that Bethesda is one of the few companies to let people mod their games and provide the tools to do so. I really wish this wasn't the case and that it was more common but it seems to be a dying thing for big companies to support their creative fanbases. I consider that to be a big disappointment.
 
They did not try to turn mods into paid mods. That was a decision to be made by the developer of said mod. Please get your facts straight. Bethesda supports their modding community pretty well.

But giving someone the option to sell their work is completely different from what you are saying.

They would have gotten a very nice share of the revenue from that. The largest of the 3 stakeholders.
 
People don't understand why there are separate engines in the game developer world and think every game's "problem" is simply not being on UE4 (from reading similar threads)

For real. Some people just think that swapping engines is as easy as swapping shirts. PSA: it is not.
 
I am not directly comparing the games, just the approach to not settle with "good enough".

Honestly, who can defend the clusterfuck that is the Bethesda engine?

Bethesda's engine isn't a "clusterfuck". It's purpose built to do what it does, and the entire company is familiar on it and has built years of experience and middleware lessons into it. They've spent tons of money on it.

I've yet to see anyone actually articulate WHY Beth's engine is bad.
 
God, yeah... Not to even mention all those LAZY LAZY indie developers. God damn, everyone in this industry is SO LAZY.

I didn't spend $4500 on a brand new ultra high spec gaming PC to play this pathetic subpar peasant software!





I can't keep this charade up anymore. I'm gonna hurl.
 
You're not asking about engines. You're asking about graphics.

People's lack of understanding of what a game engine is makes my head spin.

This is probably partially companies like Epic and Crytek's for pushing visual features in the public eye like they are even remotely the most important part of an engine. Graphics are one part of a bigger whole. Bethesda's tech is highly specialized and I don't think there is another engine out there quite like it. Certainly not that I can think of.

As far as an engine designed for building open world games that are pretty, Rockstar are in another league from most. But Bethesda's engine is about open world simulation. That's what makes it special.
 
Because people would buy their game anyway regardless if it's a 2005 engine. They don't care if the weaknesses of their engine carried out to another generation. Their fans would blindly accept it anyway.

Their engine is not a "2005 engine", it's been significantly updated with each new game they made. Their fans are also not blind, and it's beyond annoying at this point to see people still spout this sort of self righteous nonsense, specially when it's been explained time and time again that the engine in their games is what allows them to build what people love about them.
 
What the hell kind of thread is this, seriously? Could the Bethesda hate be any stronger right now?
It's such a small subset of people it doesn't even matter. The game reviewed incredibly well and sold incredibly well. People jumping on the Bethesda hate bandwagon is actually pretty hilarious to me, also seems incredibly disingenuous.
 
I dont' know if they cheap out on tech.

having not played any of their games, though, I always wonder why half of the mods released on PC seem focused on "fixing" the game somehow
 
I am not directly comparing the games, just the approach to not settle with "good enough".

Honestly, who can defend the clusterfuck that is the Bethesda engine?

So much hostility. Bethesda prioritizes on different things, as the games are very different. Every studio has scope and budget.

When someone does what Bethesda does than maybe people will stop defending them.
 
Bethesda's engine isn't a "clusterfuck". It's purpose built to do what it does, and the entire company is familiar on it and has built years of experience and middleware lessons into it.

I've yet to see anyone actually articulate WHY Beth's engine is bad.

Maybe you should ask Giant Bomb / Gerstmann.

ht8dblr.gif


I could forgive the visuals if they would at least fix the framerate and animations.
 
Bethesda's engine isn't a "clusterfuck". It's purpose built to do what it does, and the entire company is familiar on it and has built years of experience and middleware lessons into it.

I've yet to see anyone actually articulate WHY Beth's engine is bad.

I think they assume the glitches are custom built into it.
 
I am not directly comparing the games, just the approach to not settle with "good enough".

Honestly, who can defend the clusterfuck that is the Bethesda engine?

I can't. Fallout 4 needs s serious spit-polish patch. I don't think the game is good enough from a performance aspect to really release it.

I wish I had room in my home for a PC, it'd just brute force it with hardware. It's horrible for aiming on the XB1 when rocking 17 fps.
 
RlyB0ka.gif


Inflammatory title, lack of any real contribution to discussion, dancing around the real point by *cough* coughing to make themself seem witty.

Boys, we have a shitpost here.

To answer the question, I doubt Fallout "cheaped" out on tech. There probably wasn't a meeting where they got together and said, "How can we fuck over the people buying this game the most while still selling the game?". They probably did the most they could with the time they had and provided modding tools that would conveniently allow the community to improve and fix the game they made.

Unlike, I might add, another company that went out of it's way to make modding far more difficult than it should have been. I'm talking about Rockstar, by the way, in case you were wondering.
 
I dont' know if they cheap out on tech.

having not played any of their games, though, I always wonder why half of the mods released on PC seem focused on "fixing" the game somehow

To be honest, what one person considers fine, another can consider broken. But there are definitely areas where mods fix some of the slop.
 
RlyB0ka.gif


Inflammatory title, lack of any real contribution to discussion, dancing around the real point by *cough* coughing to make themself seem witty.

Boys, we have a shitpost here.

To answer the question, I doubt Fallout "cheaped" out on tech. There probably wasn't a meeting where they got together and said, "How can we fuck over the people buying this game the most while still selling the game?". They probably did the most they could with the time they had and provided modding tools that would conveniently allow the community to improve and fix the game they made.

