No. You can make just about any engine do just about anything, especially if you've got low-level access to it. If this question is implying something about Unreal, just level set your expectations for the performance things that usually come along with that, but it's not a foregone conclusion either.

If it's anything other than unreal engine then no. If it's UE then I will wait and then read about issues. If I see the same lazy bs then I'll pass.

I would say indirectly, if the game engine does not work on Linux then I'm not interested.

If a games is made in UE5 I will definitely double check if the game can even run on low end hardware. And even if a game can run they often look like dogshit on low settings. Like I tried Exit 8 and it ran like shit on my low end PC. And that is a game that just takes place in a hallway.

Personally yes, but I have a good reason I think. I am a Godot gamedev, so I feel a sort of kinship towards other Godot games. Like I really want to support them for whatever reason haha.

Increasingly yes, Unity is spyware and UE5 games all play, look and feel the same.

At this point I almost entirely write off UE5 games. I assume they're smudgy upscaled underperforming dogshit until proven otherwise. Unreal Engine 4? Cool, no problems. Unreal Engine 5? Fuuuuuuckkkk no.

I found that games I don't like often use a particular engine, however I haven't been in a position where I thought the game looked awesome but didn't get it specifically because of the engine

If I see it's Unreal 5, I fully expect it to look like shit and perform weird, so it has some weight on my decision.

Nah. Good games can be made on any engine. So can bad games.

Yes, sort of. I absolutely hate the visual artifacts from TAA and from upscaling, which are both much more commonly used in UE5 games.

I'm also much more likely to try custom-engine games, just because I think people making their own engines is pretty cool ! I have only implemented very basic stuff myself, but it was very interesting to do !

UE isn't a deal breaker, but so many games built on it just look like wet plastic and run like shit that I'm immediately suspicious. I'd rather play a game that has flat shading and less detailed textures with some actual personality and performance.

Kinda, if it uses an open source game engine then it's a plus.

Yes, because of some shit the company pulled I'm no longer interested in games made in Unity.

Yes. I heavily favour Godot.

After getting burned by the Dead Space Remake shader stutter i am very wary of UE games and check the reviews.

From a political standpoint, yes, it does, to an extent. I strive to use free software, but most games are made using proprietary engines, which is just a consequence of the state of that industry. Blender changed the landscape of animation production, there is no reason Godot can't do the same for game development.
A second reason would be the concentration of wealth and power we see in big game engine developers such as Unity and Unreal. Millionaire (billionaire?) CEOs, anti-consumer terms of use, etc. These are good reasons to lobby in favor of FOSS alternatives, and to pirate games published by dipshits (such as, I don't know, Krafton).

In the indirect sense that an engine might impact a game's visual appearance, hardware compatibility, or performance, sure. But I don't care about the engine specifically as an engine. That's just an implementation detail. It's just "does the game look appealing" or "does the game run well on my hardware"?

There are some cases where I can look at an engine and know that it's very likely that some feature that I want is or isn't there. For example, the (open-source) Twine engine supports interactive fiction multiple-choice Web-based games, usually written in a language called Sugarcube.

There's a similar proprietary engine and language, Choicescript, which runs in a proprietary viewer. This is used by Choice of Games LLC, which has published a large number of commercial text-based games.

The developers of the Choicescript engine decided that an "undo/go back/save" feature would be undesirable, probably because it reduced the gravity of a player making choices; they basically require a player to play the game in "ironman mode", where if anything happens that the player doesn't like, the player has to go back and play a new game from scratch to avoid it. The Twine developers decided that it was a good idea and enabled it by default (and even if a game disables it, there are typically ways to modify a Twine game to re-enable this feature). I very strongly disagree with "undo" being disabled; I feel that it's not respectful of my time, so when I purchase a Choicescript game, I know that I'm probably going to have to live with this particular decision that I do not like.

It can if the engine makes the game run poorly or not at all (I wouldn't buy it) or if the engine is exceptionally well regarded and runs great it might make me a bit more inclined to buy the game.

If it's an engine famous for being janky, it might also make me delay buying the game until devs or modders fix it.

Also, if the engine is known for being mod friendly, that would probably make me more inclined to consider buying the game.

UE5 on handhelds is a red flag, but I will check some reviews and performance tests before buying.

No. Although Unity seems to be run by scumfucks who want to be evil but had to backtrack due to the massive backlash they got. Which means they're just waiting to try again.

I don't think that has ever been a purchasing factor for me.

It has a huge impact for me, most notably unreal engine because of how poorly most games made with it run, and it visually looking very soft or blurry in some games. So it's something I check before looking at buying a game.

Nope.

Sometimes I won't buy a game made in Unity. Sometimes I will. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's a whole number of THQ games I never bother to get, because most THQ games feel too similiar to each other.

Probably the closest thing would be Rockstar games. GTA 5 feels alright, but in so many of their other games I do not like the feel of the physics and mechanics. Hated Manhunt, terrible game. Was forgiving of the older GTA games growing up because they were pioneering and fun despite the broken mechanics. But they have not aged well.

No, I couldn’t care less what engine devs use. This is like choosing to not buy a cake because the baker used a Le Crueset spatula instead of a Tefal one. Literally doesn’t matter as long as the game (and cake) is good.

All I really care about is native Linux support. Nearly every major engine can support Linux these days and if the dev provided a build I should hope it works. But I know some engines are better/more consistent at it. If it's something like Godot or Ren'Py I can pretty much expect the port to be perfect.

Unity makes me hesitate due to their past aggressive data collection issues. Now sure how it is at the moment, but in the past it really, really wanted all your data.

Unity games give me pause, what with the opt-out rather then opt-in data collection and that there's so many games lazily thrown together with the default assets.

No.

But it certainly has some strong indirect effects on my buying decisions.

No not at all.

It's a tiny factor in most cases but it's there. I am prejudiced against Bethesda's janky engine no matter how much they polish that turd it's still a turd in so many ways, and I also consider Unreal Engine a cautionary flag to remind me I need to check if the game's performance is horrific. Not really UE's fault itself, but developers love that they can easily turn on all the AAA eye-candy features without having any of the knowledge or understanding of how to optimize their game (or frankly the budget) to support those performance-intensive features properly.

I only buy games made with foss stuff like Godot, pyrite, babylon, haxe and sdl and these days.

I don't need timmy getting more money for his bullshit, and after Unity went full on fuckwit with their idiotic ideas for runtime fees they have zero trust, even though they eventually canned Riccitello and rolled back that crazy, I simply don't have faith in them to do the right thing when presented with moral quandaries.

I only have limited resources, so I'm not going to throw money at applications supporting bullshit. Oh, and no AI garbage is built into these options.

Honestly, yes.

Aside from performance issues, UE5 based-games by majority seem to follow this washed out color palette approach that I don't like. Its not inherently the engine though as I know Expedition 33 used UE5 and its very vibrant. Its just an artistic direction those games seem to take, I guess.

In the past, CryEngine due to performance. Kingdom Come: Deliverance on release really was buggy and felt like a typical CryEngine game. I can't for sure say that it was the engine's fault again because Prey didn't seem to have those issues, but historically that engine has always been a mess.

Honestly? I like to think it does. I dislike unreal 5 and if I could I would avoid games developed/running on it, but at the end of the day the game itself is what sells me on the idea of buying it or not, the engine isn't the reason why a game will look like shit, people are making incredible things on cube dash or whatever that game is called, it's the developer that decides how good a game looks and runs. Yes the engine can definitely help the dev in those factors.

Having said that, I do have a game that I will not pay a single cent for if it is on an engine. If elder scrolls 6 is on the same engine as Skyrim, fallout 4, 76 and whatever that space flop was called, I will either never play it or at worst pirate it and never give them a single cent. That engine was held together with duck tape and prayers before it was "upgraded the first time, nevermind by the time that Skyrim came out! And this year it'll be 15 years since Skyrim came out, it's time to let go of it and develop a new engine or customize an already out there one so that we can finally be free of most of the bugs and limitations of that pre 2000 engine (the creation engine is a fork of gamebryo, which was launched in 1997, so yes, it is a pre 2000s engine)! There are PLENTY of other problems with bethesda but the engine problems are such a blatant and needed change that I will not trust their next game unless they show that they are seriously trying to fix the issues that they have ignored for dar too long (combat, proper RPG choices instead of just accepting every single quest thrown at you and all of them being linear, no actual choices, no consequences for choices, extremely repetitive quests where they're all get h quests that inflate the game time by just having you travel to he other side of the map and back (but then you can fast travel there anyway and now you are no longer immersed) and so many other problems that I cannot even be bothered to remember RN)

I forgot that this was about game engines and ended up ranting about ESO and bethesda, but honestly, the real problem with the game's engine isn't which one is used, it's almost always who is using and how

Yes, although it is not just about the engine. For AAA story games (think of something like Resident Evil) I couldn't care less, but anything small scale with great modding potential gameplay-wise, I avoid engines that compile to bytecode like Unreal because they make it insanly painful to create mods. I prefer something that I can easily decompile to look at the souce code like Godot and Unity.

But as I said, that is not just an engine issue, since you can provide official mod support on Unreal or make it harder to mod on other engines using stuff like obfuscation or IL2CPP. But in general, especially on most small-scale Indie games, just looking at the used engine is enough to determine modability and therefore influence my decision.

For the most part no. Exceptions being like if some high budget game came out built with Godot, that'd be something I'd consider as a showcase for open source game engines. Same with other lesser known ones like Bevy or O3DE. Once any becomes fairly common, the novelty for me wears off like 2D games made in Godot. It was the same for me and Blender Open Movies ~15 years ago

I do assume things based on performance based on the engine, but that's more for moments like "new game is coming this fall, using some engine ", before tech specs are out. I find a lot of games that care to announce an engine in any way tend to be the heavier resource hogs, because they're advertising the high fidelity of something-or-other.

But that's not really a condemnation on any games. I do often avoid the high resource games, but that's because I have an older PC, not because of any actual prejudice against an engine itself.

in nearly all cases me knowing the engine of a game is complete happenstance.

Mostly in sandbox games. This is where I'm going to interact with the environment the most, and I wanna know it feels good.

Also, I appreciate destructibility in shooter games.