If you were a developer which engine would you use for your game?

[Kadayi]

We've had the graphics arguments:-

http://halflife2.homelan.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17119

time for a change of tact:-

Imagine your developing a game, you need an engine which of the upcoming game engines would you use and why would you use it? Please avoid 'because it is teh best!!' type posts. I'd like reasoned and rationalised posts.

 

[The Dark Elf]

I'd licence and use the source engine, which I will if I decide I'd rather go commercial than for the fun of it. And I'm thinking about it, the temptation to make more money is too great... must.... resist

But yeah, Source engine, with some extra bits n pieces it will do what I need.. Though I could be tempted by Stalker if their claims ever prove to be true, though I've seen nothing of that yet, only big maps and their not new

I wouldn't use

the Doom III engine.. too limiting

the farcry engine.. I've seen nothing impressive from it

I could be tempted to use Morrowinds engine, with many many modifications, but commercially probably would rather have a custom one written instead.

 

[Styloid]

I have to say that this thread could get quite ugly...

 

[Kadayi]

I have to say that this thread could get quite ugly...

LOL, it will be fun though.

 

[OCybrManO]

Depending on the type of mod, I would pick Doom 3 (awesome mood lighting), Source (nice physics, lip syncing, and support), or X-Ray (great huge open areas without making indoor areas suck).

 

[Kadayi]

I'd licence and use the source engine, which I will if I decide I'd rather go commercial than for the fun of it. And I'm thinking about it, the temptation to make more money is too great... must.... resist

But yeah, Source engine, with some extra bits n pieces it will do what I need.. Though I could be tempted by Stalker if their claims ever prove to be true, though I've seen nothing of that yet, only big maps and their not new

I could be tempted to use Morrowinds engine, with many many modifications, but commercially probably would rather have a custom one written instead.

I'd go with source myself simply because I think it offers the best opportunity to create believable and realistic non player characters. I can't help but look at DX:IW and wish it had been done with that sort of tech. I'm quite keen on the idea of seeing character driven games.

Morrowind isn't a bad engine for what it does I must admit especially given it's adaptability.

 

[MultiVaC]

I would say Source because it's them most versatile; offers the best range of environments (Stalker is a close second). Do Doom3 and Stalker support displacement maps? I haven't looked into that much.

 

[63]

I use the Six Three engine (the one I just made up in my head)

 

[Kadayi]

I would say Source because it's them most versatile; offers the best range of environments (Stalker is a close second). Do Doom3 and Stalker support displacement maps? I haven't looked into that much.

To me stalker is certainly the dark horse of them all. Environmentally I think it nips Source, and the sheer scale of the areas it can handle indicated by the trailers is pretty breathe taking. I didn't think the character models were anything to shout about in the trailers, but it's a long way off from release yet so they might yet be being polished up.

 

[Kadayi]

I use the Six Three engine (the one I just made up in my head)

Do you get per pixel shading with that?

 

[Time2Choose]

I would def. use the X-Ray (no idea that was the name of it) engine from STALKER. I am a big fan of HL2, and will buy it as soon as it comes out. But after looking at the videos from Stalker, I'm very impressed. Although the physics might not be as well off as Stalkers, the other details are what impress me most. I especially was impressed by the day/night switching and the weather effects. I love vast environments and lush forests and what not in my games, and Stalker seems to have a good engine that can handle that. I know that in one of the "Info from Valve" posts, someone said that you can make a day/night switch, but I didn't seem very convinced. It seems like it could be done, but only by a very experianced programmer. Anyway, in what I've seen so far video wise, I'd go with the "X-Ray" engine.

 

[The Dark Elf]

I'd go with source myself simply because I think it offers the best opportunity to create believable and realistic non player characters. I can't help but look at DX:IW and wish it had been done with that sort of tech. I'm quite keen on the idea of seeing character driven games.

Morrowind isn't a bad engine for what it does I must admit especially given it's adaptability.

