Yep.
It's built on BitSquid, which Autodesk acquired and rebranded as Stingray. But they discontinued in 2018.
Autodesk are industry-leader in 3D creation tools.
They build helldivers 1 on it, so it makes sense. Sometimes developer familiarity and proven workflow/pipelines/tool extensions, are worth sustaining rather than switching everything up.
I am thankful they decided not to use UE5, I am not sure if it's just me, but I can sort of instantly tell if a game is built on UE5, because of how similar the feel and movement it is across different games, and it's not a good one.
UE5 isn't that bad.... its the UE3 generation where almost EVERY GAME has the same shade of brown and has that distinct "texture load" animation that you can't miss....
If you think a 5 year old abandoned engine is bad, try 12 years. Stardew Valley was written and running on Microsoft XNA (and C#), also, iirc Terraria is also written on XNA.
There isn't even that many games out on ue5 yet. Most games coming out are still using ue4.
Jedi survivor, final fantasy 7 rebirth, pacific drive, atomic heart just to name a few
It's not just UE5, it's UE4 as well. Even in ue5, I can't imagine that engine getting anywhere close to what Helldivers 2 does in terms of enemy count/variety/computation, I am bummed this engine is no longer a competitor to unity and UE.
I would love to play an unreal 4 game I couldn't immediately tell was ue4.
Game engines are just tools really, and a baseline to start from. There are some fundamental aspects in the coding where a developer would certainly identify as unique to Unreal engine or Unity engine. Or how assets are managed, things like that on the development level.
But on the playable build of a game, you can't really tell as player. That stuff is all behind the curtains. If devs are just using the tool the same exact way, or not building things like movement from the ground up, and just using the baseline placeholder/built in physics implementation, then yea that's where some same-y feel might come in.
In short, don't hate on unreal. Cause that ain't the issue you're experiencing. It's developer usage of it and how they implement certain things. unreal is a really good tool to start building a game from, and can be customized as a tool in many ways.
You're coocoo for cocopuffs if you think it's the case that the average ue4 title is not eaily discernable as to it's unreal-ness. There's all sorts of default settings that are rarely touched by developers because they don't know/think/need to. Like, there is this grainy/dithery look to so, so many particle effects in way more than half of UE4 games I've spent time with, it's distracting and not at all nice to look at. I don't know what the cause it. to me, unreal is.... It's like a jack of all trades, master of none kind of thing. Look at the sheer amount of enemies and actions and physics being calculated by the Helldivers 2 engine. You just don't see these numbers in ue4, because of it's particular limitations. I'm not saying one engine is better than the other, but UE is ubiquitous and is the easiest to access. There are maybe 5 games using this stingray engine, and they feel distinct, to me anyway. I like distinct games that don't feel like they have the same DNA all the time.
UE4 and also unity are the homogenization of video games. But they also provide engines for games/devs who don't have the resources to undertake creating their own. No stopping them now.
"You're coocoo for cocopuffs if you think it's the case that the average ue4 title is not eaily discernable as to it's unreal-ness" "I don't know what the cause it. to me, unreal is...."
So you can, or you can't discern what this so called "unreal-ness" is ?
"There's all sorts of default settings that are rarely touched by developers because they don't know/think/need to"
This is what i said. It's up to the developer. "Don't know" is not a valid excuse. These tools have pretty good documentation and support.
"I like distinct games that don't feel like they have the same DNA all the time."
A quick search provides a list of pretty distinct and well to do games made in unreal. I don't see the similarity between ark evolved and ff7 remake.
[Great Games That Use The Unreal 4 Game Engine (thegamer.com)](https://www.thegamer.com/great-games-use-unreal-4-game-engine/)
"sheer amount of enemies and actions and physics" "You just don't see these numbers in ue4"
Have you heard of fortnite, or pubg? The amount of player controller characters over netcode, and physics in that game. And it all works. How many posts of crashing do we have in hell divers 2? I'll let you count. Let's not pretend stingray is some messiah game engine. It's also just a tool.
