A few handy hints that will help you stay alive in The Evil Within.
The Outerhaven writes: While I hold Bethesda's The Evil Within series as some of the best Survival Horror games available, it's clear that Bethesda has no intention of revisiting the series. While Capcom is still working on its Resident Evil series, I look back at the now-dead survival horror series from Bethesda, wondering why the series was left wide open, and yet still not revisited.
An OK horror series left behind. It had some great ideas, but it never knew how to play to its strengths. Instead, it came out like just another RE4 clone.
I would love for a third entry to come out, but it needs to learn to lean in on the psychological aspect and move away from the generic "pew pew" ideology at the center of the gameplay loop. It doesn't need to abandon it; it just needs to put it into better context, is all.
Also, try a first-person perspective instead. Too many 3rd-person games with nothing to offer but an avatar taking precious screen space. At least make it an actual option and not that janky-ass mess the second game pretended to have.
IGN : One former Bethesda developer has cautioned that loading screens will probably always be a part of its games because of the way they're designed. Here's why.
Thanks for the insightful information!
Now I wanna see if all those that were complaining about loading screens on Starfield will give a hard pass on both upcoming Bethesda RPGs like TESVI and Fallout 5.
If you can´t stand load screens, stay away from those games. Period!
I don't think you understand the difference between them though and what makes Starfield and TES / Fallout different when it comes to loading screens.
When you're playing TES or Fallout, if you are doing a mission you have the choice to walk to your objective where on your travels you will run into many different encounters getting completely sidetracked, it's fun as it feels like you are exploring the world more. However with Starfield you don't get that choice because you can't walk to a new planet, the loading screen is more mandatory, even the Outer Worlds fell into this issue, so when you are constantly going to space, travelling from planet to planet there's a lot more loading screens involved where it slowly becomes more tedious in comparison.
What Bethesda needs to do is work on reducing the loading screens and fitting more within it. For example when you enter a town in TES it should load the entire town, houses, castles, sewers etc included, same goes for Fallout, take the Vegas Strip in Fallout New Vegas, it was chopped up into multiple segments where going back and forth doing missions become a chore nearer the end.
if they scaled down the "1000" planets to 10, 4 main hub. 6 unexplored, but actually filled with tings to do and explore, the thing Bethesda used to be good at. People like Obscure thin we shit on Bethesda just to shit on it. No we want better games.
It's a design choice they've chosen. RDR2 kind of proves the whole 'loading interiors' or 'having different events go on' isn't what's stopping it.
RDR2 didn't have you walk into a massive structure like a Starfield base/facility though, right? I'm sure log cabins are a lot easier to handle
That won't affect the need to load content. That's just static designs with a few interactibles. And did we forget RDR2 has towns you don't load into with multiple buildings, dynamic events, and ties to the world as a whole. You load areas to manage the specific scripting and the number of elements that need tracking constantly in that area. Bethesda designs it so you can leave a trail of cheese wheels from town to town, RDR2 designs it so the world interactions are randomized by a few factors and come to you.
Like I said, it's a design choice.
Ok but you can still have more seamless "loading screens" starfield has no excuse for how much its gameplay flow sucks. You're basically saying it will always suck because we don't want to spend the effort on improving that aspect. Hell every open world survival game has object permanence, from valheim to the forest, and that doesn't have tons of loading screens
I haven't played oblivion as yet but does it have loading screens? No one is talking about it.
Fun fact, the remastered version of days gone still has loading screens. It is not the instant load like you see on PS5 and series titles but you will have to wait a bit to load into certain sections. I am not sure why they didn't polish them out and no one is talking about it.
Oblivion has loading screens but it’s nowhere near the wait times it used to be (from what I remember) so the whole experience feels a lot better.
Agreed about Days Gone remastered, it definitely feels like it’s mostly a visual & feel (dualsense) remaster without much focus on optimization (I expected no loading times & in some cases I encountered the same kinds of bugs & audio issues that were on PS4).
Still love the game though & I hope the remaster will help pave the way for DG2.
That's not something you can do without remaking the whole game from scratch. It's a remaster, not a Remake. They aren't changing the core code and methods, only updating graphics and using more modern plug-ins for similar graphical enhancements.
To do what you're describing, they would have to do something like what Square did for FFVII Remake. And that was such a huge undertaking that they couldn't do it all at once.
The former Bethesda art lead, Nate Purkeypile, argues that the studio would do better with Unreal Engine 5 despite the many performance concerns.
