How to react to people "hating" on the Unity engine, who are ignorant?

Hey guys, I don't usually make threads like this, but what the heck? This particular subject has been beat to death a bit, but I want to approach it from the "do I defend against ignorance" standpoint.

Ya know what really grinds my gears?

I see threads like this:
https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?25326-Is-Unity-5-Engine-ruining-great-Games

And I read some users complain how a game based on X engine (unity in this particular case) is so terrible and needs to switch engines/create an engine from scratch and everything would be just oh so much better.

Places where a user might say the "problem" with some game (which I don't mean to make 7DTD seem bad or anything, I think its a fun game!) is totally not the developers fault, but in-fact, is a direct result of the engine the developer chose to use. Or maybe the "performance would be 50x better on Z engine" kind of comments...

It awakens some deep sense in me to defend unity from these ignorant attacks by enthusiastic but ill informed gamers... So I do things like register an account to only find that the threads been closed for a while now (probably a good strategy to get users, don't show when a threads been closed to unregistered users haha).

But as I sat there, fingers just burning to write a long wall of text and quote and call out several ignorant comments and demand future readers to consider them incorrect.... something occured to me - these people are just not getting it! They obviously have never actually sat down and used any type of development tools I'd imagine in most cases, or if they ever have, somehow they have drawn often very severely "bad" perceptions of unity (or whatever engine is in question) based on certain particular games, or certain developers who used the engine and then they go on to say "X engine was a terrible idea, shoulda gone with Y engine". I feel like these people are just misinformed and have formed a bias that makes them assume certain failures of a game are exactly the fault of the game engine used and they are so fast to discredit the engine used, and rarely seem to actually question the developer or the ability of the team that made the software...

Is my reaction normal? Do you guys feel this need to speak up for "the voice of the real unity"? haha

Or do you guys maybe just go with the "they have no idea what they are talking about and probably trolling" aspect? Don't waste your time or effort?

And what makes it worse, is they are talking about a game that has been (and still is) in early access alpha for a long time. The devs have clearly said how things are rough, and to keep expectations in check while development continues (the usual early access mantra) but none of that phases the bias of users towards unity from rearing in the comments/forums/wherever.

Sometimes I wonder if they don't do it just to get people like me all worked up

Thoughts?

EDIT: Let me add - sure, making an engine from scratch or using a more suitable engine makes sense in plenty of cases - but I refer specifically to how people kind of "blanket" an engine as "bad" all around... sorry I use so many "quotes" to describe my abstract thoughts

 

Make a great game using unity. That'll show them.

 

Haha, amen to that @zombiegorilla

God forbid I don't do it good enough and someone make a thread like that towards me

 

I would just leave it alone. Honestly, many people are just closed minded and it isn't worth the effort to try to change their minds, and even if you could, what do you( or Unity even) gain from it?

 

I suppose nothing, other than a few people who might have also picked up the notion that a game engine is "inferior" for whatever reason, which might be based on mis-information, would instead have a reason to reconsider that stance...

Or perhaps they would try and turn it into a flame war

I suppose most forums aren't as well moderated as these here! It would potentially degrade pretty quickly. Especially if I managed to use the word "ignorant" somewhere haha

 

Do nothing. It's only worth getting into a debate about the problems with engines with people who are using them. Who knows, maybe they have a point about one thing or the other not being as good in Unity, but aren't able to articulate it.

I wouldn't describe that thread as a hate thread. Just pretty pointless and lacking specifics. And mostly it was about the graphics ("wouldn't it look better if it was in xyz engine") which at least to me is a fair point if that's what's important to you. But they probably don't realize how difficult game development is, and all the things that Unity has over other engines that help to make these games possible.

 

Ignore, unless "educating ignorant people about unity" is your job.
"Educating" is a waste of time unless the person in question is for some reason very important to you.

 

Did you read the thread? Most of the responses are users saying 'The OP doesn't know what you are talking about, it's not an engine issue'.

Either way there is no real need to defend Unity. Developers at large know what it's capable of, and they are the ones Unity needs to convince. No one really cares what players think of an engine. It doesn't effect sales in the slightest.

 

It's the internet, which gives voice to those who would normally be ignored entirely.

 

A lil bit out of topic, but is it just me or the zombies in the screenshots (in steam page of OP's game) all have the same bend-your-body-left pose?

 

Thanks guys, I appreciate the input!

