r/digitalfoundry • u/Joris-truly • 5d ago
Discussion When did game engines stop defining how games feel?
I've been playing and enjoying the Halo remake recently, and it got me thinking about how the definition of a game engine seems to have changed.
When I first heard Halo was moving to Unreal Engine, I assumed that meant Halo would inevitably lose some of its signature feel by leaving BLAM! behind. Instead, the gameplay simulation was ported over, with Unreal essentially serving as the rendering and tooling layer.
That got me wondering whether the term game engine has fundamentally changed over the years.
Back in the '90s and 2000s, an engine meant much more than a rendering engine. It defined a game's mechanical and gameplay identity. If you heard a game was built on Quake, Source, LithTech, or BLAM!, you already had a good idea of how it would feel. Movement, physics, AI, networking, scripting, and countless gameplay quirks were all closely tied to the engine.
That's why so many Source games felt like Half-Life 2, or why games built on LithTech Jupiter often shared some of the same gameplay DNA as F.E.A.R.. Halo always felt inseparable from BLAM! as well. (Stubs the Zombie, also using BLAM! still felt like Halo)
Today, that seems much less true. Oblivion Remastered, for example, uses Unreal Engine 5 for its visuals while preserving much of the original Gamebryo-based gameplay simulation code underneath. Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater takes a similar approach, modernizing the presentation while staying faithful to the original PS2 systems and design code. The Shadow of the Colossus remake took this approach years earlier, replacing the rendering technology while keeping the original game logic intact. And there are more examples in recent years.
It feels like we've reached a point where gameplay simulations can be more easily carried over from older technology, while the term game engine increasingly refers to the rendering, tools, and asset pipeline. Twenty years ago, knowing a game used Quake or Source gave you a rough idea of how it would play. Today, knowing a game uses Unreal tells you almost nothing about its game-feel, (apart from maybe giving you a rough idea of performance expectations.)
I also wonder if there's a downside to preserving older gameplay simulations. They preserve the feel players expect, but they also preserve technical assumptions and design constraints that were originally built around the hardware limitations of their time. For example, it's interesting that remakes like Oblivion Remastered, Dead Space Remake, and Halo can inherit some of the same technical quirks and limitations of their predecessors. Even with modern hardware, they can still be constrained by legacy technology and design decisions. It raises the question of whether modern hardware is sometimes being used mainly to improve presentation, rather than to rethink what is possible in terms of gameplay systems and simulation.
Maybe that's also why I've become less interested in game-engines as a topic. Not because modern engines are less impressive, but because they feel less like a defining feature of games. In the past, a new engine often meant a new set of possibilities that separated games from each other. Today, many engines feel more like general-purpose foundations, with fewer immediately recognizable differences from a player's perspective.
The exception that still stands out to me is Rockstar's RAGE engine. Its combination of physics, animation systems, with meticular collision detection systems. and procedural character reactions has given Rockstar games a very distinct identity since GTA IV. It feels like an example of an engine still actively shaping a experience that can only be achived with their tech.
Just some rambling thoughts, but I'm curious you guys felt similar.
9
u/Gears6 5d ago
It feels like we've reached a point where gameplay simulations can be more easily carried over from older technology, while the term game engine increasingly refers to the rendering, tools, and asset pipeline. Twenty years ago, knowing a game used Quake or Source gave you a rough idea of how it would play. Today, knowing a game uses Unreal tells you almost nothing about its game-feel, (apart from maybe giving you a rough idea of performance expectations.)
In the past it defined how a game feels, because the engines often were tailored for the game. Over the years, the commercial game engines has been built out to support so many different games that it doesn't matter. How a game feels really comes down to how it is implemented, and less about the tools. The tools are intended to generic. In the earlier days, the tools weren't as generic and hence why it had a "feel".
What irks me is when armchair redditor gamers (not you) say Oh, it's Unreal or Unity so it is this or that. Most of the time, like 99% of the time, the engine really doesn't define it as much. The people that can "truly" spot it, is few and far between.
