The Quake 3 Engine

[Darth InSidious]

Simply put, is it worth trying to upgrade this engine, or would it be simpler, easier, and all-round less of a pain to create a whole new engine?

 

Thanks in advance,

-DI

[metadigital]

What do you mean "upgrade this engine"? Do you mean you want to do your own private modifications to the commercially available engine? You'll need to licence it if you want to sell a game based on it ... which would figure into your cost calculations to create a new engine.

[Diamond]

Either way, writing something from scratch should be the last option.

[Fionavar]

Off to C&C ...

[Darth InSidious]

Sorry, didn't realise it was in the wrong place...

 

What do you mean "upgrade this engine"? Do you mean you want to do your own private modifications to the commercially available engine? You'll need to licence it if you want to sell a game based on it ... which would figure into your cost calculations to create a new engine.

Yes, that was what I was considering, mainly because it is now, AFAIK, free. What I wanted to ask is it worth bothering with?

[metadigital]

You'll need to locate someone who has actually modified the Quake 3 engine ... you might receive a response sooner (and more frequently) if you post on a Quake 3 modding forum.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I believe the Q3 engine was released under the GNU licence... Basically put you can do what you want with it, but whatever you do should be released as open source.

 

Diamond, I disagree... Always write an engine from scratch IF you have the oppertunity, and time. Using other peoples engines is a cop out, and can cause major problems in and of itself.

[Tale]

Creating your own engines from scratch is expensive, time consuming, and a common way to be included among the majority of games that don't make a profit.

 

How would movies go if they had to hire never before seen actors, buy new cameras, and whole new stages and props for every movie they ever shot. A good way to save time and money is to use reusable resources, such as already existing engines.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Tale

[Rosbjerg]

Creating your own engines from scratch is expensive, time consuming, and a common way to be included among the majority of games that don't make a profit.

 

How would movies go if they had to hire never before seen actors, buy new cameras, and whole new stages and props for every movie they ever shot. A good way to save time and money is to use reuseable resources, such as already existing engines (art assets help, too).

 

How would movies go if they all had the same actors, same stages and same props? neither extremes are viable - though the core of your point remains, if you want to make a lowcost game, fast, without taking away content - use another company's engine.

 

But if you want to be ahead in the industry and push the limit (more profitable these days) make your own engine.

[Bokishi]

Making engines can be long ass, such as Source Engine that took 5 years.

[Tale]

though the core of your point remains, if you want to make a lowcost game, fast, without taking away content - use another company's engine.

 

But if you want to be ahead in the industry and push the limit (more profitable these days) make your own engine.

Saying that just using another company's engine makes it lowcost and fast seems relatively uninformed. Even using a licensed engine takes time and money.

 

And these engines that "push the limit" are made for the purposes of selling an engine or using an engine that you can use for multiple products of your own more than for making a single game. They're not about pushing any limits and that's not where the profits come in. It's about appealing to the needs of other developers and their customers and selling it off to them or cutting costs in a long term plan.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Tale

[Bokishi]

I agree with tale. Take Rainbow Six Vegas, it is no where near the graphic quality of Gears of War or UT3, but it is using the same unreal 3 engine. Getting the most out of that engine takes some knowledge and talent and money.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Creating your own engines from scratch is expensive, time consuming, and a common way to be included among the majority of games that don't make a profit.

 

How would movies go if they had to hire never before seen actors, buy new cameras, and whole new stages and props for every movie they ever shot. A good way to save time and money is to use reusable resources, such as already existing engines.

 

If you have the time and the money, IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO DEVELOP YOUR OWN ENGINE!

 

Using an existing engine is usually a mixed bag, games actually suffer from engine limitations, as the engine was never intended for the said job.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I agree with tale. Take Rainbow Six Vegas, it is no where near the graphic quality of Gears of War or UT3, but it is using the same unreal 3 engine. Getting the most out of that engine takes some knowledge and talent and money.

 

All of which revolve around very similair game mechanics, don't get me wrong it's always good to have a powerful engine to work with, but any engine is usually suited to certain tasks better than others, thus developing a purpose built engine can be a benefit.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

though the core of your point remains, if you want to make a lowcost game, fast, without taking away content - use another company's engine.

 

But if you want to be ahead in the industry and push the limit (more profitable these days) make your own engine.

Saying that just using another company's engine makes it lowcost and fast seems relatively uninformed. Even using a licensed engine takes time and money.

 

And these engines that "push the limit" are made for the purposes of selling an engine or using an engine that you can use for multiple products of your own more than for making a single game. They're not about pushing any limits and that's not where the profits come in. It's about appealing to the needs of other developers and their customers and selling it off to them or cutting costs in a long term plan.

 

What shocks me is how uninformed you appear to be on this subject.

 

The reason to use another companies engine is ALWAYS down to cost, if I was say making a game that revolves around shooting and I want some cool physics and I'm pretty much not going to go to any new places in a technology sense, it makes sense to use an already existing engine, such as source or unreal for this task.

