[Category Request] Engines

Ever wonder what engine a particular game was built with? I sure do. So would it not be useful to create a new “Engine” category to let us link games to Source, Unreal, CryENGINE® 3 and other technologies. The concept category is not the place for game engines.

"  

The concept category is not the place for game engines.

  "

Concept pages are meant to be a catch-all and aren't specific to in-game concepts. So they should be totally fine for engine pages.

" Concept pages are meant to be a catch-all and aren't specific to in-game concepts. So they should be totally fine for engine pages. "

Being a miscellaneous category is the problem, at least for me anyway. If there was any element that I would think deserves a new category, this would be it. Engines are a core part of all games, so I can't see how creating this new category would be any less valid then say the “Objects” one, which could easily be assimilated into concepts. We also have “Games” and “Platforms” which I think feel like more appropriate places for engines, but at the same time don't really work.

I think I'm getting the feeling you don't see this as a necessary addition, and that's completely fine, It's your choice entirely. I'm only trying to help improve how data is organized on the site.

Another thought would be to give it a broader title like “Technologies” but that could conflict with “Platforms” and “Accessories” somewhat.

"If there was any element that I would think deserves a new category, this would be it."

 @LordAndrew said:

Races, species, and character classes are much more deserving of a new category. I've seen people create character and object pages for these because people don't understand the purpose of the different pages. As with engines, these are supposed to be listed as concepts. "

Races, species, and classes are all “Concepts” within games and fit perfectly into that category. A game engine however is not simply some notion or idea.

"Races, species, and classes are all “Concepts” within games and fit perfectly into that category. A game engine however is not simply some notion or idea. "

" @MattyFTM: At least a species/race page is needed. It just makes no sense at all right now (well since always). "

I can't see how creating this new category would be any less valid then say the “Objects” one, which could easily be assimilated into concepts

" @Rallier said:

" @MattyFTM: At least a species/race page is needed. It just makes no sense at all right now (well since always). "

It would be a useful addition. It is probably the biggest subset of the concepts category, and it would be very helpful to newer users who are unfamiliar with the concepts system, who are confused as to why a particular pokemon isn't a character. "

" edit: Oh wow the Pikachu page that was initially made for the Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow is completely flooded. 
http://www.giantbomb.com/pikachu/94-145/ "

" @Rallier said:

" edit: Oh wow the Pikachu page that was initially made for the Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow is completely flooded. 
http://www.giantbomb.com/pikachu/94-145/ "

I am sure I remember there being a comment on there saying to only add games that pikachu featured as an individual character, and to use the concept page for every other appearance of the species. Yet it seems someone has not only ignored it, but deleted the message too. "

But as Jeff explained, concepts aren't just for in game concepts. Our concept category is extremely diverse and handles a tonne of things from species (e.g. pikachu) to digital distribution software (e.g. steam) to real life gaming events (e.g. E3 2007) to gameplay mechanics (e.g. point & click) to character groups (e.g. Male Protagonists) to online services (e.g. Xbox Live) to box art designs (e.g. Showing half a face on box art) to naming trends (e.g. "Game" 64) to engines (e.g. Source). Engines fit perfectly into the concepts category. "

Your not following my argument here.

Uh, no. How do you consider a barrel to be similar to team killing? "

A barrel is an object and therefore incomparable. Strong Women and Xbox Live however, are related only in that they fit into no other category. Which is what the concept category was designed for. It is, like you said, a catch-all category. So engines fit in there too.

Concepts are the most loosely defined data type, serving as kind of a catch-all for pages and associations that don't currently fit into one of the other data types, such as a race of creatures, a specific in-game event, character abilities, and gameplay characteristics.

" A barrel is an object and therefore incomparable.

Strong Women and Xbox Live however, are related only in that they fit into no other category. Which is what the concept category was designed for. It is, like you said, a catch-all category.

Everyone already knows that.
 

@LordAndrew said:

So engines fit in there too.

" The discussion was about whether or not it needs it's own.  Saying it fits there because it has no where else to go is pointless."

Like franchises, in-game objects can be very broad or very specific, allowing for object pages as general as Sword and as defined as Master Sword. Objects include vehicles, weapons, and basically any piece of technology that lacks sentience.

The majority of games use a proprietary or unknown engine, and therefore the Engine category would usually be empty. That's a pretty good indication that it's too specific. If the staff ever changes their mind about that, then it should be trivial to port a concept to a new category. But as it stands now, Jeff doesn't seem to be interested in having the idea implemented, and it's unlikely you're bringing up anything that he didn't think of.

