I just want games made by people who are trying to make a good game, and not games made by people or companies that are only trying to make money. Not one GaaS game is actually special enough to warrant spending more than the base price of the game on (and many aren’t even worth that when their next best competitor is fuckin’ free to play.)
Lol! yeah! What sort of nerd do you have to be to enjoy card games? And sports games? Like, go outside, brah. When I get my game on, it’s usually CoD on my Xbox. Headshot after headshot, teabag after teabag. It’s just something else, you know? Not something you can get by playing a card game or some rts or something where someone else is doing the shooting for you… Like… Get some skill brah.
/s … Pfew… That was hard to get through… sorry about that, couldn’t help myself
What I love most about Godot is that it doesn’t give a fuck whether you want to use python-like code or write your own libraries in C#/C++. 10 minutes and you’ve got something working.
I can’t even imagine how that backend must look, 🤣 I work 100% in GDscript, but it’s really cool to hear : “Yeah it’s about 30% GDscript and 70% C++”
Coming from Java, I personally love how signals work between classes. Friggin hated my getters and setters, and the way signals work in Godot is just like how my brain thinks about that problem, so very easy to use and understandable.
As much as I like to shit on Epic, but UE 5.x is pretty much innovative with each minor release. Watching the release videos of what the engine can do in realtime is always impressive. They are used as realtime backgrounds for movie sets.
I think it’s funny you try to show how good the game engine is by saying it’s used in movies. Like sure it’s impressive, but graphics don’t make a game. Give me one good game with simple graphics built in Godot, rather than 100 fancy locking $80 micro-transaction infested always online games.
Your argument has nothing to do with UE5‘s or Godot‘s strengths and weaknesses. You could literally flip it and it would make just as much (or little) sense: Give me one good asset library game in UE5, rather than 100 custom asset containing $80 micro-transaction infested always online Godot games. See? The argument doesn‘t actually say much about the engines, just about monetization which you can handle completely independently from the software. If your project makes a million or less, UE5 is free to use for anyone. That makes it pretty good for tiny indie devs and hobbyists actually.
Do you mix game development with engine? Of course an engine doesn’t make an innovative game by itself. An engine is - hence the name - only the means to an end to help develop a game. Innovative games are all over the place in regards to the engines they use; from in-house/custom to products like unity, unreal, etc.
That you have the impression that engines like UE and Unity are “less innovative” by judging released games just shows how many games are developed using these engines - especially Unity. It’s so damn easy to build games with it, that many people do, even when they only build something simple. And that’s fine … it means that more people can channel their creativity into game development, even when it doesn’t yield anything ground breaking.
It also shows, though, that developers can focus more on the game development and have to deal less with engine development and now even asset creation, since these engines also bring asset catalogs. So it’s really quite a good time to dive into game development, which fosters creativity and in the end there will also be innovative games among them.
Yes but at the same time Unreal doesn’t really compete with Unity at all when it comes to 2D games. Unreal is primarily meant for 3D games and maybe you could make a 2D one work in it but Unity has a lot more resources for 2D games. That’s why games like this switched to Godot instead of Unreal cause Unreal wasn’t really an option. I could be wrong but when Ive made some projects in Unreal it didn’t really seem to have any options for 2D games like Unity has.
It’s got all of the functionality you need but nothing in UE is “boilerplate” for 2D, meaning they don’t have the functions built for you to use out of the box. Godot has all the boilerplate for a complete novice to use after a few tutorials videos. Haven’t used Unity for maybe a decade so idk about them.
Unity’s modus operandi is to develop a feature halfway and then deprecate it and replace it with something that’s not yet released. Such a mess of a product.
Whitehurst and chief product and technology officer Marc Whitten discuss Unity’s plans to rebuild trust with developers after the 2023 Runtime Fee fiasco.
Here’s a hint, it’s gone. You’re not going to get that trust back for 10-20 years, if you ever get it back.
What do you expect them to say, “it’s all fucked, let’s shut up shop”? They’ve fired JR, undone most of his wild spending, gutted the company to desperately undo his mismanagement and make the company profitable. Saying “were trying to go back to how it was” seems like a non-insane risk-averse business way to try and keep the Unity users who haven’t been able to jump ship already.
Ha! Can’t cut down on the QA and testing stuff if there is none! Smart thinking, CA!
Damn this sucks though. Happy for Relic that they escaped it, but Sega has been dropping the ball so hard lately, it sucks they take it out on their workers.
You mean the near Paradox levels of DLC for Three Kingdoms and Warhammer? And selling blood as a fucking DLC for every Total War game since Shogun 2? Yeah, I’ve heard about it.
The games are good, but Sega’s forced monetization is atrocious.
Of those three, the one I bought was Three Kingdoms, and I was certainly not forced to buy more than the base game. Paradox’s DLC strategy is a-okay by me. Neither company puts a gun to my head to buy their DLC. Pretty sure blood is a DLC to get away with a lower age rating.
Eh, CA pretty much aced their DLC strategy for warhammer 2. It’s with Warhammer 3 that they fell of a cliff. And three kingdoms barely got any DLC before getting cancelled.
One thing I didn’t like about Shogun 2 and all subsequent sequels was enforcing a limited number of armies by forcing a general to be present. The maximum number of armies you could field is naturally bottlenecked by your economy, so you should have the flexibility to use some non-generaled armies to bolster garrisons in key strategic locations. Instead, you need to use one of your scarce generals to defend it, which prevents them from being used offensively so they just sit around.
gamedeveloper.com
Aktywne