Game Engines are Great for Game Developers.
Debate Rounds (3)
Many great games have been made with licensed game engines, these games may not exist, or have been as good, if they had to have created their own engines. A few examples of well received games that licensed engines: Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, Bioshock, Dungeon Defenders, Batman: Arkham City, Dishonored, Dear Esther, Gone Home, and XCOM: Enemy Unknown.
Take the Battlefield franchise for example. Although arguably good games, there is very minor advancements in the gameplay, graphics, and core mechanics from one game to the next, because they are all based in either the same engine, or very similar ones. This makes it easier for the developer to leave things as they were in the previous game and change the minor, mostly cosmetic things, such as adding more weapons, vehicles, or maps, and never taking the actual time to make changes the gaming community desires. If the games the gaming community is based on do not grow and change to fit the needs of the community, then the community will stagnate, as will the game producers profits, causing the gaming market to crumble, and throwing billions of dollars down the drain. We can see that diversifying the games themselves is required to boost the market by looking back at past generations of gaming whenever development was not the stagnant cesspool it is today. Back then, business was booming, and it was that ingenuity that has brought such success to the industry, and yet you are willing to throw all of that away to make something a slight bit easier.
My opponent states that "using a game engine such as [UDK and Unity] you can make a game will (with?) less programming knowledge", and later on he states that "by starting with a game engine you can... focus on programming and creating the parts of your game that make it unique." As a programming student, I know that you do not learn to program specifics first. You learn the basic steps of programming much before you learn specific things which could make a game unique. With all forms of knowledge, in a traditional setting one learns basics before specifics, and that is of course the case for the majority of students. Therefore, if one does not have basic programming knowledge, they would not have specific programming knowledge, and thus a game engine is completely useless, unless one already knows the basics, and the specifics. If that is the case, and making a game unique is as important as you say it is, then would it not behoove the developer to write their game from scratch, thereby reaching the highest possible amount of uniqueness?
I propose that it would.
1. Con claims the use of game engines have made games less unique. However everything you say about there being less unique games seems to be speculation. There were many many 2D platformers that were very similar, there were many very similar fighting games. Con hasn't pointed to anything that backs up his claim that there are less unique games now. I claim there is actually more variation in games now than in the past based on the growing number of genre.
2. Either way Con proves his own argument wrong by saying "Take the Battlefield franchise for example. Although arguably good games, there is very minor advancements in the gameplay, graphics, and core mechanics from one game to the next, because they are all based in either the same engine, or very similar ones." He is correct in saying the Battlefield games use different engines, for example the newest Battlefield 4 uses the Ice Engine, even though it's not using a licensed engine or reusing a older Battlefield engine it only changes minor things, as Con notes as well. This proves that licensing a game engine was certainly not the reason Battlefield hasn't change more from version to version. I believe this shows the developers wanted to only make minor changes regardless of writing a new engine or not.
3. Con claims you learn to program the basics before you learn to program specifics. This may be true but programming a game engine is certainly not basic programming. It takes very specialized programmers to make a good game engines. I believe this is clearly proven by just how much a great game engine like Unreal 3 is to license, studios spend millions licensing these engines, because they are very hard and time consuming for even expert programmers to code. However when programming unique gameplay on top of a game engine you don't need to know all of the low level code For example in both UDK and Unity scripting languages similar to Java are used to code the gameplay. The Engine then takes care of creating game builds for the different platforms, in UDK the engine will automatically use OpenGL for some platforms and Dx for others, saving the programmer from having to know both openGL and dx APIs.
Antichamber - ""Everything from how the world constantly changes and wraps around upon itself seamlessly, to the subtractive aesthetic and linework rendering has involved picking apart the Engine and bending it in ways that weren"t intended. Unreal wasn"t specifically built for this kind of game, but no Engine was, and I"m fortunate that the UDK has been so flexible to allow me to do all of this crazy stuff."
XCOM: Enemy Unknown - "Solomon said that due to the gameplay style, his team wasn"t able to prototype in a day like many shooter teams, but the process was still faster than if they had grown their own tech."
Many many more quotes here - http://www.unrealengine.com...
Xiigen forfeited this round.
Gluge forfeited this round.
Xiigen forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.