Talk:List of game engines

there seems no explanation what 2.5D means and some abbreviation are not clear for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.19.95 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Marmalade SDK is listed as being GPL and contained in the "Free/Libre and Open Source Software" section, but the article on it lists it as proprietary, and the official website has a "Purchase License" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.176.20 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

id tech 5 miscategorized?

Id Tech 5 is under Free and Open Source. Most Id engines take a while after their first appearance to become open source, and according to the linked page Id Tech 5 is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.104.218 (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_game_engines#OpenTechEngine

Merge this article with "Game Engine"

I think it should be WAY BETTER to merge this list (and also make it more understandable) with the article Game Engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.12.61.203 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Engines that are free to use privately

there is no mention about the unreal editor that can be used with the disc or the UDK that has started being free to the public for a while then there's the far-cry engine but only students/evaluations can get one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Engines

Unreal Engine 4

https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/ue4-is-free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.1.83 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OpenTechEngine

https://github.com/OpenTechEngine

Some (BSD) people create this engine based on the release of Doom 3 BFG, which use the idtech5.

Engines Not Included

... and the reasons why.

Darkplaces

Darkplaces is not listed, and doesn't even appear to have an article of it's own. Darkplaces should be well known from the Nexuiz game (which eventually made it to the PS3) and the upcoming Xonotic game and others.--AmeenNL (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

3D Game Builder

Why when I add the 3D Game Builder (http://www.eternix.com.br/en/3dgamebuilder/) someone remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edirlei (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have an article, and had no claim of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Panda 3D

How come I don't see Engine Panda3D?

It's under freeware engines CaveyCoUk (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quake III Engine?

The Quake III engine isn't here under open source or proprietary? It currently powers at least two OSS games, Open Arena and Tremulous, as well as Quake III: Arena, Quake III: Team Arena, Star Trek Elite Force II, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Enemy Territory, Call of Duty, Call of Duty United Offensive, Soldier of Fortune II, Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. Check the article on the Quake III Engine :P.--68.126.148.14 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now known as id tech 3, so it is in the list CaveyCoUk (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spark Engine

Known for natural selection 2. Someone should write about that thing because its pretty awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.216.15 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Engines

A short list of other engines that do not appear to be in the list.

• The engine for Freelancer || Microsoft Game someone could ask ^^
• GeoMod, as used in Red Faction
• Sphere RPG Engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.209.243 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Although are these actually classed as something else?

G3D

This is not in the list, http://g3d-cpp.sourceforge.net/

Is it of any note? Been used in any notable games? Has it been discussed or reviewed by reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Adonthell

Although this is still under development, a demo game using it has been completed and released. http://adonthell.linuxgames.com/ Should engines under development be included in the list? Included or mentioned somewhere else? Myidbe (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Flixel

Flixel is a game engine that is used to produce games similar in appearance to early Atari games. Why wasn't it included in this?

Here's it's website.

http://flixel.org/

Sean 0000001 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Flixel FrameWork rather than an ENGINE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.126.89 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars Engine?

So are there any details and / or credible information(s) about this engine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars#Game_engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.17.91 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrlicht

Odd that it's not even mentioned, even here on the talk page. Was it removed at some point? It's very popular, probably more widely used than anything currently in the free/libre list, aside from Ogre. -LesPaul75_talk 01:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 I'd say it's absent or it was removed because it doesn't belong here. Irrlicht is a 3D rendering engine, not a game engine per se.

ORE ?

"ORE stands for Online RPG Engine"

ORE is not even mentioned - is it talking about OGRE? Zorruno 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ORE refers to Online RPG Engine by Baronsoft : www.baronsoft.com - it is in NO WAY related to OGRE.

Yes, but OGRE is not a game engine is a 3D graphics engine.

List at bottom of page

Would it be feasible to do a list of engines (at least some of the major ones) at the bottom of specific game engine articles? (For instance, the winners of the World Poker Tour also have links to the other winners at the bottom of their pages.) Does anyone else think this might be a worthwhile idea? AJ Letson 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the sentence 'Excellerates far above the rest of the Visual Basic ORPG engines' from the vbGORE engine. Descriptions should be neutral and not read like a commercial. I'm sure the users of the engine can decide for themselves how good it is. --General Hard 09:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DARKSMASTER923

I'm not registered. I added Reality factory free open source engine and Deep Creator

Major and Minor engines

The previous division between "Major/Popular" and "Minor" engines was very subjective and unsubstantiated, so I combined the lists. If we're going to put the engines in different popularity categories, we need to have some kind of data to back it up and provide a tangible measure of popularity. Gremagor 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I know that this is probably out of line and only superficially related to the evolution of this article, but could somebody find out what engine Blizzard is using for World of Warcraft? And possibly what engine they are going to combine Havok with in the future? (They have no licensed Havok for PC and Mac.)

I haven't been able to find out what engine they're using. Or if its their own proprietary software, if anyone else is using it, or what its called, its development history, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

See here. Shinobu (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Available to license vs in-house engine?

I'm just wondering if this section couldn't be made more useful by including a listing as to whether an engine is available for licensing by third parties (like Unreal) or is strictly being used in-house by its creators.

Engine Overview

This table is a list of external links. Possibly some of them have Wikipedia articles. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, I will first convert the external links to wikilinks, then remove those with no article. If anyone feels I have removed a notable game engine, feel free to create a stub for it (following WP:V policy, naturally) and pop it back in. Marasmusine 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll remove the whole thing. Beyond the fact that it's a badly designed table and the external links, it's sourced from another wiki (therefore unreliable per WP:Reliable sources and WP:EL) and riddled with POV. It's just not worth cleaning up.Marasmusine 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences?

Currently this article is not very useful because it just consists of a long list of names and commercial jingles. Some real meat on what the differences in capabilities between all these engines are would be appreciated. Shinobu (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a column to the lists identifying the types of games the engine is for (ie; FPS, RTS, GG [god game, like Sims or Black & White], Racing... and so on) AndaleTheGreat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Freeware vs. Free Software ?

What's the difference ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read freeware and free software and you'll know. Shinobu (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of non-game engines in the list

A lot of these entires seem out of place, as they are not in any sense game engines. For example

• Visual3D.NET
• IMUSE
• EMotion FX
• Havok
• Euphoria

And im sure there are more. This is middleware software and not related to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.47.91 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

Game Middleware and Game Engines links seem to link to the same page or is that me? 82.169.69.149 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Separation

There should be a separation between those that are merely libraries and those that are more fully-featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.42.110 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SineBot. For example, even by the admission of its author, OGRE is not a game engine but a 3D rendering engine.

Also it would be worthwhile to separate engine that are production ready (aka have working games) and those in construction or without any existing games. This would permit engine that are struggling to be included in the list without too much risk of being deleted as "not notable". yep - my engine OGE was removed because of this :/

--Steven Gay (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

dual-licenced engines

Quite a few engines are available under either commercial or free software licences, so why should they only be listed in one of the two sections (usually the free software one)? I say they shall be listed in both or in an extra section especially for them. RFC.

Also, what is up with the "Games and the game engines they use" table? There is not any need for that. -- Darklock (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate Quake based from non quake based in Free engines

We definitely need that done. This is so confusing! A feature table would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.13.28 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Freespace 2

I don't see it in the list, but where to add it? The source is freely available, but the license is for noncommercial use only; Is is technically freeware despite being commercially-owned? -98.17.4.3 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Box2D

I suppose I may be wrong... it's been a while since I worked with Box2D, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't do graphics. If it has any graphical support at all, its for debug purposes... it just has 2d physics. But as I said, it's been a while, I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.42.31 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

id tech <old> is still commercial

still since they are dual-licensed. You either can get a gpl version or if you want to close it, you pay it. (they'd hate bsd licence right?). --AaThinker (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Layout

I have been looking for a good 3D game engine for a few days now. This is the only page on Wikipedia that lists them in one place, but there is not much information about the engines on this page. I like the sortable table found on some similar pages (Yes, I know that I only linked to one, but I couldn't remember the others). I created a table like those, but was not able to fill most of the cells. I did not want to put it up onto the page until this was more complete, but I also did not want to have to look up the missing data myself. To compromise, I put it up on my userpage. When it has more information we can add it to the article, but until then you have permission to edit the table as you get more data. As a side note, shouldn't the words "game engine" be capitalized in the title of this page? Goldenrod111 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The table looks okay - good work. I'll take a closer look later today. Remember that this article should not be an exhaustive directory of all game engines (WP:NOT) - it is largely for navigation (WP:LIST) of existing WP game engine articles. The title should not be capitalized, as the subject is not a proper noun (WP:STYLE). Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Horde3D

