The Question - "Which engine should I use?"
by Dark Tengu · 03/24/2009 (1:53 pm) · 30 comments
I am confounded by the amount of engines that are now available to the indie game developer. We now have so many options (much more than when I purchased TGE). Some of our options are more legitimate than others. Some engines seem to be schemes just to take your money (Lawmaker...ouch). As I see it, the most viable options are (not in any particular order):
Torque 3D
Unity 3D
C4
Leadwerks Engine
Various OpenSource Engines
Torque 3D - I think this probably has the most overall promise of the engines. Torque 3D has promised a lot and set the bar high. For my next project Torque 3D is currently my favorite choice. However, looking at the Torque 3D page, T3D appears to be nothing more than some graphical enhancements, web publishing, and Collada. No information about what makes the new generation of editors any better than what they were (a new GUI doesn't count as a significant enhancement - IMHO). The Collada tests I ran didn't seem to be too successful. The web publishing is definitely a cool enhancement with A LOT of benefits to us indies. Torque already has many strengths (networking ;) ). I am cautiously approaching Torque 3D as the main choice for my project, I just need to have some real answers on the work flow besides shiny graphics (no matter how cool).
Unity 3D - Hands down the most artist friendly tool. No source code is a turn off and a turn on. I always hated the excuse on the GG forums of "You have the source, you can do it." I would much rather prefer to have all the systems exposed in script. Adding features though, completely depends on the Unity devs. The biggest turn off with Unity3D is the price, $1500. Right now, I could get Torque3D for $505, much more appealing. I have never used Unity and probably never will. It didn't perform all that well on my Windows PC.
C4 - Seems to be one of the most promising engines around. Great CLEAN code. A highly motivated dev with a very aggressive release cycle. I would probably go with C4, but for some reason, the rendering engine gives me a headache and makes me dizzy (lol). Great price point at $350.
Leadwerks - Absolutely the best looking of the above engines. Sandbox editor is cool, but has some bugs still needing to be resolved. The price point is great at $150. Major problem is no networking at this point. Programming for the engine is extremely simple. No source with the base license, source license available. Very fast release cycle. If it had networking, this would be the no brainer choice for my project.
OpenSource - Lots of options available. I particularly like Sauerbraten. The absence of a lot of static meshes in the sample levels makes me very skeptical of the the performance though. Ogre looks amazing but it would take a lot of work to implement all of the necessary systems (I'm mainly an artist). Lots of other options available.
Well let me know of your opinions. It seems to be a great day to be an Indie developer with options all over the place.
Torque 3D
Unity 3D
C4
Leadwerks Engine
Various OpenSource Engines
Torque 3D - I think this probably has the most overall promise of the engines. Torque 3D has promised a lot and set the bar high. For my next project Torque 3D is currently my favorite choice. However, looking at the Torque 3D page, T3D appears to be nothing more than some graphical enhancements, web publishing, and Collada. No information about what makes the new generation of editors any better than what they were (a new GUI doesn't count as a significant enhancement - IMHO). The Collada tests I ran didn't seem to be too successful. The web publishing is definitely a cool enhancement with A LOT of benefits to us indies. Torque already has many strengths (networking ;) ). I am cautiously approaching Torque 3D as the main choice for my project, I just need to have some real answers on the work flow besides shiny graphics (no matter how cool).
Unity 3D - Hands down the most artist friendly tool. No source code is a turn off and a turn on. I always hated the excuse on the GG forums of "You have the source, you can do it." I would much rather prefer to have all the systems exposed in script. Adding features though, completely depends on the Unity devs. The biggest turn off with Unity3D is the price, $1500. Right now, I could get Torque3D for $505, much more appealing. I have never used Unity and probably never will. It didn't perform all that well on my Windows PC.
C4 - Seems to be one of the most promising engines around. Great CLEAN code. A highly motivated dev with a very aggressive release cycle. I would probably go with C4, but for some reason, the rendering engine gives me a headache and makes me dizzy (lol). Great price point at $350.