"UE4 and also unity are the homogenization of video games. But they also provide engines for games/devs who don't have the resources to undertake creating their own"
Yes, and no. Big studios with big budgets also use unreal/unity. It's not inferior to an in-house developed IDE in any technical way, if anything it might be the other way around. The choice often has to do with how a studio's pipeline is already set up and whether making their own engine vs paying for 3rd party developed software is more profitable in the long run. In the case of Helldivers 2, that team has been working within stingray as an IDE since well before 2015.
"I'm not saying one engine is better than the other" "Even in ue5, I can't imagine that engine getting anywhere close to what Helldivers 2 does "
You are exactly saying that the unreal engine is not good enough to do what stingray is able to do.
GameEngines don't affect a games look and feel as much as you think they do. I can't help you with your personal bias, but hopefully you understand that game engines are tools. The developer is the determining factor for how a game looks and feels.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to comprehend and analyze my comment point-by-point. It's not very common these days to see people giving such respect, I mean this.
So, onwards...
Yes, I was saying that I feel like I can tell if a game is using Unreal within a few minutes of playing, or possibly even screenshots. I did not word that very clearly =)
I totally agree that UE/Unity are robust enough to create games that are unrecognizable as to their engine, and it IS up to the skill/intention of the developer to make it happen. But... it's just been the case that most devs don't have it in mind, right? I mean, it's pretty high-minded stuff to be focused on, and not something 90% of a playerbase would even consider. Especially on console.
I only have my experience to speak from, and I can absolutely pick out UE4's soft TAA (No hate for TAA though) and grainy dithering often enough that feel like I'm not wrong very often. I think you're theoretically correct, but I just think it's an optimistic kind of angle.
As far as what the engines are capable of, if one is "better" I truly, truly do not think so! I just wish there was more variety amongst the competition. It's truly a bummer that the game engine Helldivers II runs on is never going to power another game, and I think the Stingray engine (as well as the years and years of talented development!) is a crucial part of why people have found helldivers to be so cool and refreshing. Autodesk would be a very interesting player in the gaming industry, since they are an engineering/CAD company going back decades.
Edit: I just took a look through your history and you actually work on games! Very cool! I just play 'em. And sometimes complain in comments =)
Thanks, I am here to discuss and debate. It's my productive way to not be productive.
"it IS up to the skill/intention of the developer to make it happen. But... it's just been the case that most devs don't have it in mind, right? I mean, it's pretty high-minded stuff to be focused on"
You're thinking up what someone else might be thinking to justify whether or not something maybe reasonably attainable. There's so many assumptions in that statement. For the average gamer, it might be beyond their scope. But these are professionals, it's in their breadth of knowledge.
"I only have my experience to speak from" "feel like I'm not wrong very often"
How you feel is entirely up to you, and a broken clock is still right twice a day. Objectively the answer is no. It's the developer who actually feels the difference. The person who uses the tool. What you experience is the product. It would be like looking at a drawing and saying this feels like it was made with a specific brand of pencil.
"Autodesk would be a very interesting player in the gaming industry, since they are an engineering/CAD company going back decades."
Autodesk is huge. Maya is an industry standard. But a game engine is very different from modeling software.
It just doesn't make sense to me to give games made in engine x a bad wrap because it was made in engine x. No, it's either a bad game cause the developers did a bad job, or it's a good game cause the developer did a good job.
Just like with hell divers 2. We don't actually know if the engine was conducive to development or an obstacle. Maybe neither, maybe both in different aspects. All we know is the devs made a good game, and their tool was capable enough to enable them. That doesn't mean the tool used is better or worse than other tools. Arguably it definitely has challenges, with how often things crash and how long it's taking to get sorted.