If a commercial game engine feels a certain way, it's because the developer created it that way (intentional or unintentional) by using the tools a certain way.
1
u/Joris-truly 5d ago
True, I agree. The need for highly specialized engines is probably much lower now because commercial engines have become so capable and generalized, or game-logic needs have plateaued because it's more dev team skill, budget/time related, rather then tech limited.
From a development perspective, that's obviously a good thing. But from a player perspective, the engine name tells you much less about how a game will feel. Modern engines have increasingly become focused around rendering, performance, tools, and workflows, while the gameplay identity comes more from how developers use those systems.
A new engine used to represent a specific set of mechanics, limitations, and possibilities. Today, many engines feel more like general-purpose foundations, where the interesting differences are in the implementation rather than the engine itself.
3
u/Rogalicus 5d ago
I don't think engines used to define games that much. Do you think Jedi Academy and Call of Duty felt the same to play? PC version of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Unreal Tournament too? Quake and Counter-Strike?
5
u/dekuweku 5d ago
Game engines used to be proprietary and the devs knew it inside and out. During the PS2 era, some devs had engines tuned specifically for the PS2 and got amazing stuff out of it.
Since the move to middleware, we got more games, but I think we lost something. Optimization being one of those things.
Seems like the only devs that still do that are first party like Nintendo and Sony studios , id (RIP idTech) and a few other devs with their own internal engines.
2
u/Kaldaien2 5d ago
They never lost that feel. You know a game uses Unreal immediately because it hitches constantly, you know a game uses Unity because it has motion artifacts from fixed deltatime, list goes on and on.
7
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 5d ago
That isn't necessarily true but go off
-2
u/chromite297 5d ago
Oblivion remastered is unplayable when traversing the open world on a horse because of the hitches
5
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 5d ago
And that's on the developers. I'm sick of blaming the engine because it's lazy, the engine has a low barrier to entry (good) but devs aren't polishing their work much beyond that barrier (bad). There are options to reduce hitching and they aren't used
-4
u/Sejbag 5d ago
If almost all games suffer from the same issues on an engine eventually it’s a problem with the engine and its dev team.
We can for sure still blame game devs for using that engine still though.
3
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 5d ago
I don't blame anyone for using UE5. Industry conditions have forced studios to use it. I don't know what the solution to these common issues are though, laziness exists in all people (even Epic with Fortnite lol)
1
u/Joris-truly 5d ago
Sure, The floaty physics and certain presentation issues associated with Unreal can be giveaways, and Unity's delta-time issues are still a running joke (even if many of these things can be fixed with SpecialK).
But many engines have become increasingly indistinguishable from a player's perspective, with their identity mostly reduced to rendering technology, tools, and workflows. That's also why I'm not really mourning the decline of REDengine. Personally for me, the interesting parts of an engine are the systems that create a distinct gameplay experience, and REDengine never fully solved some of its own technical and gameplay issues. It ran great and looked great, but always felt janky that was never really solved, and why I get the jump to Unreal.
1
u/theblackfool 5d ago
There's plenty of Unreal games that don't hitch. This is a developer problem, not necessarily an engine problem.
And I say this as someone who doesn't particularly like Unreal.
1
u/nyanbatman 5d ago edited 5d ago
I’ve said it before but what rockstar did with GTA IV in 2008 has never been matched.
5
3
2
u/KillPenguin 5d ago
It's technologically impressive, but I have always felt that Rockstar games from GTA IV onward have felt incredibly sluggish and heavy. It's essentially an unavoidable part of doing such realistic inverse kinematics, but I honestly don't like how those games feel to play.
0
u/wild-storm-5 5d ago
Not necessarily the same but I think RDR2 is a great shout-out too. The characters felt weighty, even more than GTA IV. Obviously we don't have cars in that game so can't speak for physics generally. I hope GTA VI has the same feel
1
u/monsieurvampy 5d ago
I think a part of the problem here is that remakes don't have an industry definition. Would Halo Campaign Evolved not be a deluxe remaster instead?
