20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:
Zarx said: Unreal and Cryengine 3 = over $1 million per game and/or revenue sharing where you have to pay a % of the revenue from the game, depending on the size of the game and the extras and support you get.
Unity = $1,500 + $500 for collaborative tools and some extra optional extras for $200-1,500
That is comparing the budgets of engines current and next bud. Not lost at all.
In fact, it's been compared to both from the beginning of the thread, if you've been keeping up. And I say again, you can't call for reason and make a biased, unfair comparison, doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not. Lastly, and this makes twice I've asked, if you know the budgets of the engines you're defending, I'm all ears.
|
I've never referred to the posts prior to mine. I don't see how you could have thought I included them in our argument. I never answered your questions about the budgets because you never answered what you meant by budget. That's your fault. I now see that you didnt mean computing budget but rather the cost of using the engine. I didn't think you were talking about that budget because that is completely irrelevant in terms of measuring the engine capability. A weaker engine is still a weaker engine.
So you say that there can be no debate if there is a bias? If people did not have a biases there would be no debates. Please tell me how you would choose a side of a debate without having a bias. Sure the comparisons I've given are a bit unfair, but not unfair enough to throw them out. I'm all ears...
|
You say it's weaker than some current gen games / engines. OK. Using Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 as examples (your examples), how is it weaker than the Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 and Unreal 3?
As for "debating with a bias" - I don't see how you can argue realistically and then present an unreasonable, biased comparison to support a viewpoint. However, there's really no need to continue with that - as it's an obvious dead end.
|
Ok. I'll end this debate with how I started it. My opinion, based on overall appearance and with the consideration of polygon count and other graphic rendering aspects, is that Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 look better than the Unity 4 tech demo. I don't really have any argument other than that, based on my own preferences, I think that those games look better and are more appealing to my eyes than the Unity 4 tech demo. I've already stated that this is my own opinion and that I know others will have their own opinions different that mine. You disagree and don't think my opinion is valid. That's why I've kept up with this argument.
By the way, I don't feel that my comparisons are as biased as you say. Please tell me how they are grossly unfair.
|
excuse me for butting in, the unity 4 tech demo is clearly aiming at a more cartoony feel, so it would seem that way compared to tech demos with high res textures and such, but those are just assest, if you pay attention to the fine details, you'd realize that it's a very impressive engine at that price, and it's capable of simply switching assets to more realistic ones to create the graphics in which you deem impressive. The question of any engine is how optimized and how much they can push out from a platform, in these days, texture size doesn't mean much, it's how much your platform can handle that makes the real difference, the assests are up to the developers and it being so cheap and user friendly means you'd see high quality games at more rapid rates which is good kk? -_^b