I wasn't too keen on the morrowind engine at first. I found it too round. Granted thats just their choice on the style of it. Sidewinder has since been showing me the errors of my ways and I've been downloading plugins like crazy and if you ignore the fact it has little to no viewing distance because of the cells only being so big. It's a great engine. The Source engine though I reckon will really come into its own in say a year or so when people are getting used to it and pushing it to the limits with what they've learnt. I think thats when we're going to see just how advanced it really is.. I personally don't think HL2 shows it off all that much. Just like CS extended the basic HL1 engine, and spirit of HL came up with new tricks it could pull off. The same will happen again (hopefully not a CS type game heh)

If I had to licence one I think it would be the source engine for sure, considering the time and money it would cost to develop a new engine from scratch to reach that sort of level, it would be the cheapest solution when you throw in other costs in developing a commercial game.

Right now we don't really know the other engines atall really. So I suppose this thread is kinda unfair. But from what I have seen Source is in the lead from a technical point of view. The others seem to be going for more of a boo! surprise approach with little under the hood. Their thinking of first years sales/popularity. Valve seem to be thinking five years ahead, which is important if your going to fork out tens of thousands of dollars on a licence. The other engines could be outdated a few months down the line. Source seems more future friendly. Not only that but since its supposed to be very similar to developing for HL1, its pretty user friendly and simple for decent coders to work with.

I'm babbling damn you for daring to make an interesting thread

 

[Kon]

I'd use Source (HL2) because it has a great wide range of uses and the materials and stuff with the physics makes things easier and allows for greater interactivity and also replayability, less scripted type stuff and so many things can happen purely based on how certain things are in the game.. AI will most likely be above expectations and characters will look and act realistically.. Support for mods looks great also..

 

[Stigmata]

Personally, it would all depend on what type of game I'm developing.

If I were to develop my mod, I would use the Source engine. Not just because it's the engine my mod is being developed on, but because Source seems to have the best city-building tools out of all the engines, and CaE is based almost entirely in a city. Plus the physics engine, facial animations, and the multitude of different model animations available out of the box.

The one engine I would just not choose for any game would be the Doom 3 engine. It seems extremely hardware-intensive no matter what you do with it, and I wouldn't use an engine that would (from what I've heard) look like crap on the low-to-mid-end-hardware mainstream user.

 

[Kadayi]

Personally, it would all depend on what type of game I'm developing.

The nature of the beast is pretty much the crux of it I think. I'm hoping that this poll will provide some indicators as to the direction people want to see future gaming take in the answers.

 

[FictiousWill]

Not knowing how each of the engines actually performs, and just off the top of my head, I'd go with D3. Carmack's got a great track record - from a business point of view D3's the least risk.

 

[Shuzer]

The nature of the beast is pretty much the crux of it I think. I'm hoping that this poll will provide some indicators as to the direction people want to see future gaming take in the answers.

The only problem with that is you're getting votes based on a biased userbase.
I'm not saying this is the case with everyone here, but, I'm sure if you headed over to the STALKER board and posted the same poll, the numbers for XRay and Source would be the equivalent, but leaning towards XRay as opposed to Source.

 

[Dougy]

Source.


Will have by far the most support from its creator (valve) and id get me some havoc physics going!

 

[Kadayi]

The only problem with that is you're getting votes based on a biased userbase.
I'm not saying this is the case with everyone here, but, I'm sure if you headed over to the STALKER board and posted the same poll, the numbers for XRay and Source would be the equivalent, but leaning towards XRay as opposed to Source.

The votes I expect to go a certain way, but in peoples answers the real action is to be found.

 

[GhettoFab]

i wuld go with the doom engine. as sum1 said its made by carmack who has always cum out wit tha best gear and u no that whateva he puts out will be the industry standard. thats what he does its his game.

source wuld be a close second, but really there isnt anything u can do with source that u cant do with doom engine so i wuld go with doom engine b/c its so damn hot.

