Unity Crap Again

[Blackdragon]

Low-resolution textures, low-poly models, stilted animations, garish colors, limited FOV... Yep, it's yet another crappy Unity game.

Unity is really a disease upon modern game industry. It's a cheap and easy way to blurt out low-quality games. It kills incentive to use actually decent game engines or even develop your own. Far too tempting for the developers to go down the easy path and just use Unity.

Of course, with enough effort even a Unity game can look decent (e.g. Pillars of Eternity). But that requires wherewithal which, for developers who fall to the temptation of using Unity, is usually lacking in the first place.

As a result, we are flooded with games that, while they may have good concepts, are ruined by the puke-inducing, unfathomably dated, almost intentionally uglified appearance characteristic of Unity titles.

This game seems to be no exception. While the music and the design attempt to ooze style and atmosphere, it is all cut at the knees by the offensively disgusting Unity visuals, ruining any sense of immersion. It's like a stage play of Hamlet being played by clowns - impossible to take seriously. It might have worked 20 years ago, but in 2024 it's just plain ridiculous and a testament to the tragic degradation of the gaming industry.

[Kelden]

Now you are just trolling and beeing an absolutely obnoxious A hole, and im just gonna block you, this is not worth my time.

Again, you dont even own this game, and are only in here to argue and ragebait, sadly alot of epople will continue to do that for you.

I will not, blocked, goodbye.

[MPN64]

Never considered that the cartoonish look was what the devs wanted/aimed at!

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by Eldemann:

OH he already left with his tail between his legs, as he is wrong in every way possible, dont bother anymore.

1 minute later, after having actually received an argumentative response:

Originally posted by Eldemann:

Now you are just trolling and beeing an absolutely obnoxious A hole, and im just gonna block you, this is not worth my time.

Again, you dont even own this game, and are only in here to argue and ragebait, sadly alot of epople will continue to do that for you.

I will not, blocked, goodbye.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("I never!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
("You're lying!")
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

Oh, the irony!

[profil84]

Escape from Tarkov just delete all your complains about engine and this game just show that this depends only by the developers using it how they use it.

Also:
"It kills incentive to use actually decent game engines or even develop your own. Far too tempting for the developers to go down the easy path and just use Unity."
Oh you poor prince, how much you are hurt by developers without incentive to use better engine OR EVEN CREATE OWN.
Unity just enable some ppls to create games not making them lazy. If there was not better accesibility then there was less games they will not go create own engine or go with UE which most games looks the same you coxcomb.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by MPN64:

Never considered that the cartoonish look was what the devs wanted/aimed at!

Actually, no. This "cartoonish look" is being used almost in every Unity game to at least somehow mask the horrendous graphics. And it doesn't work, because it kills the style and atmosphere this game is going for. They are citing "A Song of Ice and Fire" as inspiration, FFS. As I said, it's like Hamlet being played by clowns.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by profil84:

Escape from Tarkov just delete all your complains about engine

How? Tarkov's graphics are extremely primitive, comparable to the ancient Source-engine Counter-Strike. As I said, however, for competitive shooters graphics are not a priority (by far), so Tarkov managed to gain popularity due to its realism, despite the shortcomings of the Unity engine.

Originally posted by profil84:

Unity just enable some ppls to create games not making them lazy.

On the contrary, Unity IS making developers lazy, because they can now slap together a "game" and sell it, on the cheap, without investing actual effort into the technical side of development.

Valve made the Source engine for Half-Life in 2004, and Counter-Strike still runs off it after almost 20 years. CDProjectRed made their own engine for the Witchers; Blizzard made their own engines for Diablos; GGG made their own engine for Path of Exile. These games are what was/is taking the industry further, not the second-rate crap churned out by Unity users.

Even those Unity games that are good, are good in spite of Unity, not because of it, and would have been much better if they'd been built on an actual modern engine with actual technical effort being invested in graphics and optimisation.

[VDRSK]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Originally posted by VDRSK:

Unity has issues, but none of it relates to your points. So an ultimately useless rant.

