Unity can't make good Triple A games?

>> I know Unity couldn't make Witcher 3.

At least not with the built-in terrain... ;-)

 

Wait.... http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/oddworld-abes-oddysee---new-n-tasty/critic-reviews

Destructoid, GameSpot, IGN, EuroGamer, Escapist.. You haven't heard of those before?

 

A company building a AAA game should be capable of rolling their own terrain solution. Assuming they don't simply use static meshes or a pre-made solution like Ultimate Terrains.

 

I just checked the PC version (since Andy's post used filter for PC games), when I checked it had 9 reviews (the PC Gamer review from today was still missing then). Your link is the PS4 version, yes that looks more impressive.

 

They made their own Terrain solution (obviously since it's their own engine) : http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/GDC2014/Presentations/Gollent_Marcin_Landscape_Creation_and.pdf

Cool stuff.

 

In the end, I don't know what purpose this topic serves. We would have to define what AAA games is, then see a list etc etc.

Unity can make games. Good or bad that depends on the team making the game. Unity is an engine. It has features, it has advantages and disadvantages. When you want to make a game, find the engine that suits your needs and use that. Or write your own if you have the team and knowledge (like the Witcher 3 team did).

I don't know what this thread is trying to prove or disprove.

In the end, Unity can make the game I'm making, so that's all I care.

I chose it because of Beast, because I really like great lighting. It had the best lightmapping in an engine I could afford. I was really worried when they switched to enlighten, but in the end I still really like it (although obviously, tons of stuff could be improved) and again, it's much more advanced than the lighting solutions in other engines that are in my price range, so I'm sticking with Unity.

 

Doesn't mean AAA having a big budget and a lot seasoned artists and programmers at your disposal?

In that case the sky is the limit, because you could buy Unity's source code and do whatever you want with it. In reality most big studios have their own proprietary engines, most people never heard of.

And how is that relevant to indie game developers, or even gamers?

 

It's not, the real question should be does Unity help small to mid Indie's compete with AAA games?

 

Who is your friend?

 

Useless discussion... even if Unity could "make AAA games", you're not an AAA developer so it doesn't matter, if you were one, you would have your own in-house AAA engine.

To compete with AAA developers indies have the ability of taking big risks from a creative standpoint or focus on niche games, something an AAA can't afford to do.

 

Who's not a AAA developer? If were talking in terms of money, what quantifies as a AAA developer? There's probably more hanging around than you think.

Also not all AAA developers have "in-house engines" there's a mass in APAC that use Unity and if you don't class Lionhead, Square Enix, Namco Bandai and Disney which use Unity and or / UE4 then I don't know what classes as AAA .

 

Yes some do use "public" engines but they always buy the source code and modify them heavily to suit a specific game which I still consider to be "in-house".

The point is, if you have a lot of resources of course you will make/modify an engine so that it pushes the limits and suits your game perfectly (Witcher 3 example), otherwise it's better to just work around the limitations.

 

Well yeah, but Witcher 3 is an extreme example and something most AAA outfits certainly struggle with never mind Indie's. In terms of shiny graphics and complete gameplay, I've seen things that stomp AAA games coming from two man teams on the urrr how to lock a thread by mentioning the name of it "engine".

But the only real difference here is tool sets, it's all ultimately about productivity and time. Which circles back to the other question: Does Unity help small to mid Indie's compete with AAA games?

 

I think Unity is the public engine with the best combination of usability and power by far. It does have limitations but it's the best out there. And now that it's free, it's a great time to be an indie developer.

 

I've been up half the night playing Pillars of Eternity (and last week Abe's Odyssey on PS4). Don't tell me you can't make beautiful games in Unity.

There should be more interest what people have managed to do with Unity, and maybe - just maybe - folk will start to realise if they spend more time making and less time debating, they might actually make a game. Because if you're spending 4/5ths of your day posting about X vs Y, you're sure as heck never going to work on a AAA title anyway because they don't make themselves.

Just saying, like

 

I am allowed to have a day off you know !. Pillars of Eternity, hmm I'm a massive fan of games like Baldur's gate and Diablo etc. and missed Obsidian, it wasn't the same without them.

But still, it's not really what were talking about. Both games you mentioned could of been done easily with what was laying about 10+ years ago, nothing in them is cutting edge for developers 5 years ago and neither are they the precipice of AAA.

They are great games, but have little to do with modern day AAA.

 

come on guys, I do love unity, but we all know even with Unity 5 [with mono 2.x] we won't be gaining a lot of performance runtime wise to spend on graphics, let's be realistic, not until IL2CPP arrives on standalones or they decide to upgrade mono [after solving aot restrictions].

but even then you need the team and money to do it, but first things first.

 

Hehe, I wasn't actually pointing fingers (although I can imagine a fair number of people have a lot of accrued "days off" in the forums)

But half the problem is what people think AAA is. If it's just modern features, then that's a moving goalpost continually being zig-zagged by the very latest games - and quite often games that aren't even out yet (most of which will be delayed more than once - Witcher 3 is no exception).

A year ago people were complaining that Unity's renderer was stale, that you could spot it a mile off. They wanted PBR. Well, they got it, and now they want temporal antialising. When they get that, they'll move on to the next thing. You get to a point where there is no glass half full; instead there's a thirst that can't be quenched.

I don't believe AAA means temporal antialising or realtime fully volumetric VDB fog or translucent foliage. It means bloody expensive, and as much as we want an affordable (lol free) engine that makes our games look like they have a $50 million budget, we may be waiting a very long time

It's about content and presentation, and what you can sell to players. As an artist I understand the desire for more more more. Hell I have nearly every art package known to man, but at the end of the day, I sometimes just use a pencil and paper. Enjoy what you can do...worry about what you can't when someone won't pay you because of it.

 

,

I'm not really a UE4 advocate, but never once have I EVER thought to myself it lacks anything. It truly is a AAA engine in every sense of the word. If you want to make a AAA style game with a small team it's a no brainer.!

You do realise how basic Unity is when you're swapping back and forth all the time, not that Unity isn't capable of creating awesome games and not once am I saying it's a bad engine in any way. I would NEVER try and bring Unity up to UE's standard it would take far too long and be a crazy idea, neither would I try and get UE to do what Unity does. It's all pointless, it's not like people don't have the option to use both.

How much any of this matters depends on the team and what they're trying to achieve of course, so from experience of Unity development most of this doesn't apply to many anyway.

If one day Unity does 3D as well as UE, than it would be a one stop shop. Until then, well I play them both to their strengths.

Jerry's final thought: Does Unity help small to mid Indie's compete with AAA games?

No, go use Unreal for that..