Unity3D Graphics Quality

I am not fully sure on how game development works, i am a programmer looking to make my dream game so i am looking at my options for a already built system so i don't have to code my own engine. I have noticed that most of the 3D games that people make using Unity seem to have last generation graphics (Xbox 360, PS3, Ect.) is this just from the people who make them or is this the best Unity can do at this time? I know that Unreal Engine 4 and CryEngine have amazing graphics in almost all of the games made in them, but i don't want to have to pay for it, my game is a indie project and will be free, maybe even open-source.

I also would like to know if Unity will support DirectX 12 and AMD Mantle, or if it already does...

 

You're comparing Unreal Engine 4, which is a much newer engine, to Unity 4 which is due for replacement soon. Better to research into the capabilities of Unity 5.

Engine features alone will not make a low quality game into a high quality game. You need to have the necessary quality in your assets as well. Those amazing graphics you speak of were made by teams with AAA budgets. Something you as an indie will not have.

 

This video is a pretty good example of the wide variety of graphically-different games you can make with the current version of Unity.

 

Oh boy this thread again...

The short answer is that UE4 does make better graphics easier than Unity 4.x does. I've never seen a single UE4 demo that couldn't be done in Unity 4, but UE4 makes those kinds of graphics easier.

As mentioned, Unity 5 has a pretty huge rendering update coming down the pipeline, and once that happens, I believe the two will be on equal footing in that field. At that point, Unity's other strengths (better asset pipeline, better multiplatform support, far better asset store & available plugins, etc) will put it as the definite frontrunner in this race.

 

You've been on this forum for almost 2 years and you are asking questions as if you've never used unity.
Let's be honest, it's unlikely that you will ever make anything.

You asked this question around that time as well.
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/whats-the-most-hq-game-thats-made-in-unity.164762/

 

I wouldn't be bothered with Unity capabilities. I'd worry with yours.

 

This is done in Unity 4 (scroll the whole page to see more awesomeness)

 

Really nice blog. My favorite part though was the entry concerning the tools he used.

 

Even though Unity tends to be bashed due to its out of the box state, Unity is actually pretty flexible when it comes to graphics. Sure, it can never be as flexible as your own engine with source code access, but using Unity as a solid foundation to build on you can produce some pretty spectacular results. And it lets you avoid a lot of the nightmares associated with starting from scratch.

 

@Ryiah Totally agree: that part was an incredibly interesting read and @djweinbaum surely knows his s**t.

 

It's amazing to me that I haven't been around these forums very long and yet a post talking about Unity3D and Unreal Engine seems to appear I swear it seems at least weekly.

And I know I brought this up before but I still don't understand the tremendous emphasis on the graphics side. The actual game is the key. And the fact is if a person made a game that looked as good as the best PS3 and 360 games that is certainly more than enough on the "looks" side.

Now I can understand if the point is on performance. But I have seen many games in Unity3D that have awesome graphics and show no issues with performance. I am sure that is often the result of a lot of hard work optimizing but yeah anyway I think just focus on the game. Make the game so damn awesome it doesn't matter if the graphics are in 2-bit monochrome.

 

Unity's graphic limitations aren't a big deal until you have a larger production team. From your post, it sounds like you're working alone. Unity will suit your graphical needs just fine.

 

Some people really enjoy their tech demo games.

 

UE4 have more advanced particles and effects , and many advanced full screen and graphics scene features Unity don't have , not planned in UE5 or not seen until now like Distance field ambient occlusion for example or static shadowing for translucency not announced in UE5 until today

But even with the best 3D engine delivering AAA quality , i doubt you can make some outstanding game if you can't make outstanding level and characters quality graphics.
I would encourage you to use Unity instead of UE4 to learn game making and start a small project , it will be more easy to learn game making as Unity framework and programming is easy to take.

 

If that is what it is all about... trying to do a tech demo and show off all of the cool lighting effects and so forth that does make sense. I used to really enjoy the work in the demo scene. But I had the impression these were people actually making games. Yet the posts are always talking about graphics and how Unity3D limits them compared to Unreal Engine.
Sometimes I just wonder how many are actually making games that have the quality of Xbox 360 and PS3. There are plenty of awesome looking games on both systems. Why anyone thinks they need more than that for any game I do not understand. But that is just my view from a game player perspective. I don't really think its the players' expectations it is just the developers expectations.

 

why do most ppl fixate on graphical features when they should worry about aesthetics, which are what make a scene/level/world look "good"?!

Try n make a graphically amazing game for mobiles that has to support SM2.0; trust me after that you won't be complaining about Unities "hurdles" but actually find them fun to work around in creative ways.

 

I was primarily thinking of games like Crysis. Paying money for a game that is little more than a glorified tech demo.

