3 ms·

My point was actually something else. On one hand it seems they've been struggling with Unity on a big project (where source might have helped) and on the other

My point was actually something else. On one hand it seems they've been struggling with Unity on a big project (where source might have helped) and on the other she said how they made this little app with their own little engine. If you're building something simple and small It's easy-ish to build everything yourself. While if you're doing something big, the cost/benefit of doing it from scratch might be something else entirely. My point was that for the second little project Unity might have worked brilliantly anyway. Or godot, or maybe any little 3D engine. While doing the first thing for a client, with VR support and God knows what might have been really really difficult. Not sure if I made my point any clearer at this point really :D

loup-vaillant 10y ago
So, you need a more relevant example, right? I think The Witness might do it: it's a relatively big game, build with a custom engine. And it's quite clear it couldn't have been build with a classic engine such as Unity though telling why would be a bit spoiley. Likewise, Braid couldn't have been made with a generic 2D engine: its time mechanics are just too alien. Another reason why Jonathan Blow chose not to use any 3rd party engine is, he wants his games to last. He wants the ability to port them to new platforms, and that ultimately means owning the code —if only to separate clearly the platform dependent parts from the rest. (I hope he'll release the code at some point, so others can continue that work.) Being able to fix issues was also a reason. When you not only have the source code, but also have written the damn engine, you can fix anything.
- immigrantsheep 10y ago
  No, you missed my point. I'm perfectly clear why Jonathan Blow made it's own engine and why anyone who's capable of that would want the same thing. I was talking about the article and about some members of the game community and for that I have two criticisms First: in the article she says that they struggled on one very complex project while using Unity. And then she says (or that's my understanding) that she made a completely different project on her own engine. That's why I said apples and oranges. I can't build unity, u4 or frostibe from scratch but if you want Pong or a simple platformer, sure, I can do that from nothing. That would be me saying: "well I had serious problems recreating the Witness in Unity but look at my space invaders which i made in Elm for browser without an engine". The second problem I have is with some members of the gamedev community. Feel like a lot of people are ready to jump on the "I wish the source was available" train while very few of them (or at least that's my perception) know what to do with the engine source. Actually I could extend this point to a lot of advocate of the open source community. There is this false perception that anyone can fix anything that's broken because the source is available and yet a lot of those apps are sadly still very much broken and sometimes the authors of those apps have difficulties in finding people who might help them. But if you read any post about it online it's usually "closed source sucks and open source is brilliant cause we can always fix that anytime". Sorry, this is a lot of generalization and obviously not everyone is like that but I tried to make point clearer this time 'this all.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Okay. About the second problem, I think it is one of control. Source code access at least gives you a fighting chance. That said, I have used Qt a couple times, and never dared to delve in its source code, it's just too big. If I have a problem, I just work around it. If you want control over your engine/framework, you pretty much have to have written it in the first place.
    - immigrantsheep 10y ago
      Here I agree very much with you. With stuff so complex I can't imagine going through all that code. That's why I don't get people saying "if only I had the this or that source code".
      - loup-vaillant 10y ago
        Well, there is a middle ground: when you haven't written that big framework/engine, but could have, delving into the source code in an as-needed basis may sound like a decent option. Of course, you're hoping your framework is fit enough for your purpose, so that you rarely have to inspect it —if at all.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

So, you need a more relevant example, right? I think The Witness might do it: it's a relatively big game, build with a custom engine. And it's quite clear it couldn't have been build with a classic engine such as Unity though telling why would be a bit spoiley. Likewise, Braid couldn't have been made with a generic 2D engine: its time mechanics are just too alien. Another reason why Jonathan Blow chose not to use any 3rd party engine is, he wants his games to last. He wants the ability to port them to new platforms, and that ultimately means owning the code —if only to separate clearly the platform dependent parts from the rest. (I hope he'll release the code at some point, so others can continue that work.) Being able to fix issues was also a reason. When you not only have the source code, but also have written the damn engine, you can fix anything.

immigrantsheep 10y ago
No, you missed my point. I'm perfectly clear why Jonathan Blow made it's own engine and why anyone who's capable of that would want the same thing. I was talking about the article and about some members of the game community and for that I have two criticisms First: in the article she says that they struggled on one very complex project while using Unity. And then she says (or that's my understanding) that she made a completely different project on her own engine. That's why I said apples and oranges. I can't build unity, u4 or frostibe from scratch but if you want Pong or a simple platformer, sure, I can do that from nothing. That would be me saying: "well I had serious problems recreating the Witness in Unity but look at my space invaders which i made in Elm for browser without an engine". The second problem I have is with some members of the gamedev community. Feel like a lot of people are ready to jump on the "I wish the source was available" train while very few of them (or at least that's my perception) know what to do with the engine source. Actually I could extend this point to a lot of advocate of the open source community. There is this false perception that anyone can fix anything that's broken because the source is available and yet a lot of those apps are sadly still very much broken and sometimes the authors of those apps have difficulties in finding people who might help them. But if you read any post about it online it's usually "closed source sucks and open source is brilliant cause we can always fix that anytime". Sorry, this is a lot of generalization and obviously not everyone is like that but I tried to make point clearer this time 'this all.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Okay. About the second problem, I think it is one of control. Source code access at least gives you a fighting chance. That said, I have used Qt a couple times, and never dared to delve in its source code, it's just too big. If I have a problem, I just work around it. If you want control over your engine/framework, you pretty much have to have written it in the first place.
  - immigrantsheep 10y ago
    Here I agree very much with you. With stuff so complex I can't imagine going through all that code. That's why I don't get people saying "if only I had the this or that source code".
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      Well, there is a middle ground: when you haven't written that big framework/engine, but could have, delving into the source code in an as-needed basis may sound like a decent option. Of course, you're hoping your framework is fit enough for your purpose, so that you rarely have to inspect it —if at all.