Unity's issues, apart from atrociously bad optimisation and constant reuse of second-rate assets, are precisely my points:

- extremely low polygon models
- extremely low resolution, blurry textures
- bad animation quality
- bad scaling, so very short range visuals/low FOV

Play ANY Unity game, and you will witness ALL of these issues (with extremely rare exceptions). As a result, a Unity game looks and feels like something out of early 2000's, but with the demand for hardware resources worse than a next-gen AAA game.

The reasons for it are simple: Unity is basically a high-level "building blocks" constructor set, with developers being able to "point and click" their way into "making a game" without actually making a game. It's cheap, it's fast, and it's ugly. In a normal competitive environment, most of these products would have been laughed off the stage. But in our current reality, with the PC game market being flooded by various kinds of crap (console ports, mobile games, the like) Unity is just one kind of crap among many. This distorts consumer perceptions and normalises inadequacy. Therefore, developer degradation is complemented by consumer degradation, perpetuating the vicious cycle.

As I said, it's tragic.

you are assigning developer traits to the engine.

Unity is heavily used in the indie scene meaning there is alot of bad games that use it.

however games like genshin Impact, NRFTW, Hearthstone, subnautica, fall guys. shows that at the end of the day, it's an engine that can do basically everything it is required to.

Once again it isn't perfect, but as long as the developer knows what they are doing it can be avoided just like a developer who doesn't know what their doing can make n ugly unoptimised mess of a game in UE4 and UE5.

[profil84]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

How? Tarkov's graphics are extremely primitive, comparable to the ancient Source-engine Counter-Strike. As I said, however, for competitive shooters graphics are not a priority (by far), so Tarkov managed to gain popularity due to its realism, despite the shortcomings of the Unity engine.

This example shows that engine is flexible it depends on developers how they use it.

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

On the contrary, Unity IS making developers lazy, because they can now slap together a "game" and sell it, on the cheap, without investing actual effort into the technical side of development.

Valve made the Source engine for Half-Life in 2004, and Counter-Strike still runs off it after almost 20 years. CDProjectRed made their own engine for the Witchers; Blizzard made their own engines for Diablos; GGG made their own engine for Path of Exile. These games are what was/is taking the industry further, not the second-rate crap churned out by Unity users.

Even those Unity games that are good, are good in spite of Unity, not because of it, and would have been much better if they'd been built on an actual modern engine with actual technical effort being invested in graphics and optimisation.

That Counterstrike runs to this day proves nothing also game is small, indie-size and looks worse than Tarkov, zero effort so Valve fares worse than Unity devs.
CDR switch to UE5 which is another easy to learn engine ready to develop in.
Blizzard is big corpo how using what they already have also in some interview they admitted that D4 runs on some convoluted fundaments that some fundamental changes are very problematic but still possible, maybe thanks to their hundreds to thousands developers so yeah.

All in all i'm amazed that ppls like you crawl out with such a thread, without a shame blaming Engines to be available and cause of that they dont have games with uber graphics made on own engines CAUSE THEY DESERVE THAT!!!
Screw you!!

[Augusto]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Even those Unity games that are good, are good in spite of Unity, not because of it, and would have been much better if they'd been built on an actual modern engine with actual technical effort being invested in graphics and optimisation.

You just argued against yourself, sir. You are judging a early access game for being poorly optimized when in time, in can get better. We can push the devs in order for them to do the work and make the game more stable, but even I can understand that they are still working on it.

I mean, this is the same studio that brought us Ori for chirst's sake, that game is awesome. Have faith dude.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by VDRSK:

you are assigning developer traits to the engine.

The engine is conducive to these traits. By its very nature it promotes lazy developing. And it is also a poor engine in and of itself.

Originally posted by VDRSK:

Unity is heavily used in the indie scene meaning there is alot of bad games that use it.

Why not ask the question - why is Unity so heavily used in the indie scene?

The answer I gave already - because it allows making games fast, on the cheap, and basically skip a lot of the technical development.

