New Game concept/startup

tsuchinoko

Hello all,

I have a pretty basic question regarding an idea I've been toying around with:

Would it be a pain in the ass to work with the original Quake 1 engine for the sake of that mid-90's limited aesthetic, with the goal of doing a somewhat-to-complete overhaul in gameplay mechanics? Or, would it be easier to use, say UDK, and just mimic that mid-90's aesthetic?

So far, I envision the final result to be an adventure/rpg type game, but without any stat-based system. Mostly a blend of point-n-click mechanics, melee action, non-filmy cutscenes, and large world exploration. I have done no work in regards to anything 3D related, I've been mostly working on story and rough visual ideas. And I don't want to get in over my head, as I imagine a concept such as this can blow up in scale, requiring many more hands to manage. I have considered assembling a small team to work on this though.

I have experience with Maya, and have toyed around with Source's Hammer editor in the past, so I'm familiar with the general concept of game making. But all in all, I'm mostly contemplating what engine to work with?

This seems like the correct place to ask this question, if not, please guide me in the right direction.


Thanks,

Dustin

James Ordner

Someone brought this topic up on the Unreal forums not too long ago (regarding Unreal 1, not the Quake engine, but similar enough scenario). The general concencus was that you could generally achieve all the old graphical feel with any modern engine (use nearest-neighbor texture interpolation, etc), and that you would run into a lot of unseen technical issues by using such an old engine. Here's the thread for reference.

Justin Meisse

I guess it depends on your programming skills. iD Software released the Quake source code under the GNU open source license.

Check out Retro Blazer, it's built on the Quake source but replicates a Doom-like shooter
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqOKRLeKDts"]RetroBlazer - The Laboratory - Alpha demo - YouTube[/ame]

I'm pretty sure you could replicate the Quake look in Unity or another modern engine, you just have to artificially follow the restrictions that were in place during that era; much like how Shovel Knight sticks to the limitations of the NES. Of coarse, being a modern game they can break those rules when they need to.

Richard Kain

I would recommend "simulating" the look of the original Quake in a modern engine. Modern engines like Unity or UDK are flexible enough that you can get them to look any way you please. While there is plenty to recommend the original Quake, it is a very old engine, and a healthy portion of it is written in C. If you are going to dive into that, it would be much more of a programming challenge than a game development task. If that level of technical mastery is your goal, go nuts. It's open source, you can do whatever you please with it. But if your goal is to just produce a game with that "look", I would definitely stick to the strengths and ease-of-use of more modern engines.

tsuchinoko

@James Ordner: a very similar situation to mine, and the comments in that thread make a good point towards using a more modern engine.

@Justin Meisse: I've seen Retro Blazer before! I guess what that brings to mind is the fact that the original Quake engine is dominantly rooted in FPS mechanics, which I imagine would make it hard to do anything otherwise.

@Richard Kain: I think also what would help with the modern engine, is the ability for a wider range of nearly every aspect: lighting, animation, memory, etc. I guess the challenge would be to recognize when to "stop" development of certain aspects, in order to get that retro feel.


Thanks for the quick reply, this has definitely helped put me in the right direction!

Lamoot

I suggest you go with a modern game engine. They work on modern systems and they are better at managing assets (importing, preview, setup) along with usability improvements of their editors, no compiling to preview a game etc.

Out the top of my head, the distinct look of early FPS games is due to a few factors, here are two.

• Low-resolution textures with simple or no texture filtering
• Level geometry made out of brushes, which were more efficient to render but were limited to a grid in 3d space. A vertex couldn't have a coordinate of 3.9183 it needed to be either 3.0000 or 4.0000. This caused the blocky look and made perfect circles with regular brushes impossible.

To add another reference, there's a guy working on a quake 1 inspired stealth mod, looks awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxbWypUlQQg

tsuchinoko

Lucky enough, I found an image of a minecraft mod with the final style that I'm going for. The high quality lighting and shading works well with that low quality texture/polygon look, which is a combination I was worried about.

@Lamoot: those are two very helpful tips! One of the points bought up in the link that James Ordner posted, is that a younger generation may not understand and/or like that low polygon/texture look. That's not my ultimate target audience, but minecraft seems to work really well with them.

Clos3d

Simulating.... Will be VERY much easier in the long run

tsuchinoko

I've done a little more research about UDK, and one of the questions I have now is, which engine is better work with? Unity is another option, and I suppose Source SDK, but from what I heard it costs a ton of money to purchase the rights for it.

So far from what I can gather, is that currently UDK is more short-run friendly for smaller no-name developers looking to startup something, whereas Unity has a more constricting policy for their payment plan. The potential for the engines themselves seems to be equal, with benefits and cons of both. However, seeing as UDK offers the method of working on something purely for free until you're ready for launch, it seems the way to go.

Anybody have any thoughts?

Richard Kain

UDK is currently in the process of being phased out. At the moment, Unity is actually the engine of choice if you need a free version.

That said, Unreal Engine 4 (UE4) has a new subscription model that is much more affordable for indies than any previous incarnation of the Unreal engine. UE4 can be had, in its entirety, for about $19 a month. That includes everything, full documentation, technical support, any and all updates and upgrades, even source-code access. If you can afford the subscription, UE4 is a very reasonable and attractive package.

Unity is free for the basic package, but requires that you pay up for the full package. And certain key features are held in reserve for paying customers. One of the most common is the render-to-texture feature. This comes into play for a lot of advanced rendering techniques.

If cross platform support is a key point, and you don't need some of the more advanced rendering features, Unity is the way to go. If you can afford a little expense to acquire a license, Unreal Engine 4 is one of the best deals on the market. What really matters is how good a fit the engine is for the kind of project you're planning to work on.

tsuchinoko

See, I think I'm getting UDK and UE4 confused. I meant that UE4 is the appealing option, with the full program for a $19 monthly, which is pretty cheap. Currently, I imagine making it exclusively for PC. It would be nice to go for a mobile platform, but I think that would be a whole other beast to tackle.

I'm just trying to make something that works at the baseline. Seeing as I haven't had any sort of launch experience whatsoever, keeping the goal limited to PC seems tangible. And even that, I realize, will be a challenge. I'm using these terms with vague conceptual knowledge, but this thread is helping!