When can I call my tools which made by myself "engine"?

[seacoldheart]

When can I call my tools which made by myself "engine"?

[NOMADMAN]

I call almost everything I make an engine

No, but seriously, I would say something that displays reusability would be a classification of an 'Engine'

My two cents...

NOMAD

[NOMADMAN]

Oh one more thing, I'd say tools are tools (or editors) for life. An engine would be something that would be part of a software (game). Not per say a level editor, thats not an engine.

What's that 4 cents now?

NOMAD

[Darkwraith]

Wouldn't another engine requirement be that it has to pertain to one aspect of a project (i.e. graphics, AI, etc.)?

[NOMADMAN]

DarkWraith, for the most part Id agree, in 95% of the cases. But what do you call a game that has a single unit dealing with all the aspects of the game, or all aspects are in two. Whould those be something else? Not engines?

NOMAD

[Darkwraith]

If we consider the 5% as "engines," then what would Half-Life be considered as?

[NOMADMAN]

hmmm off the top of my head a 'game'

well id consider half-life to be in the 95% as its a mainstream game that I'm sure has engines all over it. (just look at the # of mods made from it)

To ******** what I was saying earlier, if a game has one module, class, whatever that deals with everything Id like to call that a 'game engine' but like i said I call lots of things engines

NOMAD

[Darkwraith]

I was just pointing that out because of the modibility of HL could almost be represented as a game engine IMO.

I think we need a clear definition of what a 'game engine' is.

[NOMADMAN]

I do see your point, and I have to agree. But the game Half-Life isn't an engine. The part that mods are made on top of are engines, it kinda like gutting an old game and putting a new one one top. IMO.

And I definatly agree we need a definition.

In fact we're gonna start (or have I already) splitting hairs here in a bit without a definition

NOMAD

[NOMADMAN]

I found this partial definition at extremetech.com

So let's get started by first talking about the key differences between a game engine, and the game itself. Many people confuse the engine with the entire game. That would be like confusing an automobile engine with an entire car. You can take the engine out of the car, and build another shell around it, and use it again. Games are like that too. The engine can be defined as all the non-game specific technology. The game part would be all the content (models, animations, sounds, AI, and physics) which are called 'assets', and the code required specifically to make that game work, like the AI, or how the controls work.

This article is found @ ExtremeTech.com

And with this definition I would take it to mean reusibility would be one of the only criteria for something being a 'Game Engine'. Now of coarse you could have a graphics engine as long as it was reusable.

So the 5% does not exist because I doubt you could make it reusible without have a near identical game.

NOMAD

[Darkwraith]

Now we get into the problem of what is a "near identical game." Is an RTT near identical to an RTS or are all games near identical because of the game loop and message handler portion? Is that chunk of code a "game engine?"

[seacoldheart]

Ok.
Now,who can give me a example about Game Engine?

[Electroman]

Well I thort I'd add this because you don't seem to have mentioned it yet:
A good game (from the developers POV) would be a game that is made on a game engine which the game engine can be split up into its seprate engines. e.g. Graphics engine, Sound engine, Control engine, ect... This way for the developer parts of the game code can easily be salvaged and used on other game projects.

If you want an example of a game engine the best one I'd say is Quake 3, because it comes with its own proof that its got a game engine (Voyager:Elite Force used the game engine, Notice: not the game but the game enige). In the case of Half-Life they were just add-ons/mods and they wouldn't caount as using the same game engine but would be said to be using the same same.

Hiya Darkwraith, aint been here for a while, A.

[Electroman]

I forgot to mention also a Game engine would limit you to creating games that are of the same genre. However something like a graphics engine can be used to make a game of just about any genre depending on the engines limitations.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

A piece of software that encapsulates some
function but can't be used without some kind of front end.

more jargon...

The hacker senses of `engine' are actually close to its original,
pre-Industrial-Revolution sense of a skill, clever device, or
instrument (the word is cognate to `ingenuity'). This sense had not
been completely eclipsed by the modern connotation of
power-transducing machinery in Charles Babbage's time, which
explains why he named the stored-program computer that he designed
in 1844 the `Analytical Engine'.

[Darkwraith]

Hiya Darkwraith, aint been here for a while, A.

That's what happens when you start college. (ASCS down now for my BSCS. Yeay!) Unless that is that you were referring to yourself...

DigitalError: Wouldn't that be called object-oriented programming?

[Electroman]

Originally posted by Darkwraith
Unless that is that you were referring to yourself...

Yea I was , I haven't been here for a while, thats probably why I didn't realise you hadn't been here much either (mind I did notice the lack of threads that had been revived from the 1990s, hehe). Yea I havn't been here cos I've started Uni now (Computer Games Software Engineering) and when I'm not been there I've been working. The course is great and I'm starting to learn C++ eventually . As for that game I made I'm trying to upload it still but my host is Sh*t and keeps cutting out, so I might have to wait till I get a new host.

Originally posted by Darkwraith
DigitalError: Wouldn't that be called object-oriented programming?

But isn't OOP the same idea as splitting games up into engines?? .

[Darkwraith]

mind I did notice the lack of threads that had been revived from the 1990s, hehe

But isn't OOP the same idea as splitting games up into engines?? .

Engines, objects... Its all good.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by Darkwraith
That's what happens when you start college. (ASCS down now for my BSCS. Yeay!) Unless that is that you were referring to yourself...

DigitalError: Wouldn't that be called object-oriented programming?

It's from the Jargon file.

You can see the same entry at dictionary.com for the word engine.

[Darkwraith]

I really think that we need a better definition. According to that, all objects (class objects) can be considered engines.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by Darkwraith
I really think that we need a better definition. According to that, all objects (class objects) can be considered engines.

Right, objects are engines, very small and simple ones, like that of a remote control car.

[Electroman]

If you think about it every game has a game engine (wether or not it was designed to have one) this is because if you take any game and strip away all the levels, graphics, sounds and give it new ones then you've created another game. And by definition this means that it was a engine.
Simply put an 'engine' would be any "useful" object/code that can be reused to create a different end product. I don't know if this is right but I would say if your going to call something an engine it should really be separated in some way i.e. in a class, in a .dll, be a .exe, ect... I suppose being in a seprate module would count as well and that would be where it'd differ from OOP. .

That'll be my 2 cents worth now .

[Darkwraith]

My feeling is that an engine is a chunk of code that has a interface, but also is clearly defined to have the intention of being reused. Furthermore, an engine must also be defined to cover some complete portion of a project.

For example, a graphics engine is defined to be an object or battery of functions that are called exclusively for graphics and covers all functionality for graphics.

However, I feel that this definition is still rough...