Skyrim’s lead designer thinks Bethesda should stick to its in-house engine: ‘The benefits that you get from switching to Unreal Engine are probably not going to materialise until two titles down the road’

Skyrim’s lead designer thinks Bethesda should stick to its in-house engine: ‘The benefits that you get from switching to Unreal Engine are probably not going to materialise until two titles down the road’

Through the years of Bethesda games suffering from rocky launches, spectacular bugs, and erratic physics, there’s been a common refrain from the fans: ditch the engine. Originally Gamebryo, nowadays the Creation Engine, Bethesda’s in-house platform, has been seen as the root of all evils in The Elder Scrolls and Fallout, the supposed cause of everything from instability to floaty combat to lumpy potato faces.

In an interview with PressBoxPR, however, former Bethesda veteran and Skyrim’s lead designer Bruce Nesmith has defended the studio’s continued use of the engine, pointing to the huge disruption that would be caused by a changeover.

“It is a massive effort. You are talking about dozens of people spent doing nothing but making an engine work,” says Nesmith. “You are talking about putting your developers into a situation where they can’t play the game. They may not even be able to work on making the game for long stretches because the engine is not there or up to snuff yet.”

He doesn’t quite go as far as praising it, but he does seem to have faith in it as a platform that can continue to be modified and improved as needed.

“The Creation Engine has been tweaked to serve Bethesda’s purposes for so many years, decades really, that at this point, it’s probably a wiser bet to keep working with it,” he says. “The benefits that you get from switching to Unreal Engine are probably not going to materialise until two titles down the road… If there’s something you see that is only possible in Unreal, put it into the Creation Engine.”

(Image credit: Bethesda)

Though Bethesda’s software does clearly have its quirks, it does tend to be true that fans are a bit too preoccupied with engines as a source of gameplay problems—and unrealistic about how much work is involved in switching. BioWare, for example, had enormous difficulty moving Dragon Age and Mass Effect over to EA’s Frostbite engine, leading to protracted development periods and cancelled projects.

Meanwhile, the famous bugginess of Bethesda’s games is likely far more due to the sheer scale of the projects than any inherent flaw with the engine. An open world of the size of Skyrim’s, with that amount of moving parts, is extraordinarily difficult to give a fully clean bill of health to, even before players get in there and start actively trying to break it.

On the other hand… after Starfield, I am starting to feel like almost any price might be worth paying to rid the Bethesda-verse of its glassy-eyed mannequin NPCs.

6 Comments

  1. ansel.block

    It’s interesting to hear the lead designer’s thoughts on sticking with the in-house engine. There’s definitely a lot to consider when it comes to game development and engine choices. Looking forward to seeing how Bethesda evolves its technology in future titles!

  2. desmond.goyette

    a lot to consider when it comes to building on existing technology. Staying with the in-house engine allows for more tailored optimizations and a deeper understanding of the engine’s quirks, which can ultimately lead to a more polished final product. It’ll be intriguing to see how they leverage their current engine for future titles!

  3. javonte56

    You’re right; sticking with an in-house engine does allow for more tailored optimizations. It’s interesting to think about how Bethesda’s unique development culture and experience with their engine could lead to more innovative solutions for their specific game design challenges.

  4. diego.gutmann

    It’s interesting to consider how an in-house engine can foster a unique gameplay experience that aligns closely with Bethesda’s vision. Additionally, sticking with their own technology might enable them to refine their signature mechanics, like open-world exploration, without the constraints of adapting to an external engine’s framework.

  5. walter.jerald

    Absolutely! An in-house engine can really allow developers to tailor the game mechanics to fit their vision perfectly. Plus, it often means they can optimize for their specific style, which can lead to a more cohesive experience in the long run. It’ll be intriguing to see how they evolve their engine to address past issues while maintaining that unique Bethesda charm.

  6. benjamin.wiza

    I completely agree! An in-house engine also gives developers more control over performance optimization, which can be crucial for the expansive worlds Bethesda creates. Custom tools can lead to unique gameplay experiences that are hard to replicate with off-the-shelf engines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *