4 ms·

"Having none is better"... but there are some incredibly useful assets on the Unity Asset store? Here are three off the top of my head that I've used for a whil

"Having none is better"... but there are some incredibly useful assets on the Unity Asset store? Here are three off the top of my head that I've used for a while now and they're worth every penny: Shapes - https://acegikmo.com/shapes/docs/ https://acegikmo.com/shapes/docs/ Easy Save 3 - https://moodkie.com/easysave/ https://moodkie.com/easysave/ InControl - https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/input-management/incontrol-14695 https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/input-management... (but I've also heard Rewired is excellent.) Unity would be far poorer for missing them.

noidexe 4y ago
In the case of Godot a lot of functionality is available out of the box. Biggest example is input management. You have an InputMap section where you define actions and can assign keys/buttons to it. Gamepad layout is automatically handled for thousands of controllers so that "right face button" is the same input event whether the user is using an xbox gamepad, a pro controller or generic. There is an official Asset Library but only for free, MIT licensed assets. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a paid one, though.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  "In the case of Godot a lot of functionality is available out of the box." Indeed. Most assets listed by OP (and are rightfully high quality) are essentially "patches" for unity's crappy engine.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Interesting. When I asked for a good engine, ppl here would recommend Unity and Godot. The difference seemed to be that Unity comes with everything out of the box and Godot, while free, would require you to "fight the engine" along the way to build a game.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Most people I know who use Godot, myself included, find it easier to use than Unity. I don't know why you believe you would be required to "fight the engine." You just need to be at least be willing to understand the idioms and methods of a particular framework and work with it - otherwise why use a framework at all?
    - noidexe 4y ago
      Some people switch engines but want the new one to accommodate to the previous workflow. You can try to make Godot work like Unity but you'll fight the engine all the time because it's designed differently. So maybe that's what you read. 3D support is much better now than it was before so it could also be that. In my experience, Unity felt free to play, pay to win. I felt that the engine was full of holes in stuff that I expect an engine to handle. It's not a small percentage of games that need controller support, or tilemaps, or proper sorting of sprites. Some of that eventually became officially supported by the engine but by that time I was more than happy with Godot. I've seen people give 2 hour long talks about how they managed to force Unity to do pixel perfect rendering, while in Godot it's a couple of checkboxes. So I guess it depends a lot on what you're trying to do. For some games Godot might not be the best choice and that's fine, you have to choose the right tool for each project.
cyber_kinetist 4y ago
I really wish there was a Shapes-like library but in C++ and not Unity, in the style of Dear IMGUI. It would make game development in general much easier… (Though it would have to be tied to render APIs like DX/GL/Vulkan because of the sheer amount of customized shaders that you need to write for it.)
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  NanoVG is the closest thing I came across when I had a similar quesiton: https://github.com/memononen/NanoVG https://github.com/memononen/NanoVG unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's getting steady updates now unlike the last time I checked. But I imagine it's pretty mature at this point. There also seem to be ports in Metal/DX11 if you didn't want to be stuck in OpenGL.
yrgulation 4y ago
Most are patches for unity's crappy engine. Indeed those listed are cool. Also, cool game screenshots and idea listed on your about (sorry, had to look for some reason - perhaps to switch my mind from unity's shit documentation, which I am reading at the moment).
Shorel 4y ago
Shouldn't Easy Save and InControl equivalents better be part of Godot instead of being sold in an asset store?

noidexe 4y ago

In the case of Godot a lot of functionality is available out of the box. Biggest example is input management. You have an InputMap section where you define actions and can assign keys/buttons to it. Gamepad layout is automatically handled for thousands of controllers so that "right face button" is the same input event whether the user is using an xbox gamepad, a pro controller or generic. There is an official Asset Library but only for free, MIT licensed assets. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a paid one, though.

yrgulation 4y ago
"In the case of Godot a lot of functionality is available out of the box." Indeed. Most assets listed by OP (and are rightfully high quality) are essentially "patches" for unity's crappy engine.
- k__ 4y ago
  Interesting. When I asked for a good engine, ppl here would recommend Unity and Godot. The difference seemed to be that Unity comes with everything out of the box and Godot, while free, would require you to "fight the engine" along the way to build a game.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Most people I know who use Godot, myself included, find it easier to use than Unity. I don't know why you believe you would be required to "fight the engine." You just need to be at least be willing to understand the idioms and methods of a particular framework and work with it - otherwise why use a framework at all?
  - noidexe 4y ago
    Some people switch engines but want the new one to accommodate to the previous workflow. You can try to make Godot work like Unity but you'll fight the engine all the time because it's designed differently. So maybe that's what you read. 3D support is much better now than it was before so it could also be that. In my experience, Unity felt free to play, pay to win. I felt that the engine was full of holes in stuff that I expect an engine to handle. It's not a small percentage of games that need controller support, or tilemaps, or proper sorting of sprites. Some of that eventually became officially supported by the engine but by that time I was more than happy with Godot. I've seen people give 2 hour long talks about how they managed to force Unity to do pixel perfect rendering, while in Godot it's a couple of checkboxes. So I guess it depends a lot on what you're trying to do. For some games Godot might not be the best choice and that's fine, you have to choose the right tool for each project.

cyber_kinetist 4y ago

I really wish there was a Shapes-like library but in C++ and not Unity, in the style of Dear IMGUI. It would make game development in general much easier… (Though it would have to be tied to render APIs like DX/GL/Vulkan because of the sheer amount of customized shaders that you need to write for it.)

johnnyanmac 4y ago
NanoVG is the closest thing I came across when I had a similar quesiton: https://github.com/memononen/NanoVG https://github.com/memononen/NanoVG unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's getting steady updates now unlike the last time I checked. But I imagine it's pretty mature at this point. There also seem to be ports in Metal/DX11 if you didn't want to be stuck in OpenGL.

yrgulation 4y ago

Most are patches for unity's crappy engine. Indeed those listed are cool. Also, cool game screenshots and idea listed on your about (sorry, had to look for some reason - perhaps to switch my mind from unity's shit documentation, which I am reading at the moment).

Shorel 4y ago

Shouldn't Easy Save and InControl equivalents better be part of Godot instead of being sold in an asset store?