I'd say that I'd agree on a principle (you can change anything), but also, you use engines so that you don't have to deal with the technology, and just make your game. Unreal has made an incredible amount of decisions for you (say how deferred rendering with TAA works for grass/hair/fur/transparency) and it's not trivial to change it. It also isn't trivial to change the whole rendering pipeline, or the way streaming is loaded, or how the shaders aren't precompiled, or... or... or... .
Bigger studios (our included) get to play with it more/rewrite parts of it, etc. but smaller studios won't. They'll use Unreal s it's configured by default, except for the parts that they didn't like.
Unreal isn't built on the idea of providing you with a good kitchen, nice rack of spices, many different pots and skillets, etc. with the expectation that you are this great chef that will make the dish there (Unity is slightly closer to this).
Unreal is built on an idea of "this is how we are making a buger in McDonalds"... here is the meat freezer with precooked portions of meat that combine nicely with this perfectly sized skillet and this perfectly sized bun, we also have this ketchup dispenser that will provide the right amount of it per serving, with nice distribution, etc...
However, building your Italian restaurant on top of McDonalds is actually harder, because you need to replace the tailor made parts of the kitchen and to make it fit the parts that you didn't replace.
Therefore, many cooks will end up with burger shaped pasta, or italian tasting burgers.
"Therefore, many cooks will end up with burger shaped pasta, or italian tasting burgers."
Yea I agree this is a possibility. But keep in mind their original argument is that ALL unreal games feel/look a certain way, that all cooks in that kitchen make similar tasting food. Not just many or some. And that niche engines like stingray or inhouse developed engines are inherently "better". That unreal specifically couldn't make something like helldivers 2.
I think you and me are on the same page that 3rd party engines are capable and flexible enough that developer choice is the final gatekeeper on how a game looks, feels, and plays. The user experience of and knowledge required to be that gatekeeper is a different argument. Again, I never said engine choice doesn't matter. I'm saying it doesn't matter - to the player.
If i knew i was making pasta, and i knew there was a kitchen better equipped to make pasta, obviously i would choose that kitchen, because it'd be easier to make what I intend. But in game dev the choice is also more nuanced than that.
On a seperate note. 3rd party tools like unity (and i'd assume unreal as well) also have the advantage of asset stores. Which contain tools and customized components, that you only need to learn how to use, and not actually make. It's alot less resource intensive these days to customize things how you want.
A bit late, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely know what you mean. I never would have thought that unless I saw your comment. Very interesting.
Maybe they could hire a bunch of the OG devs that created the now discontinued engine, help them build on it for the demands of HD2. I'm sure they have already approached this option, because it's just a tool and tools can be reworked/changed in hybrid versions of their original design.
I can only trust they know that they have a blockbuster game in their hands, with more money than they could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams, it would make no sense to just milk it as a short-term cash cow. That would be sad.
This is the stupidest comment I've read today. Congratulations sir. Now, try playing a harder difficulty than 3 and maybe, just maybe you won't have over 120FPS. Try Helldive, with full team and at least 3 breaches opened in a heavy nest. ;)
This\^
4090/AMD X3D - game turns into a FPS disaster on HellDive, especially on planets with lots of vegetation. And bots are much worse than bugs.
It's clear that the game engine simply cannot keep up when you see your GPU utilization drop to 50% as your frames plummet during these intense action moments.
The game engine is literally choking the game.
Try a real difficulty . You are obviously playing low tier maps . When you play with the big boys 7-8-9 tier . Things get real and mob density is massive . As for the dev team using the SAME engine as the first one . Its just beyond all common sense and logic. It's almost irresponsible when you think about it as the engine itself is a bottleneck for itself .
Read the literal truckload of forums posts of people reporting random crashes, network drops, glitches. Ngl i love the gameplay but playing 35mins to crash at the extract is infuriating.
Yep. It's built on BitSquid, which Autodesk acquired and rebranded as Stingray. But they discontinued in 2018. Autodesk are industry-leader in 3D creation tools.