Horde3D is not currently in the list. It's released under EPL v1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.62.176 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it of any note? Been used in any notable games? Has it been discussed or reviewed by reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Istaria MMORPG

The article seems to be missing Istaria MMORPG (http://istaria.com). Game server uses Evolution engine and Intrinsic Alchemy engine is used for the core renderer. L (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Leadwerks is commercial

Leadwerks engine is listed under "free open-source" section, but it is neither free, nor open source. Gregsharp1 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Primary platfrom" - remove this

Who decided that there is a 'primary platform' for these engines? This column should be deleted or replaced by "supported platforms"--Qubodup (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it results in most engines being said to support primarly Windows, with no reasons. Spidermario (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Marasmusine (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Panda 3D was *not* made by CMU

Please correct this statement. Panda 3D was made by Disney and later donated to CMU, who has added some features as many in the community do, they don't even maintain releases anymore as that is done by the community. They are definitely not the authors, but the owners. There's more information in the Panda3D article. Full disclosure: I'm a Panda3D developer. I think the article should read: "A relatively easy to use game engine made by Disney and used to produce some of their games. It is currently owned by the Carnegie Mellon University." Also, remove the python-driven mention, Python is the preferred language but Panda3D is actually a C++ engine with a very solid python binding. 62.57.4.12 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Free and open source licenses

Should the Free / open source engines table include a column that indicates which license is used for the engine? It seems odd that we'd have a separate section for freely licensed engines, but not mention which free license the engine is available under. Reach Out to the Truth 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Marasmusine (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

“SDL”?

I cannot understand why there is a “SDL” column in the table. Could someone explain it, please?

Spidermario (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple DirectMedia Layer mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what the SDL is. I just do not understand why there should be an entire column for it. Spidermario (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To show which engines support SDL mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, why not add a column to show those which support Allegro? And those which support DirectX? And those which support OpenGL? And those which support GDI? Etc. That was the point. Spidermario (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, ask the guy who created the article mark nutley (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The image File:SDL Layers.svg show that the library include DirectX and Xlib thus include multiple technologies and is related to the column cross-platform.DynV (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Free / open source engines column importance

Shouldn't the column Cross-platform? SDL? 2D oriented of Free / open source engines be ordered first? DynV (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

id tech 5 is NOT open source.

[1] Why is it in the open source list if id has said the engine is ONLY for Bethesda published works? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, therefore I did remove it from the list (it was also listed in the commercial section). ID announced they would very likely make it open source in the future, but it is not open source now. Satisf (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is released in the form of Doom 3 BFG and the resulting OpenTechEngine:

“QT”?

Why QT is on list? QT != game engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.130.122 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It has a 2D graphics framework, a multimedia module and can process user input. What makes it not a game engine? Spidermario (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"A game engine is a software system designed for the creation and development of video games". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.130.159 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Qt is designed for whatever you want to develop with it, including games. It is as much a game engine as, for example, OpenSceneGraph. Spidermario (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

According to you (Spidermario), MFC is a game engine? Also c++ is a game engine according to your defintion of a game engine. QT is just a framework, not a game engine. Btw, why did you delete conversation? If you think that by deleting it, you are automatically right, you are absolutely wrong, and you should be banned. Don't delete this conversation, even if you are right, it is just bad policy to delete old conversation's that defines the article. You shouldn't delete old conversation as you wish, if you are wrong, you still should keep old conversations as it is.

