• anonymous111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I get your logic but Source was developed as a foundation engine and it had a road map to improve its performance and graphics. Example: HL2 vs Dear Ester.

    Cry Engine again, designed to be perormant and push graphics. Opened up to multiple developers as a service.

    Bethesda’s engine is tuned for RPG elements, fair enough. But there is apparently a limit to how graphically rich it can get.

    Bethesda have pushed there engine as far as it’ll go. There ex dev is saying “it isnt the engines fault the RPG was bad.” These are 2x separate issues.

    There will always be tech debt making large scale IT changes.

    RE the point on Risk, I’d write it like this:

    IF the engine is changed THEN there could be a delay to current projects. Mitigation: finish projects in flight. Start new projects on a new engine.

    How about this risk:

    IF the engine is not able to be modernized THEN there is a risk that Bethesda games fall beind their competition. Mitigation:

    1. Better RPG elements (Dev says this didn’t work).

    2. Migrate to a new engine in a rush when the next project doesn’t sell (cutting corners on the tech debt).

    P.s. do you have a good definition of tech debt? Ive always used “Something we need fix in the future.” Quite loose but ive had lots of arguments about this lol