 

[MooCow]

It depends on the type of game, for something mainly indoors like for example hl1 i'd use the d3 engine simply for the lighting effects that you can pull off that the other engines don't seem to able to do. For something set primarily out doors where lighting isn't as big an issue as everything is sunlight i'd use x-ray as it has the most convincing and realistic enviroments i've seen to date. Source on the other hand would come in if I was building a more RPG style fps where the superior chracterisation possible would be a huge advantage. Also source seems very well scaleable but then if the rumours are true so is x-ray. Source has a lot of nice dx9 shader effects and if I was using a game that recycled them that would be a factor too, again x-ray does some nice dx9 shaders but only in small indoor areas that frankly seem to wasting the engines outdoor potential. Doom3 is really a bit of a wild card in that it used open gl and if I was agame developer the API I had the most experience in would be a factor as I'd no doubt want to tweak things along the way.[/rambling]

 

[Cole]

I'd go with Source all the way. For a FPS at least. When it comes down to RTS, well thats a diffrent ball game becuz sometimes latest technogloy isnt always the best way to handle it. Starcraft for example has 120 thousand players on at peak, wc3x and wc3 compbined is like 40 thousand. Starcraft is 2d (isometric) and was made in 1998. Wc3 was made in 2002 i think...maybe 2003 and is 3d.
I would most likly used a full out new engine that is 2d and somewhat copy starcraft, add many more features along with the feature of custom added in graphics, and so on. Becuz if starcraft can rule pretty much any other RTS out there and its like 6 years old, and 2d isometric why not just build off of that. Although i would not use starcrafts engine becuz it is to limited.

Fps has to be source, for the physics. Doom 3 i dont think would include the physics and my brother claims he has a friend that works there and Doom 3's minimum requirements were like a Radeon 9800 and a 3.2ghz comp. Although i HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt it (and the minimum requirements werent that when i checked). But doom 3 i believe wont have near the physics of Source.

So
Fps = Source
Rts = A engine like starcrafts but far my customizable.

 

[Wolf]

It depends what type of game. If I was making the next System Shock then D3 would be the best choice IMO, however, not all games are like that.

If I wanted to make a game that was:
-Character driven
-Effortless to localise into different languages
-Involved vehicles and large terrain
-Needed better than chase AI
-Scalable on the widest range of hardware
-Easy to utilise the most advanced 2.0 shaders for those with the latest cards

Source would be a better choice. There is just no reason to reinvent the wheel when you can get an engine which already supports all this stuff...

 

[Dougy]

source wuld be a close second, but really there isnt anything u can do with source that u cant do with doom engine so i wuld go with doom engine b/c its so damn hot.

realistic outdoor areas.


:dozey:

for whenz youz pop a capz in that whiteboyz azz when hez iz running downz da streetz, innit!.

:dozey:

 

[blahblahblah]

I would like to say something, a physics engine is a physics engine is a physics engine. Yes, HL2 will highly integrate its physics engine into its gameplay, but it does not mean that other game developers will do the same. In fact, Doom3 has a physics engine and I am sure that it could be implemented to the extent HL2 does if ID software wanted to.

If I was choosing an engine right now, I would go with the Source engine. In a few years, I would have to go with Doom3 because it appears to be more forward looking than HL2 (Doom3 appears to be pioneering several important graphic technologies).

 

[GhettoFab]

realistik outdoorz areas? wtf kinda game r u making deer hunter?

doom engine can do it tho.

 

[vann7]

well.. i voted for other... because if i were a game developer ,i will like to do my own engine.. there is no more satisfaction that do it everything by yourself. i just hire the programmers and artist to make a game exactly the way i want..

but this Poll ,lacks of important info ,that REal DEvelopers in the real world will consider first..