Could you point out where, exactly, in the talk’s history, I have deleted the conversation? Of course not, because I have not. However, you modified my message. And read my first message again: “[Qt] has a 2D graphics framework, a multimedia module and can process user input.”. Anyway, I would not have created such an article, actually. Listing all game engines is kind of meaningless, especially considering how vague the definition of a game engine is. Spidermario (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As there are "Game Engines" currently in the list which have features that are entirely covered by the Qt framework, shot they then be in the list? Several of the 2D engines in the list could easily be implemented as nothing more than wrappers on top of Qt. That's a big distinction between Qt and MFC - I can't find any game engine in the list that can be replaced by MFC. Or C++ for that matter. Many engines in the list actually are nothing more than small libraries that have less a lot less features than frameworks such as Qt and JavaFX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.0.144 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Qt counts as a game engine - it has high level APIs for handling 2D games (e.g., QGraphicsScene). It is possible to write 2D games using only Qt (I have done so). C++ is just a language, and by itself can only be used for the simplest of text-based games. I don't know if MFC has any gaming APIs? Can you explain how "framework" differs to "game engine"? Mdwh (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Commercial vs Proprietary

This list has a section named Commercial engines when proprietary engines would be more accurate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Table is fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Game_engines_and_related_games

The table there are all wrong formatted and I have no idea how to fix.

Also, the LÖVE-framework is missing from the list. http://love2d.org/

Thanks, table fixed. If you can provide verification for LÖVE via a reliable publication, then we can include it. Marasmusine (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Brick Engine independent verification revert?

What independent verification do you need? Someone else confirming that the site is located at the given URL? Someone else confirming that the source license for the project is in fact the source license for the project? The website already confirms all of the information listed in the entry.

We should have at least a 3rd party reference. To be honest I think the problem isn't so much that anyone thinks it's a fake, but rather there needs to be some level of notability, otherwise this list risks becoming endless and unmanageable. Note how the vast majority of entries in the list have their own Wikipedia article. I think it's probably fine to also list ones that don't, but we should have some independent reference at the very least. Mdwh (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

quake and doom engine

is the id tech 1 the quake engine, and doom engine just the doom engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.98.105 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Table format

This table, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Game_engines_and_related_games, currently has a list of games, and then the game developer. It seems that one developer stands for one or more games, and is centered within the table, making it difficult to determine what game corresponds to which developer. Also, some games made by the same developer are in one line, separated by commas (See Source Engine), whereas others are simply a new line (See Unreal Engine 3.x). Which is correct and which is incorrect?
--76.111.238.204 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Browser games

I don't know quite what this would look like. But given the high number of browser oriented games, and that a lot of game engines can't be used to build them, perhaps there should be a section or a seperate page for listing engines by being browser/desktop/mobile based (and of course all if they target all of them).

To be blunt it just doesn't make sense to have an engine for Tripple-A PC and console games in the same section as engines for building small Indie JavaScript or Flash based games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.103.107 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these arn't game engines

they're graphics engines and other parts that make up a game engine, but not game engines themselves 72.197.227.147 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet more game engines

Just in case no-one has found this yet, I thought I'd chuck it onto the proverbial table:

GPwiki has a fairly long list of what it considers to be 'Game Engines'. (and before anyone starts shouting about what makes a game engine or not, I don't really care. I just thought I'd bring this list to your attention. Also, would this serve as the third-party reference needed for some of the engines already being discussed?)

GPWiki's Game Engines: http://gpwiki.org/index.php/Game_Engines

§Twaitsey§ 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaitsey (talk • contribs)

The table is not very helpful to anyone looking for a game engine.

It just seems weird to me that there is just a yes or no for 2d oriented and there is no mention of networking support. It really would be more helpful if this table took some formatting from the gpwiki's table and stated what graphics are supported and how they are supported. (eg. OpenGL ,D3d ,Direct draw ect.)

Scripting

Why is there a different column for 'scripting' and 'bindings'? There's no difference. For example - in some entries, python is listed in the bindings column, and for others it's listed in the scripting column. If an engine provides a "scripting language", then it's also providing a language binding for that "scripting language". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.156.249 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC) You are correct. In every case I looked at, the binding was for the scripting language. These should be merged. Slacka123 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge from List of game engine articles discussion

If someone replies to this discussion, please notify me at my talk page. —Kri (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I recently created the article List of game engine articles, in order to make it possible to find articles about notable game engines using interesting game engine techniques, and also to be able to follow the technological advancements over the years.