Yes @bart_the_13th the screenshots on that game (and while you play it) the zombies tend to all kind of have this awkward positioning while idle.... I'm not sure why they did that!

 

Let us know when you figured out how to silence this instinct. I struggle with this too but I've started to make conscious efforts to give in less often to that.

 

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into" so don't bother. If they catch a statement from a random person saying Unity = bad games or they have played a couple of Unity games and they were all bad that must mean that the engine made them bad then they are a lost cause.

 

Vocal minority and all that. Ignore for as long as you can, because they NEVER speak for the silent majority, only ever for themselves.

There is a vocal minority on the net that have a boner for CryEngine because of the CryTek games that made good use of it to produce awesome graphics (and fry even high end desktops doing that). And lack the technical expertise to make ANY distinction between engine, game code and, frankly, user error (many frame drops and other stuff could be down to old GPU drivers, and bad PC configs).
I would guess the guys who DO have an idea about how things really work keep their mouth shut because they KNOW that you cannot judge the engine by just looking at the games produced with it. And know that 5 games are not a statistically relevant group. And know that IF this is saying anything, its that developers more and more lack the resources to go after the last drop of performance.


But there is more to it in this case:

It's guys that pay 24 bucks for an EARLY ACCESS or BETA and then complain about PERFORMANCE of the game of all things.
Should you pay money for an unfinished game? NO! But on the other hand, their fault for doing so. A Beta or Early Access game is NOT a finished game! And what does a sane game developer look in last? Right, optimization and performance. Because framedrops are less severe than crashing to the desktop.

Now, this game is in ALPHA if you believe their PC version tag. Uuuurh.... yeah. So maybe the developer is S***tying people by calling their build what it isn't (an alpha version is a VERY early playable version in my book, nothing the customer should ever get to see), and is only using the alpha tag as a defense for lazy development, but the guys expecting good performance of an alpha build are really dellusional.
Be happy that you don't crash to the desktop all the time! Oh, you paid 24 bucks for that alpha? Well, might teach you a lesson NOT to pay 24 bucks for something called alpha, beta or early access. Unless you are REALLY interested in the game, don't mind helping the devs test their alpha/beta, and have faith in them EVER delivering a release version.
Because that is why you are playing a beta / alpha version... to help the devloper test, not for your own enjoyment.

I see how getting money during development could help fund games that otherwise would never be made, and that not EVERY early access title is going to abuse the system by staying in early access forever and neglecting the development as soon as a certain profit margin is reached.
But apart from that bad dev problems, the real problem is with customer expectations and that players less and less understand what alpha or beta means when the boundaries get blurred more and more because devs cannot wait anymore to finish their games before they try to sell it. Result are BS posts like the one linked in the TO by the vocal minority

 

I'm betting that a lot of the Unity games out there would not have even made it to completion/release if the developers had chosen a harder to use game engine.

Unity makes it very easy to make a game.

Is Unity as good as other game engines, maybe that's the wrong question.

Unity has a lot of technical issues and lacks a lot of tools/features/level of quality that other engines have.

Also Unity allows anyone to make a game, so the level of ability of the developers using it tend to be lower.

The question should be how good is Unity in the hands of AAA developers?

Or how can Unity provide better quality tools that help developers make better Unity games.

 

What? No.

This obsession with AAA has to stop. The question is "how good is Unity in the hands of competent developers," not AAA ones.

 

How long is a piece of string? How big is the budget? 100m is enough to pretty much make anything look good. I mean for 100m you can hire people to rewrite half of Unity.

 

Which is exactly what they do IF they use an off the shelf engine like UE4 or CryEngine, and then people go all "Oh look how good Unreal games / CryEngine games look" while not noticing that the engine used by these games only shares the core with the engines used as UE4 or CryEngine by the small time Indie on the street...

If you want to know how good the stock engine is, you have to see what the bottom feeders can do with it, those guys who lack the money to upgrade the engine.
I bet you will find it difficult to find a ton of UE4 or CryEngine bottomFeeder games. Most of these are created by small teams with small budgets, which already means they have the resources to hack the engine if needed.

Hell, most of us probably use one or the other bought asset to plug holes in Unity.


So really, don't look at what the big boys do. They have the resources to polish a turd engine into a diamond (see CryEngine... the tools, at least 2 years ago, where turds. Small wonder I heard most bigger studios using that paid for custom tool development).
Look at what guys without any resources do with the engine. I bet there you see a lot of trash and some rough diamonds being done with Unity... and almost nothing being done with the other big commercial engines.
That does not mean much about Unity lacking features or being crap... if anything, it says more about how hard to use the other engines are for developers.

