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)

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)

This only makes sense for open source engines, where the commit log can easily be checked. For lesser know proprietary engines, the current status is impossible to determine. Defunt engines could be noted in the notes section.Slacka123 (talk) 06:31, 28 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.Slacka123 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course phoronix isn't listed as a Video Game source at WP:VG. It's not at all. It's a Linux/Unix news source with original articles.Slacka123 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, Phoronix is not used by WP:VG, despite often covering VG topics, because it fails some reliable source criteria, such as an editorial guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• 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 / Spit Open Source and Proprietary

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)

After seeing how the table look merged, it's clear that they should be slit up again. There are just too many columns that are relevant open source, but there is not with proprietary. For example. SDL makes no sense for proprietary since you have no access to the source to see what frameworks are used. Also the suggestions that you've made here for additional columns only makes sense for proprietary engines, not not open source. You've done a nice job with the proprietary engines, but they really belong on a separate list. Slacka123 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it's already been suggested (including by yourself) that the SDL column should be removed and replaced with something else relating to technologies used in a particular engine, I think that's a better course of action. The only column that really applies only to open source is SDL. It'd be better removed rather than the table split. Other suggested columns are irrelevant at this stage, since there was no support to include them. -- ferret (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SDL's such a specific choice, why should that have a dedicated column at all? Whether an engine uses it might be column-level relevant to an SDL article, but not a general game engines list. Likewise for any individual library I can think of. Is there anything else in particular that would be suitable to display for FOSS but not proprietary engines? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SDL was just one example. As I said before, Take a look at the talk comments here discussing new catagories. A new developer column makes no sense for most open source projects while development status makes no sense for propriety. Besides lack of overlap in come columns. People interested in developing/learning from engines are not going to be interested in proprietary engines. Gamers tend to be more interested in the latest propriety engines. Finally the combined table is much more unwieldy.Slacka123 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Having two tables doesn't make the page any less unwieldy, as the amount of data remains the same. The other columns had no real support to be added to the article, so they're moot. If the only problem in the current table is the SDL column, we can remove it. -- ferret (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add a vote for having separate tables (or even separate pages) for proprietary and free code engines. I agree with Slacka123 that different groups of people will be interested in the two categories for very different reasons. I found this page while searching for a list of free code game engines that can be used to develop fully non-proprietary games (all code under libre licenses and all art and assets under CC licenses), so all the proprietary entries are just in my way. -- Danylstrype (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I don't understand is how sorting on the license column doesn't solve your issue. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Release Date to Chart

Oh how I wish this chart had a release date, or separated by year or something. Eventually this chart is going to get SO HUGE that it's almost too cumbersome. Or even separated by year or something. Most of these are for games long since obsolete.

Darrellx (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamvas appears dead

Gamvas is no longer at the site listed (http://gamvas.com/). Google, mozilla (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Games/Tools/Engines_and_tools) and html5gameengine (https://html5gameengine.com/) no longer list it.

I recommend deleting and replacing it's entry with another JavaScript engine, maybe Turblez or Pixi.js? Edit.jim (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The list contains notable engines that have articles on Wikipedia. Even if they're no longer used or maintained, their notability and article is what puts them on this list. Turblez doesn't have an article, and while Pixi.js does, it's unsourced and doesn't show notability. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bork3D is listed as proprietary but the article says it changed to BSD (libre / open)

Someone should update it but I haven't edited Wikipedia in years and I'm scared of messing it up. 98.214.101.208 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)