 How do you consider a strong women, to be similar to  Xbox Live?  You don't.  it's a catch-all category. "

Strong women is a concept, Xbox LIVE is a concept. Barrel is not a concept. "

Yes, barrel is not a concept at the moment, but If we merged objects into concepts it would become one, according to your logic.  What part of “catch-all” don't you understand?

" The majority of games use a proprietary or unknown engine, and therefore the Engine category would usually be empty. That's a pretty good indication that it's too specific.

• CryENGINE
• CryENGINE 2
• CryENGINE 3
• Unreal Engine
• Unreal Engine 2
• Unreal Engine 3
• id Tech
• id Tech 2
• id Tech 3
• id Tech 4
• Anvil
• Eclipse
• Infinity
• IW
• Game Maker 5
• Game Maker 6
• Game Maker 7
• Game Maker 8
• Abyssal
• Alamo
• Aurora
• BigWorld
• Blade3D
• BRender
• C4
• Coldstone
• Crystal Tools
• Dagor Engine 3
• DX Studio
• Dunia
• Earth-4
• Electron
• Elflight
• Enigma
• Esperient Creator
• Euphoria
• Freescape
• Frostbite
• Gamebryo
• Gamestudio
• Glacier
• Glacier2
• GrimE
• Hedgehog
• HeroEngine
• INSANE
• Jade
• Jedi
• Kaneva Game Platform
• Kinetica
• Leadwerks
• Lemon
• Lithtech Jupiter Ex
• LyN engine
• Medusa
• Monumental Technology Suite
• MT Framework
• Multimedia Fusion 2
• Multiverse Network
• Odyssey
• Onyx
• Phyre
• Q
• Quest3D
• RAGE
• Relent ENGINE
• RenderWare
• Revolution3D
• RPG Maker VX
• RPG Maker XP
• SAGE
• SCUMM
• Serious
• Shark 3D
• ShiVa
• Silent Storm engine
• Sith
• Source
• Torque
• Torque Advanced
• TOSHI
• Truevision3D
• Unigine
• Unity
• Vengeance
• Vicious
• Virtools
• Vision
• Visual3D.NET
• WGAF
• X-Ray
• XnGine
• Zillions of Games
• Adventure Game Studio
• dim3
• M.U.G.E.N
• Novalis
• Panda3D
• Unity
• World Builder
• Wintermute
• RGSS
• Wild Pockets
• Crystal Space
• ClanLib
• Build
• Aleph One
• Axiom
• Skylight
• Allegro library
• Blender3D
• Box2D
• Build
• Cube
• Cube 2
• DarkPlaces
• Delta3d
• DXFramework
• Exult
• Game Blender
• Genesis3D
• Genesis Device
• Glest
• ika
• ioquake3
• Irrlicht
• jMonkey
• Jogre
• Lightweight Java Game Library
• Novalis
• OGRE
• OpenSceneGraph
• ORX
• Panda3D
• PLIB
• Retribution
• Sphere
• Spring
• Stratagus
• Troll2D
• Verge 3.2
• Xilon Engine II

@Kamasama said:

...and it's unlikely you're bringing up anything that he didn't think of. "

...but that would be a poor name if it included things like objects. In the context of a game, it wouldn't make sense for objects or characters to simply be concepts since they are tangible entities. But anything abstracted from the game world is understandably a concept. "

A game engine however is not simply some notion or idea.

" @natetodamax said:

Strong women is a concept, Xbox LIVE is a concept. Barrel is not a concept. "

 

Yes, barrel is not a concept at the moment, but If we merged objects into concepts it would become one, according to your logic.  What part of “catch-all” don't you understand?

"

 ............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

" @IcyEyes: It would be more effective to list the games that use a known engine, but as I said that list would be very short compared to the number of games that exist.

Listing the connection between engines and games is irrelevant to the point of that post. No. You did not say that. Comparing list sizes is irrelevant too.

I also never said that Jeff has thought of everything. I just said he's probably thought of everything you've brought up, if not before your initial suggestion then likely before his response. Of course you can continue discussing what you'd like, but that doesn't mean it will have any meaningful effect on your intended outcome.

