This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The worst game engine?

#51dementedlullabyPosted 8/9/2014 7:41:32 PM(edited)
Lemur_H posted...
Apparently the Wikipedia for Dark Souls lists Havok as its game engine.

The f^&%?

http://puu.sh/aKhkE/07b5b39528.png


And this is why Wikipedia is not a good source of information to quote.


Unreal had the worst texture pop in. I don't like it because of that. Unity is THE noob developer engine though. You can probably make a good game on Unity but the sheer number of horrid devs utilizing it makes me want to steer clear of the majority of Unity based games.
---
The passion of lovers is for death said she
The passion of lovers is for death
#52SilentHawk29Posted 8/9/2014 7:57:40 PM
Wikipedia is good as long as the article is sourced. It's probably the best, fastest way to find information on a subject.
---
PSN - Srikar || Steam - SilentHawk29
My car: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8583/86coupe.jpg
#53DiviDudePosted 8/9/2014 8:10:01 PM(edited)
SilentHawk29 posted...
Wikipedia is good as long as the article is sourced. It's probably the best, fastest way to find information on a subject.


Sometimes. In general, the less important the subject is, the more reliable the Wikipedia page. If it's something contentious or ideological in nature---about something like quantitative easing, for instance---then it may be properly sourced but can still be highly biased and very much unrepresentative of the professional consensus. I often find that articles emphasize somewhat strange things compared to mainstream thought and contain a disproportionate amount of fringe theory presented as consensus.
#54MackorovPosted 8/9/2014 8:09:22 PM
dementedlullaby posted...
Lemur_H posted...
Apparently the Wikipedia for Dark Souls lists Havok as its game engine.

The f^&%?

http://puu.sh/aKhkE/07b5b39528.png


And this is why Wikipedia is not a good source of information to quote.


Unreal had the worst texture pop in. I don't like it because of that. Unity is THE noob developer engine though. You can probably make a good game on Unity but the sheer number of horrid devs utilizing it makes me want to steer clear of the majority of Unity based games.


There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia and the fact that you'd rather believe an image posted than visiting the site itself kinda proves how ignorant you are. Check the Dark Souls page on Wikipedia. It clearly says Unnamed propriety engine.
#55dementedlullabyPosted 8/9/2014 8:26:25 PM(edited)
The fact that anyone can change information on wikipedia kinda proves how ignorant you are don't you think? I could go back and change it to Havok if I like.

Also what are you trying to say? Lemur photo shopped it for some reason? lol

SilentHawk29 posted...
Wikipedia is good as long as the article is sourced. It's probably the best, fastest way to find information on a subject.


The problem is the fact so many articles are not sourced. I don't disagree it is a good, fast way to find general information. But it is also not entirely reliable material.
---
The passion of lovers is for death said she
The passion of lovers is for death
#56MackorovPosted 8/9/2014 10:35:21 PM
dementedlullaby posted...
The fact that anyone can change information on wikipedia kinda proves how ignorant you are don't you think? I could go back and change it to Havok if I like.


And they'll change it back faster than you can blink in a eye. Go ahead and try it.
If Wikipedia is as open as you claim, why is it so rare to find any "graffiti" or wrong information on the pages? Because they know how to maintain the site and any changes made to it. What you see on Wikipedia is based on many sources and citations. If Wikipedia isn't reliable, neither are any external sites you want to rely on
#57KillerTrufflePosted 8/10/2014 12:39:10 AM
Mackorov posted...
dementedlullaby posted...
The fact that anyone can change information on wikipedia kinda proves how ignorant you are don't you think? I could go back and change it to Havok if I like.


And they'll change it back faster than you can blink in a eye. Go ahead and try it.
If Wikipedia is as open as you claim, why is it so rare to find any "graffiti" or wrong information on the pages? Because they know how to maintain the site and any changes made to it. What you see on Wikipedia is based on many sources and citations. If Wikipedia isn't reliable, neither are any external sites you want to rely on


So... you changed it to say "Unnamed" and just expected it to say? Cuz I just checked, and they "fixed" it again. Like I said earlier in this topic - good luck actually getting it fixed, because they'll just change it back.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#58arleasPosted 8/10/2014 12:47:47 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
Mackorov posted...
dementedlullaby posted...
The fact that anyone can change information on wikipedia kinda proves how ignorant you are don't you think? I could go back and change it to Havok if I like.


And they'll change it back faster than you can blink in a eye. Go ahead and try it.
If Wikipedia is as open as you claim, why is it so rare to find any "graffiti" or wrong information on the pages? Because they know how to maintain the site and any changes made to it. What you see on Wikipedia is based on many sources and citations. If Wikipedia isn't reliable, neither are any external sites you want to rely on


So... you changed it to say "Unnamed" and just expected it to say? Cuz I just checked, and they "fixed" it again. Like I said earlier in this topic - good luck actually getting it fixed, because they'll just change it back.


He did say they would change it back faster than you could blink an eye.... Maybe he should try blinking faster.

I use wikipedia for some information but I don't treat it like the "one true source for everything". I'm especially annoyed by the fact that you get congress trying to edit their own wikipedia pages, or worse...editing the pages of their competition (or other types of edit wars). The idea of a wiki is nice. If only people could be trusted to not be selfish scum...

Basically, if you're doing anything more serious than fixing obvious grammar errors, you can expect to have an edit war with someone.
---
http://raptr.com/badge/arleas/uc.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3635582762.png
#59Hicks233Posted 8/13/2014 10:51:49 PM
Bethesda's implementation of Gamebryo. It's been used in a variety of titles and used well but Bethesda's use is pretty clunky and awkward.

Source's movement tends to feel skittish.

UE3's texture pop in is bad but I love the sense of weight in movement and solidity/chunkiness on UE3 based titles
---
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=9458
So says Mr. Stewart.
#60myztikricePosted 8/14/2014 12:25:04 AM
Wikipedia still isn't reliable. You'll find on most wiki pages half of their citations are dead links.
---
Why are you always smiling?
'Cause it's all so f***in' hysterical.