Hello, I study computer science 2nd year but I've never created a game or touched something like Unity or Unreal Engine. Something I now want to change and I'm just wondering about this thing...I'm interested in creating 3d games but I don't want them to look like the typical Unity or Unreal Engine game. I very much dislike all the shiny surfaces and normal/specular maps on textures, bleeding lights and post processing effects in newer games.I love how games looked around the year 2000.What I want is a game with relatively low poly geometry and models and absolutely no modern effects. Textures should just be a regular texture and nothing else. You should be able to see infinitely far because there is no smoke or haze or volumetric lighting in the way.I want it to look like a Quake 3 engine game at best. How easy/hard is it to remove these modern features and sort of set a self-imposed polygon limit in a project in Unity/UE and make a real old stylish 3d game?
>>643966 pretty much looks like unity game anyway
>>643966All of the things you've listed are things epople put extra work into because it solves issues or makes something look better. If you don't want them that's cool, just don't add them. "Plane textures" is just a single map in the RGB slot and nothing else
>>643966You can easily turn off most of the effects if you want to, and using support maps for the materials is entirely optional as well, just plug in values that produce the most rough and flat shading for everything.Some aspects of the graphics pipeline can be tweaked as well, such as switching to forward rendering so that you can actually have transparency.In Unity it’s typically easier to get to a clean slate in terms of effects, which is why it’s more the common choice for stylized games.UE4 is typically preferred by artists because it provides visual scripting and is easy to get in to if you’ve never used a game engine before, but if you’re a CS student then you shouldn’t have problems picking up C# if you want to use Unity. Any option other than these two is going to be worse off in ease of use, so check them out first.
>>643966If you use PBR correctly nobody would notice that you are using unreal, unity or other mainstream indie game makers choice.. unless the splash screen comes and the data is in .pak or some other format.>remove these modern featuresDon't use them.>Quake 3 engine game at bestJust 1 texture like the preveiious poster said>relatively low poly geometry and models and absolutely no modern effectsWhat do you consider modern? As long as retopology goes.. you can make a quintrillion model into 10k quads/14k tris.>I love how games looked around the year 2000I still like the older Fable TLC more than the modern.. hell the HD "Rework" looks like a total mess.
the texture work would be so difficult that i don't recommend doing it at all unless you plan on outsourcing your characters.building a shader and lightning for these types of games is very easy, you can do it yourself.
There's a lot of this kind of stuff, people have made fictional PS1 styled games in unity
>>643966Easy, use the quake 3 engine. Tons of games did so back in the day. Or the unreal engine. Just a diffuse texture with shadowing painted on, no realtime shadows just decals and point lights everywhere.
>>643966>You should be able to see infinitely far because there is no smoke or haze or volumetric lighting in the way.I think you've forgotten what 2000 games looked like.
>>644068not him but he did say2000 ish, it's not uncommon for games aping old aesthetics to make small improvements for aesthetic purposes, and a huge draw distance for mid -2000 graphics would be great looking at high resolutionSee : shovel Knight runs in widescreen, a lot of low poly 3D games don't exactly follow PS1 limits
>>643966Almost all game engines have an unlit shading option, literally just a tickbox to disable all post-processing.
>>643966use unlit materials and handpaint ur diffuses. THat's how games used to be made around that time.
>>643966Jesus... Where to begin, this guy needs a whipping.You can EASILY turn off these features. In fact you don't turn them off, you turn them on. Install Blender. It has a built-in GAME ENGINE you can program for in Python (easy language if you're not a moron) In the materials just choose 'shadeless' and you have the same shit. You can use light maps. You can use spot shadows. It's all easy stuff.With that being said the Q3 engine is free AFAIK, many guys programming for the Dreamcast use the Quake 2 engine.
>>644792>blender game engineFucking no
Don't use lighting.Unlit normal textures, no bump maps or anything similar, use vertex colors to simulate light and shadow.Round textures projected under characters for their shadow.
>>644831Then pay for a Unity license. Shit paid software that does the same thing as BGE.You can get easily an .exe out of BGE and distribute your game.
>>645032No idea where the hell you've been, but Unity's been free to use since 2009 (on the premises that you're an indie developer earning <$100k/yr, but if your only other option is BGE then you probably are one).
>>645036The application you use to make 3D models is already a game engine.Why move shit back and forth between applications? Common sense.
