It annoys me when folks who are newer discuss "game engines" as a default. My work in game dev predated anything that really called itself a "game engine." That really materialized around 2000 and on. Prior, everything was bespoke to a game or series. Everyone was an "engine programmer" as a result.
There are folks, almost certainly newer folks or older hobbyists, who will argue this is purely semantics. It's not. At all. The core concept of a game engine is generalization. Prior game dev was so incredibly hardcoded to the exact needs of the project subsystems were often impossible to reuse.
Is it fair to say that also like, in the conceptual sense, if you understood the target platform well enough, you could feasibly draft everything out 'on paper' even before you had to test it directly?
I would say Yes*
*But really no. The systems that we deal with are complex enough that no matter how knowledgeable you are, through sheer volume and complexity, you're likely to overlook things and it will require significant work after you move to implement it.
May 14, 2025 05:26I see. I was curious because I've been watching so many videos about the SNES for example and how it works and its interesting how a lot of it does feel much more within reach in terms of that 'necessity and invention' standpoint like early pinball machine built to purpose from schematics.