 

I actually really liked Crysis, not just for its graphics but because I enjoyed it as a game The first game that is, I have not played the sequels.


On topic, basically, if you have the knowledge required to make your own game engine, you have the knowledge required to make Unity look how ever you want it to. I finished this tech demo today https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/233290703/Alpha02Demo.html (requires DX11 to run).

As long as what you want to do does not include shader texture arrays, or you can work around that limit using an atlas, you're set.

 

Oh yeah. I absolutely agree and that is the angle I am always coming from. Why put so much emphasis and thought on graphics flash when the point is to make something that is fun to play. There are many examples of excellent games that have simple, extremely simple, graphics and tech requirements. As a game player I care far more about how the game plays than I do about the presentation. And from a designer / developer perspective I find it much more impressive to see a game that is engaging that doesn't require high tech to pull it all off. If you're good at game design & development than you should be able to make an engaging very enjoyable game on the NES instead of needing a super computer. Just my view.

 

Because we don't all make games for mobile?

Anyway, short answer is every engine is based on a DX11 / OpenGL renderer. If said API is at the correct version and features available, it doesn't really matter what you use.

I just prefer it when most of it's done for me so I can focus on making a game, not writing a renderer. I wish I had the time / money to throw endless streams of cash at internal engine developers to throw out the latest graphical "shinies".

On the other hand, you might as well kiss goodbye to a larger audience. Because most peoples PC's aren't bleeding edge. Current consoles are already a fair few years behind top spec PC's..

Sexy graphics shots are for publications and media, in which you could do much better looking stuff in 3DSmax and a render farm.

Trick is to get the balance "right".

 

haha, good one.

 

I actually liked fighting the humans in the first 2/3 of the game (Crysis 1, 2007, old stuff) very much. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It is not only graphics, but also performance. E.g. you cannot recreate Crysis in Unity, not just because of graphics, but because of what performance you get if you use such graphics. And you cannot create levels of that size and detail.

Now you say indies do not want that. But some indies want very large worlds. And lets say you want to create a simple RTS game with 2000 units on screen at the same time. That can easily be a one person indie game (it is actually). No chance in Unity, some smart people tried and gave up.

 

I never said that. Crysis, when it released, was barely playable even on very expensive hardware. It was a tech demo meant to fund and get attention for their engine. It was obviously successful.

 

I bought it a year after release (with a new graphics card), so I don't know how S***ty it was at release.

I think it is more than a tech-demo because if you bought a new gamer-PC some time after the release then it was actually a fun game. So it was more than showing tech, the game in it was not bad.

You could say that it was released too early except for the people that had a 3000$ new gaming machine, but if you followed press you knew that before buying.

 

If I recall correctly, you needed a fairly high end system to run it properly at or near maximum settings.

 

Ok, but I liked the fighting so much I wouldn't care about low or medium settings. Luckily when I bought it I had a monster machine (I bought it because I expected a tech-demo for my new monster, so it was a nice surprise that I liked the game for the game it was).

 

This game is being made by 1 guy in Unity 4: http://www.eastshade.com/

 

So pretty *drools*.

 

Hey I posted that before you! Thief! Amazingly looking game indeed!

 

In my personal opinion; a game's core mechanics and gameplay is far more of an attracting feature than its graphics. Take 'Blek' for example, this is the screenshot of the game:



And it won an Apple Design Award and I have personally sunk alot of time into the game, due to its fun, addictiveness and hardcore challenge. In fact, 4 of the winners at WWDC 2014 were Unity game (Threes, Monument Valley, Device 6, Blek) and they all won on their own artistic, stylistic merit as opposed to 'needing' 'TRIPLE-AAA Next-GEN OMFG GRAPFIX!!!111' to be awarded such a rare award and be downloaded and loved by millions of people.

 

Sorry! All credit to you!

 

EastShade is not bad but i see this more as a 3D artist showing it skills than some Unity graphics features. Who said UE can't as good ?
https://forums.unrealengine.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6377&stc=1

Sometimes you need a stonger prooven engine to handle more stuff and you have to make the choide to swicth :
http://martiancraft.com/blog/2014/08/an-unreal-decision/

 

Are you Mark Rein in disguise?

 

Well the screenshots are in Unity.. therefore using Unity graphics features.. and you dont find this to be showing off Unities features? And futhermore postulate that UE can look just as good?!

wtf.. any engine above certain "level" can produce the same visuals.. all you need is a lpp pipeline, custom shaders, cascade shadowmaps, and access to the buffers (or in lack of that.. renderTextures)

what's with the constant x > y threads? so frustratingly pointless.. all one needs is skill, style, and time

 

Have to give Eastshade props. It is certainly doing a good job of showing that Unity out of the box may not be sufficient and that you will likely want, if not need, some third-party assets. All together he is using $225 worth of assets and that only counts those he gave links to. This is in addition to Unity Pro.

