Unity - 1.5.13D game editor; powerful graphics & cross-platform |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| Version 1.5.1: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Features: | Support: | |||
| Ease of Use: | Quality / Stability: | Price: | |||
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews
Troubleshooting
Usage Tips
Developer Notes
Commentary
Featured Reviews
2.0 seriously lowers the barrier to entry to Indie game developers 



- Version: 2.0, 10/10/2007 07:57PM PST
eduweb
Bloated results? - Version: 1.6.1, 1/30/2007 09:02AM PST
(0 of 1 users found this comment useful)
Adreitz
Let me preface this post with the comment that I have only ever done very limited programming and I've never used Unity.
The Unity engine is certainly powerful, with its built-in collision detection, physics, and high-quality effects (full screen glow, water, refraction, etc.). I've tried many Unity-made games (mostly freeware), though, and I've begun to dislike the engine because it seems to be very inefficient with disk space.
iDevGames recently had a 3D game contest titled 3DU. Many of the entries were produced using Unity. Of the many entries, I kept 11 as good enough to spend HD space on. Of those, the *smallest* game made with Unity, Blocks Away, uses 22 MB of disk space! The game play pretty much consists of block physics and that's it. Short gameplay, no effects, no sounds. I would have expected a programmer to easily get the textures and code for a game like that into 5 MB or less. The largest Unity game I kept was Lone Survivor, at just under 54 MB, was better in the gameplay aspect, but still no way near worth 54 MB. I also have a copy of Big Bang Reaction, that Freeverse gave away a few months ago, and I've tried the demo of GooBall from Ambrosia. Both of those seem to suffer the same problem, though it's less noticeable since there is more substantial gameplay.
From what I've heard, Unity is supposed to throw away code that a particular game doesn't use, not including it with the package. I dunno what's going on, but that doesn't seem to be happening. First, it seems Unity is incapable of producing a Mach binary (in XXX.app/Contents/MacOS) of anything less than 9.3 MB. Furthermore, each game requires at least two Frameworks, one of which (Mono.framework) is 10.5 MB in size and can't be placed in /Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks - if this were allowed, you'd only need one copy on your machine, instead of one copy for each and every Unity game. A framework is supposed to be, mostly, a shared library. What's the point of having a shared library if the code doesn't get shared?
I'm sure Unity has done some remarkable stuff as an engine, allowing game makers to concentrate mostly on content for their games, rather than how to get the thing to run and do what they want. It just frustrates me to see such bloated and inefficient results.
The Unity engine is certainly powerful, with its built-in collision detection, physics, and high-quality effects (full screen glow, water, refraction, etc.). I've tried many Unity-made games (mostly freeware), though, and I've begun to dislike the engine because it seems to be very inefficient with disk space.
iDevGames recently had a 3D game contest titled 3DU. Many of the entries were produced using Unity. Of the many entries, I kept 11 as good enough to spend HD space on. Of those, the *smallest* game made with Unity, Blocks Away, uses 22 MB of disk space! The game play pretty much consists of block physics and that's it. Short gameplay, no effects, no sounds. I would have expected a programmer to easily get the textures and code for a game like that into 5 MB or less. The largest Unity game I kept was Lone Survivor, at just under 54 MB, was better in the gameplay aspect, but still no way near worth 54 MB. I also have a copy of Big Bang Reaction, that Freeverse gave away a few months ago, and I've tried the demo of GooBall from Ambrosia. Both of those seem to suffer the same problem, though it's less noticeable since there is more substantial gameplay.
From what I've heard, Unity is supposed to throw away code that a particular game doesn't use, not including it with the package. I dunno what's going on, but that doesn't seem to be happening. First, it seems Unity is incapable of producing a Mach binary (in XXX.app/Contents/MacOS) of anything less than 9.3 MB. Furthermore, each game requires at least two Frameworks, one of which (Mono.framework) is 10.5 MB in size and can't be placed in /Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks - if this were allowed, you'd only need one copy on your machine, instead of one copy for each and every Unity game. A framework is supposed to be, mostly, a shared library. What's the point of having a shared library if the code doesn't get shared?
I'm sure Unity has done some remarkable stuff as an engine, allowing game makers to concentrate mostly on content for their games, rather than how to get the thing to run and do what they want. It just frustrates me to see such bloated and inefficient results.
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Bloated results?
Deceptively powerful game engine 



- Version: 1.5.1, 9/27/2006 08:09PM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
eduweb
We bought Torque before Unity 1.5 was released and I started to try working with it. It is a game engine for a coder. The Torque IDE is built using the game engine itself, so it does not have the polish or ease of use Unity does, which is a native OSX app all the way. And the Torque Shader Engine, which does all the cool visual stuff, publishes only to Windows.
Unity looks fantastic and has stunning performance on a wide range of hardware.
We have been working closely the developers to add new features we need to the engine, and they are incredibly helpful, knowledgable, passionate, and responsive.
If you have wanted to create a full-on 3D video game, but were scared away by all the start from scratch coding, this is the tool for you.
If you want to create a massive, commercial-quality game, this is the tool for you. The only limit is your artistic ability and coding ability.
RIght now Unity does not do networked/multiplayer out of the box, but it is in the works.
Unity looks fantastic and has stunning performance on a wide range of hardware.
We have been working closely the developers to add new features we need to the engine, and they are incredibly helpful, knowledgable, passionate, and responsive.
If you have wanted to create a full-on 3D video game, but were scared away by all the start from scratch coding, this is the tool for you.
If you want to create a massive, commercial-quality game, this is the tool for you. The only limit is your artistic ability and coding ability.
RIght now Unity does not do networked/multiplayer out of the box, but it is in the works.
Plus the developer community, including Unity Technologies people, is stellar -- someone will answer a question very quickly.
Add PhotoShop and Cheetah 3D and you have a full game production studio.