Leadwerks - Absolutely the best looking of the above engines. Sandbox editor is cool, but has some bugs still needing to be resolved. The price point is great at $150. Major problem is no networking at this point. Programming for the engine is extremely simple. No source with the base license, source license available. Very fast release cycle. If it had networking, this would be the no brainer choice for my project.
OpenSource - Lots of options available. I particularly like Sauerbraten. The absence of a lot of static meshes in the sample levels makes me very skeptical of the the performance though. Ogre looks amazing but it would take a lot of work to implement all of the necessary systems (I'm mainly an artist). Lots of other options available.
Well let me know of your opinions. It seems to be a great day to be an Indie developer with options all over the place.
About the author
#22
03/26/2009 (1:57 pm)
There was a price increase to C4 recently. It was only to new customers though and old customers got the updates for free. He warned everyone about the incoming price increase so I'm sure some people got the engine when it was cheaper. I'm not entirely sure it's a one man show though as Eric has used the word "we" when talking about the engine which would imply he has someone helping him. 
#23
03/27/2009 (12:23 am)
Yes, he definitely has some people helping him.
#24
03/28/2009 (5:51 am)
@Gerald: I bought my C4 license in 2005 for $100. I've never had to pay for an update and I am still subject to the old licensing terms from 2005.
#25
I was (hesitantly) ready to buy TGEA when I looked around more and found Unity and then C4 which I eventually settled on. We have no regrets choosing C4, the clean code, dynamic shadows and voxel terrains are a joy to work with.
One thing we decided was that in 1 year, C4 is going to have some great features and have a complete feature set, and T3D will as well - however T3D will NEVER have Voxel Terrain. With T3D ditching atlas and spending time on their own terrain system, I'm a bit surprised they didn't decide to go with Voxel Terrains which seems to be becoming more common for high quality and some of the expensive engines out there. (I believe cryengine or one of those uses it?)
Anyhow apart from that, the updates come quite regularly, and Eric is always helpful on the forum. The C4 license is much more attractive than the T3D licenses that were recently released, especially when you take into account free lifetime upgrades with C4.
Lastly regarding the 1 developer vs many thing - Having one developer means the code is always consistent, you have someone who knows the engine inside and out, and work is much more efficient. I have worked in teams and solo so this was my experience as well.
By the end of the year T3D and C4 will both be pretty good engines, however C4 has a nicer license and will have better features in my opinion. I really dislike T3D's new licensing, T3D basic seems like some sort of joke that is in place just so they can throw around more of the usual marketing rubbish (and often lies).
p.s. I've seen many people happily converted from TGEA to C4, I am yet to see one the other way around, but this may just be because they are posting on the private forums.
03/28/2009 (6:15 pm)
Figured I should throw my 2c in since I went through this a while ago.I was (hesitantly) ready to buy TGEA when I looked around more and found Unity and then C4 which I eventually settled on. We have no regrets choosing C4, the clean code, dynamic shadows and voxel terrains are a joy to work with.
One thing we decided was that in 1 year, C4 is going to have some great features and have a complete feature set, and T3D will as well - however T3D will NEVER have Voxel Terrain. With T3D ditching atlas and spending time on their own terrain system, I'm a bit surprised they didn't decide to go with Voxel Terrains which seems to be becoming more common for high quality and some of the expensive engines out there. (I believe cryengine or one of those uses it?)
Anyhow apart from that, the updates come quite regularly, and Eric is always helpful on the forum. The C4 license is much more attractive than the T3D licenses that were recently released, especially when you take into account free lifetime upgrades with C4.
Lastly regarding the 1 developer vs many thing - Having one developer means the code is always consistent, you have someone who knows the engine inside and out, and work is much more efficient. I have worked in teams and solo so this was my experience as well.