 

Haters gonna hate. There's always going to be someone who just spits vitriol just for their own satisfaction. Some people can't feel good about themselves unless they're tearing something else down.

As usual, the general consensus is "don't feed the trolls." Getting up in arms over every instance is counter productive. Ultimately your best bet for this kind of scenario is to walk away and dismiss it. Someone who's already made up their mind isn't going to be persuaded. Zombiegorilla offered some of the best advice. Just go out and make an awesome Unity-powered game of your own. That is a creative and constructive solution.

 

Can Unity really present high fidelity visuals with the same hardware as CryEngine?

I know Unity has improved by leaps and bounds - and I'm convinced the visuals and lighting itself can be on par - but is the core engine rendering as optimized?

The problem is that we don't have enough real games at the same production level to compare.

In my personal gaming experience, Unity games do tend to require more hardware pound for pound to produce equal quality visuals. Is this because those game devs were just using poorer techniques? Maybe.

I recently played Ryse Son of Rome - and was just blown away by the smoothness of the game on mediocre hardware. I remember thinking, "if this were unity - there's no way I could run this smooth on my hardware".

Was I right to think that?

 

Yes.

But to be fair, if Ryse was on Unreal4 it would also do bad on mid-level hardware. CryEngine is just the most optimized engine out there... which is a shame because it has been abandoned since 2011 in terms of major development.

 

Chevy vs Ford
.NET vs Java
Windows vs Mac
Oracle vs SQL Server
etc...

 

No comparison .NET and C# are just straight up a better Java

 

Every successfuly Engine has its strengths. Many engines are developed and modified just to get the last bit of performance for specific platform, for innovative features, a specific quality (like graphics) or target a specific genre of games. Sometimes the developers even work towards the best performance for a single game (down on the game-engines source code level).

Also, the teams who work on those hyped high-quality titles often consist of a professional core-team, with experts for details that you wouldn't even think about. And if they don't, they'd simply hire some.

Simply cannot be compared with indie-teams who have a low-budget and not the manpower to cover all that.
Which - of course - does not mean they're not competent and talented.

But you cannot deny that some games are just thrown together without passion, sometimes even without proper knowledge.

 

Rubber is a good product, but not all shoes using rubber are comfortable.

 

punch them. right in the face. really hard.

 

Well, lets see... is there ANY Unity game you can compare pound for pound to a release like Ryse? While there certainly are UE4 or CryEngine games like that (though also not as much as some fanboys think, at that lofty height of AAA-ness proprietary engines pretty much rule), Unity engine games that really try to be on the cutting edge created by big studios are not really existing AFAIK.

Even if they were, you cannot compare big AAA game A created with UE4 to big AAA game B created with UE4. Chances are quite high neither of those uses a stock UE4 engine. One of them might have heavely modified the renderer or other parts that give them a big boost to performance. That does not mean Unreal Engine 4 stock is better than Unreal Engine 4 stock.... the same could be said if one of thos engines that got pimped was Unity.

Then, the games you CAN look at for devs trying to create "cutting edge" 3D games are mostly created by small teams. These tend to not have the resources to patch engine problems (thus having to work with stock engines), and they generally don't have the resources to optimize their games just as hard. Thus I expect this game to have worse performance than a big boys AAA game in general, no matter what engine is used.
On the other hand, Unreal and CryEngine are used by bigger and more professional teams usually. While some people claim these to be just as easy to learn than Unity (which for them personally might be true, people tend to learn at different speed and view different things as "difficult"), the general usage pattern seems to point in the direction that on average, Unity is easier and more forgiving for newcomers, and lone wolves.

So on average, I would EXPECT games created with UE4 and CryEngine to outperform Unity games... because on average, bigger teams and more expierienced devs seem to work on these games.

As a counterpoint to your post, I have seen some trash CryEngine games pop up on Steam lately, seems like the lone wolf shovelware slingers have noticed the CryEngine engine. Now, these games clearly were built without care. But what is also noticable is that they run like pigs. Performance often is quite poor.
Does not mean much, I mean we are talking about "developers" who cannot even be arsed to swap the standard Crysis GUI elements for their own... but it does mean that even in CryEngine, if you don't optimize your game, performance is going to suck.
So if CryEngine was used just as much by the bottomfeeder devs, the average performance of CryEngine games would most probably dip close to the average performance of Unity games.