>>645050And you've just outed yourself as a brainlet. NGMI, kid. You have your modelling & animation packages (Blender, Maya, 3ds, hell, even Houdini), sculpting packages (ZBrush, 3DCoat), texturing packages (Substance, Quixel, etc.), simulation sandboxes (mostly Houdini at this point), rendering engines (Redshift, Octane, Mantra, the list goes on), and all your little bells-and-whistles like Photoshop/Lightroom for post-processing. You wanna know why all of these exist happily despite being in the same field? Because everyone knows no one program will ever be the end-all of 3D, no matter how close they get (relevant xkcd: #927). Plus, a lot of these programs have bridges and tight integration between each other. But you probably didn't know that, seeing as Blender doesn't have any because the cunts at the Foundation are just too obstinate and think they can do it all (spoiler: they really, really can't).
>>645050This has to be false-flagging. Putting Unity and BGE at the same level, seriously? Come on, give me a break.
which engines/frameworks should I use in order to develop a 2000 graphics like game with 2000 requirements?
>>645052IKR... there is dedication and there is fanboism and then, there is just fucking stupidity...2-3 days back same guys were suggesting to anon to texture(fairly complex model) in blender..
>>645052Lulz, all that crap is built into Blender itself. You even have a video editor. And we're talking about simple 6th gen shadeless materials. You're outing yourself as having no clue.>>645054Because BGE is way superior.You have everything needed to make your game in ONE application and it's truly free.
>>645127based 0 iq posteryou're why people laugh at blendlets
>>645127>Because BGE is way superior.Fucking retard.
>>645127>You have everything needed to make your game in ONE application and it's truly free.How come then that nobody uses it to the extent that Unity and Unreal are?
>>643966You can use the legacy Unity shaders which look 2000-ish, if i remember correctly there is even a free PS1 type shader online for Unity to make it look even older. Then all you need to do is make a lowpoly model (~1000 tris) and bake the textures with a bunch of lights around the character into a single diffuse texture and crop it to 256x256 size.
>>645146It's called marketing
>>645154Oh, but they all know about Blender and its BGE. Blenderians don't lose any opportunity to preach about it. Yet, somehow, content makers go with the paid options. Why would that be? Marketing alone?
>>645158I know why. Because BGE is outdated and sucks ass. But don't waste your time with delusional blendlets. They are retarded and won't understand common sense.
>>645154Mate, i've been using Blender for years but BGE is fucking garbage. Trying to compare Unity/Unreal with BGE is like comparing MS Paint to Photoshop. Typically you have program flamewars because these programs can at least contend with each other. In Engine flamewars you will not just hear about Unity and Unreal, but also Godot, Löve or even Lumberyard, but BGE is such a weak contender no one bothers discussing about it ever. Fuck, i even forgot it exists until you mentioned it just now.t. Amateur Dev
to any of you fools that hate on the bge just remember that somebody was able to remake super mario galaxy in it.the tool is only as good as the workman that wields it.
>>645052Currently Blender (which is 100mb Software packege) is capable of>modelling and animating>Sculpting>Texturing (although it's not as good as Substance)>Fluid simulation and breaking solids>Rendering path tracing and realtime rasterization rendering >Video editing and compositing>Bells and whistles too>no bridges are necessary as it all is integrated into one program>Blender doesn't have any because the cunts at the Foundation are just too obstinate and think they can do it all Actually it's the Autodesk and others who keep constantly changing the standards and convoluting the things just to fuck the foundation over.
>>643966Just use the BUILD engine or Mapster.
>>645460>Actually it's the Autodesk and others who keep constantly changing the standards and convoluting the things just to fuck the foundation over.>just to fuck the foundation over.You really believe Autodesk cares enough about Blender to actively work against it? No, the blame here is on the shoulders of the Blender Foundation. They could have devoted some resources to create a proper, GPL-compatible bridge with the FBX SDK, but no, instead, they decided to reverse-engineer a *constantly changing*, *proprietary*, *non-standard* format, putting way more resources than otherwise would've been needed to work well with FBX files.