Now a merge to this article has been proposed. Myself I think it would be a bit misplaced in this article, and I suspect that if the merge was carried out the list would later on become considered superfluous and as a consequence removed. It is stated already in the beginning of this article that it is about game engines "available for game designers to code a game quickly and easily without building from the ground up". This is not what the list I created is about; its main focus lies on different notable game engines and the technologies they introduced to the game development community. —Kri (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two major problems with List of game engine articles. First, it's composed mostly of original research and I don't believe that will ever change. Such details just aren't well documented. Second, the scope of that article is the same as the scope of this article. I understand you wanted to have a different focus, but if both articles were well written and complete, they could be the same exact article. Perhaps the article you should try to create instead is Timeline of game engines. Unfortunately, I still think this would be plagued by original research. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. What I originally wanted to do was to create a list of game engine articles because I knew the reading would be interesting. And when I had them all (well, not yet) in one list I thought I could as well make some small notes about the technologies they used. By maybe I should just create a category Game engines instead. —Kri (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that there already was a category called Video game engines. —Kri (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/Twilight Princess engine

Should the engine used for The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess be included on this list? Both games run on the same proprietary engine of unknown name, and both games are very well known. Snesiscool (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible vandalism? All External Links removed.

User:DreamGuy removed all of the useful links to external sites. Please discuss your reasons here before taking any further actions. NeedCokeNow (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for cleaning of some of the spam here. For example,V-Play and White-Storm: Lightning, seem to be using this page for advertising. However the links to sourceforge and github repositories of MIT, BSD, and GPL'd engines is useful and can hardly be considered spam.Slacka123 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

flowlab

why not add www.flowlab.io ?

176.40.177.102 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FlowLabs ooks like a great tool to teach kids programming. Love the visual flow based language. It's still in beta and I couldn't find much 3rd party information on it. After there is enough wp:notability, we can add it to the list. NeedCokeNow (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace Cross-platform w/ Sound, Networking, Physics

We don't really need 2 columns for platform info. How about we replace one, with data that could be filled with S, N, and/or P? Slacka123 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

id Tech and quake/quake2

quake is id Tech 2 not 1. quake and quake2 are id Tech2 , and id Tech1 is doom/doom2

why there is quake id Tech1? check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech

if you ever tried to mod one or both them you knew they are the same engines, just few improvements in quake2, really.

there is some reference I found:

http://www.moddb.com/engines/id-tech-2

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2011/04/28/a-history-of-id-tech

/iWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.158.226 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes,it took a little digging, but I found that id retroactively renamed their engine. Quake, QuakeWorld, and Quake 2 are all considered id Tech 2 [2] I'll fix the list. Thanks for pointing this out. Slacka123 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Call of duty series in With related games table

Call of Duty series should have its place in With related games table

like for such a huge, successful series it really should

Ogre 3D missing?

This is one of the most popular open source 3D engines, seems to be missing from the table. introiboad —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ogre is a 3D graphics engine. I think the reason it was omited is that the chart already has full game engines that use Ogre egine for graphics like the Axiom Engine, GameKit, and Jogre. The chart does mix game engines with rendering engines, but is it really necessary to include both?Slacka123 (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

software license & supported platforms

The article in its current form, concentrates only on the software license of the game engines. It says little to nothing about the supported platforms/operating systems. User:ScotXW^t@lk 08:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See my post about about adding a graphics and physics column. Target platform covered by supported platforms/operating systems. If someone has the time, Commercial and Freeware eventually should be converted to a format like the Open source software table. Any volunteers?Slacka123 (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

jPCT in the wrong category

jPCT is free to use but it is neither open source nor free, its source code isn't available.--Gouessej (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thannks for pointing this out.Slacka123 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the multiple links to external websites found throughout the article. Wikipedia:External links is clear that such links are inappropriate: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article ... Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." It is common for links such as those that I have removed to be removed from articles, lists, and tables. There is no reason for this list to be different and remain in violation of Wikipedia policy. Peacock (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Lists "Definition list formatting is occasionally used for other purposes..,(e.g., lengthy External links". The style guidelines for main articles are not appropriate for lists as their purpose is to condense information into easily digestible form. Just because you have done it before does not make it correct. NeedCokeNow (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Lists doesn't say what you are quoting. Is it written somewhere else? I didn't say that I have edited lists is this way before - other editors have done so, and it appears to be consensus that such links are not permitted. Can you please supply a link to a policy page that says otherwise? Peacock (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit question

What happened here? It looks like an entry was clobbered with another. Am I misreading this? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Scaleform?

Is this really appropriate? I can't see any sources calling it a "game engine"; it's advertised and used as middleware. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm clearly ignorant of the mobile sphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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)