Talk:List of game engines

Change SDL into notable technologies used?

SDL is just one of the many technologies that can be used in a Game Engine. The way it is currently shown (with yes being green, and no being red) it also advocated that it is "the best" or "a great addition" to have in your game engine. If such information is to be included, it should be neutral and more inclusive of other technologies. For example GLFW which is less inclusive (only focuses on OpenGL), or SFML which includes more functionality (higher level of abstraction).

It could also be used to add more detail to the capabilities of an engine. Such as physics libraries (Box2D, PhysX, Bullet, etc.), audio libraries (OpenAL, FMOD, etc.), rendering libraries (Irrklang, Ogre 3D).

A similar sidenote is for the colored background of 2D/3D. If you're making a 2D game, a 2D engine may very well be a better choice than a 3D engine. The colors red and green are associated with bad and good, so I don't think that is valuable. Aidiakapi (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree on your point about SDL. We have 3 categories all related to platform(cross, SDL, and target), while nothing dedicated to the technologies supported. What do you think of my suggestion above of scrapping SDL and replacing it with Physics, Networking, and Sound?

However, I think you're bikeshedding on the color scheme. Around the world, green is associated with Yes, while red is associated with No. I don't follow you on colors being inherently good or bad. I could just as well argue that red is powerful and aggressive and green as being weak and sickly. Slacka123 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I'm working on merging all of the lists into one table (See section below), this has cropped up in my mind. I am not planning to remove the column myself at this time, but it begins to feel less useful. I would recommend removing both the "Cross Platform" and "SDL" columns, and replacing them with a "Technology" or "API" column (which subsequently can contain SDL and other frameworks). The "Target Platform" column already clearly shows when an engine is on only one, or multiple, platforms.

I also agree with Aidiakapi that green and red are associated with a positive and negative meaning. I recommend removing coloration from the 2D/3D column. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, perhaps you'd care to comment? -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've said I'll I have to say about colors. If you 2 really feel that strongly about it, go for it. I'm much more interested in ensuring useful content than presentation. Slacka123 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove the coloration from 2D/3D then. I don't think in this case it's appropriate, that "2D" is potentially presented as a "negative", when many great games are 2D. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Cross Platform Yes/No column, do we agree it can be removed? The Target Platform column also presents this information.

Regarding the SDL column, I think you've mentioned in a few places a column for Graphics, Network and Physics. I think this might be too restrictive... We'd need Audio, and potentially several others. How about a simple "Technology/API" column where all such items can be listed? DirectX, SDL, Havok, OpenGL, etc, etc... As well as some older systems like iMUSE and INSANE. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Little bit concerned that it's going to get unwieldy and nearly turn into a feature list unless it's focused down a bit. For Unreal Engine 4, what can I think of... if we're listing APIs and the like, then maybe DirectX 9, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, Mantle, OpenGL, XInput, OpenAL, OpenVR, Oculus VR, PhysX, SDL, Steamworks, SVN, Perforce, Git, Leap Motion SDK. If we're also listing major libraries being shipped ("Technologies"?), then add in Ogg, Vorbis, Opus, OpenSSL, CEF, SpeedTree, Recast, Simplygon, Box2D. And other libraries include libcurl, libJPG, lib, sqlite, WebSockets, zlib, OneSky, FreeType2, DirectShow, openexr. This isn't including the various third-party partners that make add-ons for the engine. This isn't exhaustive by the way, I got bored while typing this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's also just UE4. Unless we split UE's entry up, UE3/2.5/2/1 would all probably add even more. They are historical, but games are still being developed off UE3 and maybe UE2.5's code base... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

UE is the most commercially successful game engine ever written. There should be plenty of sources to justify entries for each generation, just like id tech. 50.136.58.193 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of table and bullet list

I find this article organized strangely. There's a pretty table, with columns and nice formatted, for free engines. Then a long ugly bulleted list for proprietary engines. What is the reason for separating the two as so and not ensuring full details are available for both? Whether free or proprietary should just be a column in the table, rather than separate sections with differing formats.

