soccerdrew17 on 20 December 2008
| lenardo1 said: when you consider that the license to USE unreal 3 is over a million dollars... and that just gets you the engine and some artwork-which chances are you will not use the artwork.......... it is not the engine that costs the most, it is the artists making the art assets for the game that costs the most, in time and money. unreal3 is a great engine, but a Great engine does not make the game Great, that is the job of the designers, the engineers and the artists that translate their vision into a game. it is the engineer's that are responsible for how the game Runs, the artists on how it Looks and the Designers on how it plays, if one of the 3 fails, then the game will suck-especially if it is the engineers that screw up |
yea, but familiarity with art tools increases efficiency. Having the engine allows the devs to have strong tools (that they need to learn) right from from the start. if they start a new game with the same tools, then their efficiency clearly skyorckets as that learning period is removed.
It also allows the developer to tailor the game to their studio and game. Epic has the advantage of being able to make the engine to support their games, but with a first game for anyone else that's nearly impossible. The second game truly is the test.
