this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
68 points (87.0% liked)

Games

32955 readers
1906 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Article based on the interview at by The Neon Arcade at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_o5ueZRF0

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To be fair, in this case there is increased value because eventually the engine work requirements will be significantly reduced.

This isn't rewrite everything, it's basically remove a bunch of stuff and rewrite the rest.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Given how massive their game is, I'm doubtful. So much of what they did in the first game will have to be rebuilt. Compared to just reusing most of the original assets and code, this sounds like a lot more work.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe, it might also be easier to reuse portions of the engine in Unreal Engine while using parts of Unreal (like its rendering engine) than you think though. Assets largely I'd expect to be portable or at least comvertable with a custom asset loader.

I'm talking a little out of my ass though, and neither of us is familiar with the code. Point being though, it's a little different moving engines than rewriting a complicated web server (a project I have been a part of and would not recommend).