Jow Forums approved game engines

He’s extremely arrogant

unity is the only correct answer

nonfree closed source software

Jow Forums advocates exactly -zero- pre-made engines or creation tools.
They want you to do everything from bare-metal, or in flavor-of-the-month language.

Would you do that though? That's the question.

Godot is optimized like shit.

IdTech 3

Can I write a browser game in Haskell?

>We
Do you contribute to it?

By writing a game engine.

so?

There wouldn't be enough space on the cloud for you to handle the garbage collection that would take.

QUAKEC

IT TECh1, bitch

Attached: winquake_mark_v_0002.png (840x525, 88K)

but would it be based? I feel like I could get a platformer going.

it would be retarded

>or in flavor-of-the-month language
Assembly or GTFO.

Attached: tenor.gif (220x199, 99K)

No user, I didn't say how would you do that, I meant would you yourself do that.

Making my own because they all suck. However I would recommend:
- Urho3D. Great, but no geometry shader or compute shader. Complex interdependencies between modules, not very easy to modify but easy to read the source.
- UE4. It's powerful but that's about it. Wouldn't really waste my time on it unless you plan to go pro for an AAA company, which you shouldn't. No proper support for compute shaders.

Do not use Unity. It's a crappy version of UE4.
Do not use Godot, it's OK for 2D (but then you might as well use gamemaker or whatever), but a complete joke for 3D.

Conclusion: just roll your own, pussy.

Attached: choosing an engine.png (3030x1436, 247K)

Don't make a serious effort to roll your own, it's too time consuming. Use Godot and please help by contributing to the 3D engine to make it better.

Godot, really

How many games were even made in assembly?
Roller Coaster Tycoon 1+2?

Well this was made by a fucking retard.

Godot shills in full force as usual.
It's faster and easier to roll from scratch than to make godot work correctly.
At least if 'from scratch' means 'tie a bunch of libraries together'.

almost every 3rd and 4th gen console games as well as a few 5th gen ones

Any game on handhelds until the DS, any game in the earlier generations and anything on arcade hardware, anything on early home consoles.
Modern games still sometimes contain a bit of assembler, but it's been phased out more and more since the 2000's.

This. It's not even self-consistent.

WHAT THE FUCK WHAT KIND OF RETARD DESIGNED THIS
>inb4 "me"

/vg/ are some of the worst """programmers""" you could imagine.
You shouldn't take their opinion seriously regarding anything.

found the guys who wasted time with ue4/vulkan

Use Godot user, it's the superior choice!

the amount of people recommending godot VS the amount of games finished with godot makes me EXTREMELY suspicious

I'm not "shilling" for Godot, there's nothing to shill for. It doesn't cost money. I would talk about some other open source project but none are as far along as Godot.

>It's faster and easier to roll from scratch than to make godot work correctly.
No it isn't. It's taken Godot this long to make a decent renderer with 900 open source contributors, what makes you think you can do it faster? Even Unity and Unreal took many many years of dedicated work from large teams of people.

>I would talk about some other open source project
so you're an ideologue who values something being open source over it actually being any good

You can get a decent renderer up and running a few months by yourself BTW

> values something being open source over it actually being any good
Something can be open source and good at the same time. But yes I do consider open source to a large part of why something is good, especially for the game industry which has a habit of reinventing the wheel for no reason, tossing out engines and rewriting them from scratch on a whim and wasting money and time doing it.

>You can get a decent renderer up and running a few months by yourself BTW
"Decent" meaning lacking any features and also being totally unoptimized.

No decent meaning it has features and more "optimized" than Godot after having a quick look at it
Open source has nothing to do with a game engine being good. Game engines are like, if you have the skill to make a meaningful contribution to the engine you might aswell be making your own engine instead of using someone elses

>Open source has nothing to do with a game engine being good.
Then why is your custom engine made from open source libraries that you tied together? Was it not good that you were able to get that code and do what you wanted with it?

>you might aswell be making your own engine
I'm asking you to please stop. I know it's futile but so many have been down this road and almost none succeed, ask /vg/ about this.

it was me though
this chart isn't from /agdg/, anyone who would create such a chart is not an amateur

I agree, but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Is this flowchart from /vg/? Eitherway it looks like shallow b8 to me (even by /vg/ standards).

Vulkan and dx12 are virtually identical, API-wise, and have virtually identical performance. Vulkan supports more targets (including mobile), though. Conclusion: between dx12 and vulkan, always choose vulkan (protip: never choose vulkan nor dx12, if you want to target them, use magnum or bfgx instead).
UE4 is like unity but superior in literally every way. At minimum you should be swapping unity and UE4 (in actuality I recommend against either of them, they're designed for teams of minimum 10 active professional developers and are a major bottleneck on small teams making non-trivial games).
Godot is just plain crap. Shit performance, shit concepts (GDNative is a joke, the scripting language(s) are all shit), shit assets for prototyping, shit shaders and shader support and shit pipeline.

I don't understand what you're talking about
I'm saying a game engine being open source is irrelevant, seeing game engines are for people too inexperienced to make their own
If you're an experienced enough programmer where you can be making contributions to Godot or any engine, you're experienced enough not to need it in the first place

If you have issues with Godot then please contribute to help improve it. It's an open source project, shitting on it publicly won't accomplish anything, people like you need to step up to put in effort to make it better.

I would have thought that same thing 4 years ago, but Godot has a lot of contributors of varying experience levels. The codebase is not actually that complex at this time, but it is growing steadily.

>If you have issues with Godot then please contribute to help improve it
That means running into the biggest problem with Godot; Juan. He hates anyone fixing his mess because it shows him up to be incompetent.

I didn't say anything about the quality of Godot, I said that an engine being open source is irrelevant
If beginners are making contributions to Godot that's a bad sign, not a good one

6502 and 65c816 Assembly
Anything else is faggotry

I'm not sure what you're talking about, he seems to have no problem accepting bug fixes. You need to work it out with him first over IRC if you want to do a bigger feature, so you don't break everything that other people are working on.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. Even Unreal is taking steps to open source their engine so they disagree with you too.

Godot supports 50 different render pathways, many scripting systems, a full editor (including things like material and mesh editing), a separate engine for 2D and 3D, features like custom language compilers (e.g. they're implementing a backend-agnostic glsl-like shader language, guess they're planning to support multiple backends in the future) and homegrown modules for most features.
I just need 1 render pathway (forward2.5), one scripting system (already implemented), a scene editor (almost done), 3D, a single shader language.
I also need my engine for one game (extend after use), while theirs is as generic as possible.
Also I don't need to homegrow everything, I just use bullet for physics (might consider physx now that it's opensource), stb libs, glm for math, assimp for assets, sdl for windowing, openal for audio, dear imgui for GUI, and slikenet for networking for example. This leaves me little to do: I already have automatic batching, basic scene management (bvh-based culling), automatic instancing, and good cache occupancy which is basically all I need to get started. Other features come on an as-needed basis.

Good luck with your engine, when it stops working for you, Godot will still be here.

It is irrelevant at least in the sense that every other feature ever > * > it's open source > nothing. Of course open source is a good point, but surely it's better if the engine actually works

That would require for godot to start working for me, looks like my engine is working better than godot already.

The infographic lists opengl as a 2D programming interface. What more more needs to be said.

>I disagree that it's irrelevant. Even Unreal is taking steps to open source their engine so they disagree with you too.
This is how an ideologue argues. You just mindlessly defend your position using any means neccessary. Maybe an open source game engine could be better than a closed source one, but Godot certainly hasn't demonstrated it and the dogmatic attitude of its proponents make me believe it even less

Not really, it's trying to argue that dx/ogl are sufficient for 2d but that they're too slow for 3d (of course it's bullshit and the whole thing is nonsense).

It's not trivial to write your own engine, but it's not difficult. Honestly? Most people can't figure out how to program a basic physic simulation, and that's where the brainlets get stuck. Try and tell someone trying to make their entity jump to look up the kinematic equations, and the response will usually be REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Open a fucking book, think about the equations for a few moments, and implement. Watch khan academy if you need to. It ain't fucking rocket science.

Nice to see another engine developer here
What scripting system did you use? I made my own for my engine

I'm sorry I don't see how wanting to have source code to a vital component of your product is being an ideologue. I'm not being any more dogmatic than the closed source engine vendors who insist on not letting you see the code even if it's causing bugs and fucking with your release schedule (lol unity)

Closed source isn't a dogma, it's just a practicality of business. Open source can be a practicality of business too, but it often ends up being a dogma, and you're dogmatic about it, not practical

that's not what it says
it recommends you use opengl/dx11 for hardware accelerated rendering if you're making a 2D game from scratch, but dx12 if you're doing the same for a 3D game

I'm not saying it's not doable but it is incredibly time consuming and very unlikely to result in a sellable product.

There is literally no good reason to EVER use dx12, you stupid microcuck.

No it absolutely is dogmatic when they refuse you source code even though you're a paying customer and there is a perfectly good reason for you to need it. I've literally been fucked over by this very thing so it's the opposite of dogmatic for me.

This is the biggest takeaway, and reason to use an engine. But truthfully? If you don't know how to use the dot product or cross product, and don't understand the very basic of linear algebra, get the fuck out now, no engine will save you. And if your in 2D space, and you can't use sin/cos and some basic trig, just stop.

