Game Engines

samjc3

#1 Female Member
Ive finally decided to act on a game concept Ive been working on for several months. That requires deciding on an engine. Ive narrowed it down to 3:

Source
Unity
Unreal


In theory, all 3 should work for what I need.

I am partial to source, as I am already pretty good in Hammer, and I love Valve. However, theres some drawbacks. one of the main ones is level size. I know that hammer has the level size capped, and that the capped size is smaller than i need. I also know that the big levels can cause lots of lag. However, as proven by Half Life 2, the engine does support Dynamic loading; I just dont know how easy it is to get working. In addition, theres some modeling woes with convex objects.

Unity is Relatively new, and I dont know much about it, but looking at their tech demos, its pretty good stuff. It has some really nice features, if they actually work. There is the downside of the yearly $1500 license. however, that license allows full access to everything, and you can publish as much as you want, on any of the supported platforms (Mac, Windows, iPhone, Droid, Wii) with no extra licensing fees.

Unreal is good stuff. I know it can do what I want, and UDK is free, as long as I stay non commercial. Theres no downside here, so far as I know.

Bit of background on what I am trying to do:

Im not going into any detail here, but the gameworld will need to be able to change from grayscale, and blocky ness to colour and good detail. In addition, certain things would need to be blocked out, but when the world changes, they would become visible. (Like a doorway. when the world is greyed out, it would just be a wall. you couldnt see the doorway, but you could walk through it, because it is there, and as the world gains clarity the doorway would become visible). I am not sure which engine is best suitd to that kinda change. What do you guys think.
 
I would go with the UDK. Source is limited and Unity costs too much money (although the Unity engine looks really cool)
 
Source Engine and Unreal Engine are far beyond your abilities.
Unity, I think you could struggle through painfully, and slowly.


Game Engines are NOT POINT AND CLICK.
You open up a text editor, and your write code.
Lots of it.
It's programming.
This is not even remotely like using GameMaker or Flash.


If you want to make a serious, 3D game, using virtually any commercially available game engine, you're going to need programming experience.

UDK, you'd never get beyond *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing with Demos.
Unity, you might be able to make look pretty, it actually is a small exception in that it's got a point-n-click editor, but you still have to code.
Source, does 90% of the *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing work for you, and the moment you start off a project, you already have a playable game practically, and from there it's maps, adding your own textures and models, etc.

If you wanted to do this, try Source, good luck though.
Read Up
 
Jelly, I am not lost as far as programming is concerned. I have a working knowledge with C++ and I can use python pretty well too. And Ive read the Source SDK docs already. I do like source, but I dont know if it can handle the kind of particle effects I need. (limited to ~1000 particles per effect.)
 
Use Source, because I have Source engine games and I would be able to play it :p

Seriously though? If you've already worked with Source, then maybe it's best to stick with it, or maybe you've already figured out that it's too difficult or limited. Unity's portability is cool, but do you have $1500? I don't know anything about Unreal. Maybe it's best to try all three and get a bit of a feel for it first?

Jlee's advice is good. I've never got beyond point-and-click adventures myself.
 
Im currently playing around with Unity. I like it a lot. It feels much more approachable than Source. As for the UDK, Ive heard that the licensing price is brutal...
 
AfroLH said:
Source is a limited piece of flax engine.
I hate it so much.
Yeah. Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and Left 4 Dead, they all suck, because they were built with such a flaxty engine.
 
We've went over this JD. He never said the games were flaxty, in fact I recall him praising Valve's games many times. He said the engine was limited, which it is.

It is definitely limiting for other game developers, but it seems to have suited Valve's own purposes as well as the modding community quite well. Either way, its terribly old even though it has been updated, and I expect a successor to it or revamp soon.
 
Portal 2. Im betting it has a VERY reworked source engine. L4D2 added quite a bit of stuff, and changed quite a bit in the SDk, and I bet portal 2 makes that stuff good.
 
Zero said:
We've went over this JD. He never said the games were flaxty, in fact I recall him praising Valve's games many times. He said the engine was limited, which it is.
He said that the Source engine is a piece of flax engine, in addition to being limited.
 
J.D said:
Zero said:
We've went over this JD. He never said the games were flaxty, in fact I recall him praising Valve's games many times. He said the engine was limited, which it is.
He said that the Source engine is a piece of flax engine, in addition to being limited.

Engine =/= Games
 
Exactly, did you even read my post? I said he never said the games were flaxty.
 
Back
Top