On: Core: an experimental new way to write videogames

[hungie]

I'm a serious game developer, been in the industry for decades.

I would say that. Godot is a way way better tool.

There, I've falsified your claim.

But more seriously, it's a faster dev experience, it's more ergonomic, it's not cluttered with half baked "new" ways of doing things that don't do everything the old ways do. There's no reason to pick up Unity unless you are being paid to, IMO.

[Capricorn2481 → hungie]

Or any of these

> Unity's advantage over Godot is it's 3D renderer, built in physX, il2cpp backend for C#, profiler, general runtime performance and console support.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Godot doesn't have hot code reloading where you don't have to restart your game.

[hungie → Capricorn2481]

Godot has a good 3D renderer. It has a built in physics system and an off the shelf upgrade to Jolt (which was used in horizon forbidden west). There's absolutely a profiler (https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/scripting/d...).

Hot reloading is supported.

Console support is some work. Possible, but work.

[nightowl_games → hungie]

I'm a Godot contributor.

The 3d renderer is okay, but I'm hesitant to call it good. It's not as good as Unity nor Unreal, imo.

The internal profiler really sucks.

Everything is possible if "some work". Porting to PlayStation 5 is probably a lot of work.

I'm a Godot fan boy, but we gotta be honest about its flaws.

If your targeting 3D on console, definitely go with Unity or Unreal imo.

[nightowl_games → Capricorn2481]

It does have hot reloading at some level. I use GDSCript for a lot of stuff and it hot reloads. And you can use live++ with it to have true top level hot reloading. We implemented a hacky live reloading for native code in shared libraries which works as well.