Engine

[maxztt]

Please consider using the FIFE (Flexible Isometric Free Engine).

Here are videos of "Zero-Projekt"/"Zero", a post-apocalyptic turn-based rpg. It obviously is an engine for anything isometric (and 2d), and it supports such things as dynamic light sources and so on.
"PARPG" is also using the FIFE. Here is a video of "PARPG" in action.

The engine is a multi-platform one, running on Linux, Windows and OS X.

[Frogacuda]

My vote would be Unity on account of the low licensing costs, solid rendering capabilities and authoring tools, and ease of porting to multiple platforms. There might be something a little more suited to, say, easy editing of a grid-based map, but Unity could probably get the job done.

[Rascal]

That troika engine looks just insanely good!
any1 has some more info about it ?
Maybe Tim Cain owns the rights for it ?
Damn just perfect engine!

[juGGa]

In my opinion they should stick in nice 2D graphics. 3D graphics would rise the budget up way more and modelling is pretty slow work. And if they can't make the 3D graphics appealing, the whole game suffers.

2D graphics are always nicer and they leave some room for imagination.

[Wanderer]

In my opinion they should stick in nice 2D graphics. 3D graphics would rise the budget up way more and modelling is pretty slow work. And if they can't make the 3D graphics appealing, the whole game suffers.

2D graphics are always nicer and they leave some room for imagination.

I agree. There's no need for 3D engine.

[Frogacuda]

In my opinion they should stick in nice 2D graphics. 3D graphics would rise the budget up way more and modelling is pretty slow work.

This is untrue. 2D in this kind of game is a lot more work, because you have to animate every character seperately. 3D you just have to do the animations once and then you can apply them to any similar character. Making a model is more work than making a frame of 2D animation, but it's a lot less work than doing all the animations for a character.

Anyway, they said it'll be 3D, it'll be 3D. I assume they know what they're doing.

[juGGa]

This is untrue. 2D in this kind of game is a lot more work, because you have to animate every character seperately. 3D you just have to do the animations once and then you can apply them to any similar character. Making a model is more work than making a frame of 2D animation, but it's a lot less work than doing all the animations for a character.

Anyway, they said it'll be 3D, it'll be 3D. I assume they know what they're doing.[/quote]

You are right. I forgot that.

[geezer]

Who said what would be 3D?

[enderandrew]

I think the Troika engine that was shopped around is very interesting.

What about this:

http://unigine.com/products/unigine/

Supports PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, PS3 and Android out of the box. Pretty feature rich.

[geezer]

What about this:
http://unigine.com/products/unigine/

Good grief. Those screenshots. Looks almost like a Crytek engine.

http://unigine.com/products/unigine/licensing/

UNIGINE SDK is available on a per-case basis (an average deal is about 30,000 USD per project).
Please contact our business development team for further details.

Ding! Ding! We have a winner. For 30k out of the million raised that would be the deal of the century and it might be one of the most beautiful cRPGs ever made. Although that depends on the artists of course. If Fargo could really score that engine for 30k it would be well worth it. I'd donate double for a game with that engine. The real problem would be whether the 3D art assets would be cost prohibitive for an engine like that. We really need a game artist to chime in on the cost differences between 2D and 3D art. That's a nice find, enderandrew.

[enderandrew]

That is just the SDK, not source to customize the engine if they needed. A full source license would likely be more expensive, but they also do custom licensing per project. For a Kickstarter project like this, I assume they'll be pretty reasonable.

[Tuco]

In my opinion they should stick in nice 2D graphics. 3D graphics would rise the budget up way more and modelling is pretty slow work. And if they can't make the 3D graphics appealing, the whole game suffers.

2D graphics are always nicer and they leave some room for imagination.

