Talk:Gamebryo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Description wrong
Gamebryo includes more than just graphics rendering. please abide by the manufacturers description that this is in fact a game engine.
whether or not it is a "full blown" game engine is an opinion. the fact remains that it contains more than just rendering capability and the product is sold as a game engine.
most companies who use gamebryo customize and tailor the basic package with help from NDL, thereby creating an even more flexible engine suited for thier specific game.
its function as the basis for game creation warrants its lable as a game engine and not just a single function renderer.
--Omniwolf 03:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating the information, see below. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV edit
The original poster above, Omniwolf, made some POV edits to the article, most notably the section below, which I removed. It appears s/he works for NDL. While that is fine, Wikipedia policy strictly prohibits POV (point of view) in articles. All articles must express a neutral point of view and, furthermore, are not forums for original research. Inserting your piece about the development of the engine would fall under that realm. The section I removed:
- ===Creator NDL describes Gamebryo:===
- Gamebryo is a cross-platform 3D graphics engine that is optimized and customized for PC, XBox, PlayStation 2, and GameCube. The programmer has access to the hardware capabilities of each individual platform. This proven engine has outstanding performance and all of the rendering, animation, and special effects features necessary to create any type of game.
- The Gamebryo run-time engine is a well-architected C++ API that features a hierarchical scene graph structure. Multiple culling and sorting techniques are available to reduce CPU usage by drawing only the visible objects. The flexibility of the engine allows simultaneous use of different sorting techniques in different parts of the scene graph.
Please don't insert it again--Wikipedia is not an advertising forum. I also notice that Omniwolf removed the cross-reference to RenderWare, Gamebryo's chief competitor. Again, that edit is considered POV and is just advancing one's agenda. Wikipedia is NOT a forum to advertise one's product. If you find any information that is incorrect, please feel free to correct it. But do not insert your opinion into any article. If you can't insert something without a NPOV, don't insert it.
Thank you, I hope you enjoy Wikipedia. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response
First: I do not work for NDL/Gamebryo.
I first noticed this articles existance while attempting to enhance The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. The oblivion article is something I have been attempting to expand for some time now and have had to deal with a variety of issues ranging from NPOV, to vandalism. Oblivion does in fact use Gamebryo as its base Engine. Someone had changed the referances to state that oblivion uses it only as a graphics renderer.
In doing research to correct this "fact" I read the old version of the Gamebryo article.
The original article on Gamebryo was in my opinion heaviliy POV and stated repeatedly that gamebryo was nothing more than a graphics renderer completely ommitting the fact that it is indeed a game engine. That is a complete mis-representation of the product. After reading the original article I honestly felt as if it was written to slander Gamebryo.
My attempt at editing was to insert the fact that gamebryo is a game engine; and also to add the correct website links, and the logo.
The purpose of the section you removed was not to advertise, but to show that even the products manufacturer is selling it as a game engine, and it containts more features than just graphics rendering.
However; I am more than happy to concede that this may have skewed the article too far into POV in favor of Gamebryo. This was not my intent; the goal was to bring more information into the article while attempting to keep it NPOV. But I am new to wiki, and my results are not perfect.
The current correct link to NDL serves the same purpose, as this links to the facts, so the section you removed was a bit redundant anyway.
I would hope that you keep the removed section here in discusion simply to deter anyone else from removing the fact that gamebryo is an engine. A fact that was glaringly missing from the original articles POV.
As for my removal of the renderware referance, I misunderstood its purpose for being there. Given the almost biased slant contained in the old version of the article I felt the renderware referance without any comment for its existance was an advertising tag added by gamebryos competition.
Re-reading it now it makes more sense since you left in the game engine referances, and the similar "see also" tag contained in the renderware article serves the same purpose.
I am content with your current version, it reads with a better flow and I would like to see it simply continue to be described accurately.
--Omniwolf 11:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm glad we got that cleared up. Sorry if I seemed harsh, but your edits really did look like they were done by an NDL employee. But, as you saw, I left most of your changes in. The section I removed, however, is completely out of place and shouldn't be re-inserted. It's a statement by a Wikipedia user and can't be traced to any citable source. To be honest, I don't even understand the title of the section.
- I actually wrote the original version of the article. I wasn't trying to slander Gamebryo. In fact, I was evaluating it for my company since we were considering using it. I guess whether or not it is a game engine depends on one's defintion of what an engine consists of. Many game engines include features like physics engines and host of other features that are needed for modern game development. Gamebryo doesn't have a physics engine, and of course some games don't need one. But MOST of what Gamebryo does is render graphics, which is true for most game engines. However, I don't object to your edits that point out it is an entire engine. I'm sure NDL would prefer that too. Since it includes tools to streamline the entire graphics development pipeline (that is, from creation to import into the game), I guess it's fine to call it an engine. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I don't even understand the title of the section It's the description of Gamebryo from NDL's site: "Creator NDL describes Gamebryo as".
Hence, your 100% right that it comes off sounding like an advertisement. I'm wondering if theres a way to reword it to insert more of its features into the article, but its not important. My primary concern was actualling in keeping the oblivion article from being abused again; Gamebryo is only one facet of that project. --Omniwolf 15:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like they left out a comma or two. It should read: "Creator, NDL, describes Gamebryo as:" :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I've updated the Renderware article as well just to spread the love around. Logo + attempted to clean up the flow. --Omniwolf 16:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gothic 3
The Gothic 3 article says G3 uses the "Genome engine". Does this engine comes from Gamebyro or is it completly different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.91.87.49 (talk • contribs).
- I have no firsthand knowledge, but I'd suspect it is something completely different. AFAIK, Gamebryo doesn't have any spin-off engines. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mac support
I'm not really sure what the supported platforms part of the article means, but several Gamebryo titles run on a Macintosh. Should the Mac be added to the list of platforms? 208.54.14.50 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NO Linux support
That a game runs in an emulator (or emulator like software) under an operating system, doesn't make it supported by that operating system. "Transgaming Cedega" is such an emulator like piece of software and unless the developers have explicitly claimed to support this way of running the software, it unsupported. Period.
I am going to remove the entry, and if anyone thinks is wrong, they should link to something that really proves that it's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
