←back to thread

205 points samspenc | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bob1029 ◴[] No.45147656[source]
From a purely technical perspective, UE is an absolute monster. It's not even remotely in the same league as Unity, Godot, etc. when it comes to iteration difficulty and tooling.

I struggle with UE over others for any project that doesn't demand an HDRP equivalent and nanometric mesh resolution. Unity isn't exactly a walk in the park either but the iteration speed tends to be much higher if you aren't a AAA wizard with an entire army at your disposal. I've never once had a UE project on my machine that made me feel I was on a happy path.

Godot and Unity are like cheating by comparison. ~Instant play mode and trivial debugging experience makes a huge difference for solo and small teams. Any experienced .NET developer can become productive on a Unity project in <1 day with reasonable mentorship. The best strategy I had for UE was to just use blueprints, but this is really bad at source control and code review time.

replies(9): >>45148077 #>>45148138 #>>45148160 #>>45148564 #>>45149063 #>>45149666 #>>45150591 #>>45151827 #>>45154587 #
1. cheschire ◴[] No.45148077[source]
And blueprints take forever to wire up in my experience compared to just writing the C++ directly.
replies(2): >>45148415 #>>45149558 #
2. diggan ◴[] No.45148415[source]
Never worked in a larger game-dev team before, but I always saw the benefits of Blueprints to be mainly for the ones who don't know how to code. Setup the right abstractions and you can let the level designers add interactivity for example, rather than Blueprints mainly existing for speeding up the work of C++ devs.
3. markus_zhang ◴[] No.45149558[source]
I think UE requires the dev team to have a clear cut between the designers and programmers. Programmers code BP "components" and give them to designers to wire them up. The heavy lifting and complicated logic should live in C++ IMO. Otherwise it's going to be hell.