But this comes at the expense of technical quality. So you basically have a factory churning out cheap crap, which crowds out better games, negatively impacting both developer culture and consumer culture.

Originally posted by VDRSK:

however games like genshin Impact, NRFTW, Hearthstone, subnautica, fall guys. shows that at the end of the day, it's an engine that can do basically everything it is required to.

It can... but badly. While better engines can do the same, but much much better. However, using better engines is more difficult, requires a higher level of competence and investment from the developer. Why bother, when you can just use Unity?

Originally posted by VDRSK:

Once again it isn't perfect

Nothing is perfect. Saying that something "isn't perfect, but..." is therefore not an argument. It's a false equivalency attempting to put everything that isn't perfect (i.e., everything, period) on the same level, which is simply wrong. A bad game is not the same as a good game, even though both "aren't perfect".

Unity games are quite consistently bad in the technical department. They are visually primitive yet demand more hardware resources than much better-looking games. While they might compensate for these shortcomings with good gameplay, engaging story or other elements, these good parts are usually not related to the engine.

Originally posted by VDRSK:

but as long as the developer knows what they are doing it can be avoided just like a developer who doesn't know what their doing can make n ugly unoptimised mess of a game in UE4 and UE5.

On average, most Unity games are "an ugly unoptimised mess". Saying this has no bearing to the engine is just denying reality. Unity is by itself ugly and unoptimised "out of the box", and it also incites a lackadaisical attitude in developers, thereby exacerbating the issue.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by Augusto:

You are judging a early access game for being poorly optimized when in time, in can get better.

As I said, I'm giving you a 100% guarantee these issues will stay until release.

The reasons for this are twofold:

1) Unity itself is a low-quality engine, using it to make something with good visuals that runs well is difficult;

2) If the developers weren't afraid of tackling difficulties in order to achieve better quality, they wouldn't have used Unity in the first place.

So what you might see in the future are marginal improvements at best, but the core issues - the atrocious visuals and poor optimisation - will remain.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by profil84:

That Counterstrike runs to this day proves nothing also game is small, indie-size and looks worse than Tarkov, zero effort so Valve fares worse than Unity devs.

CS:GO looks better than Tarkov, despite being released 5 years earlier and on an engine originally created 13 years earlier.

Originally posted by profil84:

CDR switch to UE5

Hasn't happened yet, and if it will, we won't know the results until the new games get released. Meanwhile, all of CDPR's great hits were made using the proprietary REDEngine.

Originally posted by profil84:

which is another easy to learn engine ready to develop in.

Equating UE5 with Unity by saying "it's another easy to learn engine" is disingenuous. UE5 may be easy to learn, but in terms of quality it is head and shoulders above Unity. Just compare UE5 games with Unity games and you will see the difference.

Originally posted by profil84:

All in all i'm amazed that ppls like you crawl out with such a thread, without a shame blaming Engines to be available and cause of that they dont have games with uber graphics made on own engines CAUSE THEY DESERVE THAT!!!
Screw you!!

What were you even trying to say here, I cannot fathom.

[Kelden]

This turdpuppet is still going, im actually amazed at how sad someones life can be.

[Augusto]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

1) Unity itself is a low-quality engine, using it to make something with good visuals that runs well is difficult;

2) If the developers weren't afraid of tackling difficulties in order to achieve better quality, they wouldn't have used Unity in the first place.

So what you might see in the future are marginal improvements at best, but the core issues - the atrocious visuals and poor optimisation - will remain.

1) That's very very debatable, there's plenty of graphically impressive games done with Unity, that's up to the developers.

2) There's no evidence for that, quite the contrary, in the last patch they've introduced a new rendering engine to test out performance and quality across machines.

Finally, the game is already graphically good, if your point is to get the game more 'realistic', your argument is pointless because the artstyle and direction is very stylized.

Your beef with Unity is unwarranted on this game, you should revise your position.

[Chelios]

What a waste of time. Go play something else. It's not like you own this game. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ clown.