In my opinion you are making this up.
For those who know at least some basic concept about game development and modern graphics is quite clear that going 2D today isn't going to spare any relevant budget.
If you want a nice looking product (and I'm guessing we all want it, to some extent) there are actually more chances to raise the costs and to slow down the development using 2D graphics.
For instance: if you make a 3D model and you can animate and rotate it freely, then change its texture and here's something new. You draw a 2D sprite and you need to re-draw it for any single animation frame, and then again, facing any single one of the cardinal directions.
And if you want a different outfit /skin for that character/monster, you will need to draw new frames for that too.

[Bomimo]

I'm putting my chips on a modernized Infinity/GemRB engine. It seems more than ideal since it's already got most of the systems in place in order to build the game up around it.

[enderandrew]

I'm putting my chips on a modernized Infinity/GemRB engine. It seems more than ideal since it's already got most of the systems in place in order to build the game up around it.

If GemRB is GPL (which I think it is) then the finished engine inXile makes would also have to be GPL and released open-source. You could argue the restrictions of Steam would violate the GPL, and mean this game could never be distributed via Steam.

I don't think a GPL engine is on the table, even though I would support that.

[maxztt]

If GemRB is GPL (which I think it is) then the finished engine inXile makes would also have to be GPL and released open-source. You could argue the restrictions of Steam would violate the GPL, and mean this game could never be distributed via Steam.

I don't know the specifics of Steamworks and whether it's just a DLL or how exactly it's implemented, but they won't use it anyways.
And without Steamworks and any other DRM, Steam is merely like any online-shop.
As long as they deliver the license statement and the source code or a link to the source code with their game on Steam, there is no problem with the GPL whatsoever.

Also the GPL does not prohibit DRM, but since it requires you to deliver the modifies source code, the DRM would always be pointless since the source could just be recompiled without the DRM part.

And yes, GemRB is released under the GPL.
Also depending on how they implement it, just their changes to the GemRB engine might have to be released. Not any of the game code. But that depend on how they implement it. Not on the GemRB source per se.

Then again, I'd prefer if they used the Flexible Isometric Free Engine (FIFE).

[geezer]

The FIFE graphics look terrible to me. Does it even have texture support? The screenshots don't seem to have any textures in them. Wolfenstein 3D had better graphics than that. If Iron Tower can afford to use Torque then so can inXile. As well as Unity or Leadwerks for that matter.

[maxztt]

Are you kidding? There are textures in every single screenshot and video that I saw.
You seem to have no clue what you are talking about.

The Engine is technically fine.
It's a nice 2D-isometric engine. Nothing wrong with it. It's only wrong if you want 3D.
There is nothing hindering one from creating and using more detailed models and textures than the ones displayed.

[enderandrew]

Are you kidding? There are textures in every single screenshot and video that I saw.
You seem to have no clue what you are talking about.

The Engine is technically fine.
It's a nice 2D-isometric engine. Nothing wrong with it. It's only wrong if you want 3D.
There is nothing hindering one from creating and using more detailed models and textures than the ones displayed.

I'm seeing others cite that it has been stated definitively they're using a 3D engine.

I've followed the FIFE engine for years, and it still lacks many basic features. I don't think we're getting a GPL engine, and even if we were, I wouldn't suggest using FIFE as a base.

[geezer]

On a second look I see you are correct. FIFE does allow for textures, although the ones in the screenshot are at best of Doom quality. Are there any links to screenshots with better quality graphics? The ones on that page are not many years past Wasteland I.

[maxztt]

I'm seeing others cite that it has been stated definitively they're using a 3D engine.

I've followed the FIFE engine for years, and it still lacks many basic features. I don't think we're getting a GPL engine, and even if we were, I wouldn't suggest using FIFE as a base.

Despite some people on this forum who stated that a 3d-engine would be used, I found absolutely no evidence for this. Not on the Kickstarter page, not in the video, not from any official in this forum.

I don't really mind whether the games code will be under the GPL or not or whether they use an engine that is under the GPL or not. I just want native Linux support.
The GPL would be a really nice addition and make me even happier, but it's not a must-have for my pledge.

Now I'd like to know which features the FIFE is lacking in your opinion.