3 ms·
I also think that in general game engines should quit trying to do everything and focus on specific niches. This makes the game engine simpler to build, which
by jackmott42 4y ago
I also think that in general game engines should quit trying to do everything and focus on specific niches. This makes the game engine simpler to build, which means everything can be better, and makes the games easier to build as well, by a large margin.
Rather than Unity and Unreal, I feel like we should have:
1. Game engines for 3D level based pre baked games
2. Game engines for procedurally generated 3d games
3. Game engines for isometric 3d rpg games
4. Game engines for 2d top down rpg games
5. Game engines for 3d space games
and so on
Some of these exist! Especially number 4, some people have build #3 but they did it on top of Unity, so you are still waiting 10 minutes for massive Unity stuff to load all the time.
- speeder 4y agoThere is one game engine for "isometric" RPG but that engine is not used anymore for various reasons. It is the "Aurora Toolkit" from Neverwinter Nights. As far as I know the only game that used it that is not from Bioware or Bioware-related companies is Witcher 1, that wasn't isometric anyway. (also I am not sure why they used that engine... since the game doesn't use Aurora Toolkit strenghts in any form...)
- somat 4y agoI am unable to remember the details but fun fact, the witcher 1 engine started life as mdk2. I don't think ether of the neverwinter nights games was isometric, I suspect you are thinking of what balders gate used, sometime known as the infinity engine
- speeder 4y agoInfinity Engine was 2D. Neverwinter Nights was a full 3D engine but the gameplay and controls were clearly descended from Infinity Engine ,at least the first game... (I didn't play the second to be sure). So it could do a 3D "Isometric", if you wanted to. As far as I know it is the only dedicated 3D RPG engine that wasn't intended to be controlled as third person "shooter" style controls.