Talk:List of game engines/Archive 1

The table is not very helpful to anyone looking for a game engine.

It just seems weird to me that there is just a yes or no for 2d oriented and there is no mention of networking support. It really would be more helpful if this table took some formatting from the gpwiki's table and stated what graphics are supported and how they are supported. (eg. OpenGL ,D3d ,Direct draw ect.)

ORE ?

"ORE stands for Online RPG Engine"

ORE is not even mentioned - is it talking about OGRE? Zorruno 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ORE refers to Online RPG Engine by Baronsoft : www.baronsoft.com - it is in NO WAY related to OGRE.

Yes, but OGRE is not a game engine is a 3D graphics engine.

NPOV

I removed the sentence 'Excellerates far above the rest of the Visual Basic ORPG engines' from the vbGORE engine. Descriptions should be neutral and not read like a commercial. I'm sure the users of the engine can decide for themselves how good it is. --General Hard 09:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Major and Minor engines

The previous division between "Major/Popular" and "Minor" engines was very subjective and unsubstantiated, so I combined the lists. If we're going to put the engines in different popularity categories, we need to have some kind of data to back it up and provide a tangible measure of popularity. Gremagor 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Engine Overview

This table is a list of external links. Possibly some of them have Wikipedia articles. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, I will first convert the external links to wikilinks, then remove those with no article. If anyone feels I have removed a notable game engine, feel free to create a stub for it (following WP:V policy, naturally) and pop it back in. Marasmusine 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll remove the whole thing. Beyond the fact that it's a badly designed table and the external links, it's sourced from another wiki (therefore unreliable per WP:Reliable sources and WP:EL) and riddled with POV. It's just not worth cleaning up.Marasmusine 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

List at bottom of page

Would it be feasible to do a list of engines (at least some of the major ones) at the bottom of specific game engine articles? (For instance, the winners of the World Poker Tour also have links to the other winners at the bottom of their pages.) Does anyone else think this might be a worthwhile idea? AJ Letson 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I know that this is probably out of line and only superficially related to the evolution of this article, but could somebody find out what engine Blizzard is using for World of Warcraft? And possibly what engine they are going to combine Havok with in the future? (They have no licensed Havok for PC and Mac.)

I haven't been able to find out what engine they're using. Or if its their own proprietary software, if anyone else is using it, or what its called, its development history, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

See here. Shinobu (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Freeware vs. Free Software ?

What's the difference ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read freeware and free software and you'll know. Shinobu (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of non-game engines in the list

A lot of these entires seem out of place, as they are not in any sense game engines. For example

• Visual3D.NET
• IMUSE
• EMotion FX
• Havok
• Euphoria

And im sure there are more. This is middleware software and not related to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.47.91 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

Game Middleware and Game Engines links seem to link to the same page or is that me? 82.169.69.149 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

dual-licenced engines

Quite a few engines are available under either commercial or free software licences, so why should they only be listed in one of the two sections (usually the free software one)? I say they shall be listed in both or in an extra section especially for them. RFC.

Also, what is up with the "Games and the game engines they use" table? There is not any need for that. -- Darklock (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate Quake based from non quake based in Free engines

We definitely need that done. This is so confusing! A feature table would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.13.28 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation

There should be a separation between those that are merely libraries and those that are more fully-featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.42.110 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SineBot. For example, even by the admission of its author, OGRE is not a game engine but a 3D rendering engine.

Also it would be worthwhile to separate engine that are production ready (aka have working games) and those in construction or without any existing games. This would permit engine that are struggling to be included in the list without too much risk of being deleted as "not notable". yep - my engine OGE was removed because of this :/

--Steven Gay (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Freespace 2

I don't see it in the list, but where to add it? The source is freely available, but the license is for noncommercial use only; Is is technically freeware despite being commercially-owned? -98.17.4.3 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Box2D

I suppose I may be wrong... it's been a while since I worked with Box2D, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't do graphics. If it has any graphical support at all, its for debug purposes... it just has 2d physics. But as I said, it's been a while, I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.42.31 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

id tech <old> is still commercial

still since they are dual-licensed. You either can get a gpl version or if you want to close it, you pay it. (they'd hate bsd licence right?). --AaThinker (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New Layout

I have been looking for a good 3D game engine for a few days now. This is the only page on Wikipedia that lists them in one place, but there is not much information about the engines on this page. I like the sortable table found on some similar pages (Yes, I know that I only linked to one, but I couldn't remember the others). I created a table like those, but was not able to fill most of the cells. I did not want to put it up onto the page until this was more complete, but I also did not want to have to look up the missing data myself. To compromise, I put it up on my userpage. When it has more information we can add it to the article, but until then you have permission to edit the table as you get more data. As a side note, shouldn't the words "game engine" be capitalized in the title of this page? Goldenrod111 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The table looks okay - good work. I'll take a closer look later today. Remember that this article should not be an exhaustive directory of all game engines (WP:NOT) - it is largely for navigation (WP:LIST) of existing WP game engine articles. The title should not be capitalized, as the subject is not a proper noun (WP:STYLE). Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Horde3D

Horde3D is not currently in the list. It's released under EPL v1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.62.176 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it of any note? Been used in any notable games? Has it been discussed or reviewed by reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Istaria MMORPG

The article seems to be missing Istaria MMORPG (http://istaria.com). Game server uses Evolution engine and Intrinsic Alchemy engine is used for the core renderer. L (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences?

Currently this article is not very useful because it just consists of a long list of names and commercial jingles. Some real meat on what the differences in capabilities between all these engines are would be appreciated. Shinobu (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a column to the lists identifying the types of games the engine is for (ie; FPS, RTS, GG [god game, like Sims or Black & White], Racing... and so on) AndaleTheGreat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Leadwerks is commercial

Leadwerks engine is listed under "free open-source" section, but it is neither free, nor open source. Gregsharp1 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Primary platfrom" - remove this

Who decided that there is a 'primary platform' for these engines? This column should be deleted or replaced by "supported platforms"--Qubodup (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it results in most engines being said to support primarly Windows, with no reasons. Spidermario (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Marasmusine (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Panda 3D was *not* made by CMU

Please correct this statement. Panda 3D was made by Disney and later donated to CMU, who has added some features as many in the community do, they don't even maintain releases anymore as that is done by the community. They are definitely not the authors, but the owners. There's more information in the Panda3D article. Full disclosure: I'm a Panda3D developer. I think the article should read: "A relatively easy to use game engine made by Disney and used to produce some of their games. It is currently owned by the Carnegie Mellon University." Also, remove the python-driven mention, Python is the preferred language but Panda3D is actually a C++ engine with a very solid python binding. 62.57.4.12 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Free and open source licenses

Should the Free / open source engines table include a column that indicates which license is used for the engine? It seems odd that we'd have a separate section for freely licensed engines, but not mention which free license the engine is available under. Reach Out to the Truth 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Marasmusine (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Free / open source engines column importance

Shouldn't the column Cross-platform? SDL? 2D oriented of Free / open source engines be ordered first? DynV (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

“SDL”?

I cannot understand why there is a “SDL” column in the table. Could someone explain it, please?

Spidermario (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple DirectMedia Layer mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what the SDL is. I just do not understand why there should be an entire column for it. Spidermario (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To show which engines support SDL mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, why not add a column to show those which support Allegro? And those which support DirectX? And those which support OpenGL? And those which support GDI? Etc. That was the point. Spidermario (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, ask the guy who created the article mark nutley (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The image File:SDL Layers.svg show that the library include DirectX and Xlib thus include multiple technologies and is related to the column cross-platform.DynV (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Engines that are free to use privately

there is no mention about the unreal editor that can be used with the disc or the UDK that has started being free to the public for a while then there's the far-cry engine but only students/evaluations can get one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

id tech 5 is NOT open source.

[1] Why is it in the open source list if id has said the engine is ONLY for Bethesda published works? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, therefore I did remove it from the list (it was also listed in the commercial section). ID announced they would very likely make it open source in the future, but it is not open source now. Satisf (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is released in the form of Doom 3 BFG and the resulting OpenTechEngine:

Commercial vs Proprietary

This list has a section named Commercial engines when proprietary engines would be more accurate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Table is fucked up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Game_engines_and_related_games

The table there are all wrong formatted and I have no idea how to fix.

Also, the LÖVE-framework is missing from the list. http://love2d.org/

Thanks, table fixed. If you can provide verification for LÖVE via a reliable publication, then we can include it. Marasmusine (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Brick Engine independent verification revert?

What independent verification do you need? Someone else confirming that the site is located at the given URL? Someone else confirming that the source license for the project is in fact the source license for the project? The website already confirms all of the information listed in the entry.

We should have at least a 3rd party reference. To be honest I think the problem isn't so much that anyone thinks it's a fake, but rather there needs to be some level of notability, otherwise this list risks becoming endless and unmanageable. Note how the vast majority of entries in the list have their own Wikipedia article. I think it's probably fine to also list ones that don't, but we should have some independent reference at the very least. Mdwh (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

quake and doom engine

is the id tech 1 the quake engine, and doom engine just the doom engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.98.105 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Table format

This table, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Game_engines_and_related_games, currently has a list of games, and then the game developer. It seems that one developer stands for one or more games, and is centered within the table, making it difficult to determine what game corresponds to which developer. Also, some games made by the same developer are in one line, separated by commas (See Source Engine), whereas others are simply a new line (See Unreal Engine 3.x). Which is correct and which is incorrect?
--76.111.238.204 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Browser games

I don't know quite what this would look like. But given the high number of browser oriented games, and that a lot of game engines can't be used to build them, perhaps there should be a section or a seperate page for listing engines by being browser/desktop/mobile based (and of course all if they target all of them).

To be blunt it just doesn't make sense to have an engine for Tripple-A PC and console games in the same section as engines for building small Indie JavaScript or Flash based games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.103.107 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these arn't game engines

they're graphics engines and other parts that make up a game engine, but not game engines themselves 72.197.227.147 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet more game engines

Just in case no-one has found this yet, I thought I'd chuck it onto the proverbial table:

GPwiki has a fairly long list of what it considers to be 'Game Engines'. (and before anyone starts shouting about what makes a game engine or not, I don't really care. I just thought I'd bring this list to your attention. Also, would this serve as the third-party reference needed for some of the engines already being discussed?)

GPWiki's Game Engines: http://gpwiki.org/index.php/Game_Engines

§Twaitsey§ 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaitsey (talk • contribs)

Merge from List of game engine articles discussion

If someone replies to this discussion, please notify me at my talk page. —Kri (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I recently created the article List of game engine articles, in order to make it possible to find articles about notable game engines using interesting game engine techniques, and also to be able to follow the technological advancements over the years.

Now a merge to this article has been proposed. Myself I think it would be a bit misplaced in this article, and I suspect that if the merge was carried out the list would later on become considered superfluous and as a consequence removed. It is stated already in the beginning of this article that it is about game engines "available for game designers to code a game quickly and easily without building from the ground up". This is not what the list I created is about; its main focus lies on different notable game engines and the technologies they introduced to the game development community. —Kri (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two major problems with List of game engine articles. First, it's composed mostly of original research and I don't believe that will ever change. Such details just aren't well documented. Second, the scope of that article is the same as the scope of this article. I understand you wanted to have a different focus, but if both articles were well written and complete, they could be the same exact article. Perhaps the article you should try to create instead is Timeline of game engines. Unfortunately, I still think this would be plagued by original research. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. What I originally wanted to do was to create a list of game engine articles because I knew the reading would be interesting. And when I had them all (well, not yet) in one list I thought I could as well make some small notes about the technologies they used. By maybe I should just create a category Game engines instead. —Kri (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that there already was a category called Video game engines. —Kri (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge this article with "Game Engine"

I think it should be WAY BETTER to merge this list (and also make it more understandable) with the article Game Engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.12.61.203 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

id tech 5 miscategorized?

Id Tech 5 is under Free and Open Source. Most Id engines take a while after their first appearance to become open source, and according to the linked page Id Tech 5 is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.104.218 (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_game_engines#OpenTechEngine

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/Twilight Princess engine

Should the engine used for The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess be included on this list? Both games run on the same proprietary engine of unknown name, and both games are very well known. Snesiscool (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible vandalism? All External Links removed.

User:DreamGuy removed all of the useful links to external sites. Please discuss your reasons here before taking any further actions. NeedCokeNow (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for cleaning of some of the spam here. For example,V-Play and White-Storm: Lightning, seem to be using this page for advertising. However the links to sourceforge and github repositories of MIT, BSD, and GPL'd engines is useful and can hardly be considered spam.Slacka123 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Scripting

Why is there a different column for 'scripting' and 'bindings'? There's no difference. For example - in some entries, python is listed in the bindings column, and for others it's listed in the scripting column. If an engine provides a "scripting language", then it's also providing a language binding for that "scripting language". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.156.249 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC) You are correct. In every case I looked at, the binding was for the scripting language. These should be merged. Slacka123 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

flowlab

why not add www.flowlab.io ?

176.40.177.102 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FlowLabs ooks like a great tool to teach kids programming. Love the visual flow based language. It's still in beta and I couldn't find much 3rd party information on it. After there is enough wp:notability, we can add it to the list. NeedCokeNow (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace Cross-platform w/ Sound, Networking, Physics

We don't really need 2 columns for platform info. How about we replace one, with data that could be filled with S, N, and/or P? Slacka123 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

id Tech and quake/quake2

quake is id Tech 2 not 1. quake and quake2 are id Tech2 , and id Tech1 is doom/doom2

why there is quake id Tech1? check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech

if you ever tried to mod one or both them you knew they are the same engines, just few improvements in quake2, really.

there is some reference I found:

http://www.moddb.com/engines/id-tech-2

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2011/04/28/a-history-of-id-tech

/iWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.158.226 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes,it took a little digging, but I found that id retroactively renamed their engine. Quake, QuakeWorld, and Quake 2 are all considered id Tech 2 [2] I'll fix the list. Thanks for pointing this out. Slacka123 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ogre 3D missing?

This is one of the most popular open source 3D engines, seems to be missing from the table. introiboad —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ogre is a 3D graphics engine. I think the reason it was omited is that the chart already has full game engines that use Ogre egine for graphics like the Axiom Engine, GameKit, and Jogre. The chart does mix game engines with rendering engines, but is it really necessary to include both?Slacka123 (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

jPCT in the wrong category

jPCT is free to use but it is neither open source nor free, its source code isn't available.--Gouessej (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thannks for pointing this out.Slacka123 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

software license & supported platforms

The article in its current form, concentrates only on the software license of the game engines. It says little to nothing about the supported platforms/operating systems. User:ScotXW^t@lk 08:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See my post about about adding a graphics and physics column. Target platform covered by supported platforms/operating systems. If someone has the time, Commercial and Freeware eventually should be converted to a format like the Open source software table. Any volunteers?Slacka123 (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the multiple links to external websites found throughout the article. Wikipedia:External links is clear that such links are inappropriate: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article ... Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia." It is common for links such as those that I have removed to be removed from articles, lists, and tables. There is no reason for this list to be different and remain in violation of Wikipedia policy. Peacock (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Lists "Definition list formatting is occasionally used for other purposes..,(e.g., lengthy External links". The style guidelines for main articles are not appropriate for lists as their purpose is to condense information into easily digestible form. Just because you have done it before does not make it correct. NeedCokeNow (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Lists doesn't say what you are quoting. Is it written somewhere else? I didn't say that I have edited lists is this way before - other editors have done so, and it appears to be consensus that such links are not permitted. Can you please supply a link to a policy page that says otherwise? Peacock (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit question

What happened here? It looks like an entry was clobbered with another. Am I misreading this? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Scaleform?

Is this really appropriate? I can't see any sources calling it a "game engine"; it's advertised and used as middleware. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm clearly ignorant of the mobile sphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Engines Not Included

... and the reasons why.

Darkplaces

Darkplaces is not listed, and doesn't even appear to have an article of it's own. Darkplaces should be well known from the Nexuiz game (which eventually made it to the PS3) and the upcoming Xonotic game and others.--AmeenNL (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

3D Game Builder

Why when I add the 3D Game Builder (http://www.eternix.com.br/en/3dgamebuilder/) someone remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edirlei (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have an article, and had no claim of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Panda 3D

How come I don't see Engine Panda3D?

It's under freeware engines CaveyCoUk (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quake III Engine?

The Quake III engine isn't here under open source or proprietary? It currently powers at least two OSS games, Open Arena and Tremulous, as well as Quake III: Arena, Quake III: Team Arena, Star Trek Elite Force II, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Enemy Territory, Call of Duty, Call of Duty United Offensive, Soldier of Fortune II, Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. Check the article on the Quake III Engine :P.--68.126.148.14 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now known as id tech 3, so it is in the list CaveyCoUk (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spark Engine

Known for natural selection 2. Someone should write about that thing because its pretty awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.216.15 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Engines

A short list of other engines that do not appear to be in the list.

• The engine for Freelancer || Microsoft Game someone could ask ^^
• GeoMod, as used in Red Faction
• Sphere RPG Engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.209.243 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Although are these actually classed as something else?

G3D

This is not in the list, http://g3d-cpp.sourceforge.net/

Is it of any note? Been used in any notable games? Has it been discussed or reviewed by reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Adonthell

Although this is still under development, a demo game using it has been completed and released. http://adonthell.linuxgames.com/ Should engines under development be included in the list? Included or mentioned somewhere else? Myidbe (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Flixel

Flixel is a game engine that is used to produce games similar in appearance to early Atari games. Why wasn't it included in this?

Here's it's website.

http://flixel.org/

Sean 0000001 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Flixel FrameWork rather than an ENGINE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.126.89 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars Engine?

So are there any details and / or credible information(s) about this engine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars#Game_engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.17.91 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrlicht

Odd that it's not even mentioned, even here on the talk page. Was it removed at some point? It's very popular, probably more widely used than anything currently in the free/libre list, aside from Ogre. -LesPaul75_talk 01:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 I'd say it's absent or it was removed because it doesn't belong here. Irrlicht is a 3D rendering engine, not a game engine per se.

Untitled

there seems no explanation what 2.5D means and some abbreviation are not clear for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.19.95 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Marmalade SDK is listed as being GPL and contained in the "Free/Libre and Open Source Software" section, but the article on it lists it as proprietary, and the official website has a "Purchase License" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.176.20 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

“QT”?

Why QT is on list? QT != game engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.130.122 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It has a 2D graphics framework, a multimedia module and can process user input. What makes it not a game engine? Spidermario (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"A game engine is a software system designed for the creation and development of video games". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.130.159 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Qt is designed for whatever you want to develop with it, including games. It is as much a game engine as, for example, OpenSceneGraph. Spidermario (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

According to you (Spidermario), MFC is a game engine? Also c++ is a game engine according to your defintion of a game engine. QT is just a framework, not a game engine. Btw, why did you delete conversation? If you think that by deleting it, you are automatically right, you are absolutely wrong, and you should be banned. Don't delete this conversation, even if you are right, it is just bad policy to delete old conversation's that defines the article. You shouldn't delete old conversation as you wish, if you are wrong, you still should keep old conversations as it is.

Could you point out where, exactly, in the talk’s history, I have deleted the conversation? Of course not, because I have not. However, you modified my message. And read my first message again: “[Qt] has a 2D graphics framework, a multimedia module and can process user input.”. Anyway, I would not have created such an article, actually. Listing all game engines is kind of meaningless, especially considering how vague the definition of a game engine is. Spidermario (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As there are "Game Engines" currently in the list which have features that are entirely covered by the Qt framework, shot they then be in the list? Several of the 2D engines in the list could easily be implemented as nothing more than wrappers on top of Qt. That's a big distinction between Qt and MFC - I can't find any game engine in the list that can be replaced by MFC. Or C++ for that matter. Many engines in the list actually are nothing more than small libraries that have less a lot less features than frameworks such as Qt and JavaFX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.0.144 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Qt counts as a game engine - it has high level APIs for handling 2D games (e.g., QGraphicsScene). It is possible to write 2D games using only Qt (I have done so). C++ is just a language, and by itself can only be used for the simplest of text-based games. I don't know if MFC has any gaming APIs? Can you explain how "framework" differs to "game engine"? Mdwh (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Engines

Unreal Engine 4

https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/ue4-is-free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.1.83 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OpenTechEngine

https://github.com/OpenTechEngine

Some (BSD) people create this engine based on the release of Doom 3 BFG, which use the idtech5.

Available to license vs in-house engine?

I'm just wondering if this section couldn't be made more useful by including a listing as to whether an engine is available for licensing by third parties (like Unreal) or is strictly being used in-house by its creators.

DARKSMASTER923

I'm not registered. I added Reality factory free open source engine and Deep Creator

Call of duty series in With related games table

Call of Duty series should have its place in With related games table

like for such a huge, successful series it really should

Use of table and bullet list

I find this article organized strangely. There's a pretty table, with columns and nice formatted, for free engines. Then a long ugly bulleted list for proprietary engines. What is the reason for separating the two as so and not ensuring full details are available for both? Whether free or proprietary should just be a column in the table, rather than separate sections with differing formats.

If there's no reason for this, I may begin making an effort to fill in the table fully. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LINKFARM, if I begin to work on the table I'll also take that opportunity to remove the non-notables. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That'd be great. The lists are also mixing together game engines, rendering engines, app frameworks, and others. I don't know if there's a nice way of throwing everything into a single list and having it be useful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Will start looking at this in a week or so. If nothing else, I'll add a column for "Software type" or something to note different forms of engines/frameworks, if I don't remove them depending on what they are. A sortable table is more use in this case than the separate lists and such. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Beginning this effort. I am handling cleanup of non-notable entries first, then will begin working to merge the lists into a complete table. The current table has been cleaned, working through the lists next. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lists cleaned up. The table of "notable games" will be left alone for now, I will delete it as part of expanding the table and merging the list sections in. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you used as your definition of notable, but open source engines that are used in commercial games are without a doubt notable. I'm going to restore some of the ones you culled.Slacka123 (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I went by WP:N, that is, they have an article of their own and substantial coverage. Being an open source engine, that was used in a commercial game, is not a sign of notability in the least.. With the possible exception of Aleph One (Which has some coverage at Marathon's article), what you added back has no real coverage on Wikipedia. I searched for usage or mentions before removing them from the table. Note, I also fixed many pipes and redirects, such as the missing link to PlayN. I do plan to remove these unlinked or redlinked engines again in the future. Please see the hatnote at the top of the talk page... If they are notable, they should have articles with sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists does it state that all items in a list require a matching article, only that the items are properly referenced. Not only were some of the items you removed, referenced, some of them had corresponding articles about the games they were used to make. In addition to the community and discussions built around them, their open nature, makes open source engines a valuable learning tool. For a proprietary engine to be notable, it has to be based on a popular game that has generated enough material to provide references. Open sourced commercial game engines are so rare, that their very nature usually generates community and lots of articles to use as references. I have seen many articles start off here and on other wiki lists that did not have corresponding articles like Horde3D was recently along with many more before it. If we applied your blanked, narrow definition, they would have never got chance to start Slacka123 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I initially missed this section, but I still insist every entry should have pipes links that DISCUSS the engine. I will open a section specifically to discuss the engine you want added back. I did not set the linkfarm notice that's already at the head of this article. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss the engines that you want to remove. But that's not how things work around here. This isn't all of a sudden your page, where you make the rules. You haven't been maintaining this page and up util now you haven't made any major contributions to it. So the engines stay in for now, and we can discuss them on a case by case basis below.Slacka123 (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's actually not how it works, per WP:BURDEN. I have claimed it is unsourced, and removed it. You have reverted repeatedly without providing any further sourcing... -- ferret (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have begun the table merger, and completed merging the engines listed in the shorter Freeware subsection. I'll begin on the longer commercial list soon. I've also added and populated an "Engine type" column to aid with the fact that not everything in the list is, strictly speaking, a game engine. This may require more thought later, but noting the type helps get it started. The type was pulled most from the infobox of the engine's article, and sometimes from prose if no infobox data was found. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the talk thread that you archived? There are several discussions on what columns should be added/removed. "engine type" was not one of them. The vast majority of game engines are full engines, so it make no sense to waste a column on something than can be put in the notes or better yet, split off into its own section. Per the old talk discussion, some useful columns that you could add are "physics", "sound", and "networking". Also there was talk of removing SDL.Slacka123 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You understand that not everything has to be specifically discussed before being acted on, right? That said, I mentioned it above in reply to Consumed Crustacean. I opened this talk section over 17 days ago stating my intentions, there was plenty of time for watchers to chime in. There's no reason to undo everything if you disagree with the single column.

All that aside, the Engine Type column can be removed with a single click using VE to edit the table, if that's the right thing to do. I added the column because the table had a note warning readers that the table that it mixed different engines and frame works without distinction. So I added a distinction. If you feel the note column will be clearer to readers, we can do that. We need to aim from clarity for the reader. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

See new section below, let's continue that discussion separate from the other cleanup effort I'm working on. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, please stop reverting all of my edits. The last opposition you have raised is the engine type column, based on your edit notes and your discussion here. There is a [#Engine type column|discussion section] open in response, and I have removed the column for the time being, so you should cease blindly reverting.

I asked you to stop reverting my commits. Instead you ignored my request 2 times, and continued to do your own thing with out answering me on this talk page. So from now on, I'm going to insist that you rebase your edits off of my last revision until this issues is resolved.Slacka123 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As for any engines I removed that you feel should be in the list, please bring them up specifically in a new section. They do not have articles or a wikilink target, therefore they are not notable. If there's no content on Wikipedia to discussion them, they do not belong in this list (Or it's navbar template), per WP:LINKFARM. I once again ask that you read the headers on the talk page that discuss this. Perhaps we can build articles for those engines, but they are missing right now. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I opened a discussion for the removed engines. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The list merger is now completed. Please do not revert all of this effort. I have opened a discussion specifically about the engines I removed that were unsourced, let's continue discussion there, find sources, and then add them back. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This would have never been an issue, if you had seen my request to talk here. You're doing a great job. I should have more free time later this month to help out if you do add more columns. Slacka123 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Remakes

Engine remakes should probably be removed from this list. There is a separate list at List of game engine recreations for them. Aleph One may be the only engine that falls into this category though. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's going to be some overlap on lists. By merging the proprietary and open source, the list seems a lot more unwieldy. If others feel as you do, I'm not overly opposed to removing it. Unfortunately, many of the usually contributors don't seem to be around.(maybe because of the summer)Slacka123 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Developer/Maintainer column

Since there's been some opposition to adding columns without first discussing, opening a new section...

I'd like to add a column for the Developer and/or Maintainer of the engines. Any opposition? -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

For propriety engines and people interested in them, it make sense to list the company behind them. For many community developed open source engines, it doesn't many any sense. Also what exactly did you have in mind, company or lead dev? Ex for frostbite would you put DICE or Johan Andersson? Slacka123 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

True. It becomes a bit messy. In principal I would have put the company behind the engine, if there is one. If there were a notable team or project behind it (I.e. they have an article), that. Bearing that, I would move on to a lead developer or project maintainer. But that does become cumbersome. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Engine type column

Splitting this into a new section, separate from the effort to get all engines into the table and out of bullet lists. I have removed the engine type column I previously added. This is to discuss it further.

Consumed Crustacean noted when I first brought up working on the table that it needed something to help clarify the mix of different engine and framework types. The article had a warning note listed to the readers as well that noted this. This is unclear, readers shouldn't need to "note" such things, we should either provide the information to them, or remove any entries that are not clearly game engines. I believe the column serves this purpose better.

There's several items that need to be removed entirely in my eyes, if we aren't going to have a column to aid readers with such a long table. Things like MikuMikuDance, Esperient, the various tool kits, Codea, etc. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, perhaps you'd care to comment? I have delayed further work at this time while waiting for your opinion here. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Many engines have started off as frameworks that have grown into complete engines and can still be used in either manner, so it will be hard to draw a clear distinction. Then there's rendering engines like Orge and Irrlicht that anyone interested in game engines is likely also going want to know about. To me the features of an engine, such as 2D, 3D graphics, sound, and networking are what differentiate them and make them easy to categorize. How high/low level they are or framework/middleware questions are much more subjectiveSlacka123 (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether any reliable sources refer to the software as a "game engine" is probably one of the better ways of deciding if it's ever unclear. I definitely don't think there's room in here for app frameworks just because they might evolve into an engine one day. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This list is so ungainly that I'm personally particular to removing the non-game engines entirely. They could go in a separate list if need be, whether that's within a different article or a separate section of this one. If it was very clear that all entries are complete game engines, it would be clearer for readers, and I'd hope editors would be less likely to add non-conforming entries. The list's scope as it stands right now is really unclear, it seems like it could cover every middleware, framework, and possibly even "minor" libraries. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree. I would probably suggest starting by getting it in synch with Template:Video game engines. There are other lists for frameworks. -- ferret (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Change SDL into notable technologies used?

SDL is just one of the many technologies that can be used in a Game Engine. The way it is currently shown (with yes being green, and no being red) it also advocated that it is "the best" or "a great addition" to have in your game engine. If such information is to be included, it should be neutral and more inclusive of other technologies. For example GLFW which is less inclusive (only focuses on OpenGL), or SFML which includes more functionality (higher level of abstraction).

It could also be used to add more detail to the capabilities of an engine. Such as physics libraries (Box2D, PhysX, Bullet, etc.), audio libraries (OpenAL, FMOD, etc.), rendering libraries (Irrklang, Ogre 3D).

A similar sidenote is for the colored background of 2D/3D. If you're making a 2D game, a 2D engine may very well be a better choice than a 3D engine. The colors red and green are associated with bad and good, so I don't think that is valuable. Aidiakapi (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree on your point about SDL. We have 3 categories all related to platform(cross, SDL, and target), while nothing dedicated to the technologies supported. What do you think of my suggestion above of scrapping SDL and replacing it with Physics, Networking, and Sound?

However, I think you're bikeshedding on the color scheme. Around the world, green is associated with Yes, while red is associated with No. I don't follow you on colors being inherently good or bad. I could just as well argue that red is powerful and aggressive and green as being weak and sickly. Slacka123 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I'm working on merging all of the lists into one table (See section below), this has cropped up in my mind. I am not planning to remove the column myself at this time, but it begins to feel less useful. I would recommend removing both the "Cross Platform" and "SDL" columns, and replacing them with a "Technology" or "API" column (which subsequently can contain SDL and other frameworks). The "Target Platform" column already clearly shows when an engine is on only one, or multiple, platforms.

I also agree with Aidiakapi that green and red are associated with a positive and negative meaning. I recommend removing coloration from the 2D/3D column. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slacka123:, perhaps you'd care to comment? -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've said I'll I have to say about colors. If you 2 really feel that strongly about it, go for it. I'm much more interested in ensuring useful content than presentation. Slacka123 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove the coloration from 2D/3D then. I don't think in this case it's appropriate, that "2D" is potentially presented as a "negative", when many great games are 2D. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Cross Platform Yes/No column, do we agree it can be removed? The Target Platform column also presents this information.

Regarding the SDL column, I think you've mentioned in a few places a column for Graphics, Network and Physics. I think this might be too restrictive... We'd need Audio, and potentially several others. How about a simple "Technology/API" column where all such items can be listed? DirectX, SDL, Havok, OpenGL, etc, etc... As well as some older systems like iMUSE and INSANE. -- ferret (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Little bit concerned that it's going to get unwieldy and nearly turn into a feature list unless it's focused down a bit. For Unreal Engine 4, what can I think of... if we're listing APIs and the like, then maybe DirectX 9, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, Mantle, OpenGL, XInput, OpenAL, OpenVR, Oculus VR, PhysX, SDL, Steamworks, SVN, Perforce, Git, Leap Motion SDK. If we're also listing major libraries being shipped ("Technologies"?), then add in Ogg, Vorbis, Opus, OpenSSL, CEF, SpeedTree, Recast, Simplygon, Box2D. And other libraries include libcurl, libJPG, lib, sqlite, WebSockets, zlib, OneSky, FreeType2, DirectShow, openexr. This isn't including the various third-party partners that make add-ons for the engine. This isn't exhaustive by the way, I got bored while typing this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's also just UE4. Unless we split UE's entry up, UE3/2.5/2/1 would all probably add even more. They are historical, but games are still being developed off UE3 and maybe UE2.5's code base... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

UE is the most commercially successful game engine ever written. There should be plenty of sources to justify entries for each generation, just like id tech. 50.136.58.193 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Status column

I think it would be useful to have a status column to note which engines are still in development or have become defunct. This would be a simple yes/no/partial column. Yes if still supported, no if not, partial if official support is ended but code is released (Or something similar.)

Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This only makes sense for open source engines, where the commit log can easily be checked. For lesser know proprietary engines, the current status is impossible to determine. Defunt engines could be noted in the notes section.Slacka123 (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Engines under discussion

These are the engines I've removed, that Slacka123 feels should still be in the table. Existing article talk headers set a policy that only notable engines should be listed, per WP:LINKFARM, but Slacka123 argues that the MOS has no restriction.

Why do you keep referencing WP:LINKFARM? Do you understand what an external link is? It's clearly not an issue here since with the exception of Urho3D ( which is based off of an engine that is covered) none items in the list have external links.

• Anura - Used by Frogatto & Friends, has no sources or discussion at that article, and is not even named. Engine details appear unsourced.

  How can you say that? Please look at the article again. At least 1/3 of the article is dedicated to talking about the source code. What source code do you think they're talking about? The engine source code maybe? If you really have issue with the name not being spelled out in the article, I'll fix it myself. [[3]]. Getting a proper citation is not a big deal. I'll address the other engines shortlySlacka123 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  In reviewing this particular case, you are correct. The article seems to discuss the engine in context of game development a fair bit, but many details are still vague and unsourced, or rely almost entirely on primary sources. It needs reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Core3D - No usage on Wikipedia at all, nor is the listed "notable game" used anywhere. Has a single source here at the list. Phoronix is not viewed as a reliable source by WP:VG.Slacka123 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course phoronix isn't listed as a Video Game source at WP:VG. It's not at all. It's a Linux/Unix news source with original articles.Slacka123 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, Phoronix is not used by WP:VG, despite often covering VG topics, because it fails some reliable source criteria, such as an editorial guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• LÖVE - Used by Mari0, which makes a passing mention of it's engine, sourced to an article that makes a passing mention. All other engine details unsourced.
• Nebula Device - Redirect exists to Radon Labs, which has a passing mention of the engine. No sources, and all engine details unsourced. (Added back)
• Pyrogenesis - Redirect exists to 0 A.D. (video game). Some decent sourced bits exist, I will personally readd this one without waiting. (Added back)
• Turbulenz - No apparent usage on Wikipedia (Search results hit some german pages, but can't find anything related to game engines), unsourced.
• Urho3D - No usage on Wikipedia, no source. A link to an external site is definitely not appropriate for a list.

I removed Urho3D from the list. Very promising engine and large/active community but not enough sources to justify. I'll address other shortly. Slacka123 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted, I'll add back Pyrogenesis.. Of the rest of these, I believe that MAYBE Core3D could go back. While WP:VG currently views Phoronix as unreliable, other projects may view it as reliable.

The rest are practically unsourced and unused on Wikipedia, so even ignoring my definition of "notability", they failed WP:V as well. If you can find reliable sources, per WP:BURDEN, I will gladly add them back. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added back Nebula Device, while merging in the old Related Games table, as well as several other low notability engines. I don't entirely agree with it being there, unless we can find sources and add more information. It is at least discussed at it's parent page though. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added your engines back, with citation needed tags. It's up to you to source them, per WP:BURDEN. Honestly, they shouldn't even be added back, but you're clearly not going to cease adding them back without sources, so to avoid further reverts, there they are. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Release Date to Chart

Oh how I wish this chart had a release date, or separated by year or something. Eventually this chart is going to get SO HUGE that it's almost too cumbersome. Or even separated by year or something. Most of these are for games long since obsolete.

Darrellx (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Table completeness / Related games table / Spit Open Source and Proprietary

Now that the lists are merged into the primary engine table, I will begin working to add missing engines. Some of these are in the related games table, which can go away. Others can be found via the Game Engines template. I noted quite a few missing. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Engines and related information from the Related Games table has been fully merged. Still need to add other missing engines from the main template. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

After seeing how the table look merged, it's clear that they should be slit up again. There are just too many columns that are relevant open source, but there is not with proprietary. For example. SDL makes no sense for proprietary since you have no access to the source to see what frameworks are used. Also the suggestions that you've made here for additional columns only makes sense for proprietary engines, not not open source. You've done a nice job with the proprietary engines, but they really belong on a separate list. Slacka123 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it's already been suggested (including by yourself) that the SDL column should be removed and replaced with something else relating to technologies used in a particular engine, I think that's a better course of action. The only column that really applies only to open source is SDL. It'd be better removed rather than the table split. Other suggested columns are irrelevant at this stage, since there was no support to include them. -- ferret (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SDL's such a specific choice, why should that have a dedicated column at all? Whether an engine uses it might be column-level relevant to an SDL article, but not a general game engines list. Likewise for any individual library I can think of. Is there anything else in particular that would be suitable to display for FOSS but not proprietary engines? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SDL was just one example. As I said before, Take a look at the talk comments here discussing new catagories. A new developer column makes no sense for most open source projects while development status makes no sense for propriety. Besides lack of overlap in come columns. People interested in developing/learning from engines are not going to be interested in proprietary engines. Gamers tend to be more interested in the latest propriety engines. Finally the combined table is much more unwieldy.Slacka123 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Having two tables doesn't make the page any less unwieldy, as the amount of data remains the same. The other columns had no real support to be added to the article, so they're moot. If the only problem in the current table is the SDL column, we can remove it. -- ferret (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add a vote for having separate tables (or even separate pages) for proprietary and free code engines. I agree with Slacka123 that different groups of people will be interested in the two categories for very different reasons. I found this page while searching for a list of free code game engines that can be used to develop fully non-proprietary games (all code under libre licenses and all art and assets under CC licenses), so all the proprietary entries are just in my way. -- Danylstrype (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I don't understand is how sorting on the license column doesn't solve your issue. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Gamvas appears dead

Gamvas is no longer at the site listed (http://gamvas.com/). Google, mozilla (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Games/Tools/Engines_and_tools) and html5gameengine (https://html5gameengine.com/) no longer list it.

I recommend deleting and replacing it's entry with another JavaScript engine, maybe Turblez or Pixi.js? Edit.jim (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The list contains notable engines that have articles on Wikipedia. Even if they're no longer used or maintained, their notability and article is what puts them on this list. Turblez doesn't have an article, and while Pixi.js does, it's unsourced and doesn't show notability. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)