BRUTAL Game Development: Without an Engine | Dean Hall & Stephen Knightly | NZGDC 2025

BRUTAL Game Development: Without an Engine | Dean Hall & Stephen Knightly | NZGDC 2025

🎙 Dean Hall & Stephen Knightly 👥 1K 📅 October 9, 2025 ⏱ 51 min 👁 599 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

game engineBRUTALRocketWerkzcustom enginegame development

Summary

Dean Hall and Stephen Knightly from RocketWerkz present their experience developing BRUTAL, a custom game development framework, at NZGDC 2025. They argue that commercial engines like Unreal and Unity impose hidden constraints and costs, and that building a custom framework can offer more freedom and performance. They share lessons from their previous projects, Icarus (Unreal) and Stationeers (Unity), highlighting issues like Unreal’s stutter and Unity’s performance bottlenecks. They describe BRUTAL’s design philosophy, focusing on interop, performance, and modding, and demonstrate a live demo of their game ‘Kitten Space Agency’ running on BRUTAL. They emphasize the importance of separating tools from games, recruiting specialists, and the benefits of having full control over the technology stack. The talk includes practical examples, a live demo, and a Q&A session.

126 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk provides valuable insights into the trade-offs of using commercial engines versus building a custom framework. The argumentation is based on real-world experience, with concrete examples from Icarus and Stationeers, such as the Unreal stutter and Unity’s limitations with large numbers of animator components. The live demo of Kitten Space Agency demonstrates the performance and scalability of BRUTAL. The speakers make a compelling case for considering custom engines, though the argument is somewhat one-sided and lacks a balanced comparison of the costs and benefits.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The talk is an expert opinion, not a formal study, and relies on anecdotal evidence from the speakers’ experience. No external sources are cited, and the claims about engine costs and limitations are not backed by data. The title accurately reflects the content, and the talk is well-structured. The speakers mention specific technical details, such as the use of Vulkan and interop, but do not provide references for further reading. The lack of citations reduces the scientific rigor, but the practical examples add credibility.

184 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: a discussion on developing games without a traditional engine, focusing on the BRUTAL framework.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The talk is an expert opinion based on practical experience from RocketWerkz, with concrete examples from Icarus and Stationeers. It includes live demos and references to specific technical challenges. However, it is largely anecdotal and lacks formal citations or peer-reviewed sources.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • Unreal Engine — Provides background on Unreal Engine's features and licensing, relevant to the critique.
  • Unity (game engine) — Provides background on Unity's architecture and history, relevant to the critique.

Dissenting Sources

  • Unreal Engine — The talk claims Unreal is extremely expensive, but some developers may argue that the 5% royalty is offset by the engine's features and support.

Contribution & Novelties

The talk offers a unique perspective on the benefits of developing a custom game engine, based on practical experience from a successful studio. It provides concrete examples of how commercial engines can constrain game development and how a custom framework can offer more flexibility and performance. The live demo of Kitten Space Agency showcases the capabilities of BRUTAL.

Pour aller plus loin :

97 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quantity of information and technical level, indicating a content-rich talk with technical depth. The lower score in reliability reflects the lack of formal citations and the anecdotal nature of the arguments.

Reliability 6/10

💬 No comments were provided for analysis.