No Man's Sky has had no loading screens during gameplay, and space to planet transitions on full planets, since what... 2016?
The Creation Engine is just too damn old.
Edit @Dark Arc: You're right. Creation Engine is just too damn shitty, I guess. I called it "old" because the gameplay feels so antiquated.
"Engines" are not static things. What we call "Unreal Engine" goes back to the 90s.
These comments always bug me as a programmer because it's like someone calling a 2023 Camero old because it doesn't have the acceleration of a 2023 Mustang... The "age" almost certainly isn't the problem, it's where the effort has or hasn't been put in to the engine and more importantly the game itself (e.g., carrying on the metaphor, the Camero might be slower getting up to speed because all the R&D for the last 3 years was on a smooth ride).
Yeah to be honest what strikes me the most about companies like Bethesda is just how little they've improved over the decades. There's nothing stopping them from making major improvements like removing loading screens, adding vehicles finally (I wonder if the ships are really a hat like the train in fallout 3), fixing the buggy ass collisions and physics, or any number of dumb shits they just keep leaving in game after game. It really speaks to the institutional inertia and spaghetti mess their code must be.
I would assume those things are just not prioritized by management because they've never been things that have caused sufficient outrage and/or aren't seen as things that can increase sales... You can't exactly use "look we fixed physics" in a marketing video to sell a new game. Maybe you can use "look we have vehicles"... but what's the number of people that will really care? What % will that increase sales?
e.g. maybe someone would care if EA made your need for speed character able to get out of the car and walk around... Do I care? Nah.
(I bothered to look at the Wikipedia page and) they added multiplayer support to Creation Engine for Fallout 76, that was a huge undertaking.
I mean fixing these things can definitely increase sales, but you're right not in the sense that they are directly marketable. The thing that makes games really blow up is word of mouth, people recommending them to their friends, and you get that best by making a game with overall quality. It's basically a given at this point that Bethesda games are buggy messes that get fixed by modders. Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you're playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less. All of this hurts sales, if not today in the future. So yeah, they probably aren't prioritized by management, but management is wrong. They often are.
Fair assessment, though I'd critique:
Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you’re playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less.
These aren't the improvements you said you wanted ;) Fixing physics, adding vehicles, etc are features/major changes that can increase instability/take a lot more time to QA.
That's true, but the comments are valid when talking about Bethesda games
No man sky also barely has a story and has zero voice acting. It's apples and oranges, just because they're both fruit doesn't mean they can be compared
Except you just compared them in saying they are both fruit. In fact, saying they are both fruit is finding a commonality between them when comparing. There are many metrics on which Apples and Oranges can be compared. They are different colors, have a different internal structures, and different juice content. These are negatively correlated comparisons. More positive correlations would be that they are both roughly spherical, provide vitamin C, and grow on trees.
I have always hated that expression. You can compare anything since comparison is just the act of identifying similarities and differences (positive and negative correlations). One can make meaningful comparisons between and apple and a suspension bridge if the situation calls for it.
Ohhh my godd, me too. It's so anti-intellectual.
To anyone who might care, you can identify an apple as a low-quality orange, but that doesn't also mean the apple is a low-quality apple; they're optimized to different ends. That is, I think, the point of the expression.
But, if we're trying to evaluate them on something like taste, which is entirely subjective, yeah, I'm comparing those shits. And, I'm going oranges all the way.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges because they are both great but for different reasons and purposes. It isn't anti-intellectual to recognize that apples are way better for pies than oranges are but if you want some amazing juice and don't want to go through a whole process to make it good; oranges are the way to go.
This and the many other examples I didn't want to fill this page with are the reason why it's a saying. It's much faster than prefacing what exactly said apples and oranges are going to be used for before giving a real answer and I personally feel it shouldn't at all be taken literally.
While I don't disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.
It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with "big words" as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.
So why not stand on that hill when it's relevant?
I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn't. Such is the curse of my superpowers.
They are completely different games though. Watchdogs 2 had less loading screens than Hitman 3, but that doesn't really mean much to say.
They are compared because they both are advertised as filling the same niche, of space exploration with emphasis on exploration.
Except they don't really? And I didn't see that much. Starfield to me seemed like it was being advertised as for RPG fans, and that they would have a lot of dialogue. And that space was just a setting, not the main character.