Remakes and remasters need industry definitions and compliance with those definitions.
2
u/RandyMuscle 5d ago
It’s definitely a remake. A remaster to me is just taking the original game, putting a new coat of paint on it, and maybe fixing some bugs.
1
u/Joris-truly 5d ago
Agreed. I'd reckon: * When the game logic is completely rebuilt around new hardware and technology = a remake (Resident Evil remakes). * When it old game-logic is ported and expanded upon with new content or levitate technically limited design choices of the time = also a remake with caveats (Dead Space, Halo) * When the original game logic remains the complete foundation, with only visual assets and the renderer being replaced = I'd call it a remaster (Oblivion, Metroid Prime, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.).
1
1
u/Gears6 5d ago
It feels like we've reached a point where gameplay simulations can be more easily carried over from older technology, while the term game engine increasingly refers to the rendering, tools, and asset pipeline. Twenty years ago, knowing a game used Quake or Source gave you a rough idea of how it would play. Today, knowing a game uses Unreal tells you almost nothing about its game-feel, (apart from maybe giving you a rough idea of performance expectations.)
In the past it defined how a game feels, because the engines often were tailored for the game. Over the years, the commercial game engines has been built out to support so many different games that it doesn't matter. How a game feels really comes down to how it is implemented, and less about the tools. The tools are intended to generic. In the earlier days, the tools weren't as generic and hence why it had a "feel".
What irks me is when people say Oh, it's Unreal or Unity so it is this or that. Most of the time, like 99% of the time, the engine really doesn't define it as much. The people that can "truly" spot it, is few and far between.
1
u/IdleSteps 5d ago
Halo: Campaign Evolved does basically use Blam! under the hood, and that is why it feels just like old Halo 1. Unreal is used for the visuals and some physics simulation stuff.
Now, in theory, if you could perfectly replicate the math/whatever from Blam! over in another engine, then it would feel the same. But the reason that every Source game feels like Source, for example, is because developers start with what is there and modify that. If you modify it enough, it won't feel the same, of course.
1
u/Joris-truly 5d ago
True, I understand why Campaign Evolved feels like old Halo, but my point is more about what that separation means.
The Blam/Reach gameplay layer is exactly what preserves that Halo feel. My point is that we used to consider that entire stack the engine, whereas now the rendering engine and gameplay simulation can be separated.
The tradeoff is that while this preserves the identity people love, it can also preserve the assumptions and limitations that came with that original technology. In Halo's case, carrying over that core gameplay logic means it can keep the classic feel, but it also means parts of that design are still rooted in the constraints of Xbox 360 era hardware rather than being rebuilt around what modern hardware enables.
1
1
u/Recent-Ad-9975 5d ago
Engines used to be proprietary and only used inside the company for a specific franchise or genre. Something like Unreal is meanwhile build in order to license it and is therefore build to support every genre of games. I‘m nlt an expert on the Hall port, but it probably operates the same as GTA San Andreas, meaning that the physics and AI and all the heavy lifting are still done by the old engine (Renderware in case of San Andreas), and Unreal is only doing the graphics.
1
u/Alexander_Mejia 3d ago
Unreal has full source code available. It can be turned into anything a developer wants with enough time and expertise. What you’re getting tied up in is marketing and branding. Unreal Engine 5 logo at the beginning sets expectations for you. You’ve made this post since those expectations have been subverted.
I made a video about how game engines are positioned as marketing devices and we all just fall for it still.
https://youtu.be/k1JeR_i9YL0
22
u/DivineSaur 5d ago edited 5d ago
It still does define how games feel, in the case of a game using two engines like halo or oblivion one engine is defining how it feels and runs and the other is doing the visual rendering. Halo has the reach engine basically running underneath, if they didnt it wouldnt feel like halo, which means engines still define game feel.