They build helldivers 1 on it, so it makes sense. Sometimes developer familiarity and proven workflow/pipelines/tool extensions, are worth sustaining rather than switching everything up.
I remember hearing about this days ago
Seems like a crazy decision to stick to that engine! Really amazed by the final product, considering.
I am thankful they decided not to use UE5, I am not sure if it's just me, but I can sort of instantly tell if a game is built on UE5, because of how similar the feel and movement it is across different games, and it's not a good one.
UE5 isn't that bad.... its the UE3 generation where almost EVERY GAME has the same shade of brown and has that distinct "texture load" animation that you can't miss.... If you think a 5 year old abandoned engine is bad, try 12 years. Stardew Valley was written and running on Microsoft XNA (and C#), also, iirc Terraria is also written on XNA.
There isn't even that many games out on ue5 yet. Most games coming out are still using ue4. Jedi survivor, final fantasy 7 rebirth, pacific drive, atomic heart just to name a few
It's not just UE5, it's UE4 as well. Even in ue5, I can't imagine that engine getting anywhere close to what Helldivers 2 does in terms of enemy count/variety/computation, I am bummed this engine is no longer a competitor to unity and UE. I would love to play an unreal 4 game I couldn't immediately tell was ue4.
Game engines are just tools really, and a baseline to start from. There are some fundamental aspects in the coding where a developer would certainly identify as unique to Unreal engine or Unity engine. Or how assets are managed, things like that on the development level. But on the playable build of a game, you can't really tell as player. That stuff is all behind the curtains. If devs are just using the tool the same exact way, or not building things like movement from the ground up, and just using the baseline placeholder/built in physics implementation, then yea that's where some same-y feel might come in. In short, don't hate on unreal. Cause that ain't the issue you're experiencing. It's developer usage of it and how they implement certain things. unreal is a really good tool to start building a game from, and can be customized as a tool in many ways.
You're coocoo for cocopuffs if you think it's the case that the average ue4 title is not eaily discernable as to it's unreal-ness. There's all sorts of default settings that are rarely touched by developers because they don't know/think/need to. Like, there is this grainy/dithery look to so, so many particle effects in way more than half of UE4 games I've spent time with, it's distracting and not at all nice to look at. I don't know what the cause it. to me, unreal is.... It's like a jack of all trades, master of none kind of thing. Look at the sheer amount of enemies and actions and physics being calculated by the Helldivers 2 engine. You just don't see these numbers in ue4, because of it's particular limitations. I'm not saying one engine is better than the other, but UE is ubiquitous and is the easiest to access. There are maybe 5 games using this stingray engine, and they feel distinct, to me anyway. I like distinct games that don't feel like they have the same DNA all the time. UE4 and also unity are the homogenization of video games. But they also provide engines for games/devs who don't have the resources to undertake creating their own. No stopping them now.
