Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Florian22222

Unity Is Unity not state of the art?

This topic is 2459 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I´ve seen a few youtube videos about games some guys made. Also looked at the new rpg from bigpoint(game of thrones). Then I found some videos about unreal engine and cry engine and found that unity looks a little bit old like a game from 2005. Is this a consequence from bad 3d artist or is this a fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
lol you're not going to make AAA cryengine games as an individual.

Models would cost a fortune (to benefit from directx11 vs 9)and the coding is 10x more difficult than Unity. Also Unity is hitting mobiles/web/console market for small developers where Cryengine is solely PC for large studios(yea they released an indie version, I have it, give it a shot, it's nasty). Unity is comparable to XNA, neither of which are comparable to cryengine. Also Unity and Unreal are comparable with pro version of unity. Unreal might be a little better on desktop but it followed unity into the web market and pretty sure they don't do mobiles/consoles yet.


At the same time you'll make 10x as many features with unity as you would on the others because it's extremely fast to work with(workflow and coding).

But to answer your question it's a mix of shitty textures, amateur artists, low budgets and not 100% reflective of what's possible with the engine. Whatever the model looks like in maya, 3ds, blender, or whatever 3d modeling software you use is what it'll look like in the engine. Also remember it costs $1500 for pro unity, so a lot of unity games you see from individuals are using a free version which has "polishing" features locked (dynamic lighting/shadows/render enhancements).

Is the renderer state of the art? Nope, but is the abstracted API that lets you convert your code to multiple platforms including web/mobile/console "state of the art"? Yepper, saves a ton of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your answer :D
I have a few difficulties with unity now but i cant afford unity pro.
I think ill implement everything and if the games is finished ill maybe switch to unity pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use Unity too and it is great. It is very fast to develop with and it takes care of a lot of low level stuff. I also use the free version as I don't have money for the pro one, but you can get pretty interesting effects with it alone. Of course having the pro will help, but a good game is a good game, you can get away with not so much eye candy.

(you can check out my blog http://www.jungle-troll.com to see some clips about what can be done with the free version. Warning: alpha quality models/textures:) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angry Birds, Minecraft, and Farmville have more players per night than Crysis 2 or Unreal 3.

Game engine does not matter. If the game is good people will play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are serious about your project you'd be benchmarking and comparing all these engines yourself.. then decide what's the "state of the art" for your own project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@meshoo: normally casual games have lower graphics than core games, thats what i meant with this sentence(for example battlefield3(core) and minecraft,farmville etc.)

@kunos: I did^^ and i decided to take unity because it is easy to use. Unity pro would fit my requirements. But i´ve seen that other engines look much prettier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angry Birds, Minecraft, and Farmville have more players per night than Crysis 2 or Unreal 3.

Game engine does not matter. If the game is good people will play it.


This,

The fascination with graphics is getting stupid, game companies are losing customers because they dedicate all their time on pretty graphics where patches & expansions are eye candy only, seriously take EVE Online as an example, they released content where they spent years making things shiny and pretty which resulted in a loss of players AND the graphic content was such a resource drain that only a few players could handle it. Sure its nice to have things pretty but theres a balance. People dont inject themselves with heroin because of how it looks, they inject because its addictive, make an addictive fun playing game and people will play, you think games like club penguin, travian and wow got popular because of graphics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!