By the end of the year T3D and C4 will both be pretty good engines, however C4 has a nicer license and will have better features in my opinion. I really dislike T3D's new licensing, T3D basic seems like some sort of joke that is in place just so they can throw around more of the usual marketing rubbish (and often lies).
p.s. I've seen many people happily converted from TGEA to C4, I am yet to see one the other way around, but this may just be because they are posting on the private forums.
#26
"The engine source is (purposely) not well commented. I try to write self-commenting code as much as possible, so it's usually very easy to tell what's going on. You will not find code anywhere that is more nicely formatted. The game code has more comments, and we are adding more comments to each release. Some of the tutorial game modules are very heavily commented."
To me, I gathered that they were not commenting the engine very well so it would be purposely harder for me to change things. I haven't seen the code but when the developer states this as such, I have to believe him.
This may or may not matter to you if you are good at coding and can read C4's code. But it is something that one should be aware of I think.
Although I have not seen T3D's code either, it is being touted as:
"All code in Torque is easy to read and cleanly architected. Runtime code is C++. Tools are written in C++ and TorqueScript. Accompanying code is easily readable, fully indexed, and complete with hyperlinked documentation as well as dozens of samples for both programmers and artists."
I'd have to say T3D has an advantage when it comes to documentation if this holds true.
03/28/2009 (9:18 pm)
I at one time was looking at C4. I think all of us indies should be aware of what is out there. The voxel idea of terrain was what caught my attention. I thought it would be really cool to make caves by sculpting the terrain. I tried the demo. It wasn't very straight forward to me. But I was able to figure out how to use it with the help of some tutorials. I was expecting some really nice editor for making caves and dungeons. I just wasn't able to use what they had to do that. I followed the forums over there for awhile as well. One thing I read that was posted by Eric, C4's developer, was this:"The engine source is (purposely) not well commented. I try to write self-commenting code as much as possible, so it's usually very easy to tell what's going on. You will not find code anywhere that is more nicely formatted. The game code has more comments, and we are adding more comments to each release. Some of the tutorial game modules are very heavily commented."
To me, I gathered that they were not commenting the engine very well so it would be purposely harder for me to change things. I haven't seen the code but when the developer states this as such, I have to believe him.
This may or may not matter to you if you are good at coding and can read C4's code. But it is something that one should be aware of I think.
Although I have not seen T3D's code either, it is being touted as:
"All code in Torque is easy to read and cleanly architected. Runtime code is C++. Tools are written in C++ and TorqueScript. Accompanying code is easily readable, fully indexed, and complete with hyperlinked documentation as well as dozens of samples for both programmers and artists."
I'd have to say T3D has an advantage when it comes to documentation if this holds true.
#27
On a smaller project, a one-man team is more efficient. On a larger project, some things will be more efficient with a one-man team, but this means that one man is responsible for coding everything, which further means one man has to be an expert in every single aspect of a complex 3D game engine. Not very likely.
I've no doubt that this gentleman is an expert in mathematics and rendering, and knows enough about the other stuff to put a game engine together, but for a really useful game engine that will ship games in a reasonable amount of time, that's probably not good enough. Which is probably why we've got several people praising the clean code, but so far only a subway simulator finished to show for it, while people complain about the structure of the Torque code, but several games have been finished with it.
In fairness I think that comment meant that his code was "self documenting". This means it's readable and understandable on it's own, and thus doesn't require lengthy comments to be understood. i.e. descriptive class names, method names, variable names, well organized logic structure, etc.
This is an admirable practice, and something certainly worth striving for. I personally hate it when there's more comments than code because the code uses cryptic variables and function names. If you put enough thought into naming and structure you don't need many comments to understand it.
03/28/2009 (9:37 pm)
Quote:
Lastly regarding the 1 developer vs many thing - Having one developer means the code is always consistent, you have someone who knows the engine inside and out, and work is much more efficient. I have worked in teams and solo so this was my experience as well.
