Heres a List of Things that Need to be Added as Features

This engine shows a lot of promise, however, there are a few glaring things that make me want to simply use Unity or Unreal. Are these already in the engine and maybe I just don’t see them?

-Near total lack of support for 2D Games

-No “base templates”(i.e first person shooter, 3rd person, driving)

-An Import button that is directly displayed in the toolbar

These are simple additions that would place this engine far ahead of its competitors.

-Near total lack of support for 2D Games:

– Why would it need 2D support? It’s 3d Engine, and there are more than enough engines that are exclusivly for 2D

-No “base templates”(i.e first person shooter, 3rd person, driving):

– Take a look at the samples, there is this roboter third person controller in the “SampleProject”

–An Import button that is directly displayed in the toolbar:

– Not sure what you mean? For assets?

A 3rd person melee template would be pretty good; a barebones Mount & Blade: Warband-esque combat system and camera is all it needs, really.

Can’t hurt ta have a bit o’ diversity, after all.

-It’s main competitors are hybrid engines, it allows for more options for developers.

-More of them

-Yes, for assets.

For 2D games you have dedicaced engines like Construct, Godot or Unity that are more efficient and optomized for 2D games. They have also mobile support and 2D tools.

Lumberyard is based on CryEngine, a high end 3D engine mainly, why trying to make 2D games with it ? I really don’t understand the need for 2D games with Lumberyard. This does not make sense, perhaps from a buziness point of view to Amazon.

I’ll add “documentation for custom pipeline requirements” to the list so that people can more easily develop pipelines for other art packages.

I agree with @Aurus. Why dedicate time to 2D when resources can allocated to improving 3D?

There are countless 2D options available and if you feel comfortable with Unity or Unreal then use those for your 2D games. Godot is a terrific 2D engine that is free and open source under the very permissive MIT license.

From a product management perspective: Amazon won’t make money as most 2D games, aside from fighters, are primarily single player and thus won’t require AWS.

From an engineering perspective: If an engine focuses on too many ‘moving parts’ it ends up not excelling in any particular direction. The key is to do one thing better than anyone else instead of adequately doing ten other things. This is why LY(CE) is the most advanced 3D engine currently available for gamedevs and why UE4 and Unity aren’t.

Yes, except Amazon is not attempting to compete with Godot or Construct; they are competing with other AAA game engines(namely Unreal) and the biggest brand in the business: Unity. Both Unreal and Unity possess some 2D functionality; this puts Lumberyard at a strategic disadvantage. Currently they have the advantage of intregrated Twitch support. However, if they really are creating Lumberyard as a strategic move, they have to not only have to compete with hybrid engines, but the communities of said engines. Unreal and Unity have strong communities for both 3D and 2D. Besides, putting in the labor for basic 2D functionality would not prevent them from improving 3D, that is committing a zero-sum fallacy.

These are all great points. The only issue along these lines is that there are some AAA 3D games that call for some 2D elements. For example, Fallout 4 has a whole 2D game you can play as a minigame in one of those computer terminals you find throughout the game. Bioshock also had 2D puzzle games you could play throughout. I don’t know exactly what support for 2D gameplay LY has, but if making these kind of gameplay elements is too obtuse, that might be something worth looking at.

From an engineering perspective: If an engine focuses on too many ‘moving parts’ it ends up not excelling in any particular direction.

Yes, that statement applies to Unreal IMO.

The flip side of the coin is that the bigger the market the engine serves, the bigger the community, the more people decide to join, the more answers we see in these boards from users, the higher the support from educational institutions, etc. Snowball effect.

People working on AAA 3D games are also notorious for not helping the community out. To some extent because of the NDA’s they’re under. If you’re working on a game for Ubisoft, for example, they don’t want you helping the competition who also frequents the boards. More hobbyists, enthusiasts, and independent developers breath a lot of life into these type of communities.

To me, using CE for a 2D game is like buying a Ferrari to use as a tow truck. I can see 2D gameplay on a 3D engine, but using it to make 2D graphics seems weird. That said, If there’s a demand from the community I’d look into it anyway for the above reasons.

@nintendoplayer183

I
think you’re missing the point here. As a strictly 3D engine, neither Unreal nor Unity can compete with CryEngine or Lumberyard without heavy modifications from plugins and marketplace content. At that point, a game dev would have spent 1000s of dollars on plugins and marketplace content to get what is already out-of-the-box from CryEngine or Lumberyard. Even then, the quality is not nearly as good. In addition, if those 3rd party plugin developers go MIA then everyone using the product is SOL when the engine is updated. Where in CE or LY it is maintained in-house.

Game development is all about using the best tool set available to achieve the vision laid out in the GDD. At the moment, for 3D games that tool is CryEngine slash Lumberyard. For 2D games it’s something designed from the ground up for 2D games. Hybrid engines are good at many things but don’t excel in any particular area. I would rather have 100% of Amazons resources dedicated to improving the 3D engine and its editor, rather than trying to turn a Ferrari into a bloated SUV.

Thanks to @rantrod and to @mrgigglesworth for bringing up some awesome food for thought in a respectful way. Community coordinator’s super-thumbs-up for both of you, and the team will be considering all of the 2D feedback as we move forward! Thanks all!

@rantrod

Thanks, you’ve presented some really good counter points there. There’s definitely support in the engine for 2D type games, have you taken a look at Rolling Sun? It uses a fixed horizontal scrolling camera in the 3D environment.