Do I say Unity is on par or better than the other off-the-shelf catch-all engines? No, I am not saying that. Am I saying that Unity should stop optimizing the engine? No.
But what I am saying is that anectodal observations like yours are not facts, they are just anectodes. I can construct a counterargument in minutes that is just as wrong.

In the end until somebody constructs a real game in Unity AND one of the other engines, is just as versed in optimizing Unity games as he is in optimizing games created in the other engines, and presents performance numbers based on that, we are not talking facts.

 

The main problem if you can call it that is that those people have no idea how a game is made and what it requires to work, so all you can do is try to explain but still they won't get it. Can't do much about it if the other isn't willing to learn, which is perfectly fine, not everyone have to know how a game is made, they just want to play.

So yeah, sadly with many examples of sloppy work and steam allowing all sort of junk, is inevitable that these talks happen.

All I would do is try to explain how the game work without comparison, in easy words if you can. If they get it good, if they don't you shouldn't give much of a S***.

 

Unfortunately this will never happen, because it costs a lot of money to make a game like that, and experienced developers who are trying to make a game have no interest in spending loads of time and money comparing engines for the 'benefit' of the Unity forums. They just choose what they know will work for their purpose. The only thing you can do as a dev is learn enough about various engines to know yourself what to choose for your own game.

Frankly in terms of optimisation, I think that it's often overlooked how much an art in itself that is, how much you have to manage what goes on. I mean, I doubt in that Uncharted 4 trailer, that they just dumped all of that junk in the scene and pressed play - it makes my mind wither to imagine what the hierarchy would look like if it was in Unity. AAA games are sporting insane amounts of textures and effects, to get that sort of stuff running on a console for example is going to take some serious wizardry.

And that's probably what the supposedly wrongheaded thread is all about, someone who has seen the results of people loading up endless 'pre-alpha' jitterware onto steam with no clue and/or interest in optimising things.

 

Similar to one of my favorite quotes: "Facebook and Twitter have given voice to those who were never meant to be heard".

 

This, i have seen a lot of unity titles that have had no effort put into optimization, and there is a lot you can do. A large part of optimization is not even a per engine thing but a art and tech art thing. creating your foliage in a way to reduce overdraw, writing good optimized shaders and getting the balance between polygons and shader complexity right, reducing draw calls, taking advantage of static batching, building your levels in such a way that occlusion culling is useful. Most of these things are things that have to be optimized per game and not on the engine side, and even require things to be designed in such a way they can be optimized.

 

Which is exactly WHY these studios pay all those people working on their game instead of a single dev, and why they are not going with off the shelf engines, and if they do, modify those to such an extent you could call it a different engine.

ALL the off the shelf engines would most probably crumble under the weight of such a project... some maybe more than others, but not even CryEngine, at stock, is really up to such a task. But none of this engines has to. They are catch all engines created for the average project, not specialized engines for any high-end AAA project.

Its individual devs misunderstanding what general purpose engines are, and what their job as a game dev is, throwing all their assets into a scene and hoping for the best, that create the insane idea that its an engines job to make the game run fast.
In the end, that is the devs job. If a game runs slow, its the dev of the game to blame first, not the engine.

 

Why should it be that?

As said previously, AAA would get source access and could be able to rewrite half of the engine.

I really don't get why small indie and hobby users care so much if AAA devs use Unity.

 

I wasn't making an argument. I clearly stated that observations were "personal experience", and I ended the post asking a question, not asserting fact.

That question remains:
- Is Unity on par with other engines in terms of off the shelf performance?
- If not, where are the big differences?

The AAA rewriting half the engine thing seems to negate meaningful discussion. So what about at mid-scale indie range - like $2-3 million.

Anyone have any real ideas on where these things stand in 2017?

 

I actually thought that "Would that game have been made without Unity?" was the most important point I made.

 

By the way my point had more to do with the OP post than anything else. I don't really know how well Unity would handle Ryse. I just think it's a good bet that many Unity games are unoptimised and that contributes to threads popping up bringing it into question as an engine.

The thing is that AAA-style, graphics heavy, openworld games are not usually done in Unity. So it seems quite possible that it might have some problems with that sort of thing. On the other hand, it seems quite possible that things that other engines are 'capable' of would preclude them somewhat from efficiently running smaller games on low-end hardware.