I feel like Bethesda are being stubborn simply because they know the Creation Engine and getting something new would mean they'd have to learn all about the ins and outs, experiment, re-learn things, put money into it, cause longer dev times initially as they learn as they go etc.
They've said in the past aswell that the Creation Engine has certain elements and features that helps them pull off things within their open world games, things you might not get to do with other engines but I think if they re-learn a new engine they'd be able to get these things working eventually through trial and error. It's not like the Creation Engine is a beast, look at how long it took to add climbable ladders.
I get them being reluctant, I do, it's hard to let something go and learn new things but the longer they put it off the harder it will be later down the road when it comes to finally biting the bullet. If they haven't done it for ESVI then I think they need to do it for Fallout 5.
Issue is if Todd doesn't want to switch they can't force him. He could simply leave Bethesda. MS bought the company not his rights. So as much as we want them to upgrade to a newer engine the choice might only be for Todd to make
Unlikely. Bethesda is refusing to budge.
At this point the bugs are features and everybody has accepted brainrot Bugthesda.
i don't think it's just being stubborn, there is no way that UE5 will be a good engine for supporting a game where every item you can get is actually a physical object. ES is one of the very few games that does this and I doubt much engines are equipped to handle a game like that.
Starfield's execution was dated ... but seeing how normal less-interactive games perform with UE5, I'd say BGS-esque games with Creation level of object permanence and scripting will run very sluggishly ... maybe they have to forcefully limit the scope/area ... like Obsidian had to do for New Vegas.
Maybe it's a possibility in PS6 gen, a BGS structure replicated in UE5 ... but this gen seems a bit questionable.
One thing they can do is remake any old title using UE ... to test if it works, by collabing with another team/studio like Virtuos, like recently leaked/rumored.
This way, their main team/devs won't have to split work and they can also test the waters how feasible UE is from BGS perspective.
I definitely don't want future BGS game to limit scope & lose their uniqueness just for switching to UE like any other studio. A modern Skyrim with some jank >> another generic UE RPG.
I say a UE BGS game will be very different.
Anyways ... ES6 was already underway long time back was started using a more modified Creation Engine than Starfield. If any engine change do happen, that'd be for Fallout 5 but that's 2030+ launch anyway. Well into PS6 gen.
Abandoned creation engine? sure for unreal engine 5? Hell no!
Unreal is and always has been trash for open world games, especially for RPGs, also a far cry from an optimized game engine, there's far better out there.
Honestly, I don't even think they HAVE to abandon the creation engine, but rather really put the effort into overhauling it like they did when they first created the creation engine modifying it out of the gamebryo engine
Like seriously they have money. They could hire some class A programmers to build them something really special and yet they just refuse to for some reason
^This
Stop the total conversion of industry to UE
# keep proprietary engines alive
Don't think anyone is in favour of a mass Exodus to Unreal Engine 5. It has its uses, but it's very pared back on console.
Plenty of great proprietary engines: FOX, Doom, Decima, Naughty Dog's engine, etc.
But the Creation Engine just doesn't seem good for modern games. Characters look weird. FOX could be great if updated to scale the lighting properly with the same attention to detail for things beyond faces. Decima, Doom, and ND Engines are already ahead of their generations, but of course refinements are always welcome.
All of those engine would benefit from updates, but Creation should probably either be scrapped or completely overhauled.
@DarXyde
Konami has abandoned Fox after Kojima left and has moved to UE primarily.
And you forgot to mention Remedy's Northlight, Capcom's RE and Rockstar's RAGE ~ the third party engine trio, showcasing you dont need UE5 for best visuals. Plus there's still CDPR's Red Engine, getting continuous updates still even though studio is moving to UE.
Crytek is also developing the next CryEngine, id is also developing the next idTech engine, Monolith should also be developing the next lithtech, unless they've also migrated to UE like other WB studios, then that'd be sad.
Other misses were, discontinuation of Eidos'/CD's/IOI's dawn/foundation/glacier engines ~ all three studios moved to UE.
But last but not least dont forget Ubisoft. Games maybe crap but their engine department is actually the better one. AnvilNext and Snowdrop is going strong.
RaidenBlack,
I'm pretty sure I said "etc". The short list I gave was absolutely not intended to be comprehensive.
And yes, I'm aware the FOX Engine was abandoned, but my point was that this is a good engine in that it would be great if adapted for the current generation.
I'm a bit iffy on RE though. I'd say it's great, but it really needs to be kept in context. Great linear game engine, but I question its utility in an open world. Naughty Dog's engine, I suspect, is very similar, where its limitations become clear in an open world setting.