You didn't pay for the source code you idiot, you paid for the finished product

As an argie I want to like godot, and certainly it has a nice workflow, but it's only for small or toy projects. The whole code is OOPcore linked list hell, no fucks given for performance.

Oh look, someone who actually knows how the licensing works! Shocking.

is this sarcasm
if you pay for a product and implicity expect them to give you the source code even though they never said they would you're just insane

yeah I'm sure you need max performance for your indie game

dxr

Yes and who benefits from them hiding the source code if it's causing bugs and breaking the game? We lose money because we have to delay the games, and they lose money because there's still no way we could afford to pay the ridiculous cost of a source license.

That isn't "how licensing works" it's dogma. Like I said not even Unreal is doing things the old closed source way any more because they realized it's fucking stupid and loses everyone money.

>do not use Unity, it's a crappy version of UE4
so it's a crappy version of complete horse arse then?

they are both equally horrible in every regard, UE4 is riddled with design decisions composed by a grannytranny and Unity caters to toddlers

you shouldn't build a game engine, you shouldn't use a game engine, you should write a game
if you at some point want to make another game, then you're free to rip out whatever you think you can reuse from your previous game, be it rendering or input or serialization or what have you, put it in a separate lib, continue to do this every time you make a new game and what do ya know you now have a framework of reusable components

make games, not engines

That is how licensing work you stupid fuck

If you're still here op there's one being worked on called armory3d. It's effectively a blender plug-in that lets you make games in your 3d software with eevee so your materials will look 1-1 how you made them. Also it's free and open source.

Cons though is it's very early in development

No it isn't. That attitude doesn't actually work if you're trying to stay in business selling products to programmers who NEED to be able to see the code. The only reason unity gets away with it is because they intentionally market towards art-heavy teams.

actually scrap that, Unity is essentially a more advanced Garry's Mod

I use UE4. Much like Unity, the bad impression of it comes from the mass of retards using it who have no idea what they're doing. Blueprints especially encourages this, with most minor/amateur games essentially being a bunch of blueprint tutorials glued together. Although it does have a lot of bloat, it's very customizable, so there's a lot you can do to tune it to your liking.

I can hardly think of an engine that isn't an OOP nightmare. But regardless there's a lot more to optimization than just using DOD, so I don't think it's too big a deal.

Yes it is, nowhere does it say you're allowed to request the source code
you're as nutty as Richard Stallman
I'd like to know what engine you had a problem with that you needed the source code for. Did they refuse to fix the bug? Or is this just a made-up scenario to fit your dogma?

You don't get it, it's not about being "allowed" to do anything it's about providing a product that customers can actually, you know, use.

Customers can use closed source products
You're literally just making up a scenario where they can't to fit your preconcieved notions

No they can't. You are talking about an integral part of the product that nearly always needs custom work done on it to meet deadlines. There is a reason Unreal's source is up on github, they didn't just do that for no reason.

It's not integral
How many fully functional Unity games are there?
tens of thousands
Pull your head out of your ass

not him but on multiple occasions when doodling with Unity i've had to either get source access to patch something myself or go to extreme extents to trannydance around a problem, most notably being the improper exposure of PhysX to the scripting API and no ability to interface the SDK directly

the only solution to this if you don't have source access is to pull in and maintain your own version of the SDK which has to ship side by side with the native implementation.

that, and writing a Unity application without microstutter is almost impossible unless you're ready to spend a minor lifetime programming your way around inherent problems

you can get source access to Unity?

What? The engine absolutely is integral to the game.

Unity works but, in my opinion, poorly. Their business model is also broken because it doesn't scale properly to certain teams which is why godot is gaining traction.

not without paying, no

Godot's gaining traction cause it's open source and people like you won't shut up about it
Unity works poorly, but that's what you get when you use a lowest common denominator engine
Real game engines are just C++ libraries

Do you have another open source engine I can talk about? Why don't you open source yours and become the dominant one, if it's so easy to toss some C++ libraries together?

no it's not, "engine" is a fucking made up tranny concept that holds only theoretical value. literally any composition of 1's and 0's can be titled an "engine" of sorts, you don't need to have an application that houses every game development tool in existance to make a game, stop being this retarded

My engine is not a general purpose engine, there's no reason to release it to the public
There's lots of open source ones out there, Godot is the only Unity-like I know of that comes with an IDE

>Jow Forums advocating godot
lol you all are shit devs. godot is utter trash. use unity or unreal for 3D games unless you want to roll your own engine or have some really basic graphics. For 2D your options are pretty much infinite and rolling your own shit with opengl becomes viable.

Unity is closed source and Unreal is too bloated for many projects.