Unlike, I might add, another company that went out of it's way to make modding far more difficult than it should have been. I'm talking about Rockstar, by the way, in case you were wondering.

Ignoring the first part, but you seem to be the angry one.

Calling bullshit on the bolded part though. Why didn't they take more time to polish the game? Also modding support is no excuse to release the game in such a rough state. I prefer to buy my games in a polished and finished state.
 
so you're comparing GTA V PC to the console versions of Fallout 4? Because the Fallout 4 PC version is actually pretty decent. Also like already mentioned, GTA V ran at a similar frame rate as Fallout 4 when it first launched on console.
 
Rockstar does cheap out on tech. Just different kinds of tech. Rockstar games are expansive, well written, but mechanically shallow games with a ton of mini games and a volitile worlds where bugs are treated as features. I won't even begin on how busted their AI and physics are and how hypocritical people are when they compare GTA to BethRPGs.

That said Rockstar does completely different things than Bethesda does and they also have 3 times the staff and probably 3 times the budget. They are hardly equal on any terms and people play these games for completely different reasons.
 
Bethesda probably should have waited for the end of the gen to get a release out, then release it again for next gen, then release the pc version later with all the features.

Imagine the money someone could make if they did that!
 
Absolutely nothing, seriously. Bethesda sticks to their engines because they are used to the workflow, but there is nothing that isn't possible from an engine like GTA V's.
Any real world proof that RAGE engine can handle TES interactivity, per-object tracking and NPC states?
 
In other news, Fallout looks like fallout. GTA looks like GTA. They aren't even fundamentally using the same art styles, so this comparison is a bit difficult.

That being said, GTA V had an ungodly amount of money poured into it. I believe it's one of the most expensive single player based games ever made in the history of video games. But you saw exactly why they could pour that sort of money into it when sales came out. So there is a massive difference between these games both stylistically and budget wise. Bethesda doesn't have any game that can touch GTA V's sales to justify the type of budget Rock Star gets to play around with.

hence, this comparison is really... silly. It's not even different approaches. Rock Star games didn't always look "cutting edge". If you look at older GTA games they looked solid, but they weren't really better looking than other games of the generation. However, they built off the success of those games to afford the budget to spend like hell on GTA V, knowing they had a 20+ million install base just because it's the next major GTA game.

Fallout 4 is a different art style that doesn't inherently need to push the boundaries of what is possible. The bigger question is how Bethesda hasn't cleaned up their primary engine to get rid of common bugs that exist across all of their games - but they aren't game breaking bugs so it's probably just not high on their priority list.

That being said, Fallout 4 probably had close to a 100 million dollar budget. GTA V doubled that. So, why are we comparing them again?
100 Million still a big ass budget, and their game looks not even close reflecting that
 
so you're comparing GTA V PC to the console versions of Fallout 4? Because the Fallout 4 PC version is actually pretty decent. Also like already mentioned, GTA V ran at a similar frame rate as Fallout 4 when it first launched on console.

Nope, XB1/PS4 versions also run well and are not worlds away from the PC version.

FYI, Fallout 4 PC also drops down to 30fps in certain areas, even with a 980ti.

Last gen consoles are addressed in the OP.
 
Pride.

Bethesda tech always make me think their dev cycles consist of smoking weed until the June before their game releases, and then quickly pasting together unoptimized code and stilted dialogue in time for the release date.
 
Ignoring the first part, but you seem to be the angry one.

Calling bullshit on the bolded part though. Why didn't they take more time to polish the game? Also modding support is no excuse to release the game in such a rough state. I prefer to buy my games in a polished and finished state.

How can you call bullshit? Did you work on the project? Did you understand its scope, resources, deadline?

Fallout 4 feels finished, and apparently most critics agree... Go ahead paste that gif a third time.
 
Bethesda's engine isn't a "clusterfuck". It's purpose built to do what it does, and the entire company is familiar on it and has built years of experience and middleware lessons into it. They've spent tons of money on it.

I've yet to see anyone actually articulate WHY Beth's engine is bad.

Have you played any of their games?
 
How can you call bullshit? Did you work on the project? Did you understand its scope, resources, deadline?

Why do I need to have worked on the project to judge the result? I am the one spending hard earned money on it. :lol I don't care about the dev goals or deadlines. If it's too rough, delay it. You can dislike the gif all you want, but it speaks a very clear language.
 
Pride.

Bethesda tech always make me think their dev cycles consist of smoking weed until the June before their game releases, and then quickly pasting together unoptimized code and stilted dialogue in time for the release date.

Are you just trying to come up with a cuter way to say "lazy devs"?
 
Fallout's bread and butter is in the systems. GTA's bread and butter is the world itself.

That said a game that ugly shouldn't be dropping to 17fps in a ugly corridor with ugly enemies and ugly textures.
 
Aren't most of the frame related issues solely related to people running around treating a RPG like a shooter?

I know some people don't like V.A.T.S., but c'mon.. I mean, sure they allow you to treat it as such, but isn't it immersion breaking to be firing at someone point blank and missing? At least with V.A.T.S. it makes sense from an RPG perspective.

I never got why people liked playing it the FPS way.

Anyways, the realistic GTA mod I posted earlier was to show that there can always be improvements mod wise.. that one was running at 15 FPS as I understand it.
 
Top Bottom