Why Would anybody pay for the Unreal 3 engine when there is Torque
by John Bura · in General Discussion · 10/01/2009 (5:53 pm) · 12 replies
With the release of 1.0 it begs the question why would you bother paying for the unreal engine? Has anybody used the engine?
#2
The "proven" nature of any engine/brand in terms of titles SHIPPED probably is a big factor for a lot of folks. I bought into T3D over Unity3D based on GG's track record, the size of the community, the availability of add-on bits and because I expect that the Xbox 360 support under T3D will be there in the next year or two when we're ready for it.
10/01/2009 (6:14 pm)
Haven't used any version of Unreal or Source, but cost was the barrier there... or we'd probably be an Unreal or Source shop. If I were hiring folks, I'd tend to choose the engine with which they had the most experience.The "proven" nature of any engine/brand in terms of titles SHIPPED probably is a big factor for a lot of folks. I bought into T3D over Unity3D based on GG's track record, the size of the community, the availability of add-on bits and because I expect that the Xbox 360 support under T3D will be there in the next year or two when we're ready for it.
#3
i haven't used unreal engine, i dabbled with unreal ed for an hour or so and found some very nice tools in that. i especially liked the view modes for shader complexity (different colours represented different render times) and the pixel density view to help identify if the detail was getting to spread out or was heading to over populated.
so that's what i managed to find in an hour of messing around.
it has a very powerful lightmapping system and also supports purelight. gears of war and it's sequel are still probably the most impressive games visually i've played.
it's all moot as i doubt most people here can afford to use unreal3 or the upcoming unreal 4
10/01/2009 (6:16 pm)
i don't think this will be a productive discussion. i haven't used unreal engine, i dabbled with unreal ed for an hour or so and found some very nice tools in that. i especially liked the view modes for shader complexity (different colours represented different render times) and the pixel density view to help identify if the detail was getting to spread out or was heading to over populated.
so that's what i managed to find in an hour of messing around.
it has a very powerful lightmapping system and also supports purelight. gears of war and it's sequel are still probably the most impressive games visually i've played.
it's all moot as i doubt most people here can afford to use unreal3 or the upcoming unreal 4
#4
10/01/2009 (9:56 pm)
The only think that i know is that Unreal Engines are very heavy, i never can run a game with this engine at full settings. 
#5
Also, kind of goes with the no one got fired for choosing Microsoft or Cisco theory as well.
10/02/2009 (4:41 am)
I am sure they can get a lot of direct support and training as well. While GG does offer these services and there are the forums, if you are paying close to or more than 1 million a lot of that is support as well as the technology. A lot of that knowledge at least here is wrapped up a few individuals who are mostly busy improving the engine. Also, kind of goes with the no one got fired for choosing Microsoft or Cisco theory as well.
#6
Hmf. No, I don't imagine they were. But they all *should* have been.
10/02/2009 (12:14 pm)
Quote:Also, kind of goes with the no one got fired for choosing Microsoft
Hmf. No, I don't imagine they were. But they all *should* have been.
#7
Someone who mod'ed Unreal or UnrealTournament from 10 years ago can easily jump into UnrealEd3 and not feel completely out of place.
This consistancey and quality in the toolset for over *10 years* plus PC and console deployment is what makes Unreal sell.
It also helps that Epic's own properties are great showcases of their technology and fun games to boot.
10/02/2009 (4:38 pm)
IMO what Unreal has done right year after year is not radically changing their toolset.Someone who mod'ed Unreal or UnrealTournament from 10 years ago can easily jump into UnrealEd3 and not feel completely out of place.
This consistancey and quality in the toolset for over *10 years* plus PC and console deployment is what makes Unreal sell.
It also helps that Epic's own properties are great showcases of their technology and fun games to boot.
#8
Sort of off topic but there is a great article on gamasutra about the history of Epic & Unreal. Its kind of inspiring, especially when you read Tim Sweeney's reactions on seeing Wolfestein and Doom and meeting the Id team.
www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4035/from_the_past_to_the_future_tim_.php
10/02/2009 (5:36 pm)
Sort of off topic but there is a great article on gamasutra about the history of Epic & Unreal. Its kind of inspiring, especially when you read Tim Sweeney's reactions on seeing Wolfestein and Doom and meeting the Id team.
www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4035/from_the_past_to_the_future_tim_.php
#9
10/02/2009 (7:45 pm)
well Tim seems to understand the art problem at least. i left another engine recently for not understanding the art problem.
#11
and to use the same excuse i kept hearing a few months ago. unreal looks good because it has good artists, arm any artist here with the right tools and experience at using them and they will match unreal3...
however there is more to that, unreal 3 uses lightmaps so you'd probably need to use purelight to match them for lighting. back on the last engine i was using they were hell bent sure you only needed dynamic lights. and that just isn't true.
i moved to torque because i wanted an engine that wasn't stripping out editor usefulness to make way for scripting. because we were sick of making our own netcode, our own gui editors, our own everythings while the developer messed around with making the renderer even more expensive. it looks good, but you can't ship a working game on it as the requirements are up at crysis level. i doubt anyone on this forum has the manpower or the funding to match crysis for art. would you want your minimum specs to match crysis?
10/03/2009 (7:27 pm)
did they port unreal assets to torque? i haven't played the first gears in a while the level looked identical, the shaders did not, the characters look very different. animations however looked identical.and to use the same excuse i kept hearing a few months ago. unreal looks good because it has good artists, arm any artist here with the right tools and experience at using them and they will match unreal3...
however there is more to that, unreal 3 uses lightmaps so you'd probably need to use purelight to match them for lighting. back on the last engine i was using they were hell bent sure you only needed dynamic lights. and that just isn't true.
i moved to torque because i wanted an engine that wasn't stripping out editor usefulness to make way for scripting. because we were sick of making our own netcode, our own gui editors, our own everythings while the developer messed around with making the renderer even more expensive. it looks good, but you can't ship a working game on it as the requirements are up at crysis level. i doubt anyone on this forum has the manpower or the funding to match crysis for art. would you want your minimum specs to match crysis?
#12
10/12/2009 (12:22 pm)
No. The artwork was created from the ground-up. It was not a Gears artwork port. 
Associate Steve Acaster
[YorkshireRifles.com]