> "OGRE-based" or "MonoGame-based."

You compared a full-on 3D renderer to something that's basically the same as SDL or Raylib. Ogre could be considered a game engine but XNA/Monogame definitely isn't (nor is SDL or Raylib).

> But most indie games do not roll their own engine.

Most indie games are slop that are barely more than a template with pre-purchased assets and sell zero copies. There's no point talking about most of something when 99% gets thrown straight into the garbage.

> The most successful indie games often have their own unique aesthetic, and rolling their own game engine, while not strictly necessary, does make that uniqueness the default outcome rather than something you have to strive hard to achieve.

Yup and that's the point. Code is art as much as art is art. Sure, you can get a basic game made in a couple hours with Godot, but what's the value or uniqueness when anyone can do the same?

▲

adastra22 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

How is MonoGame not a game engine? It handles graphics, input, main loop, etc. You can write simple games in a few hundred lines of code, just loading and game logic. Perhaps we're taking past each other.

	▲	bluefirebrand 38 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It handles graphics, input, main loop, etc It kinda doesn't though What it provides is the tools to build on top of to make those things yourself
	▲	dismalaf 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Game engines typically provide a LOT more than Monogame. For example, an editor, 3D renderer, scenegraph, etc... Monogame and Raylib do a tiny bit more than, say, SDL, but neither does anywhere close to as much as Unity, Unreal, Ogre, Filament, JMonkey, etc...

▲

hansvm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> most are slop

Is there any chance they meant most "real" indie games? If they did, does the observation about chances of rolling one's own engine change?