Template talk:Video game engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Excessive[edit]

Isn't this a little...excessive? Accelerometer T / C 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would take some work. With {{otherarticles}} we could replace this template if some work was put into cleaning up the categories. We would need to use Category:Free game engines for the Free/open source section. If we removed all Category:Video game engines in all proprietary engine articles and replaced with a new Category, Category:Proprietary game engine , we could use it to replace the Proprietary section. Then "Free game engines" and "Proprietary game engine" could just be subcategory of Video game engines. Finally with {{otherarticles}}, there would be no need for this template.Slacka123 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I feel that now that it has been divided by graphics and not just by license, that this template is now perfectly readable. Technopeasant (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Libraries[edit]

PLIB and Allegro aren't game engines, they are software libraries for game development. Cainamarques (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distinction between "games engine" and other, related software[edit]

AFAIK the game engine is the software, i.e. some algorithms, solely responsible for the game mechanics. Thus there are completely different game engines for First-person shooters, strategy video games, etc.

Besides the game mechanics we also need software to do calculations regarding graphics, audio, video, physics, vegetation, input-handling, you name it. Computer games are considered to be among the most complex software there is!

  1. Graphics: for FPS e.g., game mechanics calculates with vector data and 3D polygon mesh data. This 3D data needs to be transformed into a picture that can be sent to the computer monitor. This is called rendering. Well know rendering techniques used in computer games are rasterisation and (real-time) ray tracing. The software doing the rendering is called the rendering engine. The rendering is software completely distinct form the game engine. It augments the game engine, but since almost any computer games are played via Monitor, a rendering engine is obligate. And since it can be much more difficult to program an efficient rendering engine that some game engine, instead of pairing game engines with rendering engines, it is done the other way around.
  2. Audio: 3D audio effect and other techniques require calculations as well. Software doing such calculations, could be called the "audio engine". E.g. FMOD is software doing this. SoundRenderer as well but not for computer games.
  3. Other software augmenting the game engine, the most common term is game engine middleware.
    1. a physics engine is definitely NOT a game engine and cannot be considered to be such. It is a potential augmentation, that can be incorporated by a game engine. A well-known one is Havok.
    2. various: e.g. SpeedTree is software just doing trees.
    3. game editor: software to create the game levels and other game elements can be distinct such as e.g. GtkRadiant or heavily interwoven with the game engine.

Software such as CryEngine, that can be licensed, is much more than just a game engine. It is rather a software suite, that includes most of the above mentioned software and more. And when it is licensed by some 3rd party, the code for the "game engine", is probably the one being adjusted the most! CryEngine has more in common with an integrated development environment than with a mere "game engine"!

In the article Linux as a gaming platform we try to document the available software for Linux kernel-based operating systems and its history. It could help with understanding the facts better then this article ;-) Without the people interested in free and open-source software the Wikipedia would look much worse than it actually already does... if there was some good Linux wiki, I'd rather contribute there then here, because I don't like to see my work deleted. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saw this now after adding SpeedTree.. yes, a game with just trees would be boring.. but plausible/playable..? I do not know of any.. :) Should SpeedTree be omitted and not Euphoria? Both move ("engine"?)..? Both uses in games.. Same could be said for particle or other engines/middleware. I could argue for including or excluding, same for audio engines.. but let's draw the line there. comp.arch (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenRA[edit]

Would it make sense to add OpenRA to this template? --Ysangkok (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical interest[edit]

Despite understanding the desire to reduce clutter, the historical interest section has bothered me since it was introduced. By what criteria is one engine merely historical or not? Particularly given engines with their source code out can easily be used for modern games? It has also been really loosely applied, such that 2.5D engines like Jedi engine or Build engine are carted off there, while engines like GoldSrc remain in the main section, even though next to no one would use that over the modern Source engine. Many other engines are in the main area which are closed source and by companies now defunct, such as the Titan (game engine), and so not really in a position to be used. Thinking about it, I propose instead we have further subcategories for engines that are currently commercially supported, and those that now are now dormant and unsupported by their developer. Any thoughts on this proposal? Technopeasant (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Ion Maiden is a good example of why the historical section is not very useful. The Build engine is being used for a modern game! 192.252.229.230 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just would like to say that the new system of organizing by decade of creation is a good objective way of handling this. Approved. 104.246.222.186 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text-based /video/ game engine sections[edit]

I would like to see text sections added to this template. That might make one question the naming (including the word "video"), however, I believe there is cross-over among video games and interactive fiction. Anyway I am thinking to add things like ADRIFT and Twine (software) to thins under text sections. Feedback welcome. 50.53.21.2 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hi Panda619,

I noticed you reverted my reordering of the navbox. In March this year, I asked for input at WT:VG (see the archived discussion). I took Masem's suggestion and that's why the main split was between proprietary and free and/or open source, and subsequently ordered by decade, to provide a somewhat easy historical overview.

You reverted those edits, and it's back to where it was. I have to ask you rethink your actions. First, now we're missing a clear chronological view of when engines were introduces. Second, engines can be used in many ways; so making a distinction between 2D, 2.5D, 3D and 2D/3D, where some have just a single entry, is not helping with navigation. Third, it's not clear what 'historical' means to the general reader. Not even to me, what does 'historical' mean here? No longer used, no longer updated? If so, why make the distinction? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving my support of returning to Soetermans' version. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what's the point of chronological view, I just tried to make the template similar to this one Template:Animation editors, I have replaced "historical" with "Discontinued / Legacy", still may need better distinction I guess, I just think it makes the template more useful than release chronology and for engine being used in many ways, I think its categorised for its primary use case. Panda619 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Animation editors}} is messy and unreadable, as was the original version of this template. Soetermans's version was far superior. IceWelder [] 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]