Can games made in unity be the best graphics games

Can games made in unity be the best graphics games better than those made in snowdrop, Cryengine,frostbite like if we use assets like skyshop and many more assets will the games made in unity be the best graphics games ?

 

I would say... probably yes, but it's kind of dependent on how much you want to work to get there. I've never used CryEngine or Unreal or whatever else, but I hear they excel in the graphics department (as in, requires less work). Unity 5 should help close the gap a bit.

 

No.

 

If your hands grows from the right place you probable can create best graphics game on unity))

 

I Think Unity 5 Would Be Able To Create The Best Graphics Game. Other Engines Like Cry,Unreal,Snowdrop All Those Are Known For Graphics But Unity Is The Best Unity Can Have The Best AI, Best Graphics And All The Things If We Work Really Hard. Unity Also The Most Easy To Use Game Engine As Compared To Other Engines I Think Unity Is The Best Engine.

 

You can create a more unique game with good graphics in unity more quickly as one person or small team. But not if it's a first person shooter with typical cliche stuff. Feel like you can solve bugs in unity quicker than elsewhere but that's just what I've come acrossso far.

 

Running on a single core?

Sure.

 

Not with Unity 4 technology, no.

UE4 and CryEngine have far superior rendering and lighting systems in place that are made to look good and give nice eye candy.

Unity is focused more on quick, high performance multi-platform development.

It will be interesting to see how good Unity will look when 5 comes out.

 

i doubt unity can have the best graphics, but it can be very close..
also don't forget there are many assets to aid you if you ever wanted a boost in your game look quality..

 

Unity 5 wont help either on that.

 

How do you know? Are you saying rendering upgrades, an integrated third party middleware lighting system proven in the AAA sector and some advanced shading methodology like PBR / PBS isn't going to make a difference? Err what?

As for Unity 4.0, no! It depends on what you're comparing it to? Skyrim, I bet you could get away with graphically, even though you'd run into a boat load of performance related issues. Crysis franchise? Nah not a cats chance in hell.

 

Unity 4 is a Game-Making beast. I've encountered nothing like it. I will not be moving over to any other solution because of it. I am not interested in the best renderer nor do I want the ultimate lighting solution. I want and have everything that I need all in one package; A Game-Making Beast (UNITY).

 

The real question is whether or not your artwork compares to the best graphics games. Perhaps Cryengine will give you that extra 5%, but the prime determining factor for good graphics is well produced game art.

 

I agree. Until you have a graphics department that unreal this is unlikely to be a problem!

 

Do you have the best artists?

What do you mean by 'best' anyway?

You can probably not get hyperrealistic shading on the same level as other engines in Unity 4 (which is what we've got). But art isn't about just the underlying technology - you have to have artists who know what the hell they're doing.

So, to reframe your question - can you make fantastic looking art if you're five guys who never held an easel or a brush in their lives? No. Can you make fantastic looking art if you have good artists on your team? Sure. Is that fantastic looking art comparable to other engines? Depends what the value of the word 'fantastic' is.

 

There will always be some fundamental limitations preventing you from doing as much as some other environments. For instance the garbage collected language means you will fundamentally have less memory available for your game on any given machine, and that will also have a bit of performance overhead.

But machines are also powerful enough that this may have no practical difference in some cases. With good art and clever design and programming you might well make something that looks as good as Crysis 9 to the untrained eye.

 

You mean bar the one man level designers on both CryEngine and Unreal forums that can pretty much put most AAA games to shame? You never guess what? There is a reason for that, there is a reason why Unreal has a very definitive look to it.

I'd of thought as artists etc, you'd understand how much shaders (Core engine rendering functions) and lighting is fundamental to good looking art.!

Art is becoming its own much more technologically advanced segment and the engine is feeding right into that, one could say with an extensive use of shaders etc. that art is becoming more technical than anything else.

 

That's very true, but IMO there's a one way street from foundation to technical sophistication. No matter how great your shaders and lighting are, bad foundation will show. However, a good foundation will excuse a lot of missing technical sophistication. I'm sure you already know this, but I just wanted to add that.