1)how much cost $$ each Engine ?
2)How much support you will get from the developers ?
3)Can we do all we that we want in our game and release it first than yours ?

however since here we are gamers.. those questions would never be an issue for us..

other things great to consider are..
-THe source engine doesnt have a Physics engine. they licencensed the Physics engine from Havok developers. with D3 engine you get a physics engine too.
-the Doom3 engine doesnt support Dx9 effects ? ,or maybe it support but is not in the game ,but if the engine doesnt have ,so you will need to add you own DX9 shaders.
- and about Outdoors ,Doom3 engine support Outdoors..any Stalker or HL2 maps fits easily in D3 editor .. (however the performance is not good enough for something like that). but all game engines since quake support "outdoors".. since a program doesnt know the diference between outdoors and indoors, all can be done with Polygons.

the only diference is that there are game engines that is more easier to work with Outdoors since they already have many high quality tools and pluggins to work with that.(Plant libraries,trees,grass,terrain generation tools ,water tools,)since the game focus heavily on it.. an we already know that Games like HL2,Stalker/FArcry/UT2004 have already that. but dont think for a second that there is a game that cant do Outdoors. there are already many games in the QUake3 engine with Outdoors.. MOH:AA/COD/JEdiKnight/RTCW/ the -online only- game of start wars. it just that you will have more work if the game engine doesnt ship with tools your game need.. out of the box.. just think about the Vehicles code that Id added for D3. where do you think vehicles are used? maybe to be parked in a garage

but as many have pointed out.. this is a matter of WHat kind of game you want to create. the things you want to see there .and the hardware you are targetting. if want to sell as many copies as possible ,and port the game to the Xbox,its obvious that a pure DX9 eninge _IS NOT_ the way to go.

 

[willyd]

is it possible to combine engines? Like take the light system from Doom 3 and the physics from HL2 and other aspects from other engines. (assuming you had unlimited money to earn these liscenses) or are these engines built so differently you couldnt do it

 

[63]

Do you get per pixel shading with that?

uhh..yeah...you also get...3x...interface...lines!

 

[vann7]

is it possible to combine engines? Like take the light system from Doom 3 and the physics from HL2 and other aspects from other engines. (assuming you had unlimited money to earn these liscenses) or are these engines built so differently you couldnt do it

if you have the money $$.. you can buy all the engines you want.. but there are already engines that "looks" to be as capable for everything ..have a mix of Lightmaps for outdoors and Perpixellighting for indoors and as a bonus you also get an decent Physics engine with DX9 effects Those are STALKER and FArcry. Farcry seems to have the more impressive tools for level editing since it have Realtime editors ,were you can design and play at the same time.very cool.

 

[Wolf]

Source comes with physics, it is not just Havok tacked on specifically for HL2, it is part of the licence...

 

[GhettoFab]

is it possible to combine engines? Like take the light system from Doom 3 and the physics from HL2

da doom engine already comes wit pimp azz physics no need to do that. thats why i said doom cos its got tha best of everything.

 

[Wolf]

'da doom engine already comes wit pimp azz physics no need to do that. thats why i said doom cos its got tha best of everything.'
Don't be silly it is not the best of everything.

 

[GhettoFab]

name 1 thang woadie

 

[Stereo]

I would use the Quake2 engine, wait no, Unreal, ummm ... modified Unreal ... <doh>

 

[Wolf]

Lots of things. Some minor some a big deal depending on what type of game you want.

Complex AI, 2.0 shaders, LOD displacement terrain engine, HDR, proper vehicles physics, facial animation system, voice communication, good scalability, - including resources left for big interactive environments and lots of high poly creatures on screen at once.

Don't get me wrong D3 is a great unified renderer but you're a fool if you think it is a well rounded game engine appropriate for all games. To get the equivilent capabilities to Source a developer would have to waste time reinventing the wheel for quite a few things when working with D3, not to mention it would be more expensive to licence it in the first place... id have always had the most expensive engines because they are coded the most efficiently...

 

[blahblahblah]

Wolf - your confusing the Source engine as a game.

AI is a feature of a game, not the graphics engine.

I also disagree with the scalability, I mean it has good scalability with graphics cards now, but what about the future? Valve says HDR doesn't work properly in DX 9 and it usually takes a version or two (of DirectX) for them to make it work properly.

