New engine, or old engine?

[oplinger]

This would be a poll, but I don't think one question can do it justice.

I've been thinking, since New Vegas really, why are some games buggy? ...And well the answer varies from rushed dev time, to screaming fanboy rages.

But that's not what I made this thread for.

Some games are just buggy because of the engine. Weather it's too old and being pushed too hard, it's too new and not properly tested, or it's just not being utilized properly because the group using it wasn't the one to create it and has no idea what the hell to do.

So I'm asking you guys. Do you prefer a new engine with shiny bits for the chance of it not being buggy? Is that reasonable? Cost effective? Do you think it would really help in the end?

Or do you like an old engine that's been pushed to it's limits? It may be buggy, but my hardware runs it great! ..Is that reasonable? More detrimental to the company?

Do you think more companies should make their own engines, and have that be a staple of game making as a whole? Should we combine our efforts and make one grand engine for each genre?

Is a complete engine rewrite preferable to just tacking on more code?

...Or is it just not important?

 

[keybird]

Im more of a so-so on this issue. Graphics don't really make that much of a difference to me, but there are a few engines that have just been pushed too far. For example, the CoD series has been using roughly the same engine sice the second installement.

However, to answer your question, I would gladly take the less buggy of the two games.

 

[TheComedown]

I think the main goal should be to keep upgrading and FIXING an engine till its reached its used by date. The NV example I think it's perfectly fine for them to be using the same engine, but its been around for a number of years now and no one has fixed any of the bugs from the first time it was used, it suffers the same bug over and over.

What valve have done with the source engine is a good example of how I believe developers should work with the engines. They have pushed it too then beyond its limits, they are now (at least rumored to be) working on a new engine, hopefully they will be able to work with it for the next 6 years like they did with source.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm more with the "test-your-games-thoroughly-before-releasing-them" camp. This is why I still love Nintendo. You don't see them releasing massively bugged out games.

 

[octafish]

Source got fixed after its buggy debut, not all new engine games are bug free.

 

[oplinger]

Im more of a so-so on this issue. Graphics don't really make that much of a difference to me, but there are a few engines that have just been pushed too far. For example, the CoD series has been using roughly the same engine sice the second installement.

However, to answer your question, I would gladly take the less buggy of the two games.

A game engine is more than graphics. It involves physics, scripting, the entirety of the game.

I think the main goal should be to keep upgrading and FIXING an engine till its reached its used by date. The NV example I think it's perfectly fine for them to be using the same engine, but its been around for a number of years now and no one has fixed any of the bugs from the first time it was used, it suffers the same bug over and over.

What valve have done with the source engine is a good example of how I believe developers should work with the engines. They have pushed it too then beyond its limits, they are now (at least rumored to be) working on a new engine, hopefully they will be able to work with it for the next 6 years like they did with source.

Sometimes using the same engine for years is what causes the bugs, for example, the Aurora engine. It was great upon inception. NWN looked great at the time, ran well, It was great, just what the next step needed to be from the Infinity Engine. However by the time it got to NWN2, it started to be pushed too far, and became somewhat unstable. It also could not handle some of the features found in newer games, and to keep up, It had to do things that were giant performance hits, which also causes glitches.

Another example is the Warcraft 3 engine. Blizzard has been pushing that little engine so hard that it's starting to tear at the seams. Sure, they've fixed some of them (maxed out shadows no longer causes super computers to implode on themselves) but others were just sort of swept under the carpet. For example it cannot handle some texturing techniques thought to be the norm. Granted Blizzard can't really overhaul WoW, but the point still stands that pushing an engine and refining it over the years has its setbacks.

 

[blxtnsq]

I like the pre-established engines like Unreal purely because they are fairly stable and have a wide range of games showing off different tricks they can do with the engine.
I'm not against new engines, I can't wait to see the next gen ones but I find it pointless spending time and effort creating a new engine when there are pre-existing ones that do the job just as well.