3 ms·

Teams of 1-4 people making indie games are either: 1) Using an existing product like Unity or Unreal Engine or GameMaker. 2) Using their own engine but with ve

Teams of 1-4 people making indie games are either: 1) Using an existing product like Unity or Unreal Engine or GameMaker. 2) Using their own engine but with very basic graphics. "Ghost of a Tale" uses Unity. "The Forest" uses Unity. So yeah, it's not "that hard" if you use a product which has already had millions of developer hours put into it like Unity or UnrealEngine. Take away any prepackaged game engine and see if either of those two developer teams would have been able to make those games. :)

imadr 6y ago
I would add that using an existing engine rendering pipeline with shaders is way easier that rolling your own. Making a small software renderer from scratch is a very good way to get a good grasp on how game engines work internally.
bilbo0s 6y ago
Are there scenarios where using an engine would bbe a problem? I was under the impression most engines out there will do whatever you want to do. So I'm curious if people are still running into roadblocks because of an engine?
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Depends on the idea. I started with mods and early game makers in the 1990s then prototyping in C++ with basic libraries like SDL. To make Pong it didn't matter much. To make an epic 3D FPS the engine was a do or die decision.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    It was do or die, but you could pick an engine right? There are engines that will allow you to do a 3d FPS and make it look very good without ever having to worry about any low level barycentric coordinate issues. Isn't that a good thing?
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      It is good to have options. It's just that using an off-the-shelf engine means fitting your idea into that square hole. Or else you'll spend time fighting it. And for games imagined with a distinct visual style that may be a lot more or less work depending on which one you choose.
jcelerier 6y ago
> Take away any prepackaged game engine and see if either of those two developer teams would have been able to make those games. :) "When you're an adult you won't always have a calculator with you !"
giantrobot 6y ago
Why would you take away those engines? What does it matter that the games used Unity (or any other pre-made engine)? The point of a game is to make a fun experience not to reimplement every aspect of interactive software. Do you make the same comment about someone using standard libraries or frameworks? How productive would you be without system libraries or even an OS?
- saberience 6y ago
  BTW, I have ZERO problem with game teams using engines. If I were to start making a game now as an indie developer I'd almost certainly use Unity too. I was more making the point that starting by building an engine is a huge commitment and you need the skills and times (and the reason) to do that.
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    Your original reply to the GGP comment was: > So yeah, it's not "that hard" if you use a product which has already had millions of developer hours put into it like Unity or UnrealEngine. What point are you making? The GGP correctly claimed it's "not hard" for small teams to make games. The games they referenced were made by small teams. The fact those games used an off the shelf game engine is immaterial. There's no "point" to make about it. Your "point" comes off as a qualitative judgement about those developers using an off the shelf engine. If you've got no problem with someone using Unity what point are you really making?
    - dkersten 6y ago
      The article is about how hard it is to productize game graphics and the GGGP said its not that hard because there are a ton of small team games with great graphics. But those teams aren't productizing graphics, they're using an engine that had millions spent on it and a huge team which did it for them. I believe that was the point being made: that its a false comparison. Using someone else's hard work doesn't mean that its easy, just that you don't have to do that work yourself because others have done it for you. > Your "point" comes off as a qualitative judgement about those developers using an off the shelf engine. I didn't read it like that at all. In most cases, for most teams (certainly small ones), using an off the shelf engine is absolutely the right call, exactly because it means you don't have to solve the hard graphics problems yourself. But using an off the shelf engine does not mean that those hard problems don't exist or aren't hard, just that you can outsource them to the engine vendor.
MattRix 6y ago
Not sure if you realize it but you’re just making the same point that OP was already making.
gamblor956 6y ago
You are aware that almost all of the AAA games released in the past 2 decades have used an engine of some sort? Unity is popular with the indies, but Unreal and Frostbite have powered games with collective sales of several hundreds of billions of dollars.

imadr 6y ago

I would add that using an existing engine rendering pipeline with shaders is way easier that rolling your own. Making a small software renderer from scratch is a very good way to get a good grasp on how game engines work internally.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Are there scenarios where using an engine would bbe a problem? I was under the impression most engines out there will do whatever you want to do. So I'm curious if people are still running into roadblocks because of an engine?

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Depends on the idea. I started with mods and early game makers in the 1990s then prototyping in C++ with basic libraries like SDL. To make Pong it didn't matter much. To make an epic 3D FPS the engine was a do or die decision.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  It was do or die, but you could pick an engine right? There are engines that will allow you to do a 3d FPS and make it look very good without ever having to worry about any low level barycentric coordinate issues. Isn't that a good thing?
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    It is good to have options. It's just that using an off-the-shelf engine means fitting your idea into that square hole. Or else you'll spend time fighting it. And for games imagined with a distinct visual style that may be a lot more or less work depending on which one you choose.

jcelerier 6y ago

> Take away any prepackaged game engine and see if either of those two developer teams would have been able to make those games. :) "When you're an adult you won't always have a calculator with you !"

giantrobot 6y ago

Why would you take away those engines? What does it matter that the games used Unity (or any other pre-made engine)? The point of a game is to make a fun experience not to reimplement every aspect of interactive software. Do you make the same comment about someone using standard libraries or frameworks? How productive would you be without system libraries or even an OS?

saberience 6y ago
BTW, I have ZERO problem with game teams using engines. If I were to start making a game now as an indie developer I'd almost certainly use Unity too. I was more making the point that starting by building an engine is a huge commitment and you need the skills and times (and the reason) to do that.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  Your original reply to the GGP comment was: > So yeah, it's not "that hard" if you use a product which has already had millions of developer hours put into it like Unity or UnrealEngine. What point are you making? The GGP correctly claimed it's "not hard" for small teams to make games. The games they referenced were made by small teams. The fact those games used an off the shelf game engine is immaterial. There's no "point" to make about it. Your "point" comes off as a qualitative judgement about those developers using an off the shelf engine. If you've got no problem with someone using Unity what point are you really making?
  - dkersten 6y ago
    The article is about how hard it is to productize game graphics and the GGGP said its not that hard because there are a ton of small team games with great graphics. But those teams aren't productizing graphics, they're using an engine that had millions spent on it and a huge team which did it for them. I believe that was the point being made: that its a false comparison. Using someone else's hard work doesn't mean that its easy, just that you don't have to do that work yourself because others have done it for you. > Your "point" comes off as a qualitative judgement about those developers using an off the shelf engine. I didn't read it like that at all. In most cases, for most teams (certainly small ones), using an off the shelf engine is absolutely the right call, exactly because it means you don't have to solve the hard graphics problems yourself. But using an off the shelf engine does not mean that those hard problems don't exist or aren't hard, just that you can outsource them to the engine vendor.

MattRix 6y ago

Not sure if you realize it but you’re just making the same point that OP was already making.

gamblor956 6y ago

You are aware that almost all of the AAA games released in the past 2 decades have used an engine of some sort? Unity is popular with the indies, but Unreal and Frostbite have powered games with collective sales of several hundreds of billions of dollars.