What is a "game engine"? - Java-Games

bvcheung@gmail.com wrote in news:1107536951.359120.64340
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> I'm curious as to what exactly a "game engine" is?


Think of it like a car engine. The same fairly standard engine can be in
many wildly different cars. However, if you want to build a semi then you
would switch to a different engine.

A game engine has ironed out many of the things needed to make a game
work. You can use it to create many very different seeming games. But
there will be similarities. There are different game engines and they all
could be used to create, for example, a shooter game. But they all have
different pros and cons.

So they are both empowering, because they free a developer from spending
too much time the guts of making things work. And they are limiting,
because you might want your game to do something which the game doesnt
have the ability to do.

They are a good place to start though. It can convince a developer that
they CAN make good games. And when they actually come up against
something that an engine wont do, they will be ready and motivated to
tackle it

Gandalf Parker

In article <1107536951.359120.64340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
bvcheung@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm curious as to what exactly a "game engine" is?
>
> For example, Quake is often refered to as a "game engine". But I am
> under the impression it is just a game that people add their own
> customizations to. As such, all the games built on Quake must be
> shooters.

"Quake" is a game. The game Quake runs on the "Quake game engine" -- it
is, as you say, one of many possible customizations to the QGE.

Other game engines may be more specialized (i.e., the ONLY game that
makes sense on it is Quake, or whatever) while others might be more
generalized (take a look at www.garagegames.com -- the Torque game
engine, which is mostly FPS-centric, but doesn't have to be.)

The thing about a "game engine" is that it supplies a lot of the
"infrastructure" that you need to make any number of games (for
FPS-engines, that'd be rendering, movement, gravity/physics, explosions,
projectiles, etc.), so you can focus on the "game" part (your
"customizations.")

> But I have also read that 1/4 games use the RenderWare "game engine".
> Because of this, I assume that RenderWare is some sort of API that can
> be used in many different style games (everything from shooters to
> sports).

I don't know RenderWare, but (a) I find the stat that 25% of games use
ANY one engine suspect and (b) yes, a full-fledged, generalized engine
will have an API and a number of tools to make it easy to write your FPS
or sports game or ball-rolling game or side-scroller or whatever.

> Am I correct? It seems that Quake is just a game and that RenderWare is
> a true middleware/API.

It's silly to bicker over whether or not XYZ engine is "true"
middleware, and accuse others of falling short in some way. It's a
continuum -- some GEs are better at some things than others, but they're
all valid engines. Quake-E is the engine on which Quake (the game) was
written, and it was released so that others could write games on it,
too. most people write Quake-alikes, but they COULD write football (or
at least rugby or whatever they want, on it. (When you think about
it, football isn't THAT much different from a FPS, in terms of mechanics
-- players move, a projectile is tossed, there are collisions...)

Then there's the whole world of MMO-game engines...

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

In article <1107536951.359120.64340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<bvcheung@gmail.com> wrote:
>For example, Quake is often refered to as a "game engine". But I am
>under the impression it is just a game that people add their own
>customizations to. As such, all the games built on Quake must be
>shooters.

"Must be?" Try playing Anachronox. That's an RPG. Sure, 95+% of
games based on Quake play like Quake, but that may not be
cause-and-effect. If you want to do a shooter, then you'll seek out
the best shooter engine, be it Quake/Unreal/whatever. You don't do
the reverse-- get an engine, and then try to figure out what kind of
game you want to make.

>But I have also read that 1/4 games use the RenderWare "game engine".
>Because of this, I assume that RenderWare is some sort of API that can
>be used in many different style games (everything from shooters to
>sports).

That figure sounds way too high to me. Yes, Renderware has been
used in a lot more games and variety thereof, but that doesn't mean
that it's necessarily the best tool for every job. See above-- if you
want to write a more general game, you'll go for a more general
engine. If you have a specialized need, you may choose a more
specialized engine that performs those specialized needs better than
the general engine. This isn't the engine driving development, it's
game design picking the engine. You put the cart before the horse.

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein

> This isn't the engine driving development, it's
> game design picking the engine. You put the cart before the horse.
>
> Nathan Mates


Great ****ogy. Thanks.

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>>Am I correct? It seems that Quake is just a game and that RenderWare is
>>a true middleware/API.
>
>
> It's silly to bicker over whether or not XYZ engine is "true"
> middleware, and accuse others of falling short in some way. It's a
> continuum -- some GEs are better at some things than others, but they're
> all valid engines. Quake-E is the engine on which Quake (the game) was

just to add to that with a current example - the doom 3 engine is said
to excel at graphics, while the half-life 2 source engine is said to
have much better facilities for other aspects of game programming
(physics, ai, etc.). to say that one is "more of an engine" or "better
middleware" than the other is - as was stated - silly.

they both make their games run. they're both engines. if you wanted to
choose one, you can weigh the pros and cons of each design, but
otherwise it's a waste of breath and electrons to debate which one is
more an engine.

indi

--
Mark A. Gibbs (aka. Indi)
Administrator
#c++ on irc.Rizon.net

http://ca.geocities.com/indij@rogers.com/
(temporary website)