Jim Sterling, second greatest Youtuber of all time, recently spoke about Unity and how
it has an image problem.
To condense it all down, people who make rubbish games typically use the free version of Unity,
which is the only edition that displays the Unity logo upon starting up the game.
This means that people associate Unity with rubbish games since any decent game made on
it uses the paid version and doesn’t have to show the world that it’s made on Unity.
Therefore, Unity = bad games.
Even though great games like Cities Skylines and Hearthstone were made on it!
And probably some other ones as well, though admittedly I’m struggling to think of them.
But it doesn’t matter.
The point is, good games CAN be made with Unity, which means that a bad game should
be blamed more on the team making it than the engine that it’s built upon.
This applies to every game, regardless of game engine used.
So why target Unity?
Because it’s one of the most popular, free and EASY game makers out there!
It has lowered the barrier of entry for game development and as such has fallen victim
to all the rubbish games that were previously avoided by being too hard for the developers
to make.
With Unity, anybody can load it up and within a couple of minutes can have a playable if
rubbish arena shooter.
I see this as a topic of debate, rather than a clear-cut issue of Unity being good or bad.
Let me explain.
Back when I started mapping, I didn’t like the tutorials available to learn from.
They were long and inflated, far more complicated than they needed to be.
So I made my own series, deliberately kept shorter and simpler than any others.
As a result, they got rather popular.
And also got a lot of people into mapping who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I lowered the barrier of entry for mapping!
The result was that a hoarde of new mappers proudly posted their first level over on Facepunch’s
forums and my name quickly became associated with said rubbishy first maps.
I was the Unity of the mapping scene.
Of course, the people on those forums saw it as a simple case that I was bad and was
encouraging bad maps.
My shortcuts taught bad habits and my simpler tutorials were lowering map standards across
the board, which made them BAD for the mapping community.
Plain and simple.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, being the maker of those tutorials, I saw it slightly differently.
I accept that I was responsible for many bad first maps, but argued that it was an unavoidable
price to pay to get more people to mapping.
Many of these people would never have made a map otherwise.
And no doubt there were plenty of people who got into it from my tutorials who eventually
became good at mapping.
And I say eventually, because you don’t get good at something just from watching a
tutorial, no matter how good that tutorial is!
You get good through PRACTICE and EXPERIENCE.
A tutorial is there to get you up to a stage where you’re able to dabble and to be able
to make the important choices yourself.
Likewise, you can’t just download Unity, a few examples and custom props and expect
for it to be a good game.
Something that asset flips have shown us time and time again.
Blaming Unity is downright dismissive and disrespectful of what a success the program
has been.
Sure, it’s an easy scapegoat when something bad is made.
It may be a recurring name that’s featured in so many bad games but I see it as a symptom
of Unity’s success as a game maker, rather than a gauge of its quality as one.
Hell, I don’t even blame the people making the games until they behave immaturely to
criticism.
I see the problem being that bad titles get more publicity than they have any right to
in the form of being accepted onto platforms such as Steam- an issue that Jim Sterling
has raised awareness to for years before strangely pulling a u-turn in his latest video and pointing
the finger at least partially at Unity for allowing such a game to be made in the first
place.
I don’t think the question is whether Unity is a good game maker.
I don’t even think it’s whether they should be involved in the games made using it.
The real question I think is whether lowering the barrier as low as Unity has done is worth
the price.
Because doing so WILL result in a LOT more bad games and only a FEW more good ones.
At least in the short-term.
Of course I think it’s worth it, as it’s not just easier but also faster to make things
with an easy game maker.
I personally use Fusion myself and time and time again I’m told to move to a ‘better’
game maker.
These people who tell me to say it with good intentions but I know they’re basing Fusion’s
limitations on the games they’ve seen made on it, rather than how good the program itself
is.
Having used it myself, I know the program’s limitations are well beyond what I, as a lone
game developer, will ever reach.
And as a lone game developer I’ll be able to achieve more with Fusion than I ever will
with a more complex game maker because it IS faster to make things in Fusion.
