Good job proving a point that's already been made several times over. Try keeping up.
Game Engines: Too specialized for one game?
- Thread starter Jedi2016
- Start date
- Status
Good job proving a point that's already been made several times over. Try keeping up.
It seems a long and expensive way round to get Beast when they could have just incorporated it into Frostbite as they developed it, like others have done.
I bet the UE3 games that look the most different probably use the most customized code and engine enhancements. Mirrors Edge looks different because DICE used their own proprietary lighting technology as well as other bits of other in-house tech. I believe the art-style of Mirrors Edge would not have been impossible using an "off the shelve" UE3 platform. Even games like XII which was cell shaded used an Enhanced Unreal Engine.
Yeah, them pesky old facts!
It's nice to meet someone who can graceful reconsider their POV.Not particularly. I just think similar looking games are abundant, and you just, by statistical average, have a load on the same engine with similarities. There will be some technical merits to an engine that will influence factors. eg. One engine, say Rage, might have a fabulous texturing system that encourages lots of rich textures. Another, perhaps KZ2, allows for loads of lights, so game designers using this engine would choose a style with lots of lights. However, the style of textures, geometry/architecture, shaders and general look, isn't going to be influenced by any engine. That is, you won't have a 'big-headed cartoon character' engine.
Yeah, them pesky old facts!
Not particularly. I just think similar looking games are abundant, and you just, by statistical average, have a load on the same engine with similarities. There will be some technical merits to an engine that will influence factors. eg. One engine, say Rage, might have a fabulous texturing system that encourages lots of rich textures. Another, perhaps KZ2, allows for loads of lights, so game designers using this engine would choose a style with lots of lights. However, the style of textures, geometry/architecture, shaders and general look, isn't going to be influenced by any engine. That is, you won't have a 'big-headed cartoon character' engine.
There is of course merit to what you say - some of the look-alikes are purely forces of market pressure. I also believe achieving these similar results is very much a function of using the same engine. That being said, I don't doubt that someone could remake Doom3 using an entirely-different engine (say UE3) and come up with *approximately* the same results.
Btw, are proponents of the view making any clear distinction between elements in a game engine, i.e. the renderer is a minor facet of the entire package. Any serious game using UE3 is going to modify parts of the engine, including elements of the renderer, so dismissing games that are not "off the shelf" pretty much includes most of them in some way or another.
Using the full set of features you can still look different, by choosing different artwork. Would Gears look like Gears with the UE3 look if it was instead modelled on Mii's and in a primary-colour, cartoony world?
Although of course different artwork will lead to the same engine looking completely different, in my opinion each engine has a particular "feel".
I don't have the language to communicate exactly what I mean by "feel", but it's something to do with the scale of the world that the engine demands, the movement and field of view, the way animations are handled and lighting is done, among other things. Even though the assets used can be remarkably different, and the above characteristics can be tweaked, I find the overall "feel" of an engine usually remains.
I don't have the language to communicate exactly what I mean by "feel", but it's something to do with the scale of the world that the engine demands, the movement and field of view, the way animations are handled and lighting is done, among other things. Even though the assets used can be remarkably different, and the above characteristics can be tweaked, I find the overall "feel" of an engine usually remains.
I think that's more a case of developers choosing an engine to suit their game. Are you making a gritty shooter? Then get UE3. And then of course UE3 ends up looking the same, because it's another gritty shooter using the engine! But a flexible engine won't be so constrained. Looking at Hail to the Chimp, is there anything in that which points to UE3 being used?
That's why I said "usually" in the last sentence
I agree that developers will more than likely lean towards an engine which has proven itself a success in the genre they are working in. UE3 has even reached the saturation point now I feel, where everybody is using it simply because everybody else is using it
However, it's clear from the "feel" I was talking about that (thinking of some examples off the top of my head) American McGee's Alice was Quake 3 engined, Thief Deadly Shadows was UE2 engined (even heavily modified, it's clear that it's UE2 underneath), Portal and Team Fortress 2 are Source engined. None of those are gritty shooters yet in all of them it's clear what engine they used.
