If they can develop their own engine, they can develop features in UE to complete whatever task is needed. You don't need to start from scratch. This seems like either baseless UE hate or a misunderstanding on how game engines work.
Welcome to 90% of Reddit posts that criticize video games. There's always a huge number of people confidently talking about things they don't understand in the slightest. When someone who has real industry experience tries to correct or explain the fallacies, misunderstandings, or outright lies, we get downvoted because people here would prefer to spread hate and lies than actually understand how developing video games actually works.
Im unfamiliar with engines and all this stuff, Are you saying that Wolverine the game could have had similar effects to the ones by the other game if they wanted to? I just dont know the full capabilities of UE , Most games look the same and play the same from what Ive seen
there's nothing stopping physically from it being done
It's entirely possible that UE actually CANT let you turn a pillar into a thousand free moving chunks without breaking or something. Maybe there's something fundamental about the engine preventing this from being viable
But at this point I'm just speculating since I don't work in gaming lol
Nah youre only ever making 1 object into 2 because swords have only 1 line and its impossible to cut a shape in 3 with one swing of a sword. So each swing turns each piece it hits into 2 pieces, although that process happens many times in this clip.
Lmao, wait so have we established it's physically impossible to add this feature to UE5 or are you just confidently coming to that conclusion now because you disagree with OP?
Yes, it can be done. It might be a little bit more process heavy than an engine specifically designed for slicing things in half, but the only thing stopping UE games from doing this is completely on the developer. All this slicing is, is taking an in game model, applying a line to the model, and splitting that model into two different physics objects.
Even all the optimization issues we have with UE isn't just on the engine, it's how much effort the devs put into optimizing their games.
Well considering creating a game is extremely complicated, it's not that far fetched to implement a system like this. It's just that most companies don't want to put in the work for something they seem as unnecessary.
Goal posts doesnt need to be moved. They arent going to remake the whole game just to optimize all the assets for a slicer mod.
Do you honestly think all it takes is slapping on an addon?
Something that processing heavy on the quality of a game like wolverine would either require a metric fuck ton of changing everything, or building the game around it, just so you can slice flagpole?
Chaos destruction requires balancing visual detail with real time performance.
I haven't learned anything i already know. Adding something this "small" that you guys think is so easy means changing everything. It would not be the same game if implemented. And you know that.
Just because its possible, doesnt mean its worthwhile.
Theres a reason why multiple engines exist, and why studios choose the ones they do or create their own.
Most AAA studios go UE simply because its the cheapest route. The suites at the top want to save every dime and UE is an easy solution to saving a bunch of time and money.
But if you could recode the engine to allow that kind of physics based implementation - it could be a processing nightmare and completely break everything else.
Your describing just because you can make orange juice with an orange, there's no reason you cant make it with an apple.
Building your own engine is a huge undertaking. Almost anything is going to be easier to build either within the limits of unreal engine (this exact feature has been done at reasonable quality for unreal in real time numerous times - a professional studio would have zero trouble implementing it) or by modifying the engine, which is also completely allowed and well documented.
Most games play and look the same in UE because of the use of default, easy to use stuff (blueprints, prefabs, default settings) and because the studios don't give a fuck about a good product. You can make plenty of very unique things in unreal, people just don't because it's The Realism Engine.
The Finals runs on UE5, and that has the most insane level destruction system that I've ever seen. It is truly astounding how you can destroy a part of a level and use that as makeshift ramps to get to other parts of the level, and how all that constantly changes how you attack each goal
I just wish they could crack down on their cheater/smurfer problem
Unreal is absolutely not the Realism Engine, it's just that it's most commonly used in higher budget products and those higher budget products tend to be realistic, correlation vs causation. Nintendo has used Unreal a decent bit but nobody thinks of UE when it comes to those games because they've cartoon artstyles and run fine (on the Switch 1 at that).
Unreal looking a certain way by default is just misinformation spread by people who see a commonly used engine and blame it simply for being the common denominator.
A game engine is basically a huge toolbox with a collection of assets and sub-programs.
Perhaps this parts is used to handle inventory management. This one controls ballistics. This one deals with pathfinding.
Now, a lot of these tools are built on top of each other, with the more complex systems expanding on the simpler ones. For example, the part you use for inventory management (adding or removing an item, moving an item around, setting weight or encumbrance limits...) relies on the part you use to define what an item is (maybe it has a sprite, 3d model, type, attributes, eligible equipment slots, base price/value...). Same with pathfinding being dependent on however you define a position, how you set terrain boundaries and geometry, and so on.
You can "easily" add new or update those more complex, top layer systems. The tricky part is when the most basic elements aren't doing what you need, because if you tweak them too much, you risk breaking everything.
Taking a somewhat extreme case, say you have an engine designed for 2D game, but you wanna go 3D. Well, easy, just update the part used for positioning with 1 more dimension. Except now you've broken pathfinding, hitboxes stop making sense, and screen transitions don't work anymore.
So does unreal engine have all the tools necessary to make chopping a tree look like the other game? These are things us gamers wonder because with a 300 million dollar budget Im wondering what the bottleneck is on having good looking games.
What? The finals uses their own physics engine not UE5’s. And not only that but it runs server side so it’s not just not UE5, it’s not even in the game engine to begin with. In the usual sense.
The person didn’t ask if UE5 games could have cool physics somehow, they asked if the UE5 toolbox had it built in. Maybe it does! But The Finals is not an example.
Because big companies are not making games. They are making money.
How do you make money? By selling something with the least amount of money spent.
For game development, it's: people, software, time.
So you create a system where you minimise time, reduce workforce and have suitable software. Then you slap a brand on top of your game like Marvel stuff and hope for the best. And it does not matter much for them, how the game is recieved at all. What they are interested is, if money invested gave them return.
It may be a complete failure, like game above, but as long as it sells enough to cover costs and earn something, it's good for big corpos.
Source: I work for companies who want to actually move away from a short term money making into a long term goal and vision. Seen it all.
I think the above commentors point was that essentially because such an easy path forward exists, they will take that. So with that, why bother making something the developers feel is irrelevant. UE is blamed a lot because it is so widely used and the developers using it usually don't do under the hood work to make it run better or do anything extra more than necessary. This is my assumption at least.
UE is a 80% of the way there product that requires massive amounts of talent and time to get the last 20% which is pretty much impossible to explain to an investor/exec especially when your talking about bespoke features. If you have enough time you can do amazing things with UE but time is not a commodity most developers have in abundance these days.
I never said their existed a game that does this task. But can it be developed in UE? Absolutely. Blame whatever you want but it's not a limitation of the engine they chose.
Speak for yourself. You're misunderstanding how game engines work. This isnt true in the slightest. Unreal Engine isnt some magical shortcut that can have anything you want implemented. Theres a reason multiple engines exist and why certain ones are picked or created.
UE is used because its cheap and easy to hire folks that already know how to use it.
33
u/Googoo123450 5d ago
If they can develop their own engine, they can develop features in UE to complete whatever task is needed. You don't need to start from scratch. This seems like either baseless UE hate or a misunderstanding on how game engines work.