Put simply: the likes of Fusion and Unity are easier and faster to develop with, but
have a lower ceiling than perhaps the likes of Unreal or Cryengine.
But be realistic and ask what you’ll reach first.
Because I bet it’s your own ability and patience that holds you back long before the
limitations of the program you use.
Confident people intimidate me.
When people confidently tell me that I should be using another game-maker, I assume they’ve
properly factored in what I’m making, that they know about Fusion and its limitations,
and also know that something else would be better for me to use.
The truth is that these people probably don’t know what they’re talking about.
They see the world in simple black and white, with coding in C++ being the solution to everything
because big games are never limited by it.
They probably also assume that Unity’s to blame for every bug in every game made using
it, even if they’ve never touched the program themselves.
They know so little that there’s very little they know they don’t know.
You may think it’s hypocritical for me to talk about it since I also have limited experience
with Unity, but hear me out.
Poor quality games have tell-tale signs to them.
Unity has slippery movement and dodgy animations.
Although I don’t make games in Unity, I do make them with Fusion, which also has slippery
movement and dodgy animations…
IF you use the built-in tools.
Truth is, I still use these built-in features when I start on a project because they’re
GOOD ENOUGH for the concept stage.
Later on, when the game gets better, I then replace them with my own designs that don’t
have the same limitations.
It’s just that this takes time and effort.
I’m pretty sure that the same applies to Unity.
Clearly, people who make rubbish games with Unity don’t bother doing this and just stick
to the premade movement, which gamers then think is Unity’s fault rather than the developers
themselves!
So any way, like I said, I think that lowering the barrier of entry is worth it.
There’s just got to be a way of filtering the good from the bad games that are developed
using Unity.
And this is where I disagree with Jimmy’s Unlikely Recommendation.
He suggests that Steam and Unity work together in some vague way, but doesn’t propose how
exactly such a collaboration would solve the issue.
Here’s what I propose.
By all means, Unity should remove the compulsory screen in their free version to distance themselves
from low effort games.
But I think more importantly, they should actively nurture and encourage the better
titles that are made on the platform, working with the developers and ensuring that such
games show the engine in the best possible light and to actually be the ones advertising
the games made.
Similar to how Nvidia’s shows games that use their Gameworks tech.
Or perhaps Unity could create montages from promising Unity games similar to what Unreal
and Cryengine already do.
Or perhaps they should take it upon themselves to make their own game using their engine
to show the world what it’s capable of.
Unplayable tech demos simply don’t cut it anymore!
That ensures that the good titles have the best chance they have of getting out there.
As for the bad titles…
well, they’re going to be made.
They’re an inevitable side-effect from Unity’s low barrier of entry and don’t see it as
their job to ensure these titles never see the light of day.
And I don’t see a problem with bad games.
I’ve made many bad games, and had a lot of fun making them and sharing them with friends
and family!
Why should all games using Unity have to be made with the intention of being sold on Steam?
The problem only arises when the developer thinks their bad, unpolished or unfinished
game is worthy of a place on Steam.
And doubly so when Steam allows them to do so!
And judging from Jim’s earlier videos I’m amazed he doesn’t see this as being solely
Steam’s fault.
I don’t see Unity being any more accountable for the bad games made using it as Tescos
are for whatever food is made using the kitchenware that they sell.
Sure, if good chefs use their stuff them by all means, promote them.
But don’t waste your time trying to stop the bad ones.
So yeah, Unity may be responsible for a lot of bad games, but it also brought us Cities:
Skylines.
Source may be old and dated and sorely requiring a SECOND edition for a particular THIRD game,
but it still enabled the excellent Titanfall 2.
And Fusion may be but a humble 2D game maker, but has still brought about Destruction Darius
2, the greatest game of all time.
But that’s my honest, humble, and most excellent opinion.
Thank you to Mr Sterling for originally raising this issue, I hope you find somebody who has
a lot of spandex.
Until next time… thank God for me.