Talk:First-person shooter engine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Title
Perhaps this article would be better named as first-person shooter graphics? If no one disagrees, I'll move this article within a few days. --Mrwojo 23:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I object actually. I think the name "First-person...." is too specific when the article lists non-fps games such as GTA and Max Payne. Perhaps "Graphics engines", "Timeline of graphical engines", or something similar should be used instead. K1Bond007 19:35, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Any of those would be fine, I was more concerned by the missing hyphen. :-) It could be moved to graphics engine and have 3D engine point there (and merge in its old substub content that languishing at the top of game engine). Rendering engine would be a disambig that would point there as well. --Mrwojo 20:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- That sounds good, but the article might be a bit big if we merge with that. K1Bond007 21:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually that's how it started. It was an article on game engines with heavy emphasis on FPS engine history, but at some point it was split. May be it's time to combine it back. I certainly don't mind. :)
-
-
[edit] Grouping by engines
During whatever era, I think it would be best to group certain games by engines. Specifically, Quake/Unreal and their games. K1Bond007 19:35, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Perhaps the engine could be listed first or somehow set off from the rest of the text in a different way? Some lists, such as RotCW/W:ET/CoD (Quake 3), are a tad hard to read. --Mrwojo 20:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Quake3 example you listed was why I wrote that in the first place. I'm thinking either:
1)
- Quake 3: Arena
- Call of Duty
- RTCW
2)
- Quake 3 Engine
- Quake 3: Arena
- Call of Duty
- RTCW
I also think that we should keep the games down to the "notable mentions" and leave pages like "Unreal engine" to list all the games. (So far I think we've done this) K1Bond007 21:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] UT2K4
It doesn't matter what the game attempts to be, the engine is what matters (UE2.5), which is different than what Unreal 2 is running on. UT2K4, while not attempting to be photorealistic is just as capable of turning out semi-"photorealistic" environments comparable to Doom3 and Half-Life 2. See games like Pariah, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and the website on Unreal technology. K1Bond007 22:12, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't it mean that we should include one of these games (metioning that it's based on Unreal Engine)? And I am still not sure that it included shaders and bump/normal mapping (I haven't played these two games you mention). Paranoid 08:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] weird classification
wikipedia has weird classification on graphics and game engines. I'd risk to say it doesn't make much sense. first of all we should have the 'graphics engine'. a type of it, is the '3d engine' or 3d graphics angine. then on top of that are built network, interface, etc. engines or parts that form a game engine. that is extra important since various of those engines are not used only for specific game types or even only for games.
[edit] Red Steel is misclassified
The game 'Red Steel' has been classified in the 'The approach to photorealism' category. It should be deleted from this category. The game was claimed to be designed with the 'Unreal Engine 2.5', but seriously, did you take a look at it's graphics?
[edit] Generations really necessary?
I just cleaned up this section, but as I was doing so I was wondering if it was really necessary. It's essentially a repetition of what was said above, using the "generations" classification that seems to be in vogue now. I say remove it. -- Koblentz 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