Naturally if you license an engine for other purposes than graphics and create what is basically a 2D game, then all the "feel" is gone and it becomes much more difficult to tell.
Are you talking about UE? If yes, you'll look worse than Gears, no matter what "art style" you'll choose.
Gears looks good not because of technology, but because of great, I'd even say outstanding, artwork.
It doesn't make sense.
Game is a synergy of technology,art and idea. Changing any one of these will lead to other game.
Because it's not "used" there.
When rendering green triangle, using any engine you'll get the same green triangle.
But when it comes to tricks and not to straightforward green triangles, you'll clearly see the difference between engines.
For a supposedly intelligent internet forum, its amazing how long discussions like these last, when the correct answers pretty much came in the first page
You can make any game look like whatever the hell you want (within hardware limits ofc) using any engine. Just because one game is shiny and brown, doesn't mean the other one has to be.
UE3 has tons of games (even big budget ones) that look completely different than Gears. Rainbow Six for example, looks nothing like gears.
The fact that games look a like is because people allways try to mimmick the biggest selling games, its has nothing to do with the engine its running on. If you look at all the big licenced engines throughout the times, they dont share a common art style at all. Its completely up to the developer.
You can make any game look like whatever the hell you want (within hardware limits ofc) using any engine. Just because one game is shiny and brown, doesn't mean the other one has to be.
UE3 has tons of games (even big budget ones) that look completely different than Gears. Rainbow Six for example, looks nothing like gears.
The fact that games look a like is because people allways try to mimmick the biggest selling games, its has nothing to do with the engine its running on. If you look at all the big licenced engines throughout the times, they dont share a common art style at all. Its completely up to the developer.
This generalization cannot possible be deducted from any specific examples.
Err...UE3 has lots of games? Mind to point out on the released ones? I suppose I'll need only one hand to count these "lots", but maybe I'm wrong...
Oh, really, how about wast landscapes with lush vegetation using Doom3 engine?
How about claustrophobic dark corridors using Crytek CryEngine?
Err... unless you are a mutant you aren't counting the number of games using UE3 on one hand!
Since you aren't very familiar with the games using the engine I guess that is an arguement for the point that games using an engine don't all look alike. Because, if they did, you would know there were more than a handful Did you play ET: Quake Wars? Outside landscape with, you guessed it
It is primarily a game played in large open areas with some maps with a fair share of vegetation.Not many games used CryEngine 1, but Far Cry did have dark corridor scenarios that look pretty good (notibly the caves). This doesn't look bad for the Spring 2004 timeframe (pre-6800 / pre-X800 GPU) era. Nor this or this. The open ended nature of the game (i.e. less time per meter of game space) as well as general artistic skill of Crytek taken into consideration (they are inconsistant imo, which can be explained by their budget and experience) I think it puts it into an even better light.
I don't think anyone would argue that some engines pose certain limitations; nor that a design tailored to your very specific needs by a high quality dev team with ample budget wouldn't turn out better results (double duhs). But we have already seen that UE3
* Has a variety of art styles
* Has a variety of game types
* Has a variety of engine "hacks" including those to the renderer
That, in the end, do make games with quite distinct looks.
And not to irritate your Err & O Really stance, it seems a lot of your points are just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Spend some time looking at the various UE3 titles you didn't know about. I know it will take some time, as there are more than a handful out there, but you may come away appreciating the point others have made: While a number of UE3 games gravitate toward similar designs, there are games that look substantially different and clearly show developers are not limited to the Gears-ish look. Sure, UE3 may not make the most cutting edge looking football game (although it may considering what is out there), but it has shown itself capable of making a variety of high quality looking shooters (as well as other types of titles) with a variety of artistic approaches.
If that logical gem doesn't end this discussion, nothing will!Err... unless you are a mutant you aren't counting the number of games using UE3 on one hand!
- Status
Similar threads
