Talk:First-person shooter engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First-person shooter engine article.
Article policies

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)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is poorly written, has many lists and is confusing to the reader. I suggest that this article recieve much cleanup. Should anyone wish for a complete rewrite, they should replace the tag. GreaterWikiholic 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FPS?

There is many absolutely non-FPS games (but TPS instead) in lists. Max Payne, GTA, etc.

[edit] Too large lists

Wouldn't it be enough to list the engine and the first game made using it?78.27.66.116 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Engine 2 is missing from diagram

There is a Serious Engine mentioned on the diagram at Year 2001. There is a Wikipedia article about Serious Sam 2 [1] which mention, that this game is based on a 'Serious Engine 2' debuted in 2005. The diagram did not show this newer engine. --Hardzsi (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The diagram is also very incorrect. For example the doom engine giving rise to the doom 3 engine is very incorrect. Quake engine--->id tech 2--->id tech 3---id tech 4--->id tech 5. This one shows the ID tree correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quake_-_family_tree.svg.Chris H (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of article

This article's scope is vague or misleading. You have a lot of games that aren't really "first-person shooters" as the genre is generally taken to mean -- some of the earliest games on this list are actually vehicle/flight sims. This article should either be cleaned up so that it only contains the first-person shooter genre proper, or you should rename and expand the article to include all first-person games. It's also unclear whether the article is about every *game* utilizing a first-person engine or about *engines* that have been used for multiple titles (i.e., if an engine isn't responsible for a dynasty of games, does it really count as an engine or just a monolithic part of the game?). Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Unreal3engine-berserker.jpg

Image:Unreal3engine-berserker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)