The original point was that engine forces art style on the game.
That wasn't quite what I was saying, I was just having a hard time putting it into words, and used the phrase "art style" in specific regards to Epic's internal use of UE3. GOW and UT3 have a very similar look and feel, which is definitely Epic's art style at work. My point was that the engine was made more for that art style than for other art styles.. it's far easier to make a Gears-looking game than to make something completely different.
However, every engine has certain constraints (boundaries) which game developers must work within, meaning that some things are going to look alike unless you really go out of your way to make it not (i.e. a totally different "style" of game).
This more or less backs up what I was trying to get at, as I mentioned above. Yes, the engine can be tweaked to come up with something totally different, but it's up to the individual developers to do that. Geezer pointed out above somewhere that a lot of devs don't go through that trouble. As pointed out, probably for marketing purposes. Everybody lauds Game X for it's amazing graphics, so everybody wants to make a game that looks like Game X. Much easier to do that by licensing that same engine.
I think a good example of "proper" (IMO) third-party engine use is Bioshock. They molded parts of their style to suit the engine's strengths, while at the same time molding parts of the engine to suit their art style. I think the result is an excellent blending of the two.
The way I see it, there are several solutions for a developer:
1) Buy Engine X and make a game that looks like best-selling Game X.
2) Buy Engine X, make slight modifications to Engine X, and make a game that blends the strength of the engine with the strength of the art, and vice versa. (Bioshock)
3) Buy Engine X, make heavy modifications to Engine X, and make a game that looks completely different from the "norm". (Mirror's Edge)
4) Screw Engine X and make your own Engine Y, custom-made for your game.
I think I agree most strongly with Geezer's statement:
Shifty Geezer said:
I think the 'signature UE3 style' is more a lack of imagination from the devs who use it, or perhaps the fact it's just a standard for the current gen.
There's two things that hit home here. For one, a lot of developers don't put the effort into creating something truly unique.. we all know this to be true. Second, it's easier and quicker to do it that way, because sales of games like this tend to share a certain look.. I think Yahtzee said that most games these days tend to be done in shades of brown and gray. As you go down the list I just posted, it gets more and more difficult (read: time-consuming and expensive).
That's sort of the "next-gen look" that they think people want to see. There's a lot of grim, broken, post-apocalyptic-looking games out there. Fallout 3 I can understand because of the story, but there's a lot of devs making similar games just because everyone else is. Me, I like a little color in my games now and then. Hell, I was enjoying seeing some bright blues and reds while playing UT3 earlier tonight (ironic, isn't it?). Mass Effect also has good use of color. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's easier to follow the engine creator's style and play solely to the strengths of the engine, rather than making the engine work for you.