Physics is completely up to the developer on how accurate a vehicle drives. Valve does not dictate what a jeep drives like.

I dont think the Source engine is designed for a lot of high poly creatures on a screen at once. None of the screenshots released by valve support this.

It's hard for me to imagine a Carmack engine that is not easily adapted to other games. I also bet HL2 is more expensive to license since it has taken so long to develop (that means it has to recover more costs). I think it should be obvious that no engine is perfect for every situation though.

 

[Wolf]

Wolf - your confusing the Source engine as a game.

Nope.

AI is a feature of a game, not the graphics engine

It is an engine feature, which is what the the poll question asks not just graphics. D3's AI is developed for primative 'chasing' and not much more, Carmack himself has said it isn't going to be anything sophisticated. Source is built from the ground up to support advanced context-sensitive AI. You didn't honestly think AI capabilities were just for HL2 and not Source? Try reading the Troika dev diaries about Bloodlines...

I also disagree with the scalability, I mean it has good scalability with graphics cards now, but what about the future?

What do you mean?

Valve says HDR doesn't work properly in DX 9 and it usually takes a version or two (of DirectX) for them to make it work properly.

Huh? That's news to me. The point is Source has support for many 2.0 shaders (200) and DX9 level effects out of the box. Whereas everything in D3 (OpenGL) was being made so it doesn't adversely affect Nvidia's FX performance or image quality. In other words it is lower precision (FP16) whenever possible. A dev licensing D3 would have to add ARB2 full precision shaders if they want the latest and greatest.

Physics is completely up to the developer on how accurate a vehicle drives. Valve does not dictate what a jeep drives like.

What are you talking about? It is not like you can't adjust Havok to tweak everything. The point is that D3 doesn't have vehicles so a dev licencing D3 would have to do special coding to get vehicles working properly to a polished level - which is more time wasted that wouldn't occur if they licenced Source.

I dont think the Source engine is designed for a lot of high poly creatures on a screen at once. None of the screenshots released by valve support this.

Well you're wrong. In comparison to how demanding D3 is and at a given hardware level, Source can support many more creatures on screen in bigger environments. Come on, you can't deny that.

It's hard for me to imagine a Carmack engine that is not easily adapted to other games.

What you can imagine has nothing to do with it. Carmack is making a next gen unified renderer for a specific game that was designed to suit the limitations of the engine. He is not making a one-size fits all build a game toolset.

I also bet HL2 is more expensive to license since it has taken so long to develop (that means it has to recover more costs).

Well, you're wrong.

I think it should be obvious that no engine is perfect for every situation though.

Yep, and by the same token it should be obvious that some engines are more adaptable and flexible than others...

 

[Top Secret]

AI is a feature of a game, not the graphics engine.

Actually AI is a core part of the engine. Any engine. Especially the Quake 3 engine.

Physics is completely up to the developer on how accurate a vehicle drives. Valve does not dictate what a jeep drives like.

Yep. Doom 3 can do vehicles. I recall Carmack talking about a 6 wheeled rover they made that drove around using Doom 3's physics.

 

[GhettoFab]

wolf ur so wrong foo.

ai is not a engine thang its a game thang, but d3 gots plenty complex ai. as 4 2.0 shaderz i dunno wtf ur talkin bout wit da 2.0, if its a directx thang then no doom engine is a opengl engine which is better cos it will be released on mac and linux and hl2 wont be woadie. but it does have opengl2 shaders which are as good as dx shaderz. as 4 scaleability doom will run on low eng specs 2. hdr is jus sum bull$hit an isnt needed its just sum little trick not an important engine feature. doom does have proper vehicle physics which idsoftware included for the modders. doom maps can be huge if u want and u can have plenty of monsters on screen at once, plus doom is on of the most interactive damn games coming out woadie.

the only thangs are voice com and facial animation system isnt sum big deal cos the facial animations still have funk and doom isnt a team game so voice com $hit isnt needed.


think harder b4 u open yo mouth and talk $hit dat u cant back up woadie.