I've noticed this tool called Unity which seems well supported.
I am working in XNA... however I was wondering if someone could give me the overview of doing a project in Unity as opposed to XNA?
Unity vs XNA
I've tried it. Although with unity you see results faster, it's nothing compared to coding everything yourself. XNA makes everything really simple so the results you see will still be faster than something like DirectX or OpenGL
Author
Thank you sir. I've been reading up on it a bit and it seems that the opinion anyway is Unity is more for designers whereas XNA is more for programmers (and I being a programmer will probably stick with XNA)
You should keep in mind though that Unity has an amazing asset store that will allow you to purchase tools that will shave off months of development time. I spent $100 dollars on a 2d skeletal animation editor, 2d volumetric lighting, a full blown tile editor, and more, which would have taken months to do on my own. "Make games, not engines" as the saying goes, so it depends on if you want to focus on making games or the stuff you need to make games, which you will have to do with XNA(Though XNA is still really awesome). Just my 2 cents.
I'm more of a programmer myself, and you don't really learn much from dragging and dropping objects onto a map. In my opinion, taking the extra month or two to program a map editor is worth it just for the learning experience. My first games were made with programs like GameMaker and RPGMaker, and after making a few with those you realize that there is so much more you can do if you can just modify the code yourself. Using a game making tool sets boundaries, but if you code the whole thing yourself, you can theoretically do anything
Given that "vanilla" XNA is officially end-of-lined and its development stopped long ago, I'm guessing the choice to use "XNA" at this point means using MonoGame or some other implementation that is actually maintained?
I don't see how Unity is "not for programmers". Writing any serious game in any environment is going to involve tons and tons of programming, and if Unity didn't let you replace almost everything with your own code, it wouldn't have been used for commercial games:
http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list
You just have the option of not coding all the generic stuff that Unity provides reasonable defaults for, and instead spend your time coding stuff that will distinguish your game from others. Whether that is game logic, or some brilliant tech.
If your focus isn't in making a game, but learning about low-level tech, why not write straight D3D or OpenGL with a minimal wrapper like SDL and a language of your choice? Neither Unity or XNA seems beneficial in that case.
I don't see how Unity is "not for programmers". Writing any serious game in any environment is going to involve tons and tons of programming, and if Unity didn't let you replace almost everything with your own code, it wouldn't have been used for commercial games:
http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list
You just have the option of not coding all the generic stuff that Unity provides reasonable defaults for, and instead spend your time coding stuff that will distinguish your game from others. Whether that is game logic, or some brilliant tech.
If your focus isn't in making a game, but learning about low-level tech, why not write straight D3D or OpenGL with a minimal wrapper like SDL and a language of your choice? Neither Unity or XNA seems beneficial in that case.
Hi!
I disagree with that comparision of "unity -> designers / xna -> programmers", a designer will never use Unity as he/she should use it. Unity is not a "game maker tool", is an engine with lots of features and, yes, it already solves lots of stuff, but you need to program for your game a lot too.
I am a programmer and I did my own engines in the past, and I absolutelly love Unity, I think is the best engine outhere right now.
Author
My current decision to use XNA is that as a C# developer by trade I am very proficient with the language and I didn't want to get into the low level details of D3D or OpenGL programming. I'm also not interested in C++. I've done some 2D with XNA in the past and it was fairly easy to wrap my head around so its the more comfortable choice for me.
Unity looks like a great tool but the $1,500 price tag is a bit steep for a hobby considering I am, like many game devs, a one man shop and will likely not ever see a dime for my endeavors.
I don't know of a lateral move from XNA at this point though considered Unity as I saw a lot of cool things it could do. However the price tag will probably keep me away from it for right now and I'll stick with XNA which is free and will enable me to do some 3D programming by having to create the guts myself which is probably going to be more beneficial to me as a developer anyway and maybe in the future I can look at a tool like Unity.
Also I'm working primarily in DX9 and shader 2.0 so haven't needed to move beyond XNA (my primary dev box is currently running XP).
I appreciate the input though that Unity is a bit more than just a design tool and will consider that in the future.
If you are considering productivity, in example releasing your in multiple platforms, there is no comparison between Unity and XNA. Unity is the way to go.
Author
Here's another question - is it possible to make something without having the PRO version of the software? If I'm using just straight up Unity, how much am I missing out on without ponying up $1500?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