If there's no reason for this, I may begin making an effort to fill in the table fully. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LINKFARM, if I begin to work on the table I'll also take that opportunity to remove the non-notables. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That'd be great. The lists are also mixing together game engines, rendering engines, app frameworks, and others. I don't know if there's a nice way of throwing everything into a single list and having it be useful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Will start looking at this in a week or so. If nothing else, I'll add a column for "Software type" or something to note different forms of engines/frameworks, if I don't remove them depending on what they are. A sortable table is more use in this case than the separate lists and such. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Beginning this effort. I am handling cleanup of non-notable entries first, then will begin working to merge the lists into a complete table. The current table has been cleaned, working through the lists next. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lists cleaned up. The table of "notable games" will be left alone for now, I will delete it as part of expanding the table and merging the list sections in. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you used as your definition of notable, but open source engines that are used in commercial games are without a doubt notable. I'm going to restore some of the ones you culled.Slacka123 (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I went by WP:N, that is, they have an article of their own and substantial coverage. Being an open source engine, that was used in a commercial game, is not a sign of notability in the least.. With the possible exception of Aleph One (Which has some coverage at Marathon's article), what you added back has no real coverage on Wikipedia. I searched for usage or mentions before removing them from the table. Note, I also fixed many pipes and redirects, such as the missing link to PlayN. I do plan to remove these unlinked or redlinked engines again in the future. Please see the hatnote at the top of the talk page... If they are notable, they should have articles with sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists does it state that all items in a list require a matching article, only that the items are properly referenced. Not only were some of the items you removed, referenced, some of them had corresponding articles about the games they were used to make. In addition to the community and discussions built around them, their open nature, makes open source engines a valuable learning tool. For a proprietary engine to be notable, it has to be based on a popular game that has generated enough material to provide references. Open sourced commercial game engines are so rare, that their very nature usually generates community and lots of articles to use as references. I have seen many articles start off here and on other wiki lists that did not have corresponding articles like Horde3D was recently along with many more before it. If we applied your blanked, narrow definition, they would have never got chance to start Slacka123 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I initially missed this section, but I still insist every entry should have pipes links that DISCUSS the engine. I will open a section specifically to discuss the engine you want added back. I did not set the linkfarm notice that's already at the head of this article. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss the engines that you want to remove. But that's not how things work around here. This isn't all of a sudden your page, where you make the rules. You haven't been maintaining this page and up util now you haven't made any major contributions to it. So the engines stay in for now, and we can discuss them on a case by case basis below.Slacka123 (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's actually not how it works, per WP:BURDEN. I have claimed it is unsourced, and removed it. You have reverted repeatedly without providing any further sourcing... -- ferret (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have begun the table merger, and completed merging the engines listed in the shorter Freeware subsection. I'll begin on the longer commercial list soon. I've also added and populated an "Engine type" column to aid with the fact that not everything in the list is, strictly speaking, a game engine. This may require more thought later, but noting the type helps get it started. The type was pulled most from the infobox of the engine's article, and sometimes from prose if no infobox data was found. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the talk thread that you archived? There are several discussions on what columns should be added/removed. "engine type" was not one of them. The vast majority of game engines are full engines, so it make no sense to waste a column on something than can be put in the notes or better yet, split off into its own section. Per the old talk discussion, some useful columns that you could add are "physics", "sound", and "networking". Also there was talk of removing SDL.Slacka123 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You understand that not everything has to be specifically discussed before being acted on, right? That said, I mentioned it above in reply to Consumed Crustacean. I opened this talk section over 17 days ago stating my intentions, there was plenty of time for watchers to chime in. There's no reason to undo everything if you disagree with the single column.

All that aside, the Engine Type column can be removed with a single click using VE to edit the table, if that's the right thing to do. I added the column because the table had a note warning readers that the table that it mixed different engines and frame works without distinction. So I added a distinction. If you feel the note column will be clearer to readers, we can do that. We need to aim from clarity for the reader. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

See new section below, let's continue that discussion separate from the other cleanup effort I'm working on. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, please stop reverting all of my edits. The last opposition you have raised is the engine type column, based on your edit notes and your discussion here. There is a [#Engine type column|discussion section] open in response, and I have removed the column for the time being, so you should cease blindly reverting.

I asked you to stop reverting my commits. Instead you ignored my request 2 times, and continued to do your own thing with out answering me on this talk page. So from now on, I'm going to insist that you rebase your edits off of my last revision until this issues is resolved.Slacka123 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As for any engines I removed that you feel should be in the list, please bring them up specifically in a new section. They do not have articles or a wikilink target, therefore they are not notable. If there's no content on Wikipedia to discussion them, they do not belong in this list (Or it's navbar template), per WP:LINKFARM. I once again ask that you read the headers on the talk page that discuss this. Perhaps we can build articles for those engines, but they are missing right now. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I opened a discussion for the removed engines. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The list merger is now completed. Please do not revert all of this effort. I have opened a discussion specifically about the engines I removed that were unsourced, let's continue discussion there, find sources, and then add them back. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This would have never been an issue, if you had seen my request to talk here. You're doing a great job. I should have more free time later this month to help out if you do add more columns. Slacka123 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Engine type column

Splitting this into a new section, separate from the effort to get all engines into the table and out of bullet lists. I have removed the engine type column I previously added. This is to discuss it further.

Consumed Crustacean noted when I first brought up working on the table that it needed something to help clarify the mix of different engine and framework types. The article had a warning note listed to the readers as well that noted this. This is unclear, readers shouldn't need to "note" such things, we should either provide the information to them, or remove any entries that are not clearly game engines. I believe the column serves this purpose better.

