Right, but it is *possible* for a Unity game to run well, no? Or has their never been a Unity game that ran well enough for you?
-
-
Replying to @MattRix @Jonathan_Blow and
What I'm trying to get at it is: if the game runs at at smooth 60fps (or 200fps, or whatever your target framerate is), what is the problem? Why is Unity still worse?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattRix @Jonathan_Blow and
60fps _on what platform_? The sad reality is that the largess of things like Unity and Java ushered in a world where people have to buy expensive (and environmentally wasteful) new machines just to play games that, properly written, could have run on hardware from 10 years ago.
4 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @MattRix and
That said, it also seems to be rather wishful thinking that Unity games generally run at 60fps even on today's platforms. See, for example http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-firewatch-ps4-analysis … to pick one notable recent example...
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @MattRix and
Does this mean Unity is a bad choice for game development? Of course not! If you are satisfied with the results, then it is fine. But if you care about presentation quality, and don't want to require unreasonably high machine specs for a given experience, it is obviously bad?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and
Surely you would agree that games like Inside, Ori, and Cuphead have high presentation quality. And yes, they probably would require slightly higher specs than an equivalent native version would require, but that's a fair tradeoff for everything else Unity gives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattRix @Jonathan_Blow and
Cuphead, the entirely linear 2D game that has _ten second_ loading screens every time you enter a level? https://youtu.be/Q64ehEqDaJ0?t=628 … I mean there's nothing to do technologically for a game like this _except_ make sure there are no loading screens, and that didn't happen?
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @MattRix and
I think you're coming at the problem from a different perspective. You're concerned only with how much _developer_ effort you save, regardless of the cost to the _player_. If they have to wait around for loading screens, or pay $2000 for a new computer, so be it...
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @MattRix and
... but it is _also_ a valid perspective to care instead about the _player_ first and the developer second. It's not invalid to take that position, and thus complain about the obvious problems with things like garbage collection and one-size-fits-all engines.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @MattRix and
Furthermore, it seems to me that criticism in this area is actually _beneficial_ to the types of developers who would use Unity et al, because pointing out their problems might lead to their developers fixing the problems so that they can improve...
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
Or stated alternately, the best way to ensure that Unity continues to have problems like not being able to run Firewatch on a PS4 is to _not complain about them_. Instead, maybe we should keep complaining about them until they get solved, either by Unity or by someone else?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and
Right, but you are assuming that every problem with every Unity game is due to the engine, and not just due to choices the developers made. No Man's Sky had tons of perf issues on release, but nobody said "C++ is a language for people that don't care about players!"
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.