alt Hacker NewsThe amount of otherwise decent games that run poorly due to Unity or UE is very unfortunate. I wish people would stop recommending this stuff. I do hope Godot and Bevy are better, but I'm not sure if they are.
To name some games with very bad perf issues that I've played in the last couple years: Core Keeper (Unity), WORMHOLE (Unity, mostly see the lag in endless mode), Crab Champions (UE4, have to use nonsense upscaling stuff that makes the game hideous just to maintain 60fps at 1920x1200).
Meanwhile Terraria, Necesse, and Barony use their own engines and run great, they have aged like wine.
Out of fairness, I'll say Tiny Rogues (Unity) usually ran pretty well from what I recall, though the dev is actually working to move off Unity in the future, so he has clearly found issues with it himself.
I know there is the argument of making a game vs making an engine, and actually getting a game done and shipping it, but when you put out garbage you aren't gonna have a very positive legacy. I think it would be better to take the long way and ensure some level of quality. Games are often played for decades after release and if they are buggy or laggy, people will continue to run into that forever.
Replies
> The amount of otherwise decent games that run poorly due to Unity or UE is very unfortunate
The amount is approximately zero. If someone write badly optimized code with Unity they have 200% chance to write badly optimized code with their own engine.
Today I discovered, fell in love with, and returned Tainted Grail because it is horribly, terribly optimized. Apparently the PS5 version is so bad that it’s an offense to nature. Which is sad because it’s apparently a phenomenal game.
Though maybe it wouldn’t have even existed if it wasn’t for Unity.
This is a really bad take, sorry.
1. Engine choice is only a factor in performance. If you build an unoptimised game it will run poorly. Doesn't matter if you do it in Unity or your own engine. 2. Terraria, etc did not succeed because they use their own engines. 3. Those bad performance games have bad performance and happen to use an engine, not the other way round. 4. The quality of your game has a lot more to do with effort, care, etc than the engine you choose to use. You can create a buggy piece of crap no matter how you make it 5. Performance alone is a bad reason to roll your own engine. "Existing engines are not performant so you should roll your own" is a very bad piece of advice. 6. Making a good engine is HARD and a lot of effort. There is no guarantee that you produce anything better because you chose that path.
> The amount of otherwise decent games that run poorly due to Unity or UE is very unfortunate. I wish people would stop recommending this stuff. I do hope Godot and Bevy are better, but I'm not sure if they are.
Games don't run poorly "because of unity or UE", those engines are highly optimized for the graphical fidelity they provide, It's super easy to find examples of games that run flawlessly with these engines (UE5: Arc Raiders, Unity: Arknights Endfield). Seriously, this narrative is ridiculous and needs to stop.
Some games with those engines run poorly because no matter the engine, if the developers don't take the time to optimize their games, the result will be an unoptimized mess. Is Unity engine responsible for the fact that Cities Skyline 2 devs decided to render the full polygons of every individual's teeth no matter the distance ? There are a ton of tools built in to handle level of details and they didn't use them...
I doubt those unoptimized games would do any better and in a shorter time if the studio had to build their own engines, or with any other available engine. Bevy is too barebones to be compared, and Godot is not as capable as Unity/UE.