Game engine swap/upgrade/fix?

are all these crashes caused by the engine?

can it be fixed or does the engine have to be swapped?

if it had to be swapped, then what game engine could it use instead?

if in exchange for many fixes it comes at the risk of a data wipe, would people be ok with it?

I don’t know, so I ask all of you

The game is built on their own proprietary engine, they couldn’t just 'swap" it. It would need to be redeveloped from the ground up. As such all save data would be incompatible. Everyone wou’d lose everything without some bespoke conversation tool being developed, which wouldn’t happen.

Migrating engine at this point would essentially be creating a Generation Zero 2, which for me, I think would be preferable (regardless of which engine they use).

But it would expensive to develop, plus the in-house teams only use their own engine as far as I know so it’s unlikely well see GZ in any form on anything other than the Avalanche tech.


This is also not necessarily a bad thing. If im not mistaken there are a few hunting games that use the engine that have very good textures snd resolution, e.t.c.

There’s an update for The Hunter: Call of the Wild not long ago for 60fps and texture/ animation improvements. Was kinda hoping they’d swipe the dog or the gear from it, like backpacks, camouflage e.t.c.

The engine is capable of handling bullet penetration, which we see with the new augmentation. But also wind, and enough detail to stealth that could be as detailed as the old Metal Gear Solid 3 system, probably moreso.

The hunting game, without looking, is probably insanely more profitable. Especially given the years of expansions and new maps. Each map really dwarfing Gen Zero with no performance issue.

So really, it’s not the engine. It’s the profitability. There is likely a lot they could and would do in a heartbeat if they had the allotted man hours in budget.

I can’t imagine any developer still working on gen z isn’t a fan or at least dedicated at this point.

Revamps and bug fixes, with QoL improvements are good, i recently returned to find crafting, new island, redone story, new guns… everything done since launch, in scope, is massive. But it’s taken four years to get there on a shoestring budget.

If (and this is a big if that would either work or shut down Gen Z continued development) a next gen version, with major bugs patched and systems tweaked to be more fluid which i noticed was done a bit with the new sensitivity settings on console… they’d have to advertise to attract those that missed or did not take well to the launch bugs, etc. of the original and introduce the story elements in a controlled order in the game (FNIX only starring to spread after a certain main quest or some other threshold, there could be a few different triggers as long as everything isn’t dumped in the layers lap with no obvious timeline for them to follow)
and launch.

If reviews were better than launch of the original, popped up to 7, 8, 9s. I believe it would blow up. It would have to be paid, and they’d need to be reasonably sure about sales and upgrades. Like Death Standing or Ghost of Tsushima, they’d have to charge something. like $10 or $15. The cosmetic DLCs arent going to float that kind of development.

I’d personally have no problem with that given the changes that i can see have been made. The difference to me in three game now and launch is massively obvious.

I mentioned this idea elsewhere, but it’s a gamble and one that would either generate years more Generation Zero, or kill it dead minus necessary bug fixes to leave the game playable if the next gen launch was not as bug free as believed. A rush job by the publisher would absolutely destroy it.

Transparency about where in development the game is, some visuals as it gets revamped and improved. No promises, they might get broken. Only promise what’s done, or absolutely must be done so you don’t lik like liars. They already listen, and don’t have any problem saying something will or won’t happen as of right now.

This gamble would also mean gambling with some people’s careers, or jobs at least. Development would last a while and would likely go on for longer if successful, but the company would cut losses if it wasn’t ASAP. Top tier skill devs would get transitioned to other projects. Mediocre folks might, if they ate just learning and haven’t been there long, and those whose skills stagnated may well be cut, although partially their own fault this is still considered by most management before making those calls.

Sorry for the huge reply. Most people think about what they want, i like to think snot what I’d do if i was in the management pipeline high enough to make the call. :melting_face: