NullPointer
Member
I guess I think of it like normal software development. Now take some stuff that I've done the architecture for as an example. If I'm adding brand new modules or optimizing some existing code I wouldn't call the end result a new piece of software. Its an updated build, and maybe even a new version if there were significant additions.Frenck said:Engine discussions always give me headaches.
Just take a look at Splinter Cell for example. Ubi Montreal started out using the Unreal 2 engine and they rewrote the renderer and yanked out parts of the engine to replace it with their own stuff for every new game. Does that mean that Conviction uses the Unreal 2 engine even though the engine stopped having anything in common with the Unreal 2 tech somewhere around Chaos Theory or at least the very least Double Agent?
Or let me ask that question the other way around, do you seriously think that each new version of ID tech was build completely from the ground up without taking any lessons from earlier engines like the Quake 1 or Quake 2 engine?
Of course Reach has a new engine and of course Bungie will reuse Halo 3 tech where it is appropriate.
But sometimes, to truly advance your tech capabilities or optimize something with a lot of dependencies you have to "crack the ribs open" as we say around my office. When you rewrite or significantly change the core processing pipeline I'd say its valid to call it a brand new piece of software.
Where the Halo 3 engine falls into this rubric is anybody's guess. Somebody get one of the Bungie tech guys drunk and make em spill the beans.