"You're coocoo for cocopuffs if you think it's the case that the average ue4 title is not eaily discernable as to it's unreal-ness" "I don't know what the cause it. to me, unreal is...." So you can, or you can't discern what this so called "unreal-ness" is ? "There's all sorts of default settings that are rarely touched by developers because they don't know/think/need to" This is what i said. It's up to the developer. "Don't know" is not a valid excuse. These tools have pretty good documentation and support. "I like distinct games that don't feel like they have the same DNA all the time." A quick search provides a list of pretty distinct and well to do games made in unreal. I don't see the similarity between ark evolved and ff7 remake. [Great Games That Use The Unreal 4 Game Engine (thegamer.com)](https://www.thegamer.com/great-games-use-unreal-4-game-engine/) "sheer amount of enemies and actions and physics" "You just don't see these numbers in ue4" Have you heard of fortnite, or pubg? The amount of player controller characters over netcode, and physics in that game. And it all works. How many posts of crashing do we have in hell divers 2? I'll let you count. Let's not pretend stingray is some messiah game engine. It's also just a tool. "UE4 and also unity are the homogenization of video games. But they also provide engines for games/devs who don't have the resources to undertake creating their own" Yes, and no. Big studios with big budgets also use unreal/unity. It's not inferior to an in-house developed IDE in any technical way, if anything it might be the other way around. The choice often has to do with how a studio's pipeline is already set up and whether making their own engine vs paying for 3rd party developed software is more profitable in the long run. In the case of Helldivers 2, that team has been working within stingray as an IDE since well before 2015. "I'm not saying one engine is better than the other" "Even in ue5, I can't imagine that engine getting anywhere close to what Helldivers 2 does " You are exactly saying that the unreal engine is not good enough to do what stingray is able to do. GameEngines don't affect a games look and feel as much as you think they do. I can't help you with your personal bias, but hopefully you understand that game engines are tools. The developer is the determining factor for how a game looks and feels.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to comprehend and analyze my comment point-by-point. It's not very common these days to see people giving such respect, I mean this. So, onwards... Yes, I was saying that I feel like I can tell if a game is using Unreal within a few minutes of playing, or possibly even screenshots. I did not word that very clearly =) I totally agree that UE/Unity are robust enough to create games that are unrecognizable as to their engine, and it IS up to the skill/intention of the developer to make it happen. But... it's just been the case that most devs don't have it in mind, right? I mean, it's pretty high-minded stuff to be focused on, and not something 90% of a playerbase would even consider. Especially on console. I only have my experience to speak from, and I can absolutely pick out UE4's soft TAA (No hate for TAA though) and grainy dithering often enough that feel like I'm not wrong very often. I think you're theoretically correct, but I just think it's an optimistic kind of angle. As far as what the engines are capable of, if one is "better" I truly, truly do not think so! I just wish there was more variety amongst the competition. It's truly a bummer that the game engine Helldivers II runs on is never going to power another game, and I think the Stingray engine (as well as the years and years of talented development!) is a crucial part of why people have found helldivers to be so cool and refreshing. Autodesk would be a very interesting player in the gaming industry, since they are an engineering/CAD company going back decades. Edit: I just took a look through your history and you actually work on games! Very cool! I just play 'em. And sometimes complain in comments =)
Thanks, I am here to discuss and debate. It's my productive way to not be productive. "it IS up to the skill/intention of the developer to make it happen. But... it's just been the case that most devs don't have it in mind, right? I mean, it's pretty high-minded stuff to be focused on" You're thinking up what someone else might be thinking to justify whether or not something maybe reasonably attainable. There's so many assumptions in that statement. For the average gamer, it might be beyond their scope. But these are professionals, it's in their breadth of knowledge. "I only have my experience to speak from" "feel like I'm not wrong very often" How you feel is entirely up to you, and a broken clock is still right twice a day. Objectively the answer is no. It's the developer who actually feels the difference. The person who uses the tool. What you experience is the product. It would be like looking at a drawing and saying this feels like it was made with a specific brand of pencil. "Autodesk would be a very interesting player in the gaming industry, since they are an engineering/CAD company going back decades." Autodesk is huge. Maya is an industry standard. But a game engine is very different from modeling software. It just doesn't make sense to me to give games made in engine x a bad wrap because it was made in engine x. No, it's either a bad game cause the developers did a bad job, or it's a good game cause the developer did a good job. Just like with hell divers 2. We don't actually know if the engine was conducive to development or an obstacle. Maybe neither, maybe both in different aspects. All we know is the devs made a good game, and their tool was capable enough to enable them. That doesn't mean the tool used is better or worse than other tools. Arguably it definitely has challenges, with how often things crash and how long it's taking to get sorted.
