• @BlemboTheThird
    link
    English
    625 months ago

    It’s new in the sense they have rebuilt large enough parts of it to fully justify giving it a new name. Certainly it’s very far removed from Quake. It’s not like they’ve been sitting on their hands for almost 30 years. But it’s not like they rebuilt it all from scratch, either; just the parts they needed to. Old code is still being used, and even new code still sometimes uses the old as a base. The most obvious visual example that comes to mind is the pattern they still use for flickering lights which has been around since the Quake days.

    It’s a bit of a Ship of Theseus situation, but I think my point still stands: Bethesda doesn’t need an entirely new engine, they need devs who can (or more likely, need to give their devs time to) properly rebuild the parts that need it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 months ago

      I mean a huge (really huge) number of game engines ultimately draw lineage from Quake. It’s either Quake or Unreal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Nobody is denying that but the claim that Source2 is at its core just Quake 1 is just insane.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -15 months ago

          I agree that is insane. It’s also insane to say the Creation Engine is GameBryo. It isn’t. They just need to invest more to update it further.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Starfield contains much idTech7 code, so by the logic of certain individuals Starfield is basically Quake1 just because there is some heritage…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      The most obvious visual example that comes to mind is the pattern they still use for flickering lights which has been around since the Quake days.

      But you wrote “To this day, Valve is using a game engine that is, at its core, the Quake engine from 1996” and that’s just untrue. Just because nobody ever saw the need to change the light flickering pattern for no reason other than to make it new, doesn’t mean that Source2 is “at its core” still Quake1. Even the community-maintained wiki (not a officially sanctioned Valve document, btw) you’ve linked only speaks about “some residual Quake code”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        185 months ago

        Semantics.

        Another to look at it is that if Valve properly managed their VCS, you could do git ls-files HEAD^10000 and see Quake/goldsrc code building the foundation for everything that came after. Every subsequent rewrite and refactor was shaped and constrained by what came before and what hadn’t been rewritten yet. If they had started with another engine, they wouldn’t have ended up here.

        Beyond semantics, Source 2’s lineage is still very apparent. While the engine is very good at what it does, it’s without question much better suited to a rather specific class of semi-realistic 3D games. It has a look, a feel, strengths and weaknesses. It can’t be Unity or Unreal Engine, and it would have been a ridiculous mistake to use it as a base for Elite Dangerous or Assassin’s Creed Valhalla or Terraria.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -125 months ago

          Funny that you claim deeper insight into Source2 than Valve.

          Source2 was first developed for Dota. It’s way more likely that its limitations are because it was never developed as a complete allrounder, not because some minor bits and pieces like flickering pattern were developed in the 1990s because that’s also where Unreal Engine was first developed.

          • @MrGG
            link
            English
            35 months ago

            I’m in awe of how confident you are.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -25 months ago

              And why wouldn’t I be? The person who claimed that Source2 was basically Quake1 at its core had two bits of “proof”, the Valve wiki that refers to “some residual Quake code” and light flickering pattern. That’s it. Suddenly it’s just “semantics”. Yeah, right. Valve developers referred to CS2 as a completely new engine. That’s not semantics, that’s not splitting hairs, that’s straight of Valve’s mouth.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 months ago

          When does the ship change from the ship of Theseus into something else?

          When they decide to build a completely new ship with a steam engine and bring the lamps from the old ship because why not. They’re good lamps.

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            05 months ago

            Surprisingly, that isn’t what the thought experiment has in mind. It was created before any kind of engine for a ship, so clearly they had other ideas. Generally it’s asked if it’s still the same shop when only one board from the original ship remains? If so, is it suddenly a different ship when that board is replaced? Before then all other boards were part of the Ship of Theseus, so why does that one board matter? If it doesn’t matter though, what does it mean to be The ship of Theseus?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              15 months ago

              I know the original thought experiment but it doesn’t apply here because Source2 is a completely new engine with some residual stuff brought over like light flickering pattern.

              • Cethin
                link
                fedilink
                English
                05 months ago

                It is not a “completely new engine”. That’s an insane statement. The renderer is mostly new, but the way it handles entities is pretty much the same. An engine is a large collection of tools. Some of those tools being changed out doesn’t mean you have a whole new toolbox.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  05 months ago

                  Please talk to the Valve developers who said this in interviews about the Source2 Counter-Strike port that they make insane statements. I’m simply believing the actual creators over random guys on the internet.

                  • Cethin
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    05 months ago

                    And the creators of The Creation Engine 2 said the same thing, but we don’t believe them around here do we…

                    I doubt they said that it’s totally new. Give me a source for that. I believe the renderer is mostly new, but there’s still many components that inherit from the existing tech stack.