Shadow Softener not only apparently gives better shadows, but it also is improving performance. Shader Forge is mostly convenience for those who don't want to deal with shader code directly. Both an equivalent to Shader Forge and the functionality of SplineBlend are in UE4.

On the flip side, volumetric fog (Fog Volume) is not in UE4. It has been stated though that the developers are considering solutions for it.

 

That game really is good looking.

 

Dark Souls with MICE?! I want it!

 

With Unity4 you need many additionnal plugins for better rendering and better editor, while in UE4 you have directly access to all advanced features and tools like shader editor without paying anything more. You have quicker and better visuals without seeking what solution to pay for.

I agree it's a looking great game, once again it's 3D artist talent with a good design similar to Disney , something between realistic textures and cartoon characters and level style.
This just shows that you could use any 3D lambda engine with some capabilities, what matters at the end is your 3D artists team or skills that are able to make you dream with their talent more than the engine capacities.

 

What is the purpose of all of these continual threads about UE4?

Is it to convert people over from Unity?
Coerce Unity into lowering prices or including some of the plug-in features out of the box?
Just to complain?

There has to be some point... I would hope anyway.

Otherwise, I don't understand why you people don't just use the engine you seem to prefer the most, UE and hang out in those forums or... better yet... spend time using all of those amazingly incredible graphics features by working on your game.

 

I think a lot of people need constant reassurance that they've made the right choice (Unity in this case) so they have someone else to blame when things go wrong or turn out to be not like what they expected.

 

The guy asked who is best UE4 or Unity ... so people using both of them could reply to him with good responses. Responses was that Unity can do anything and any graphics, so we give him honnest responses that if he targets high visuals this has a price with UE4 for all plugins needed and UE5 is not out today.

He just contradicts himself talking about a free game , maybe open source and saying he don't want to pay. Than talks about Manthle or DX 12 that will bring nothing more interesting and not some push button like "Make my game beautifull".
He should take Unity Free for such strange idea game.

 

'Who is best' is purely subjective depending on ALOT of different things.
Yes, UE4 may have better out-of-the-box visuals than Unity 4.
Yes, Unity 5 is going to close that gap quite a bit on getting things looking lovely, out-of-the-box.
Yes, UE4 may have things that it does better than Unity.
Yes, Unity may have things that it does better than UE4.
Yes, Epic do have their own forums for you to champion their product on.
Yes, this argument is turning into a roundabout discussion.
Yes, a mod should probably lock this.

 

Unity have also a forum for you to champion their product so.
(I don't see from where comes the forums problem ?)

There is always a best product for some game project needs and another best product for another different game requirements another guy have.
The difference will always what you find more easy to use, what total price can you put on the table, what features and tools you really need.

Any UE4 Vs Unity thread discussion is simply useless, the best advice is try them yourself , and pick up what suits you the best.

 

My response was more in terms of the fact that I love Unity but im not going to head on over to the Unreal Forums to post about it in every single thread. Im sure the mods over there would put a stop to that quickly. Id much rather stick with like-minded folk on the Unity Forums, Unity Subreddit, Bar&Grill Skypechat etc

 

Unfortunately, there is no Unity thread on Unreal forums, simply because people using UE4 know what they have in their hands.
But you could post Unity threads in Unreal forums if you wish, it's not forbidden indeed.

Someone asking what is the best i think just need to be rassured on how far he can go with Unity, if not he would not ask that question on Unity forum. So I agree that the best answers for such people is to show some great Unity titles like "Ghost of a tale" for example.

OR some other good one


Like some other people with who i share and collaborate sometimes , we are not fanboy of any engine and just pick the more appropriate tool for our game idea.
We know that even the limited Free version is very capable for PC indie games and mobile and stays today the best totally free 3D engine for all.
I could point positive points :
- outstanding new GUI
- Animation tools
- many great plugins that worth it
- best Mobile support
- easy to code
We are waiting to see UE5 coming out and see what it can hadle and what we can do with it for some game idea.

 

I think one should use both of them, and then... from the experience, one should choose their own prefered work flow using those engine.

It's like comparing F1 cars from different manufacturer.
All of it have a chance to win, the drivers skills and the tech team what really matters.

 

Almost true, some game like "Son of Nor" had to split up a level in multiple sub levels as Unity was crashing each time. The level was too big to handle,it's a specific case indeed as not all people make such levels of that size, but this is a real stopper problem people encountered.
let's see if UE5 will be better capable of handling bigger scenes ?

 

I encounter that problem as well.
The reason of crash is because Unity is a 32 bit applications.
The crash because the scene use the computer memory over 4GB.
The "work around" that I can find is to zoom in and turn off all effects in the scene view.

Now that it is ineffective work flow, I plan to change into sub level approach as well.