Jump to content

#1
jen

jen
  • Members
  • 206 posts
I realized this is a trend now-a-days. People using Unity or Unreal Engine who have no prior experience of game development have a powerful tool in their hands. They create fancy and realistic looking games but heavily un-optimized. This is the downfall of Unity and Unreal Engine, they make things too easy that the fundamentals of game development is overlooked by its users.

Notable examples:
Rust - Takes ages to load, FPS drops to 5 in-game.
Lifeless - Reported 20FPS on most live streams.
Miscreated - Crashes as it fills up your ram with terrain data to the brim.
Arma3 - Ridiculously un-optimized.
DayZ - Network rubber banding in this game is the worst I've seen.

It reminds me of when we used to have 56k to browse the internet - people then were desperate to see the internet that they would settle for 56k internet speed. In this case people are so desperate to play a game with realistic graphics that they would recklessly agree to an unfair compromise (buy expensive hardware just to run Arma3).

These games are a joke and it's tarnishing the industry. There's no excuse for this failure. GTA 5 can run properly on my PC, and it's got far more elements in-game than any of those games have. I'm sure my PC is not the problem.

I just thought I would bring this up because it's important. If you have a game that is un-optimized and fails to cater to maybe half of the population of gamers whom have low-end PC specifications then you're missing that much potential sales.

#2
Rick

Rick
  • Members
  • 7,017 posts
Given the sucess of those games it's hard to call them a joke. They've made their developers very rich and able to dev games fulltime. I think the real lesson is that a fair amount of gamers will put up with these issues if the gameplay is fun. Imagine if these devs didn't release these games because it wasn't optimized. They'd be out millions of dollars and be like the rest of us here with no game released and working our day job with only a few hours to spare to work on games. Don't premature optimize your game if your a garage indie shop. You can get lost in optimization and end up with no product at all which isn't desirable. Something is better than nothing.
Posted Image Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#3
jen

jen
  • Members
  • 206 posts

Quote

You can get lost in optimization and end up with no product at all which isn't desirable. Something is better than nothing.

That's understandable. But in the case of those games mentioned above I can hardly call them fairly nor reasonably optimized to justify the worth of me having to buy a set of hardware that cost almost a grand in total (GTX 980 cost £200, 16GB DDR3 is £120, i7 CPU is £300, SSD £100, Power Pack, £60).

It's as if the devs of those games just throw in as many 3D models as possible to the game and expect the consumer to compensate for the power those 3D models require. In most cases the consumer just gives up and asks for a refund. I think EA did this for a while with Battlefield, they just released one episode after another. They did so pretty quickly that I doubt any form of optimization were applied to the games. They just expected their consumer to buy high-end hardware to run their games instead. Although if EA did optimize their games the customers could have saved a lot of money to spend on a different EA game.

#4
knocks

knocks
  • Members
  • 204 posts
Many issues would be eliminated if users didn't insist on running with unrealistic settings for their hardware.

#5
Genebris

Genebris
  • Members
  • 263 posts
First people demand AAA graphics from indie devs, then they are angry that it doesn't run like AAA game that had budget of millions dollars and team of the best engineers in the entire industry.

#6
aiaf

aiaf
  • Members
  • 73 posts
For games created by 1 developer i can live with that as sign of support.
They should at least optimize the game post launch.
Studios are a different story.

I remember this fps game (krieger) from couple of years back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0
Its 96kb on disk Posted Image probably assets are procedural generated

#7
jen

jen
  • Members
  • 206 posts

View PostGenebris, on 16 February 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

First people demand AAA graphics from indie devs, then they are angry that it doesn't run like AAA game that had budget of millions dollars and team of the best engineers in the entire industry.

I would think any game has to be as good as their price tag. A lot of indie devs charge premium rate for their games, not exactly AAA rate but worth enough that there's no reason to demand less from them just because they're not a multi-million dollar studio.

#8
Rick

Rick
  • Members
  • 7,017 posts

View Postjen, on 16 February 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:



Your game has to be as good as its price. And most indie devs certainly charge AAA rate for their games, there's no reason to demand less from them just because they're not a multi-million dollar studio in this case.