On a smaller project, a one-man team is more efficient. On a larger project, some things will be more efficient with a one-man team, but this means that one man is responsible for coding everything, which further means one man has to be an expert in every single aspect of a complex 3D game engine. Not very likely.
I've no doubt that this gentleman is an expert in mathematics and rendering, and knows enough about the other stuff to put a game engine together, but for a really useful game engine that will ship games in a reasonable amount of time, that's probably not good enough. Which is probably why we've got several people praising the clean code, but so far only a subway simulator finished to show for it, while people complain about the structure of the Torque code, but several games have been finished with it.
Quote:
To me, I gathered that they were not commenting the engine very well so it would be purposely harder for me to change things. I haven't seen the code but when the developer states this as such, I have to believe him.
In fairness I think that comment meant that his code was "self documenting". This means it's readable and understandable on it's own, and thus doesn't require lengthy comments to be understood. i.e. descriptive class names, method names, variable names, well organized logic structure, etc.
This is an admirable practice, and something certainly worth striving for. I personally hate it when there's more comments than code because the code uses cryptic variables and function names. If you put enough thought into naming and structure you don't need many comments to understand it.
#28
03/28/2009 (9:58 pm)
Well for one thing, C4 pretty much requires things to be written in C++. In Torque, you have Torquescript to use and several languages you can use in Unity. This makes engines other then C4 attractive for hobbyists and people looking to make quick little games. There have been a ton of iPhone games released on Unity.
#29
From what I have seen I would have needed to modify the TGEA engine to fix bugs and get things working (it's clear it was built for Tribes), however in C4 the gamecode is nicely separated so that you don't need to modify the engine in most cases. You would be pretty stuffed in TGEA's engine code without comments, the quality of it pales in comparison to C4's - T3D might be a little better, but keep in mind it is really TGEA2.0 and is NOT a complete engine rewrite.
The demo that comes with C4 is actually very heavily commented and has been quite useful.
With either engine you simply must know c++ to pump out a serious game, you are kidding yourself if you think you don't. But if you are not a C++ coder then you should be looking into something like Unity instead.
Anyhow each to their own, you could make a game with either of them just pick the one that suits your features and budget.
03/29/2009 (12:02 am)
It's true what Eric said about the source code - it is pretty much self documenting.From what I have seen I would have needed to modify the TGEA engine to fix bugs and get things working (it's clear it was built for Tribes), however in C4 the gamecode is nicely separated so that you don't need to modify the engine in most cases. You would be pretty stuffed in TGEA's engine code without comments, the quality of it pales in comparison to C4's - T3D might be a little better, but keep in mind it is really TGEA2.0 and is NOT a complete engine rewrite.
The demo that comes with C4 is actually very heavily commented and has been quite useful.
With either engine you simply must know c++ to pump out a serious game, you are kidding yourself if you think you don't. But if you are not a C++ coder then you should be looking into something like Unity instead.
Anyhow each to their own, you could make a game with either of them just pick the one that suits your features and budget.
#30
expecially if you're lookin to build MMO's.. it has a Dynamic Loading system built in for seamless zoneless loading of worlds.. no indy range engine anywhere on the market has this that I know of.
Only downside is I don't think it comes with source code. But you don't need source code to build games when you have a good scripting system for writing gameplay which it also has a very good one.
10/10/2009 (6:57 am)
The new Realmcrafter "professional" version engine is a better buy than either C4 or T3D.. and is less expensive than either of them and is just as capable in rendering and much more capable in networking.expecially if you're lookin to build MMO's.. it has a Dynamic Loading system built in for seamless zoneless loading of worlds.. no indy range engine anywhere on the market has this that I know of.
Only downside is I don't think it comes with source code. But you don't need source code to build games when you have a good scripting system for writing gameplay which it also has a very good one.
Torque Owner Gerald Fishel
Development Ninja
I look forward to seeing what people can do with C4.