:
|
I like how Manco clearly isn't much into serious game programming, and he assumes he's the expert on what makes a good game engine
|
You can't rate a game engine solely on how it handles visuals. Unity does well for being easy to jump into and make things happen. There are probably thousands of games that would never have been made without Unity. It gives people a lot of tools to make games, which is exactly what an engine should do. What it can't do is teach people how to structure large projects, how to manage time or how to actually code, which is why there are so many garbage games. Lots of people are quick to judge Unity based on the output, but that just speaks for how easy it is for people to dive in to.
Unity isn't as beefy graphically as UE4, but that does not make it a bad engine. Even if it was the least powerful graphically of all common commercial engines that doesn't make it bad.
Anyway, there isn't a problem with people making 2D pixel art games if they know
why they're doing it and they have the artists to pull it off. It's not about the medium. That said, to compete with a new AAA game which has gigantic art teams tirelessly working on high-poly character models and a top-tier tech team developing cutting edge procedural animation engines, 2D seems a lot more approachable. There are more noticeable problems when you don't get 3D really right - like the UXB disarming animation in NNT. You're no longer working with a fixed grid of pixels, you're wrestling thousands of points in space.