• Plume (She/Her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Game dev here,” Carlone writes, adding that they are a “big fan” of Dreamcast Guy. “Wanted to clarify: it’s not a sign of an unfinished game. It’s a choice. 60fps on this scale would be a large hit to the visual fidelity. My guess is they want to go for a seamless look and less ‘pop in.’ And of course, [it’s] your right to dislike the choice.”

    Sure. Maybe. It could be this. Or…

    Arm-chair babbling idiot who plays too much video games here, I am one hundred percent convinced that it has nothing to do with visual fidelity and everything to do with that asthmatic engine they’ve been dragging since Morrowind. Can’t prove it but… you know. Just a hunch I get from playing their games.

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s most definitely a choice. You can make any engine run at 60 FPS if you sacrifice something else for it. The RE engine runs beautiful games at 60 FPS, but they had to make all sorts of sacrifices to fidelity to get World Tour in Street Fighter 6 to run at all, let alone at 60 FPS on current gen consoles.

    • Mummelpuffin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Call of Duty still runs on the Quake 3 engine, if we go off of the logic people uncharitably use for Bethesda’s games specifically.

    • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      that asthmatic engine they’ve been dragging since Morrowind

      I don’t believe that’s true at all, though. At least by Wikipedia, Morrowind was NetImmerse, Oblivion was Gamebryo (modified Havok), and Skyrim was Creation. And I remember in the announcements for Skyrim that they remade the engine for the game. And Starfield is an updated engine, Creation 2

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine for more