For one thing, (in my limited understanding of it) I think Unity's graphics pipeline is somewhat clamped to low-end hardware. No doubt the reason they picked enlighten, despite its various problems, is because it can run on fairly recent mobile hardware, whereas voxel ray tracing would very probably not. A lot of graphics-related stuff in cryengine and unreal might necessarily take advantage of things that a lot of the devices that Unity often targets simply do not have.

I seem to remember ShadowK mentioning recently that Unity's foliage performance improved greatly recently. I'm not sure what kind of testing it was. But considering the terrain system is ten years old, it probably still has a ways to go before competing with cryengine in that area.

 

Let's not get carried away on the whole "a custom-built engine is always better for AAA" train. If the dev team has a lot of experience with that, sure. But there are some cases where building a custom engine did more to hinder a game than help it (exhibit A, Square Enix).

 

The thing is, there are very few AAA games made with any of the major game engines, if you google for it. I tend to think that a customised game engine would very much help when building a lot of content for a specific kind of game. The kind of optimisations that are needed for Elite dangerous are going to be a lot different from what you would need for a game set inside a jungle. Generic game engines (which would even describe unreal to a great extent), are never going to be optimal for any specific need without a lot of work.

Even for me, customising Unity with editor extensions (and blender as well) is a huge part of what will make the kind of game I want to make possible, by making things much more efficient. I have no doubt that AAA companies really shape their engines for what they need. When you're making such a lot of stuff, a bit of efficiency compounded is going to go a long way. Especially when you're breaking up the work amongst a lot of people, to reduce information overhead you're going to want to channel things along a very specific workflow.

It's really a trade-off between flexibility and optimisation, the way I see it. And when you're going to spend 100 million, it's probably going to be worth spending a few million on making the engine spit out exactly what you need.

 

:O whats terrible is for a little while, I heard "Unity sucks"
so then I was trying to learn the Blender Game Engine :O LOOOL

or there was like panda something ... and some other crap ... those REALLY suck lol

buut .. maaybe Unity had a different price structure back then?? wasnt free??
or something??? ... I forget... been a looong time

 

The answers are:
BMW, Rust, Linux, and MariaDB. What do I win?


There's a ton of AAA games using off the shelf engines. Sometimes they just pay extra so they don't have to say what engine they use. There are literally hundreds of AAA games from the 2000's that pretend they're using a custom engine, when the reality is they were using the Unreal Engine with varying levels of customization. Part of me suspects Capcom's RE Engine is a modern version of this as it has a lot of similar visual techniques (and artifacts!) as UE4, but UE4 devs have also been fairly open about their work so it might just be an artifact of them building on those talks.

The problem with Unity and AAA is just because it's always been a bit behind in terms of "AAA" graphics features that are built in, and a lot of veteran developers refuse to use engines without access to the source code. There's good reasons for this, as sometimes a bug that is preventing a game from shipping might take many man-days to diagnose and subsequently work around that access to the source code might reduce to one programmer spending an hour or two to fix. A few years ago it was essentially impossible to get access to the source code, were as today they have it as a built in option for the top tier, and their upcoming Scriptable Render Loops already have a lot of modern graphics features implemented so it's something they've been working on improving.

That being said there's a lot of us veteran devs who are using Unity now for smaller projects. My experience has been that Unity lends itself best to smaller teams where custom engines I've worked with in the past are designed heavily around allowing multi-user editing, or at least easier segmentation of levels. Again this is something Unity has been working on with stuff like multi scene editing, and of course nested prefabs ...

Full disclosure, I've never used Rust or MariaDB, I dislike using Linux, but I do like BMW.

 

Eh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_4

Crackdown 3
Days Gone
Dead Island 2
Dragon Quest XI
EVE: Valkyrie
Final Fantasy VII Remake
Gears of War 4
Ken Levine's Next Game (lol)
Kingdom Hearts 3
Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite
Sea of Thieves
Shenmue 3
Street Fighter V
Tekken 7

It's not a TON, but it's a respectable amount, and they're pretty varied.

I want to point out that 100 million is really the top end of AAA production budgets. And you can't simply throw money at a custom engine to magically make it do what you want. There's more to it than that (as Square Enix found out).

 

Compared to the amount of games out there, it's not an incredible lot I think. Although I suppose 'very few' is too much of an exaggeration.

That said, I wonder how close to vanilla those engines were when production began?

If you think about it, AAA games in general push hardware to the maximum, especially on consoles, and it wouldn't make sense to me for a studio not to customise things a lot for their specific needs.

