Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Samiorga

Game Engine or custom game engine?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, JoeJ said:

In the former case there are many other limitations with physics that prevent us from doing stuff that would be fun (in a serious way, not just like the goats.) All this comes from lacking accuracy and robustness, shared by all major physics engines you have mentioned, leading to most game devs simply unaware of the limits.

Well, in those cases, if the tech is known and the game needs it, then presumably that game will implement it. But heavily physics-based games are uncommon for a variety of reasons that don't involve the tech side. Game engines need to provide a common set of tools that all their users want; they try to serve the common case, not the exceptional case.

And yes, for many users of the major engines, the status quo is "good enough." Apart from the AAA space, most games don't push the limitations of their engine in any particular way. And when they do, the pushing is in the form of "how many things can I have on screen at once" and "how much art content can I stuff into this game."

Edited by Oberon_Command

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
16 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

In my experience, animators usually want a lot of control over the animations of living bodies and are not typically happy about yielding control to the physics engine. When they use mo-cap, they want the animations to look like the mo-cap.

Absolutely no problem when physics driven! I can playback mo-cap with full accuracy, as long as it conforms laws of physics (which can be bended at will, e.g. by huge max muscle powers). If you have the money for mo-cap, you can still do it. But you can also handle situations when no mo-cap is present.

 

16 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

You can extend this somewhat to rendering, too. If the engine produces results that are physically accurate in terms of lighting, but not what the art director wants, then it's the engine that's going to change. Artist/designer/animator vision takes priority. "But this is what it really looks like" is not an argument that usually holds a lot of water.

Same here. As Realtime GI is what i really work on: You still have full artistic control, but unlike before, you can make it look real. (at least much more real.)

16 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

ounds great for indie devs without the budget for motion capture or lots of animators. Reminds me of this talk:

Haha, you've uncovered my true motivation :) ... may i once work an a game again, after all that tech... 

Overgrowth is great. It is one of those rare games that give me this 'plausible world' feeling. I really want this in games.

4 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

Well, in those cases, if the tech is known and the game needs it, then presumably that game will implement it. But heavily physics-based games are uncommon for a variety of reasons that don't involve the tech side. Game engines need to provide a common set of tools that all their users want; they try to serve the common case, not the exceptional case.

Yeah... i see this similar than the above too: It's easier to build a game upon working lows of nature and bend them at will than to start from smoke and mirrors. But that's not generally applicable to any game of course and much more subjective. So i would not argue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!