Hacker News Reader

Comment by golergka | Hacker News Reader

Unity gets bad rep the same way FL studio (in 00s) or any other accessible creative tools do. Because they're the most accessible tools for beginners, they attract beginners and they use it to develop a lot of beginner-level products with all the downsides; however, these tools are quite capable of achieving AAA results in professional help.

Unity has nothing to do with KSP being laggy. KSP is a very ambitious game written by a beginner team; without Unity it couldn't have been made at all.

View on HN

I have not yet played a Unity game which doesn't have the "unity look and feel". I don't think anyone is going to be able to convince me otherwise. I am happy to purchase a modern (in the last 3 months) popular unity game tonight. If you can think of one that doesn't run like a Flash SWF, I will buy it.

And how would you know what engine was the game built with anyway? If you're relying on the Unity log splash screen, then indeed you only see games developed by beginner teams who can't even afford a paid license.

Can't you tell? I can't tell the difference between Lumberyard, Crytek, Unreal (I could Unreal until 2012ish), but I always know a unity game because it looks and runs like shit.

OK, so when you see a game that looks like shit, you have a hypothesis that it's a Unity game, and vice versa.

How, exactly, do you confirm these?

- Hollow Knight

- Hearthstone

- Night in the Woods

- Hidden Folks

- Enter the Gungeon

- Superhot

- Ori and the Blind Forest

- Broforce

- Grow Home

- Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime

There're these, for a start. (Though I don’t know why "modern" is qualified as being within three months.) Perhaps the problem is that no one can recognize a game made with Unity at a glance? The cheaper, lousier games can’t or don’t pay to remove the "Made with Unity" splash, so Unity has acquired something of an [image problem].

[image problem]: http://www.thejimquisition.com/unity-has-an-image-problem-th...

It's not really an argument against Unity per se, but low KSP performance had everything to do with that engine - because it ended up being CPU-bound through single-threaded physics. This problem is now solved, from what I remember.

That's everything to do with correct usage of the engine. Unity's PhysX is a general one-size-fits-all solution, which is not suitable for advanced physics-based game like KSP. Using it is only acceptable for prototype; they should've written their own physics, which suits their needs, and make it multi-threaded, and they should've done it in any game engine. In fact, many developers I know that worked with physics-based game mechanics have done just that - and none of them had requirements as significant as KSP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com