Underworld Ascendant - Banner Update

[DArtagnan]

Well, the Unity engine is being discussed in this thread as a reason to question backing the game, the funding of which is uncertain. I would say that discussing it is as worth "going on about" as anything else on this site.

If you can't accept that Unity can be a perfectly efficient engine, because of what "people say" and the selection of games you happen to have seen, that's fine and dandy. But I do think it is worth examining the question in this thread, as the conclusion is faulty, and I don't think it should discourage people from backing the game.

I'm sure you think so, and you should definitely do what you think is right.

If you want to read what I'm saying as scepticism based on what people say, while you ignore what I've said at least twice about not seeing a game performing well written in that engine - that kinda goes towards this being a waste of time, as you don't seem interested in hearing why I think what I do - which is the only sound way to exchange, from my point of view.

You don't seem to offer any evidence of any kind for your point of view, so I definitely recommend people understand that the Unity engine isn't necessarily efficient because Ripper seems to think Nintendo games run well on it.

Since neither of us have any real evidence beyond our experiences, there's no way to establish a solid conclusion - and since you clearly aren't listening, I find this to be a waste of time for everyone, with the possible exception of you and your need to be right.

So, I'm done with this part of the discussion.

 

[Drithius]

Well, based on my experience with the Unity Engine, I lowered my pledge from $75 to $50. Caveat emptor.

 

[Ripper]

You don't seem to offer any evidence of any kind for your point of view, so I definitely recommend people understand that the Unity engine isn't necessarily efficient because Ripper seems to think Nintendo games run well on it.

Since neither of us have any real evidence beyond our experiences, there's no way to establish a solid conclusion - and since you clearly aren't listening, I find this to be a waste of time for everyone, with the possible exception of you and your need to be right.

Hmm, I dont think I'll be taking any scolding about “the need to be right” from you, of all people! Come on, now.

You also entirely misunderstand or misrepresent my argument. I am not stating that Unity is proven to be an efficient engine – I am saying that your reasoning in concluding that it must be an inefficient engine is faulty.

I can't really accept it's an efficient engine when my eyes are set upon subpar performance in games written using it, time and time again.

It's very hard to accept that as incidental, especially contrasted with the performance in games written using Unreal engine.

I acknowledged that. By stating that you can't accept that it is efficient because of the games you have experienced, you are therefore concluding that it is not efficient.

In the first place, you are making the error of generalising from a small sample, because you've overvalued your personal experience. This is a very common mistake in decision-making.

In the second place, you are confusing correlation with causation. There is no way of knowing whether the engine or the design of the game, or indeed other factors, are at fault in the cases you've seen. You have compared it to the Unreal engine, which is almost exclusively used for big-budget titles, whereas almost all Unity titles have been low-budget affairs. This could equally well explain the disparity in the polish and performance of the games.

Thirdly, since Ninitendo choose to use Unity to build well-performing games on their notoriously underpowered system, this suggests that Unity is likely capable of delivering performant products.

None of this proves that Unity is efficient, and that is not my point. My point is that you make an error in concluding that it is not. I think that people should be open-minded, but certainly not count Unity as a reason not to back a game.