There's several items that need to be removed entirely in my eyes, if we aren't going to have a column to aid readers with such a long table. Things like MikuMikuDance, Esperient, the various tool kits, Codea, etc. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, perhaps you'd care to comment? I have delayed further work at this time while waiting for your opinion here. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Many engines have started off as frameworks that have grown into complete engines and can still be used in either manner, so it will be hard to draw a clear distinction. Then there's rendering engines like Orge and Irrlicht that anyone interested in game engines is likely also going want to know about. To me the features of an engine, such as 2D, 3D graphics, sound, and networking are what differentiate them and make them easy to categorize. How high/low level they are or framework/middleware questions are much more subjectiveSlacka123 (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether any reliable sources refer to the software as a "game engine" is probably one of the better ways of deciding if it's ever unclear. I definitely don't think there's room in here for app frameworks just because they might evolve into an engine one day. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This list is so ungainly that I'm personally particular to removing the non-game engines entirely. They could go in a separate list if need be, whether that's within a different article or a separate section of this one. If it was very clear that all entries are complete game engines, it would be clearer for readers, and I'd hope editors would be less likely to add non-conforming entries. The list's scope as it stands right now is really unclear, it seems like it could cover every middleware, framework, and possibly even "minor" libraries. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree. I would probably suggest starting by getting it in synch with Template:Video game engines. There are other lists for frameworks. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Developer/Maintainer column

Since there's been some opposition to adding columns without first discussing, opening a new section...

I'd like to add a column for the Developer and/or Maintainer of the engines. Any opposition? -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

For propriety engines and people interested in them, it make sense to list the company behind them. For many community developed open source engines, it doesn't many any sense. Also what exactly did you have in mind, company or lead dev? Ex for frostbite would you put DICE or Johan Andersson? Slacka123 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

True. It becomes a bit messy. In principal I would have put the company behind the engine, if there is one. If there were a notable team or project behind it (I.e. they have an article), that. Bearing that, I would move on to a lead developer or project maintainer. But that does become cumbersome. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Status column

I think it would be useful to have a status column to note which engines are still in development or have become defunct. This would be a simple yes/no/partial column. Yes if still supported, no if not, partial if official support is ended but code is released (Or something similar.)

Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Engines under discussion

These are the engines I've removed, that Slacka123 feels should still be in the table. Existing article talk headers set a policy that only notable engines should be listed, per WP:LINKFARM, but Slacka123 argues that the MOS has no restriction.

Why do you keep referencing WP:LINKFARM? Do you understand what an external link is? It's clearly not an issue here since with the exception of Urho3D ( which is based off of an engine that is covered) none items in the list have external links.

• Anura - Used by Frogatto & Friends, has no sources or discussion at that article, and is not even named. Engine details appear unsourced.

  How can you say that? Please look at the article again. At least 1/3 of the article is dedicated to talking about the source code. What source code do you think they're talking about? The engine source code maybe? If you really have issue with the name not being spelled out in the article, I'll fix it myself. [[1]]. Getting a proper citation is not a big deal. I'll address the other engines shortlySlacka123 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  In reviewing this particular case, you are correct. The article seems to discuss the engine in context of game development a fair bit, but many details are still vague and unsourced, or rely almost entirely on primary sources. It needs reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Core3D - No usage on Wikipedia at all, nor is the listed "notable game" used anywhere. Has a single source here at the list. Phoronix is not viewed as a reliable source by WP:VG.
• LÖVE - Used by Mari0, which makes a passing mention of it's engine, sourced to an article that makes a passing mention. All other engine details unsourced.
• Nebula Device - Redirect exists to Radon Labs, which has a passing mention of the engine. No sources, and all engine details unsourced. (Added back)
• Pyrogenesis - Redirect exists to 0 A.D. (video game). Some decent sourced bits exist, I will personally readd this one without waiting. (Added back)
• Turbulenz - No apparent usage on Wikipedia (Search results hit some german pages, but can't find anything related to game engines), unsourced.
• Urho3D - No usage on Wikipedia, no source. A link to an external site is definitely not appropriate for a list.

I removed Urho3D from the list. Very promising engine and large/active community but not enough sources to justify. I'll address other shortly. Slacka123 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted, I'll add back Pyrogenesis.. Of the rest of these, I believe that MAYBE Core3D could go back. While WP:VG currently views Phoronix as unreliable, other projects may view it as reliable.

The rest are practically unsourced and unused on Wikipedia, so even ignoring my definition of "notability", they failed WP:V as well. If you can find reliable sources, per WP:BURDEN, I will gladly add them back. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added back Nebula Device, while merging in the old Related Games table, as well as several other low notability engines. I don't entirely agree with it being there, unless we can find sources and add more information. It is at least discussed at it's parent page though. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added your engines back, with citation needed tags. It's up to you to source them, per WP:BURDEN. Honestly, they shouldn't even be added back, but you're clearly not going to cease adding them back without sources, so to avoid further reverts, there they are. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Table completeness / Related games table

Now that the lists are merged into the primary engine table, I will begin working to add missing engines. Some of these are in the related games table, which can go away. Others can be found via the Game Engines template. I noted quite a few missing. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Engines and related information from the Related Games table has been fully merged. Still need to add other missing engines from the main template. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Remakes

Engine remakes should probably be removed from this list. There is a separate list at List of game engine recreations for them. Aleph One may be the only engine that falls into this category though. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's going to be some overlap on lists. By merging the proprietary and open source, the list seems a lot more unwieldy. If others feel as you do, I'm not overly opposed to removing it. Unfortunately, many of the usually contributors don't seem to be around.(maybe because of the summer)Slacka123 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)