>>645460>modellingI'll give you that. Blender is incredibly strong for modelling.>animatingMaya.>sculptingZBrush. Hell, 3DCoat.>texturingYou're kidding me. Texturing in Blender is like trying to light a fire by banging rocks. Texturing in Substance is like cremating a forest with a flamethrower. They're worlds apart.>simulationsHoudini. No competition.>path-traced renderingRedshift, Octane, Arnold, Mantra, Corona, Indigo, Thea, a very very long list of better path-tracing renderers than Cycles.>real-time renderingSure. Eevee's pretty good, won't lie.>video editing...why? The Blender Foundation themselves even say it's "basic".>compositingNuke. Photoshop. After Effects. Fusion. All better.So that's two out of eight. Even then, they're just on par with the competition and not any better. And that's not what was meant by 'bridges', anon. A good software bridge is a one-click solution that bridges (hence the term) your entire project over to the other software, no hassle involved. Plus, you really think Autodesk's out to mess with our favourite kitchen appliance? They couldn't give less of a shit. It's all on the Foundation and its incompetence to just comply with _free_ SDKs.
>>645483And before you give me any blendlet shit, I'll openly out myself as a Blender user. I genuinely do like the program. I just know it has a ton of faults compared to the competition because I bother to actually look into what else is out there.
>>645483again, its a 100mb software that you get for free.you are trying to analyze what it can't do. just like the other pricks around here
>>645469>FBX SDKAutodesk introduces the changes into FBX standard every year. Specifically to fuck them up
>>645505>Specifically to fuck them upYeah, sure. That's why they give a whole FBX SDK for free, for anyone to use, to have proper FBX support with the least development effort necessary.
>>645507Pfft your logic is totally wasted on an Blender fanboy who is spouting conspiracy theories.
>>645508The worst thing is that this comes straight down from the top. Pic related.I wonder if there's some deeper agenda behind this, or it's just plain stubbornness and/or pride.
>>645512Been using blender for a long time, but I honestly think Roosendaal is a bit of a retard. (He talks like one.)I don't think he actually knows what the blender users want, he just sort of gets to things when he gets to them.
>>645497If you keep saying "c'mon it's free and it's like a hundred megs", then why do you keep comparing it to other programs? You're just inviting shit like that. And what 'analysis' did you even see? Those were basic facts.>>645505>Specifically to fuck them upDude. It's true that it's updated yearly, but those are all incredibly minor updates that are just quality-of-life improvements. http://help.autodesk.com/view/FBX/2019/ENU/?guid=FBX_Developer_Help_welcome_to_the_fbx_sdk_what_new_fbx_sdk_2019_htmlChangelogs for all the SDK updates since 2011. It's all bug fixes and minor additions.
>>645507>>645526>for free, for anyone to use,Blender is GPL and arent allowed to use it anyway by their own GPL license.And just so it happens that every yearly "bugfix" update fucks up Blender's own FBX exporter.
>>645497Everything is free on cgpeers and terabyte drives are dirt cheap.
>>645531>Blender is GPL and arent allowed to use it anyway by their own GPL license.They could make an MIT-licensed bridge to operate between Blender and the SDK. GPL is compatible with MIT, and the MIT code can link to the SDK without licensing issues. It would work, and with less effort.
>Blender Game EngineLol, it's so bad they're dumping it in future versions, aren't they?If you have to use a FOSS game engine, Godot is the way to go.
>>645605They have already dumped it.
>>645127I'm convinced that the guy just doesn't know what he's talking about and now has to defend his stupid opinions claiming BGE is anywhere near useful
>>645483>damn gotta sculpt a thing. I'll buy Zbrush then>well i have to texture something. No other way around - let me buy SP>Oh shit, now I have to animate something. Let me buy that fucking maya>Damn man, I really would like to make this simulation. I'll just spend another heap of money for a fucking programBlender is a pretty decent fucking package that will meet your needs most of the time. You don't have to spend 20k for licences because one day you might become a complete god of cgi or even assemble team of cgi gods
>>645768Want to use Blender? It's your choice. Just don't do it in front of my daughter, you punk.
>>645786It won't be long until your daughter will fall into love for bledner doughnuts and anvilsOnce you go blender you always use it to render
>>645768>he doesn't know how to cgpnot gonna make it lmao
>>645469Tim Sweeney from Unreal is partly funding Blender.
>>643966>mfw yahtzee was right and we now have retards making early 00s games for muh nostalgia even tho they objectively look like assThere's more ways to be graphically unique than aping the uncanny valley years of gaming, you know. At least ape one of the good looking games from that era and not one of the ugly-ass RPGs.
>>646466I know it won't; creatures like op are beyond saving. I just hope the others on this board avoid falling into the same trap.
>>644792Blender Game Engine is literally fucking dead though. Telling anyone to learn it is just being a massive dick. It's not even in 2.8.