 

Sure, no matter how realistic the lighting is. If your textures suck, your textures suck etc.. Thing is when you're comparing engines you have to leave art talent at the door. To make any variable use of these AAA engines, it's kind of a given you know what you're doing in this department.. Making games that would take advantage of them on any scale is no easy feat.

I've seen people extract AAA assets for modding in games, you wouldn't believe how different if I may say bad they look. The tech really makes a huge difference... Still you have to be damn skilled in the first place to keep things performant whilst decent enough to be able to take advantage of tech.

The reasons why the likes of Crysis 3 looks so good, the art is fantastic, level designers knew how to put it together and the tech is amazing and you can tell the artists were in sync with the tech. It's a 50 / 50 challenge, bad lighting will ruin a game, bad art will ruin a game.. Bad SSAO looks ugly, bad / lack of AA causes distraction away from your extensively pretty art. You can ruin the whole look of a game with one post process.. Just think color grading, oww nasty.

You are only as strong as your weakest chain, for some it's art for others it's the engine.

 

This guy. He knows what he's talking about.

It's true that other game engines have some graphics capabilities that Unity does not have. HOWEVER, you have to be able to create the art assets to utilize those capabilities for them to mean anything to you.

If you're a single developer, it's extremely unlikely you have the skills to do that.

If you're on a small team, it's more likely, but the workflow superiority of Unity over other engines is likely to do more for your graphics than the other engines' graphics features. Being able to iterate quickly and seamlessly on your animations or models, for example, will probably give you a big improvement to the look of your game.

If you're on a large team, you would have a guy on the team whose job it is to know engines, and you wouldn't be here asking the question.

 

Take the Manufactura K4 assets, put them in CryEngine, don't be able to sleep for the night.

On the other hand, there's a higher chance of Unity matching CryEngine's graphics capabilities one day than CryEngine matching Unity's flexibility. So your choice.

 

, I did exactly what you said. It causes nerdgasm and then you realize all it's problems.. Go back to Unity open up the demo scene and go, aww man..

As others has said though, if you want to make a game as opposed to a tech demo it's a fine engine to use.

 

It's the artist/shader writer, not the engine that makes the game look good.
Example:

The 3D rad engine usually looks something like this:

One person rewrote the shaders and lighting and made it look like this:

Just an example of what you can do if your determined enough, and the fact that there is no limit to engine graphics...

 

Probably but harder then you think, but why not there is alot proofs for good graphic in unity

 

'Best Graphics' is a bit of a tricky thing to determine. Some people find more minimalistic stylised graphics are the 'best' and some people find more complex and visually-full realistic graphics are the 'best'. And there is a whole spectrum of people inbetween who like content at various levels of stylisation and realism. And then you need to define what you classify as 'stylised' and what you classify as 'realism'. Personally, I prefer playing more minimalistic and stylised games as opposed to ultra-realism, but I do respect how much time and effort goes into creating the visuals for games such as Battlefield and Crysis and they do look visually amazing.

Here are some of my favourite Unity games that excel in what I think are 'Best Graphics' (All of which I think is made with Unity 4, but im not sure about Firewatch as that may be Unity 5):

Besiege:

Ori And The Blind Forest:

Firewatch

Night In The Woods:

Sailor's Dream

 

The issue is rarely the engine itself but the developers using it. If you want to make a very high quality game, you generally need a big budget and a quality team to do so. If you have to ask this question, chances are very likely you don't have either.

 

ask yourself this.

Can an artist make a beautiful masterpiece using only a pencil?
EDIT: Maybe a crayon is a worst tool? Idk I hate crayons :C.

 

I googled "good crayon art" to prove you wrong, but the results of that google are depressingly bad. You may just be right about that.

 

Does your game need the "best" graphics? Lose "graphics" from your question to change it to a more important question "can games made in Unity be the best games?" The answer to that is YES. The best games do not require cutting edge graphics. Heck you could actually use 256 color grayscale and some occasional bits of color to have a unique look that stands out. I understand you wanting to have the best looking game of all time. I am just suggesting that is not the same as how many polygons can be thrown around, lighting and other FX you have to work with. It is tied more to your creativity as an artist.

 

That's true, but why not just answer the question the guy asked? No need to hijack the thread to discuss something different than the topic it started with; if for no other reason than that dodging the question the way you have here implies that Unity CAN'T make top-quality graphics. Which is incorrect, especially with the graphics features of Unity 5.

