they have a lot of surveys (on and off of forums) they have "friendly" game studios who work closely with them on things (do you still remember Nordeus, they worked together on the first iteration of DOTS at the first place) they have small teams on the inside dogfooding each other's work They chose to fill this gap by multiple ways: Unity is not a game developer company, practically never was. Your intention is valid, your proposed solution is probably not. I understand what you're referring to, but I think you fall for the same thing like when the gamers try to tell the developer what's wrong. non flat terrain to LOD, stream, populate and navmesh,Ĭlick to expand.I still don't get it, one thing to acquire the information and another to pull away a bunch of talented people from the engine development to a game development, which is not the profile of the company and would not benefit anyone. a game as services, so they continue update across section (and dog food their services like ads and all), IMHO the ideal game unity should do is basically fortnite but on a planet instead of island. Scriptable architecture was more hype than anything unity proposed, even with the inherent flaws. They really are the highlight to me, the talk were spectacular too. In general I only tangentially pay attention to unity demo, I really really get into features when you have unite (or anywhere else) talk from actual dev, and generally they bypass unity's feature entirely, but tell how you can replicate it. The clarity breadth of the presentation is something unity don't have. The great thing about nanite/lumen isn't that it's a great technical tour de force, is that it show many problem solved at once (technical meet workflow) presented in a way that actually make sense (both game and filmic) in a way that convince people of many walk (game, technical, artist, producer). It would also help to integrate all problematiques into a single vision (make a game). And since the feedback website is no more (not sure if they ever took any of those feedback seriously to be honest.) we have no voice so how are they going to know what the final user needs? All the "Democratize game development" was left behind, it left the company with David Helgason.Ĭlick to expand.BUT yeah, they need some amount of dog food, while it might not end up in a real workflow 10 years from the release of the game, they at least would have an insight in solving the right problem, instead of proposing silver bullet solution that only goes half way there. Everyone who uses the editor/engine on a daily basis knows a bunch of bugs that is simply never fixed, a bunch of tweaks to the editor or engine that could improve our quality of life/speed up our workflow. It is also important that they do not hack their own workarounds on the game when dealing with something roadblocking them, at these moments the QA/UX/etc must know what is happening and the roadblocking stuff (or anything getting in the way of a more productive pipeline, quality of life improvements) can be addressed. UT needs to make a fully fledged game, I started to get my hopes up when I saw the FPS Sample (even though I tried it was full of bugs), they need to feel and know what we do feel when using their product, it would get better naturally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |