Acleacius wrote on Dec 23, 2010, 23:18: id has coded several engines which sucked at many things and excelled at other things.
This is exactly my point. The definition of failure is attempting something and to not succeed. To say that they failed at skies or suck at creating skies is wrong. They were simply trying to succeed at making brown-colored corridors run really well. And they did. And they did it so well, and made such "fully functional" engines that practically everyone licensed them at one point or another.
The only engines that don't suck at large outdoor environments are those that were designed exactly for those environments. The Peggle engine (whatever it may be) sucks at outdoor environments. It doesn't even have skies. Is it then fair to say that the Peggle programmers failed at skies? No. Is it fair to say that any engine they program forever after will suck at skies? No.