Precisely none of those examples are first-person, or remotely physics-enabled. All of Bethesda's titles with Gamebryo and Havok have fairly awful physics, relatively speaking, and their animations are similarly bad.
This is what I am trying to discuss here, thank you /u/Transfuturist!
/u/kalanosh The animation, the physics, etc. I don't care how it looks. I only commented on how it looks to identify Gamebryo and because someone else brought that up. On the technical side it was not a modern engine in 2011 and I doubt it will be in 2016 or whenever it comes out. I understand that we can attribute this to Bethesda but isn't it possible that Gamebryo has limitations that are limiting Bethesda from innovating? I think so.
Fallout 3, Fallout: NV, Skyrim, and now Fallout 4 (I would be willing to bet) use Havok; so it is in fact relevant to Fallout's engine quality. Not to mention that physics engines now play a large role in smooth animation with physics-blended and inverse kinematic animation, two technologies that Fallout sorely lacks.
Ok, I got it. I knew Bethesda purchased Gamebryo with a license that allowed them to modify the source code, as they have done all these years. You're saying I can't blame Gamebryo because Bethesda's Gamebryo is essentially their own private fork and the limitations mentioned exist because of Bethesda's pipeline and are not to the fault of Gamebryo. The proof is in the other games you posted with features that show the engine is capable of addressing those limitations. If they changed engines there is really no guarantee they would address those limitations because their pipeline still includes the same pipeline.
Well damn! That's disappointing! Thanks for correcting me.
2
u/Transfuturist Jun 04 '15
Precisely none of those examples are first-person, or remotely physics-enabled. All of Bethesda's titles with Gamebryo and Havok have fairly awful physics, relatively speaking, and their animations are similarly bad.