No Man's Sky has had no loading screens during gameplay, and space to planet transitions on full planets, since what... 2016?
The Creation Engine is just too damn old.
Edit @Dark Arc: You're right. Creation Engine is just too damn shitty, I guess. I called it "old" because the gameplay feels so antiquated.
"Engines" are not static things. What we call "Unreal Engine" goes back to the 90s.
These comments always bug me as a programmer because it's like someone calling a 2023 Camero old because it doesn't have the acceleration of a 2023 Mustang... The "age" almost certainly isn't the problem, it's where the effort has or hasn't been put in to the engine and more importantly the game itself (e.g., carrying on the metaphor, the Camero might be slower getting up to speed because all the R&D for the last 3 years was on a smooth ride).
Yeah to be honest what strikes me the most about companies like Bethesda is just how little they've improved over the decades. There's nothing stopping them from making major improvements like removing loading screens, adding vehicles finally (I wonder if the ships are really a hat like the train in fallout 3), fixing the buggy ass collisions and physics, or any number of dumb shits they just keep leaving in game after game. It really speaks to the institutional inertia and spaghetti mess their code must be.
I would assume those things are just not prioritized by management because they've never been things that have caused sufficient outrage and/or aren't seen as things that can increase sales... You can't exactly use "look we fixed physics" in a marketing video to sell a new game. Maybe you can use "look we have vehicles"... but what's the number of people that will really care? What % will that increase sales?
e.g. maybe someone would care if EA made your need for speed character able to get out of the car and walk around... Do I care? Nah.
(I bothered to look at the Wikipedia page and) they added multiplayer support to Creation Engine for Fallout 76, that was a huge undertaking.
I mean fixing these things can definitely increase sales, but you're right not in the sense that they are directly marketable. The thing that makes games really blow up is word of mouth, people recommending them to their friends, and you get that best by making a game with overall quality. It's basically a given at this point that Bethesda games are buggy messes that get fixed by modders. Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you're playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less. All of this hurts sales, if not today in the future. So yeah, they probably aren't prioritized by management, but management is wrong. They often are.
Fair assessment, though I'd critique:
These aren't the improvements you said you wanted ;) Fixing physics, adding vehicles, etc are features/major changes that can increase instability/take a lot more time to QA.
That's true, but the comments are valid when talking about Bethesda games
No man sky also barely has a story and has zero voice acting. It's apples and oranges, just because they're both fruit doesn't mean they can be compared
Except you just compared them in saying they are both fruit. In fact, saying they are both fruit is finding a commonality between them when comparing. There are many metrics on which Apples and Oranges can be compared. They are different colors, have a different internal structures, and different juice content. These are negatively correlated comparisons. More positive correlations would be that they are both roughly spherical, provide vitamin C, and grow on trees.
I have always hated that expression. You can compare anything since comparison is just the act of identifying similarities and differences (positive and negative correlations). One can make meaningful comparisons between and apple and a suspension bridge if the situation calls for it.
Ohhh my godd, me too. It's so anti-intellectual.
To anyone who might care, you can identify an apple as a low-quality orange, but that doesn't also mean the apple is a low-quality apple; they're optimized to different ends. That is, I think, the point of the expression.
But, if we're trying to evaluate them on something like taste, which is entirely subjective, yeah, I'm comparing those shits. And, I'm going oranges all the way.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges because they are both great but for different reasons and purposes. It isn't anti-intellectual to recognize that apples are way better for pies than oranges are but if you want some amazing juice and don't want to go through a whole process to make it good; oranges are the way to go.
This and the many other examples I didn't want to fill this page with are the reason why it's a saying. It's much faster than prefacing what exactly said apples and oranges are going to be used for before giving a real answer and I personally feel it shouldn't at all be taken literally.
While I don't disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.
It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with "big words" as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.
So why not stand on that hill when it's relevant?
I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn't. Such is the curse of my superpowers.
Captain Pedant AWAAAAYYYY!
This made me giggle like a little girl
They are completely different games though. Watchdogs 2 had less loading screens than Hitman 3, but that doesn't really mean much to say.
They are compared because they both are advertised as filling the same niche, of space exploration with emphasis on exploration.
Except they don't really? And I didn't see that much. Starfield to me seemed like it was being advertised as for RPG fans, and that they would have a lot of dialogue. And that space was just a setting, not the main character.