New Topic/Question
Reply
I want to start making a game design portfolio, and making some games in general.
I know java and lua, and learned the crappy A6 engine years ago.
I'm more interested in level design but I know how important coding is.
so my question is: should i learn UDK, SDK or XNA?
UDK is the one im really leaning towards
it seems to be more powerful and come with more assets
plus i love pretty much everything that comes out of Epic
SDK is my second favorite at the moment
it seems simpler and has a large, active community
counter strike and half life are fun but they lack the polish that ive seen from unreal games
i will most likely use learn this eventually but i dont want it to be my focus
XNA is my least favorite
it seems smalltime
ive also heard good things about Unity3D, but i havent found much out about it
what do you guys have to say about these engines and what are the positives and negetives of each?
14 Replies - 30665 Views - Last Post: 01 March 2012 - 02:27 PM
Rate Topic:
MultiQuoteReplies To: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
#2
lesPaul456
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 173
- Posts: 729
- Joined: 16-April 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 01 April 2010 - 07:03 PM
I personally am not a big fan of UDK. I messed around with it for a while, but I found it to be very inflexible. You must keep all your files in a certain directory, and you as the programmer have very little freedom. I also was not a big fan of unreal script. The documentation is awful, and there aren't too many quality resources. However, once you get the hang of it, and get used to the editors, it can be pretty easy to use.
I've never used the Source SDK.
I think its unfair to put XNA in the same category as UDK, Source SDK and Unity. XNA is not an engine. It's a framework. However, XNA is my favorite for game development. It's very flexible, and easy to use. It's not "smalltime". Although, no big-name, commercial games were created using XNA, it's still very powerful, and can do anything that UDK can do.
Unity is a very nice game engine. It's very flexible, user friendly, has great documentation and a pretty large community. Unity has some very nice built in editors and supports many format types (unlike UDK, Source SDK and XNA) and is cross-platform.
I've never used the Source SDK.
I think its unfair to put XNA in the same category as UDK, Source SDK and Unity. XNA is not an engine. It's a framework. However, XNA is my favorite for game development. It's very flexible, and easy to use. It's not "smalltime". Although, no big-name, commercial games were created using XNA, it's still very powerful, and can do anything that UDK can do.
Unity is a very nice game engine. It's very flexible, user friendly, has great documentation and a pretty large community. Unity has some very nice built in editors and supports many format types (unlike UDK, Source SDK and XNA) and is cross-platform.
Was This Post Helpful?
2
#4
Theaegd
- Hater & Lover
Reputation: -125
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 15-August 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 02 April 2010 - 12:48 PM
Quote
I personally am not a big fan of UDK. I messed around with it for a while, but I found it to be very inflexible. You must keep all your files in a certain directory, and you as the programmer have very little freedom. I also was not a big fan of unreal script. The documentation is awful, and there aren't too many quality resources. However, once you get the hang of it, and get used to the editors, it can be pretty easy to use.
Partly true, but u script is very flexible actually.
I love UDK, it is an amazing tool for any 3D game project. Just download all of there help videos to get going and it is great. The only bad part is having to get 3D models, or just use the built in ones for non-commercial use.
Give it a try.
Also XNA is great to, but mainly just for 2D. While, yes, 3D games are very possible it is pain. It is a framework for C# and is great experience.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#5
lesPaul456
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 173
- Posts: 729
- Joined: 16-April 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 02 April 2010 - 02:53 PM
The fact that you need a separate UDK installation for each game you make, at a little over 1GB per install, is a real pain.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#6
over9000
- New D.I.C Head
Reputation: 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 07-October 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 02 April 2010 - 07:04 PM
lesPaul456, on 02 April 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:
The fact that you need a separate UDK installation for each game you make, at a little over 1GB per install, is a real pain.
i dont know much but i dont believe this
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#7
lesPaul456
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 173
- Posts: 729
- Joined: 16-April 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 02 April 2010 - 07:23 PM
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#9
lesPaul456
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 173
- Posts: 729
- Joined: 16-April 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 03 April 2010 - 05:16 AM
I believe its intentional. UDK is really more a template. It provides the structure, and all you need to do is add the content and some scripts.
I'm not trying to bash UDK, there are just some things I don't like about it. Once you get everything setup (copy a new UDK directory, edit the necessary INI files), and once you get a hang of the editor, its pretty easy to work with. I was even able to do a few things without writing a single line of code.
I'm not trying to bash UDK, there are just some things I don't like about it. Once you get everything setup (copy a new UDK directory, edit the necessary INI files), and once you get a hang of the editor, its pretty easy to work with. I was even able to do a few things without writing a single line of code.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#11 Guest_finaiized*
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 04 April 2010 - 10:58 AM
I'm not big on scripting, so I would choose XNA, even though it's admittedly more work.
Unity/UDK(?) is pretty decent as you don't need a single line of code to draw the model, unlike XNA which you go through two loops to draw one. However, I guess it might be beneficial to have more flexibility when drawing 3D models.