Even and so, we have to define what customising an engine 'beyond recognition' actually means. As bgolus said Unity has a lot of stuff opened up, especially recently. Many of its fixed limitations are due to third party stuff like enlighten and physx. For many things, Unity can easily be shaped into a production line with the use of editor extensions, and with stuff like compute shaders you have some very good access to low level graphics stuff like never before.

 

Well you mentioned yourself that you customize Unity extensively (and I have my fair share of assets as well). So if we can do that, I don't see why engine customization means it's not the "real" engine anymore.

 

Well I haven't customized it a lot yet, but I've tried to play around with most things that I will need. Compute shaders are a lot of fun for playing around with fast asset and level creation, for example. And it's possible to make some very smooth and user friendly editor extensions that make you feel like Unity was made just for you.

But yes that's my point, engine customization is not really a clear line, and from what I've read about AAA company workflows, custom engine tools and fiddling with core features are a pretty common occurrence.

The only people who use vanilla anything are indie devs for whom the capital cost of customising the engine outweighs the benefits. The only reason I am trying to customise it a lot, is because I'm trying to make a game beyond what most people would consider reasonable for one person.

 

The Assassin's Creed game engine is definitely a custom engine, but anyway I remember around the time they were developing Unity (heh) they mentioned a tool they have which allows them to automatically generate a "block" of houses to plunk down in a game. I'm pretty sure they use a more tailored approach overall but we aren't the only ones.

For me it's not about customizing the engine and more about stuff like procedural generation to do things outside of the reach of just one person.

 

This talk about Naughty Dog's 'technical art culture' is also pretty interesting.

Well for me I suppose you could call what I want to do procedural generation, but probably not a lot of runtime generation. I'd rather just make tools that help me to reduce repeated effort. Unless I find good reason to change my approach, I want to basically have highly constrained offline procedural generation, with a good dose of manual tweakability.

 

Those who waste their time arguing about one's engine choice aren't people you want to keep in touch with. Unless you require something incredibly specific, as long as you're creating something you're happy with, it really doesn't matter.

 

An important thing to consider is GC. If you do not code with zero allocations, which can be a pain, you will get some stutter one way or another. For certain games this is very bad (e.g. competitive fast paced games).

I spend the last two weeks removing all allocations from an application that was scaled up. It is in Java and had about 0.1-0.2 seconds of GC all few seconds, but when scaled up from 2GB Ram to 250GB Ram (simulation that runs millions of actors), there could be GCs that take 12 seconds. In other languages you would just ref-count the objects and would not have to deal with such stuff.

<offtopic>

Lol, must be joking. The java ecosystem is so much larger. .NET is niche and will stay niche forever. It is also funny to see that many frameworks that get a .NET port only get this because MS pays the developers to do the port. Nobody would do this because they consider .NET a useful thing to support.

Also .NET performance can be a joke. .NET and windows do not scale, if you have a huge server with many CPUs it is a joke. On new Dell servers you can get millions of requests a second with Java, and about 100k a second with .NET. Try to sell that to any CTO that has any clue (check older techempower benchmarks, they even stopped measuring .NET and windows in the newer ones, lol). [Edit:] Oh I see, .NET on Linux got better in the newest benchmark, but still worlds away from Java.

And that is for servers that can run Windows. But the more powerful servers available cannot run Windows. And no, nobody would run Mono on them, because performance of it is even worse (see techempower benchmarks).

[Edit:] I am not a fanboy, there is stuff that is clearly better in C#, because they came later and could learn from some design errors. But in most larger projects that does not matter at all, because C#/.NET is not even in the competition.
</offtopic>

 

they don't know what they are talking about, is my approach I tried at some point to "reason" saying things like: "graphics aren't made by the game engine you use" or "the game engine isn't writing the code for a game, so bugs are most likely created from the developers code" etc.
but I stopped.....obviously anyone who would be seriously interested in finding out what engines can do, what not and how to work with them, they would pretty fast find out by themselves, without me needing to bash that information into them, which they obviously are not even interested in, if they did not even attempt to make a rough research about game engines.....so it's just wasted breath to try to explain it......in the end it's also less drama to just let them be. Not to mention that both sides feel better about it, I don't need to break my head over their ignorance and they don't need to break their heads over me lecturing them lol.

 

I don't have a dog in the java vs .net battle really (although I hated working with java personally) - but what exactly are you comparing here?

Are you talking about ASP (or whatever the new asp is called) under IIS or are do you have other examples?