 

Your google fu is weak!

http://www.cowboysindians.com/Cowboys-Indians/April-2009/Artist-spotlight-crayon-artist-Don-Marco/

 

Hijack? If that is how my reply came across I must have worded it very poorly. Hijacking was not the intention. I thought I was answering his question while also providing another viewpoint so they do not get hung up on absolute "best" graphics to the point of not even bothering to try.

 

No.

 

I think Ziggurat should also be in the list of games with great graphics. The visuals are stylized, but are very smooth and colorful.

 

The question is really can the same art team produce better looking art in Unity or some other engine?

Sure it all depends on the artist. But lets say you use the same artist in both engines.

 

I read it as can the OP produce better looking art in Unity or some other engine. And that all depends on the artist and the style of art. For example, it wouldn't matter if I used Unity or any other engine my games would look virtually identical. And in no case would they look great at least as far as an experienced artist who was also very familiar with 3D rendering tricks could pull off. If someone is a top notch 3D artist familiar with all of the ins and outs of 3D engines then I can see it getting down to purely engine tech. Granted the question was open ended as to whether it could be done in Unity period. But that seems to go back to the same question that has been asked tons of times before. Sounds like the best way to answer is for the very best artist who is familiar with all of the ins and outs of Unity as well as the other engines to make a very small game in all of the engines to the best of their ability. That would probably be interesting to see side by side comparisons.

 

One of my favorite Unity games art-wise is Ghost of a Tale. And this video is almost two years old:

 

Unity is capable of visually stunning graphics. Recent videos demonstrate that very well.

The question is if you're skilled enough to make a visual appealing game. The engine gives you the technology. But you still require extensive knowledge about lighting, textures, color theory etc.
The engine is like a raft. It only brings you as far as you paddle.

Ultimately the art direction is way more important than the graphics IMO. And if you compare engines, I find Unity has spawned the most visual interesting games in the last couple of years.

 

What is better graphics?

Can a certain brush or canvas automatically make you into a better painter? Will a certain game engine automatically make you into a better artist? The answer is no to both questions, they are tools, they might help but they will make no difference if you don't have the necessary skill and knowledge to use them properly.

Great graphics is the result of many hours of hard work from very smart and talented artists. Any decent, modern graphics engine can render breathtaking graphics on your screen if you know what you are doing. Its all about smoke and mirrors, some engines makes it easier to produce a certain style but that is about it.

Does graphics make games better?

Graphics is like decoration on a cake. It will make the cake look better and probably make it easier to sell but it will still taste like dirt if you filled it with dirt. Game designers are responsible for creating recipes and it is the programmers job to produce the cake, based on the recipe, as fast as possible by spending as little resources as possible.

What is unity good at?

Unity is loved by many users because it is a game engine that is a bit easier to learn compared to other game engines. It is suitable for most types of projects and it is really good for quickly testing new ideas.

...

Don't expect things to be simple when you are new to games development, forget about producing a game better then your favorite AAA game. A lot more work went into the game then you know about, it was developed by a large team of very talented, specialized people.

What you should do instead is to make and finish simple projects, learn the basics for as many specializations as possible, figure out what was the most fun to work on for you and then figure out what the name of its specialization and always strive to become the best person at that task.

Not everyone is meant to be a programmer, maybe 3D art is your thing or music? Did you know that there exist over 20 fields of expertise within the games industry and some of them got over 20 specializations that are still evolving. No one knows everything today because new techniques and methods are developed every year.

 

Why Do You Write Like This?

Anyway, CryEngine not can only offer high end graphics, but as well as high performance rendering millions of polygons with no big performance drop.
On the other hand, Unity is, as you said engine you can work with very fast, even for beginners.

 

I've always wondered that. I can understand those who choose the lazy route of not using any punctuation or spacing paragraphs. But capitalizing every single word takes effort and yet it makes absolutely no sense to do so.

 

And it makes my brain stub its toe at every single word.

 

In most cases I skip those posts that put no effort into formatting. If they can't be bothered to format, then I can't be bothered to read it. A post with one or more likes is about the only reason I'll put up with reading it.