I've looked at UDK and haven't used it because it's too new and doesn't seem to have that much of a community behind it.
Anyways, if you don't want to use XNA (which I think is great), use Unity3D, the second best thing imo- and it also has a ton of platform support.
Unity/UDK(?) is pretty decent as you don't need a single line of code to draw the model, unlike XNA which you go through two loops to draw one. However, I guess it might be beneficial to have more flexibility when drawing 3D models.
I've looked at UDK and haven't used it because it's too new and doesn't seem to have that much of a community behind it.
Anyways, if you don't want to use XNA (which I think is great), use Unity3D, the second best thing imo- and it also has a ton of platform support.
#12
JBrace1990
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 106
- Posts: 760
- Joined: 09-March 08
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:44 PM
LesPaul, you don't seem like you've worked with UDK for a while, so let me clear up a few of your misconceptions.
UDK runs off of the Unreal 3 engine, which are what games like Mass Effect, BulletStorm, and Splinter Cell Conviction run off of. The main form of HUD runs off of ScaleForm, which is an Autodesk product that is used in the above games.
For the UDK, you do need to install it, and it is about 1GB unpacked, give or take. To add gametypes, you do need to add UnrealScript files, which are similar in language to Java/C++. However, you do NOT need a separate install for each game you want to work on., You do, however, need to edit a single INI file to point to the directory where your contents are located. UDK does use relative paths (think ../../UDK/Game/Etc), but you can place your contents wherever you would like to, it is just easier to put it in the UDK folder.
That being said, I, personally, would choose UDK. As someone who is going to college for game programming, we do use UDK a lot, and it is very powerful.
The final decision is up to you though. UDK is only one option, but there is also Unity3d, Torque, etc, or you could do like COD and make your own engine, though that is the tough route.
UDK runs off of the Unreal 3 engine, which are what games like Mass Effect, BulletStorm, and Splinter Cell Conviction run off of. The main form of HUD runs off of ScaleForm, which is an Autodesk product that is used in the above games.
For the UDK, you do need to install it, and it is about 1GB unpacked, give or take. To add gametypes, you do need to add UnrealScript files, which are similar in language to Java/C++. However, you do NOT need a separate install for each game you want to work on., You do, however, need to edit a single INI file to point to the directory where your contents are located. UDK does use relative paths (think ../../UDK/Game/Etc), but you can place your contents wherever you would like to, it is just easier to put it in the UDK folder.
That being said, I, personally, would choose UDK. As someone who is going to college for game programming, we do use UDK a lot, and it is very powerful.
The final decision is up to you though. UDK is only one option, but there is also Unity3d, Torque, etc, or you could do like COD and make your own engine, though that is the tough route.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#13
lesPaul456
- D.I.C Addict
-
Reputation: 173
- Posts: 729
- Joined: 16-April 09
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 18 April 2011 - 12:02 PM
JBrace1990, on 17 April 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:
LesPaul, you don't seem like you've worked with UDK for a while, so let me clear up a few of your misconceptions.
UDK runs off of the Unreal 3 engine, which are what games like Mass Effect, BulletStorm, and Splinter Cell Conviction run off of. The main form of HUD runs off of ScaleForm, which is an Autodesk product that is used in the above games.
For the UDK, you do need to install it, and it is about 1GB unpacked, give or take. To add gametypes, you do need to add UnrealScript files, which are similar in language to Java/C++. However, you do NOT need a separate install for each game you want to work on., You do, however, need to edit a single INI file to point to the directory where your contents are located. UDK does use relative paths (think ../../UDK/Game/Etc), but you can place your contents wherever you would like to, it is just easier to put it in the UDK folder.
That being said, I, personally, would choose UDK. As someone who is going to college for game programming, we do use UDK a lot, and it is very powerful.
The final decision is up to you though. UDK is only one option, but there is also Unity3d, Torque, etc, or you could do like COD and make your own engine, though that is the tough route.
UDK runs off of the Unreal 3 engine, which are what games like Mass Effect, BulletStorm, and Splinter Cell Conviction run off of. The main form of HUD runs off of ScaleForm, which is an Autodesk product that is used in the above games.
For the UDK, you do need to install it, and it is about 1GB unpacked, give or take. To add gametypes, you do need to add UnrealScript files, which are similar in language to Java/C++. However, you do NOT need a separate install for each game you want to work on., You do, however, need to edit a single INI file to point to the directory where your contents are located. UDK does use relative paths (think ../../UDK/Game/Etc), but you can place your contents wherever you would like to, it is just easier to put it in the UDK folder.
That being said, I, personally, would choose UDK. As someone who is going to college for game programming, we do use UDK a lot, and it is very powerful.
The final decision is up to you though. UDK is only one option, but there is also Unity3d, Torque, etc, or you could do like COD and make your own engine, though that is the tough route.
You're right, I haven't worked with UDK for a while (over a year actually). Check the date on my last post bro.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#14
invokeme
- New D.I.C Head
Reputation: 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 29-February 12
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:37 PM
My experiences are as follows:
UDK:
Pros:
Everything works without much problems.
Scalable in any way, for example you can use archetypes to leave a designer to redesign the game without touching the code.
Can make a game without typing line of code, just using KISMET.
Fantastic tool with all thing you need implemented and easily used.
Cons:
Robust architecture, not easy to learn, ones learned, almost anything is possible.
Large game file size.
UNITY:
Pros:
Nice and easy to use game engine, for 3D but also 2D games.
Has excellent NVIDIA phys x engine.
Easy architecture, using Javas script or C#, can combine both.
Small final game size.
Large community with lots of examples and good tutorials.
Cons:
Some things are not easy to handle, like additive bone animations, rag dolls.
Does not have decals system, there is third party add on for that.
Initial player engine have problems with step size, which means that you will get stuck, or fly over objects that you don't want to.
When standing on moving platforms, movement will be jagged.
Bad materials implementation, and variety of restrictions like that you cannot have object with transparent material
cast shadow.
Overall: Good for smaller games, like angry birds.
UDK:
Pros:
Everything works without much problems.
Scalable in any way, for example you can use archetypes to leave a designer to redesign the game without touching the code.
Can make a game without typing line of code, just using KISMET.
Fantastic tool with all thing you need implemented and easily used.
Cons:
Robust architecture, not easy to learn, ones learned, almost anything is possible.
Large game file size.
UNITY:
Pros:
Nice and easy to use game engine, for 3D but also 2D games.
Has excellent NVIDIA phys x engine.
Easy architecture, using Javas script or C#, can combine both.
Small final game size.
Large community with lots of examples and good tutorials.
Cons:
Some things are not easy to handle, like additive bone animations, rag dolls.
Does not have decals system, there is third party add on for that.
Initial player engine have problems with step size, which means that you will get stuck, or fly over objects that you don't want to.
When standing on moving platforms, movement will be jagged.
Bad materials implementation, and variety of restrictions like that you cannot have object with transparent material
cast shadow.
Overall: Good for smaller games, like angry birds.
Was This Post Helpful?
0
#15
Serapth
- D.I.C Head
Reputation: 53
- Posts: 153
- Joined: 17-August 11
Re: UDK vs SDK vs XNA
Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:27 PM
A lot of my recommendation comes down to the reasons you are learning it, You said you want it for your portfolio, but are you going on the art/design side, or the coding side?
I ask this because UDK uses it's own proprietary scripting language, so if you are going in as a coder, you would be better served demonstrating ability with an actual language, such as C# with Unity, or C++ with CryEngine, than you would with UDK and Unreal Script/Kismet. It's not like it is going to massively hamper you, but your future resume is going to go through an HR department filter at some point, and they filter off very specific language, UnrealScript very rarely being one of them. As a designer, it is a non-factor, use what fits best to your style of work.
That said, if you are a non-artist, and have no access to one, you are going to find both UDK and Unity extremely frustrating. They are both visibly oriented tools, and assume you have a competent artist on your team to really get results. This is an area where the "simplicity" of XNA really shines.
Then again, comparing XNA to Unity or UDK is like comparing an apple to an apple pie, two very different things.
I need to make things very clear here too... I am not saying UnrealScript ( or Javascript/Boo with Unity ) are bad, nor are they unworthy in a production environment. I am simply talking from the perspective of a programmers resume.
As to my brief look at the source engine, barf. Not that the engine is bad, but the process ( and documentation ) where horrid. I had trouble even really considering it an engine, more a game with some exposed functionality. I assume things have improved massively since, but given the incredibly low uptake of the engine, maybe I shouldn't.
I ask this because UDK uses it's own proprietary scripting language, so if you are going in as a coder, you would be better served demonstrating ability with an actual language, such as C# with Unity, or C++ with CryEngine, than you would with UDK and Unreal Script/Kismet. It's not like it is going to massively hamper you, but your future resume is going to go through an HR department filter at some point, and they filter off very specific language, UnrealScript very rarely being one of them. As a designer, it is a non-factor, use what fits best to your style of work.
That said, if you are a non-artist, and have no access to one, you are going to find both UDK and Unity extremely frustrating. They are both visibly oriented tools, and assume you have a competent artist on your team to really get results. This is an area where the "simplicity" of XNA really shines.
Then again, comparing XNA to Unity or UDK is like comparing an apple to an apple pie, two very different things.
I need to make things very clear here too... I am not saying UnrealScript ( or Javascript/Boo with Unity ) are bad, nor are they unworthy in a production environment. I am simply talking from the perspective of a programmers resume.
As to my brief look at the source engine, barf. Not that the engine is bad, but the process ( and documentation ) where horrid. I had trouble even really considering it an engine, more a game with some exposed functionality. I assume things have improved massively since, but given the incredibly low uptake of the engine, maybe I shouldn't.
This post has been edited by Serapth: 01 March 2012 - 02:31 PM
Was This Post Helpful?
0
Page 1 of 1
|
|
| 