I highly doubt we can argue about where objects belong for weeks. In fact, I'm pretty sure I fully made my case unless you can contradict it. However, I only addressed that because you felt the need to argue it for some reason, but the use of the Object category isn't the real issue here. An engine does fit into the Concept category, and only that category for now, but the issue is if it is important enough to deserve its own category. Nobody but you says it does so far. But aside from engines, achievement systems are also technologies abstracted from a game's design (usually), as are SpeedTree and Games for Windows - Live support. Maybe if there were a more broad Technologies category some time in the future, those would fit as well. But I'm not yet convinced they are important or pervasive enough for their own category, nor are most development tools well known enough to deserve their own article. "

Your unnecessary nitpicking is the reason the debate could go on forever. I never wanted to argue about it, I was only trying to correct you and others. Your also using the word “abstracted” incorrectly, so it's kind of hard to understand you. If your meaning it in the way I think you are it's incorrect anyway. I've also already mentioned the idea of a broader “technologies” category.

" Your unnecessary nitpicking is the reason the debate could go on forever. "

It does takes two to tango.  How about we just pretend the above conversation never happened and start afresh, sound good?
 

}}}}}} AMNESIA {{{{{{

" @Kamasama said:

" @IcyEyes: It would be more effective to list the games that use a known engine, but as I said that list would be very short compared to the number of games that exist.

Listing the connection between engines and games is irrelevant to the point of that post. No. You did not say that. Comparing list sizes is irrelevant too. "

" @Kamasama said:

I also never said that Jeff has thought of everything. I just said he's probably thought of everything you've brought up, if not before your initial suggestion then likely before his response. Of course you can continue discussing what you'd like, but that doesn't mean it will have any meaningful effect on your intended outcome.

 I never said you did.  Your continuing to state obvious and unnecessary points. "

" Your unnecessary nitpicking is the reason the debate could go on forever. I never wanted to argue about it, I was only trying to correct you and others. Your also using the word “abstracted” incorrectly, so it's kind of hard to understand you. If your meaning it in the way I think you are it's incorrect anyway. I've also already mentioned the idea of a broader “technologies” category. "

IcyEyes is still going at it? I hoped that the lack of notification PMs meant the "debate" had ended.
 
Game engines and middleware should be separated only if a whole separate method of detailing the technical aspects of a game is implemented. Only then would it be necessary.

So let's talk about the idea of a Technologies category. Could that be a (more) useful addition? What items might fit into it?
 

Technologies:

• Game Engines ( Unreal, Source, id Tech )
• Middleware ( Havok, RAD Game Tools )
• Online or Digital Distribution Services ( Steam, Xbox Live, Wiiware, Direct2Drive )
• Software Development Kits (SDK, XNA)
• Text to Speech (TTS)
• Speech Recognition
• Downloadable Content (DLC)
• Joystick or Gamepad Support.
• Wi-Fi, Multiplayer
• Touch Controls
• Voice Chat

We could then add a new Technologies section under the “General Information” tab on a game page, right next to Platforms, Publishers, and Developers.

It's good that you want to improve things but...I think you're thinking too much into this.

 If you can't say something helpful, then don't say anything at all.

Lets stay civil about this please folks :) 
 
I understand where you're coming from here IcyEyes, the current database and categories in it don't cover everything. It is something the staff have acknowledge in the past, the database isn't perfect in the way it categorises and catalogues information. Sometimes a new category or sub-category is needed but ultimately for now we have to live with things the way they are until there is time / strong reason to begin re-evaluating the way our database categorises information and content. There is just so much discussion and debate needed when it comes to these things that a decision can't be made overnight. My guess is one day we will see the database expanded to include more accurate categories for pages to be attached too, but until then learn to live with what we have as best you can!

I certainly think a Technologies category is a more practical solution to what IcyEyes is driving at, but as Hamz said you gots to live with it the way it is for now - life's just like that sometimes. I think Concepts does the job well enough in the interim.

You're thread sounds like a $12 budget TV ad.

" Concept pages are meant to be a catch-all and aren't specific to in-game concepts. So they should be totally fine for engine pages. "

So we can't even have a discussion about ways to improve the system because Jeff said the concepts area should be fine for it?  I have no problems living with it the way it is, but why the hell can't we just have a discussion about ways to improve it?  This is a wiki site, right?  I don't care if it becomes a reality or not, I'm just looking for helpful input, but no one seems to have any.

In some respects, I do agree with IcyEyes. The database does need some more categories to organize it better. Engines would be nice, but I think organizing some of the more prevalent themes in the concepts (races, character attributes, health-related, attack-related, etc) should be a priority to organize. That's not to say engines aren't important as they are, but we should focus on the majority of what is already is in the database and then go from there. 
 
However, seeing how Jeff replied, any additional categories derived from concepts shall not be coming any time soon, so either patience or useless nagging is a virtue.  
 
When the staff wants input on categories, they will absolutely ask for it and I'm certain what you have already said hasn't been entirely ignored, either.