 

While you make valid points in the arguement for using an engine, and why companies develop engines, this is not the sole reason for engine development, sometimes it simply makes sense to develop and engine for a specific task, much as one uses a spanner over a multi-tool. Different games have different requirements, and depending upon many factors a company is then driven into thinking about solutions.

 

Obsidian just for example are developing a specific engine for the aliens game, this I would assume is down to a variety of factors, of which I couldn't be certain about, but I could certainly make viable suggestions as to what they are.

 

I would most likely point the finger towards the simple fact that basically put, the money is there at the time to develop the engine, it allows obsidian to have their own technology and build upon that technology and specify that towards their desired design arc... Or simple put, we can't think about doing this because modification of the said engine would cause x and y, a bit like that overhaul of the graphics engine in NWN 2, lots of problems.... Not only that but it allows a company to also produce better products so long as the engine is of a certain quality. TORN was cancelled due to issues with the engine it used, I believe it was the lithtech engine(not certain on this being the actual engine). There is more freedom to design and innovate when creating a game engine for a specific game or style of game.

 

There isn't much difference really between IWD and Baldurs Gate 2, not when you take it appart from a technology point of view and that is down to technology.

 

There isn't much difference between Rainbow Six and Gears of War, not when you look at what the game is doing...

 

Vampire & Half-Life 2... The list goes on...

[Tale]

Do you even know what he wants to use Quake 3 for? Do you know he's not wanting to use it for purposes it was designed for? That somehow the technology is incompatible with what he's looking to do?

[Tale]

Second, I was talking specifically about companies that build engines "pushing the limit" as you'll see I referenced twice in response to Rosjberg. iD, Valve, Crytek, Epic, and even Monolith are those kinds of companies who make those kinds of games. Do you forsee Obsidian touting their 'limit pushing' with their new engine?

Edited June 11, 2007 by Tale

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Do you even know what he wants to use Quake 3 for? Do you know he's not wanting to use it for purposes it was designed for? That somehow the technology is incompatible with what he's looking to do?

 

The question is simple my answer isn't going to change, there is no point in using the Q3 engine for anything except perhaps a mod.

 

It's a dated engine that's not worth upgrading.

 

Now if it's just a small project for the sake of research then yes it's certainly worth using.

[metadigital]

I think the analogy can be put as doing up a house versus a new build.

 

Obviously, you can't renovate a two-up-two-down into a six bedroom mansion with a guest wing and a swimming pool. But, if you want to take a great little block of land and make the best of it, doing up an old house is quite workable. Think also of trying to make a Ferrari out of a Beetle.

 

(Requirements Determination is a valuable skill and will net you much money on your CV.)

 

Building an engine from scratch is a MAJOR undertaking. One can only assume that if the original poster is seriously considering it, then the Quake 3 engine isn't suitable in its current form, and will need significant modification. (Otherwise it's a ludicrous question.)

[Diamond]

If you have the time and the money, IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO DEVELOP YOUR OWN ENGINE!

...says the graphics engine programmer. I must say that's a very biased advice. Most developer teams will not have the expertise to develop a state-of-the-art engine. If you have time and money, license a better engine. A new one must be built only if it is more expensive to maintain any licensed technology.

[Rosbjerg]

[1]Saying that just using another company's engine makes it lowcost and fast seems relatively uninformed. Even using a licensed engine takes time and money.

 

[2]And these engines that "push the limit" are made for the purposes of selling an engine or using an engine that you can use for multiple products of your own more than for making a single game. They're not about pushing any limits and that's not where the profits come in. It's about appealing to the needs of other developers and their customers and selling it off to them or cutting costs in a long term plan.

 

[1] well, what's cheaper? simple as that..

 

[2] true - and I was arguing that you make a new engine to make more money - you seem to agree.

 

 

there's also originality in question - people have come to expect that hyped games have new features and better graphics than older engines can deliever.

Imagine if Mass Effect was made with the Halo2 engine - no one would be as impressed - in fact take a look at some of the threads here like "Best Game Graphics" and see what people look at. It's a golden rule in films, that every sequel must contain bigger explosions - what do you think the rule is in video games? (talking about pop-culture here)

 

And of course I know that games must be more than a great looking explosion - but seeing as we are both grossly generalizing - I trust you won't hold it against me.

[Tale]

Mass Effect is using Unreal 3.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Mass Effect is using Unreal 3.

 

uh huh... That it is, and ironically from what I have seen there is alot of shooting.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

If you have the time and the money, IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO DEVELOP YOUR OWN ENGINE!

...says the graphics engine programmer. I must say that's a very biased advice. Most developer teams will not have the expertise to develop a state-of-the-art engine. If you have time and money, license a better engine. A new one must be built only if it is more expensive to maintain any licensed technology.

 

Well if the team isn't of a level of expertise to make an engine then the company has made some bad decisions, but it does happen and when that is the case, then an engine is usually a better option infact it's probably a better option to sack these people and higher people who are able to do the job.

 

Perhaps my advice is biased slightly, but if you really do have alot of time and money engine development is a sensible investment. The company will produce better games as a result... I will always do better in my own engine opposed to someone elses engine.

[mkreku]

Civ 4 and Oblivion use the same graphics engine..