Most charge AAA rates? I'd say most are $20 not $60. $20 is well worth fun gameplay with some pain in not running as efficient as possible. The market has decided there is a ninche that can generate a lot of income from fun unoptimized games. It's sort of like complaining a band you are watching at a bar and paid a $5 cover isn't all that polished and sometimes screws their songs up. If you don't find the value that's fine, but many do.
Posted Image Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#9
jen

jen
  • Members
  • 206 posts
I've updated the wording on that comment. My reasoning stands. And the bar example isn't exactly the same since I don't go to bars to see a band. Rather, I go to a bar and drink, I don't mind the band playing in that bar since I'm not paying for them exclusively.

I see the value of the price for Rust. The amount of money pays for their time fixing the mistakes they've made while developing the game. Now if Rust developers were our employees, they would be fired for doing a sloppy job. If they knew what they were doing and had the ability to create their game as efficiently as possible, we might have a cheaper and more polished game today.

I actually paid for Rust at retail price some time ago. I had to refund it because it ran terribly on my PC. I paid about the same price for GTA 5, and I kept it because it ran fine. GTA 5 has more elements in-game compared to Rust. Rust doesn't deserve to have the same price tag as GTA 5. If consumers were more aware of the value of their money, they would say exactly the same.

#10
Rick

Rick
  • Members
  • 7,017 posts
Yet the market decided otherwise and now Gary is a millionaire. Mostly from Gary's mod but Rust helped. Anyway you may not go to a bar and pay a cover to watch a small band play but others do. Difference of value. No sense in trying to force your values on others. It is what it is.
Posted Image Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#11
jen

jen
  • Members
  • 206 posts
You have the choice to ignore it. The topic is not forced upon anyone. Besides, you're projecting.

Also, Gary's mod is actually a good game, and its price is right. It would be wrong to assume that Rust belongs in the same category as GMod in relation to our topic.

Quote

you may not go to a bar and pay a cover to watch a small band play but others do
So I should pay a cover anyway because others want to see a small band play? That doesn't seem right.

Anyway, I'm leaving this topic with that note.

#12
gamecreator

gamecreator
  • Members
  • 1,855 posts

View Postjen, on 16 February 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

So I should pay a cover anyway because others want to see a small band play? That doesn't seem right.
There is no should.  It's your choice.  You pay for what you see value in.  You can even get a refund from Steam if the game doesn't perform to your satisfaction.  Everybody wins.

#13
ChrisV

ChrisV
  • Members
  • 297 posts

Quote

People using Unity or Unreal Engine who have no prior experience of game development have a powerful tool in their hands.
You seem to be pointing only at those two engines. Seems to me that many games aren't as optimized as they should be, not using any of those two engines you mentioned. Even games made by big companies sell games that aren't as optimized as they should be, so why accuse small teams with low budget and not much time of not optimizing their games, if big companies can't do it, or don't do it because of their deadlines?


Quote

This is the downfall of Unity and Unreal Engine, they make things too easy that the fundamentals of game development is overlooked by its users.
You are joking, right? Have you even tried making a game in those engines yet that matches AAA quality? You need skills to make any sort of game, regardless of what engine you use for it. There is no engine that lets you press a button to make your dream game. And nothing is easy (even if you use those two engines you mentioned). Creating a game requires a lot of time, talent, motivation and resources.

Oh, and btw...my game runs at a very solid 60 fps, using one of those mentioned engines, and it looks AAA. Posted Image
I would even dare saying that my game Seventh Crystal Of Theia looks as good as the latest Tomb Raider, which only runs at around 15 fps on highest settings on my machine, while my game runs at a solid 60 fps, also on highest settings.

#14
Josh Klint

Josh Klint
  • Staff
  • 11,081 posts
This is the Leadwerks forum, for discussing Leadwerks Game Engine.  Please see the site terms of use:
http://www.leadwerks.com/werkspace/page/termsofuse