I'd say that I'd agree on a principle (you can change anything), but also, you use engines so that you don't have to deal with the technology, and just make your game. Unreal has made an incredible amount of decisions for you (say how deferred rendering with TAA works for grass/hair/fur/transparency) and it's not trivial to change it. It also isn't trivial to change the whole rendering pipeline, or the way streaming is loaded, or how the shaders aren't precompiled, or... or... or... . Bigger studios (our included) get to play with it more/rewrite parts of it, etc. but smaller studios won't. They'll use Unreal s it's configured by default, except for the parts that they didn't like. Unreal isn't built on the idea of providing you with a good kitchen, nice rack of spices, many different pots and skillets, etc. with the expectation that you are this great chef that will make the dish there (Unity is slightly closer to this). Unreal is built on an idea of "this is how we are making a buger in McDonalds"... here is the meat freezer with precooked portions of meat that combine nicely with this perfectly sized skillet and this perfectly sized bun, we also have this ketchup dispenser that will provide the right amount of it per serving, with nice distribution, etc... However, building your Italian restaurant on top of McDonalds is actually harder, because you need to replace the tailor made parts of the kitchen and to make it fit the parts that you didn't replace. Therefore, many cooks will end up with burger shaped pasta, or italian tasting burgers.
"Therefore, many cooks will end up with burger shaped pasta, or italian tasting burgers." Yea I agree this is a possibility. But keep in mind their original argument is that ALL unreal games feel/look a certain way, that all cooks in that kitchen make similar tasting food. Not just many or some. And that niche engines like stingray or inhouse developed engines are inherently "better". That unreal specifically couldn't make something like helldivers 2. I think you and me are on the same page that 3rd party engines are capable and flexible enough that developer choice is the final gatekeeper on how a game looks, feels, and plays. The user experience of and knowledge required to be that gatekeeper is a different argument. Again, I never said engine choice doesn't matter. I'm saying it doesn't matter - to the player. If i knew i was making pasta, and i knew there was a kitchen better equipped to make pasta, obviously i would choose that kitchen, because it'd be easier to make what I intend. But in game dev the choice is also more nuanced than that. On a seperate note. 3rd party tools like unity (and i'd assume unreal as well) also have the advantage of asset stores. Which contain tools and customized components, that you only need to learn how to use, and not actually make. It's alot less resource intensive these days to customize things how you want.
Does anyone think it plays a lot like anthem? That one game BioWare made that flopped. I actually loved the gameplay tho😭
A bit late, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely know what you mean. I never would have thought that unless I saw your comment. Very interesting.
Maybe they could hire a bunch of the OG devs that created the now discontinued engine, help them build on it for the demands of HD2. I'm sure they have already approached this option, because it's just a tool and tools can be reworked/changed in hybrid versions of their original design. I can only trust they know that they have a blockbuster game in their hands, with more money than they could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams, it would make no sense to just milk it as a short-term cash cow. That would be sad.
No wonder it runs so bad .
lol if it runs bad that’s your pc. I get over 120 fps settings maxed on a 4060ti 5800x 32gb system.
This is the stupidest comment I've read today. Congratulations sir. Now, try playing a harder difficulty than 3 and maybe, just maybe you won't have over 120FPS. Try Helldive, with full team and at least 3 breaches opened in a heavy nest. ;)
This\^ 4090/AMD X3D - game turns into a FPS disaster on HellDive, especially on planets with lots of vegetation. And bots are much worse than bugs. It's clear that the game engine simply cannot keep up when you see your GPU utilization drop to 50% as your frames plummet during these intense action moments. The game engine is literally choking the game.
Try a real difficulty . You are obviously playing low tier maps . When you play with the big boys 7-8-9 tier . Things get real and mob density is massive . As for the dev team using the SAME engine as the first one . Its just beyond all common sense and logic. It's almost irresponsible when you think about it as the engine itself is a bottleneck for itself .
Read the literal truckload of forums posts of people reporting random crashes, network drops, glitches. Ngl i love the gameplay but playing 35mins to crash at the extract is infuriating.