There were a number of EA press releases on this subject. And I think you're being too narrow with the term. The fact is that in the case of an alleged propriety engine like FB3 there are a number of in-house own IP tools that are essential to developing the game notwithstanding the licenced middleware tools. For general use, the term engine works just fine.
I don't think my definition was any more narrow than yours, except that you apparently are broadening it to include any number of programs. The trouble really with drawing the line is defining where one program stops and the next begins without reading source code.
Yes, internally, an engine could refer to a number of different programs, as EA Sports' Ignite is. However, we are specifically in THIS context, referring to Frostbite. We have a specific context and a specific use of the term. If we broaden the definition of engine to include software that was used to develop the Battlefield series, then yes, I would imagine Luk3ling is correct... but then he's simply misleading people by implying that the BF-systems were used to develop DA:I (i.e. battlefield's ballistic physics are being appropriated for arrow physics, clearly not the case).
My ultimate point is that whether Frostbite was originally intended as a tool to improve the development of the Battlefield series or not is utterly irrelevant to it's use as a tool for developing Dragon Age. There's nothing inherently "FPSy" about Frostbite.
PS: Yeah, where is this dang mobile app?
Retour en haut
