Not being intended as a joke makes it even funnier. I mean, the lack of awareness is amazing.

Wait, you think I’m defending them?

Making statements about why shitty games are not the fault of old technology is not a defense of said shitty games.

They always make the same game, they ship it broken and keep it broken. The best game in their franchises since at least since Morrowind was made by another studio. The lore is derivative and as deep as a puddle. They sell their games based on bullet points and features and not quality.

I don’t like their recent output at all. I find their design philosophy and quest design outdated and lacking, recent games feel older that previous ones.

But none of those things are the engine’s fault. They ship exactly the game they want to ship, and use the engine that lets them do it as efficiently as possible. If they are limited at all is in their production organization or lack thereof.

Are you denying that Skyrim, Fallour 3 and 4, or Starfield are commercial successes? Even Starfield was a critically acclaimed game for a while.

Most people are okay without mods because they can’t install them in their platform of choice so they don’t expect them. They have heard about them in articles and videos and find them an oddity of PC gaming, at most.

It is really easy to fall into an echo chamber and believing most of the people that buys Bethesda games are fixing them with mods. That’s an option only for a minority of players, and of those many won’t install them. They play 30~60 hours and won’t launch the game ever again.

It’s not easy to change engines. But they could afford it, if they could justify it.

I think you overestimate how many people actually install or care about mods. Many people just seems to like what Bethesda does.

Oblivion was a smash hit on Xbox without mods. Since that the main sellers seems to be the console versions.

I’m sure that many people in the studio are having a bad time with how quick the internet discourse has gone into “Starfield Actually Bad” territory. It’s not easy refining that kind of feedback.

BUT. BUT. I’m not sure about the “until now” because Starfield has sold incredibly well, even for a game launched directly in game pass and not supporting PS5.

Even if internet gaming people don’t like the game, the market said it’s ok. BioWare survived a few blunders until destroying their brand, and Blizzard still goes strong.

They don’t want to. They have a formula, and the public and the market have spent decades saying that it’s good enough and want “Skyrim in Space”

If they want to change how inventory works they can, in whatever engine they are using. But why would they?

Also, I find pretty ironic to expect “Innovation” in a game with a number 6 attached to it, from a studio known for doing 3 franchises so similar to each other in gameplay and features that are used to describe each other. And to blame the tech for the lack of it.

I thing you are looking at this backwards.

They have the money and resources to change engine. They CHOSE not to. Because they can make the game they want to make faster and more efficiently on Creation Engine. If they could not make the game they want they would be forced to move to another game engine.

If their idea for Elder Scrolls 6 can be made in CE they won’t change engines. If it does not, they aren’t some indie studio, they have the resources to swap.

As I said Creation Engine did mot stop another studio from being creative.

They are not being hold back by Creation Engine in game design, they are stuck in a design philosophy and production strategy that until now has and got them lots of praise and sales.

They use the chest trick because saves reworking the inventory and container system. That would take time and left the game almost the same, so they don’t.

If they used Unreal engine they’d have to build a new inventory and container system from scratch, who knows if they would end up taking the hidden chest idea (it mostly works) and porting it?

The “Update your engine Bethesda” discussion is valid from many points of view, but most of the problems with current Bethesda releases are cultural. They don’t test nearly enough, they don’t have a “fun” game until a couple months before release, they don’t coordinate the content and mechanics production in any way, the quest writing is a free for all.

And until now things worked out. So they refuse to address those issues.

How would a engine change affect the game design philosophy of Bethesda?

Performance? Visuals? Alright. But game design?

Creation Engine powers Starfield and Fallout New Vegas. Quests can be complex, dynamic, with multiple endings, with lots of ways to approach them. Or they can be flat fetch quests. The tools allow both and everything in between.

Bethesda just chooses to use the current game design framework and would choose the same on any other engine.

They are actually updating their game design principles. They stopped using game design documents, they simplified the quests, they try to make sure every play through gets to see as much content as possible. Maybe they should stop updating.

The apple third party App Store solution should be in a list under the title: Notable Examples in Malicious Compliance

When has that stopped any tech or fake-tech company from making their IPO?

The IPO is where the Venture Capitalist get their paychecks. Is that or being acquired by some big tech like Google or Microsoft.

The current vc investments can not really be recouped with profits. They exist to make company valuation as big as possible before the IPO, so they can as much money as possible selling as much as the company as they can without losing control of the board.

The company will pump REVENUE just before the IPO to increase valuation, but the PROFIT right now is inconsequential in comparación with the total addressable market. It’s all pure speculation and a terrible way to make a sustainable business, but it’s the best way to get a lot of money for the VC and the founders.

Yeah, writing prompts it’s the long term goal, programming will be obsolete.

Nobody that can write a problem in a structured language, taking edge cases into account, will be able to write a prompt for a LLM.

Prompt writers will be the useful professionals, because NO big tech company is trying to make it obsolete making AI ubiquitous and transparent, aiming it to work for natural language requests made by normal users or simply from context clues. /s

Prompt engineering it’s the griftiest side of the latest AI summer. Look a who is selling the courses. The same people that sold crypto courses, metaverse courses, Amazon dropship store courses…

Well, I have spent countless hours between Zachtronics games and Factorio, so…

Yes, I’d play that.

Some media organizations have started nuking old articles to please the Google algorithm

Sounds like a “you want us to buy Nintendo? Me too buddy…”

I’m sorry but framework and library in this post are going to be used loosely, because even React, Vue, Angular, Svelte, etc devs use the terms loosely.

React is mostly a UI library like you would find in most native app development. Of them all them JS frameworks/libraries is one of the less opinionated and with less batteries included. By design it does not does everything. Most other frameworks do way more.

It lets you define custom components. The components can have properties that their parent component defines and internal state. If the state or the properties change the component gets redrawn (magically). There are some lifetime functionalities (things to do on first render for example) and performance improving stuff (memoization) but mostly that’s it.

All the other features you talk about are third party libraries or frameworks that can operate with react or are build on top of and cover the bases, like routing, fetching, caches, server side rendering, styling utility libraries, component libraries, animation libraries, global state management, etc.

The big difference with the vanilla way is that the approach is mostly declarative. The runtime takes charge of updating the DOM when your components state or properties change.

You take a big performance hit, and an even bigger bundle size one, but the speed of development and huge ecosystem of readymade solutions can be really important for some use cases.

Other frameworks take different approaches to solve the same problems:

• Component system for code reuse and organization.
• Some way to manage state
• Some way to decide what to re-render and when.
• Extra stuff. Some frameworks end here, some have tools for everything you would need for a web app.

It’s super funny, but if you don’t try to use things as what they are not, the type coercion can’t hurt you.

But if you make a tradition of trying to add empty objects and numbers…

The great sin of JavaScript is gracefully (silently) failing when coders do silly things.