Unity: Good Enough for Bad Games

Jim sterling second greatest youtuber of all time recently spoke about unity and how it has an image problem to condense it all down people who make rubbish games typically use the free version of unity which the only Edition that displaced the unity logo upon starting up the game this means that people associate unity with rubbish games since any decent game made on it uses the paid version and doesn't have to show the world that it's made on unity therefore unity equals bad games even though great games like City skylines and hearthstone were made on it and probably some other ones as well they would mistily I'm struggling to think of them but it doesn't matter the point is good games can be made on unity which means they're bad game should be blamed more on the team making it than the engine that it's built upon this applies to every game regardless of the game engine used so why target unity because it's one of the most popular free and easy game makers out there it is lowered the barrier of entry for game development and as such has fallen victim to all the rubbish games that were previously avoided by being too hard for the developers to make with unity anybody can load it up and within a couple of minutes have a playable if rubbish arena shooter I see this as a topic of debate rather than a clear-cut issue of unity being good or bad let me explain back when I started mapping I didn't like the tutorials available to learn from they were long and inflated far more complicated than they needed to be so I made my own series deliberately kept shorter and simpler than any others as a result they got rather popular and also got a lot of people into mapping who otherwise wouldn't have I lowered the barrier of entry for mapping the result was there a hoard of new mappers proudly posted their first level over on face punches forums and my name quickly became associated with said rubbish she first maps I was the unity of the mapping scene of course the people on those forums saw as a simple case that I was bad and was encouraging bad maps my shortcuts taught bad habits my simply tutorials were luring map standards across the board which made them bad for the mapping community plain and simple perhaps unsurprisingly being the maker of those tutorials I saw it slightly differently I accept hours responsible for many bad first Maps but argued that it was an unavoidable price to pay to get more people into mapping many of these people would never have made a map otherwise and no doubt there were plenty of people who thought into it from my Chi girls who eventually became good at mapping and I say eventually because he don't just get good at something from watching a tutorial no matter how good that tutorial is you get good through practice and experience tutorial is there to get you up to a stage where you're able to dabble and to be able to make the important choices yourself likewise you can't just download unity a few examples and custom props and expect for it to be a good game something that asset flips have shown us time and time again blaming unity is downright dismissive and disrespectful of what a success the programmers being sure it's an easy scapegoat for when something bad is made it may be a recurring name that's featured in so many bad games but I see it as a symptom of unity success as a game maker rather than as a gauge of its quality as one hell I don't even blame the people making the games until they behave immaturely to criticism I see the problem being that bad games get more publicity than they have any right to in the form of being accepted onto platforms such as Steam an issue that jim Starlin has raised awareness two four years before strangely putting a new turn in in his latest video and poison the finger at least partially at unity for allowing such a game to be made in the first place I don't think the question is whether unity is a good game maker I don't think it's even whether they should be involved in the games made using it the real question I think is whether lowering the barrier as low as unity as done is worth the price because doing so will result in a lot more bad games and only a few more good ones at least in the short term of course I think it's worth it as it's not just easier but also faster to make things with an easy game maker I personally use fusion myself and time and time again I'm told to move to a better game maker these people who tell me to say it with good intentions but I know that there's just pacing fusions limitations on the games they've seen made for it rather than how good the program itself is having used it myself I know the program's limitations are well beyond what I as a lone game developer will ever reach and as a lone game developer I'll be able to achieve more with Fusion than I ever will with a more complex game maker because it is faster to make things with fusion but simply the likes of Fusion and unity are easier and faster to develop with but you have a lower ceiling than perhaps that likes of unreal or prior engine but be realistic and ask what you'll reach first because I bet it's your own ability and patience that holds you back more than the imitations of the program you use confident people intimidate me when people confidently tell me that I should be using another game maker I assume they've properly factored in what I'm making that they know about fusion and its limitations and also know that something else would be better for me to use the truth is that these people probably don't know what they're talking about they see the world in simple black and white with coding and C++ being the solution to everything because bigger games are never limited by it they probably also assume that unity is a plane for every bug in every game made using it even if they'd never touch the program themselves they know so little that there's very little they know they don't know you may think it's hypocritical for me to talk about it since I also have limited experience with unity but hear me out poor quality games have telltale signs to them unity as slippery movement in dodgy animations although I don't make games in unity I do make them with fusion which also has slippery movement and dodgy animations if you use the built-in and tools truth is I still use these built-in features when I start on a project because they're good enough for the concept stage later on and the game gets better I then replace them with my own designs that don't have the same limitations it's is that that takes time and effort I'm pretty sure the same applies to unity clearly people who make rubbish games with unity don't bother doing this and just stick to the pre-made movement which gamers then think is unities fault rather than the developers themselves so anyway like I said I think that blurring the barrier of entry is worth it there's just got to be a way of filtering out the good from the bad games that are developed using unity and this is where I disagree with Jimmy's unlikely recommendation he suggests that Steam and unity work together in some vague way but doesn't propose how exactly such a collaboration would solve the issue here's what I propose yes by all means unity should remove the compulsory screen in their free version to distance themselves from low effort games but I think that more importantly they should actively nurture and encourage the better titles that are made on the platform working with the developers and ensuring that such games show the engine in the best possible light and to actually be the ones advertising the games made similar to how NVIDIA shows games that use their game works Tech or perhaps unity could create montages from promising unity games similar to what unreal and CryEngine already do or perhaps they should take it upon themselves to make their own game use our engine to show the world what it's capable of unplayable tech demos simply don't cut it anymore that's ensures that the good titles have the best chance they have of getting out there as for the bad titles well they're gonna be made they're an inevitable side effect from unities low power of entry and I don't see it as their job to ensure that these titles never see the light of day and I don't see a problem with bad games I've made many bad games and had a lot of fun making them and sharing them with my friends and family why should old games using unity have to be made with the intention of being sold on Steam the problem only arises when the developer thinks they're bad unpolished or unfinished game is worthy of a place on Steam and doubly so when steam allows them to do so and judging from Jim's earlier videos I'm amazed that he doesn't see this as being so nice team's fault I don't see unity as being any more accountable for the bad games made using it as test goes out for whatever food is made using the kitchen whether they sell sure if good chefs use their stuff then by all means promote them but don't waste your time trying to stop the bad points see ya unity may be responsible for a lot of bad games but it also brought us cities skylines sauce may be old and dated and sorely requiring a second edition for a particular third game but it still enabled the excellent titanfall 2 and fusion maybe but a humble 2-d game maker but it still brought about destruction Darius - the greatest game of all time but that is not my honest humble and most excellent opinion advice thanks to stirling for originally raising this issue i hope you find somebody with a lot of spandex until next time bye for me

Channel: 2kliksphilip

Views: 1,907,369

Keywords: 2kliksphilip, game, Jim Sterling, Jimquisition, Unity Has an Image Problem, Unity games, Unity bad, Unity good, Unity 3d, asset flip, making games

Id: bBFZ1KR8oVE

Length: 8min 21sec (501 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 25 2017