Please check out my new video where I cover more topics in depth: th-cam.com/video/QSgH8BHtNWE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=I8FX1zaX_sMGMaZg I brought this video back. I was going to make a new video about the new events happening with Godot but then I realized I already made the perfect video months ago. This video was listed as private for a while for the reasons I talked about in one of my videos but honestly I don't think it matters anymore. In case you don't know the person I talked about in this video has been proven to be racist and homophobic lately and that discord mod I talked about is known for using lots of racial slurs in official godot discord. So I was right about it but nobody cared. Whatever else I say about this video is also still valid.
For as much as to OP is quick to dismiss Godot users as hobbyists this seems like the take of someone who has a fairly limited perspective on development. I've shipped commercial games using Quake, Unreal 2.5, Unreal 4, Cocos, Unity, and several inhouse engines. Pretty much every engine I've worked with has had things it's bad at, hasn't had all the features it promised, and has had bugs. There was a time when Unity was synonymous with crappy 'hobby' games and UE4 had a ton of bugs, half baked features, and poor documentation when it first launched. I seriously can't think of a single engine that doesn't have some folks somewhere that hate working with it. Godot is not without its issues, but in a year or so I've been experimenting with it's made a lot of progress, and I hopefully, with it's increased funding, that'll only improve, but even taking it right now, it's perfectly fine for some types of games, less so for others but that doesn't mean it's only for 'hobbyists'. On a technical level, a lot of the best indie games of all time aren't all that complicated, Hades is an amazing game but not particularly complex technically speaking; the same could be said for Slay the Spire, Super Meat Boy, Inscryption, Signalis, Amnesia the Dark Descent, etc.. you could make any of those in Godot without too many problems beyond the ones that everyone faces in game development. It's rare for anyone to make a game purely out of the box without making some amount of custom tools or adjustments to the engine to suit the projects needs regardless of the engine. Also, if the idea of using a 3d party plugin to compensate for the weakness of an engine sounds absurd, then I've also got to question how much dev experience they really have. Hades for example licenses Bink for their sprites sheets; there's tons of middleware providers that provide add-ons (or replacement systems) for both Unreal,Unity, and other engines that cost tens of thousands of dollars a license. (Popcorn FX, Coherent UI, Noesis GUI, Simplygon, to name a few) If you don't like the engine by all means don't use it, but this video comes off more like someone who's got an axe to grind with Godot's founder than an earnest critique and honestly the github critiques didn't really seem that out of line.
@@CyrilCommando Just because you can’t make something good with a tool doesn’t mean it’s a bad tool. It can be a ‘bad’ tool for your purposes and still be a good tool for others. Flax charges a 4% royalty and isn’t open source, Stride hasn’t seen a meaningful update in over a year. Maybe those trade offs are ok for you, my point is don’t confuse ‘bad for you’ with ‘bad for everyone’
I think the point Berry was trying to make was that Godot could be the next Blender on paper, but because it’s not truly community driven and accepting of feedback and change, it won’t be.
@@RonaldFinger He may be right. I started using Godot only about a month ago so I haven't been a part of any of the drama he reference. I did look into how they handle finances and who makes decisions and found they have a board of directors made from developers and members of the community. This board decides what is worked on and how funds are allocated. It may look like one guy runs everything, but, at least on paper, that isn't the case. I don't disagree with much of what he said, but I certainly hope things can improve no matter what their current state is. Especially now with the influx of funds and experienced developers.
So if someone came to me saying "you know that guy is really bad!" and i'm like "oh, yeah? how bad?" and the example is like "so 4 years ago, he didn't want to include a pull request with breaking changes..." that does not paint the accused as a bad person. That indirectly shows that the person is actually pretty fine because otherwise there would be more, worse and more recent examples.
He also eventually implemented the suggestions... This video is drama bait. The uploader makes a very bold claim that the Godot engine is not _"production ready"_ and is a _"hobbyist game engine"_ when there are plenty of successful commercial games out there that were developed using Godot.
@@Omar_Al_Seddik May I ask for successful commercial game examples? If you know specifically some mobile 3d game with great "realistic" graphics (no low poly), it would be the example I am looking for. Thanks.
@@visitor1588 your question rests on at least one bad premise and fails to be valid out of the gate. Realistic graphics are not a prerequisite for commercial success. In fact Vampire Survivors was one of the best selling games of 2022 and it has extremely simplistic graphics even by the standards of stylized 2D content. Now, it's still fair to say Godot has not had a smash hit yet, possibly with the recent exception of Brotato which just released and has 50,000 steam reviews (with an average of "Overwhelmingly Positive"). If fully 10% of purchasers left reviews, and that's highly unlikely, that would be a VERY conservatively estimated half a million copies shipped and $2.5 million in revenue (and most sites estimate 3-4 times that), and the game just dropped at the end of June. Are you really going to say that's not commercially successful? It remains to be seen if decent numbers of genuinely successful games release, but the engine is both very capable on the indie side (and even managed a remake of Sonic Colors - of all the games Sega could have picked) and is gaining enough popularity that there's really no reason to think we won't see that - the next year or two will certainly tell.
I noped-out when this Content Creator figured that being "transphobic" was cause for not hiring someone. BerryDev can go masturbate by himself in a corner.
I think dismissing the community's contributions because of your problem with the lead developer is disingenuous. Blender wouldn't be what it is today without its community either.
The fish rots from the head. They make a cult of personality out of Juan Linietsky, which effectively means that contributors are also not able to make informed decisions, but have to abide by whatever Juan says, and never disagree if they want to gain his trust. Which is a problem, obviously.
@@eye776 Well, if that's the case, then that's the fate of a lot of open-source projects, then... But it all boils down to the personality of each individual. In either case, I can tell you upfront that Juan does not inspire confidence or trust. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that Godot makes itself unappealing to the professional game development industry. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which is impossible (make so-called "clever optimizations" to appease AAA developers, despite being allergic to ECS, all while wanting to retain user-friendliness, ease of use, and simplicity). Godot is tearing itself apart in several incompatible directions.
The fact that Blender is able to be remodeled into other variants like the Goo engine or BforArtist to supply the needs that weren't fulfilled by the main build is the exact reason why Godot will stay at where it is right now and not improve, its missing a lot of key features to produce a decent looking 3D game, and unless the community are willing to do something about that and not just praise juan Linietsky like a demigod, its gonna stay a primitive engine
@@bigboss8647 Blender was in a similar position from around 2005 to 2011. What helped Blender was the Open Movie initiative. Basically pro artists using it to make high quality short films, along with the required improvements to make that work. And Godot needs a similar drive. High quality scenes, vertical slices and cinematics to prove itself.
Let me tell a story... I started programming in another engine for 6 years, was active on its communities, had a channel focused on tutorials (even the members of the team I work nowadays were people who commented on my tutorial videos), and even created some tools that people still use nowadays. When we had to move to another engine due to limitations, it was pretty hard to let go all of this and start from scratch, even at an emotional level, since we're talking years of using a tool and sharing experiences with the community. Godot was the new choice for the last 2 years. My point is that people get emotionally invested on everything around the engine, and those dramas start to arise. I know that this is also the reason why people give their free time to contribute and make the engine and its ecosystem better, but I'm focusing on its worst side here. At the end of the day, I don't give a damn about Juan and his ego, Yuri and his character, money issues and stuff: I just want to focus on my team, my games and not be screwed by companies and their licenses. Don't get me wrong: I published 3 addons, report bugs and help the community the way I can, but I also did my homework. You can keep the drama to yourselves.
your right. If godot has the features you want then its just an engine and A good one at what it does. I started learning godot 3-4 years ago thinking the features I was told would be in godot 4 by the time I could make use use of them would be implemented. But that didn't happen and the more I look the more I see examples of the management refocusing their attention on other things that are more financially lucrative, like W4. My dream is to make open source games and community's around them, I want to make cool editor tools, and contribute to make godot better someday. But I am genuinely concerned about the amount of contributors I have seen speak up about not liking the managements communication and decision making. The approach godot has taken to this has been to address it as just haters and drama. Which cannot last when this is A growing issue. I have only really known about these issues for A few months, but I have seen and ignored others trying to raise them for far longer, so I don't think this is going away on its own.
@@shadowpillar2483 yep theres that but look at atom some one forked and rebranded but its just dont have that feel anymore and remember game developers are game developer not general software devs of hobbyist software devs they are pro/hobbyist game dev they probably dont have time to make a engine before make a games and its not easy to contribute to a project cause you have too look at the architecture understand how it works are codes work and it will take a lot of time thats why people use a engine in the first place and these who like they definitely contribute or make their own
My experience is very different from yours, I only mentioned and discussed a couple features I have in other engines on Twitter, and every single one is now implemented in Godot4. So I feel it's very much community driven. That they don't put more time into improving Godot3 sucks for everyone still using version 3, but it's understandable IMO. You say it yourself, Godot 4 still has lots of issues, and spending time on adding to Godot3 would take time away from Godot 4.
"I used godot to produce a commercial game, I'm not just a tutorial channel or a hobbyist" bro your game has 3 reviews on steam, stop trying to act like you're better than others when all you did was pay $100 to put your hobby game on steam.
1. I feel you have a tendency of mixing facts with opinions and ending up with some "logical" conclusions. 2. I don't know why you are assuming Godot doesn't try to get faster. The whole Vulkan rendering engine rewrite was done mostly for this very reason. 2D got bucketing performance improvements (collapsing atlases/shaders to avoid context/pipeline switches). Physics was rewritten for stability and performance. Octree has seen great improvements. There are serious discussion about hive & lightweight structs (especially useful for packed arrays) to handle many nodes/elements efficiently. 3. You are contradicting yourself by saying that the engine is a shitshow and unstable, but you really liked the idea of incorporating a performance optimization into 3.0 branch. Same goes for having half-baked features. There is quite a push to stabilize Godot nowadays, and it doesn't only include optimizations but also many cool features. Supporting 3.0 and 4.0 is madness for such a small team. 4. I am a professional C++ developer and I don't mind the mediocre support for it in Godot. Gdscript is truly awesome. Sure, it's not as low level, and some abstractions are a bit too heavy-weight, but it's a very handy scripting language. How many languages do you wish to support in such a project? I wish we sticked to Gdscipt, C# and think bridge to C++ .dll. No more. 5. No one asks you to fix all the problems yourself (in the engine). I've worked on 2 bugs in the engine and fixed them. Will it make your game fast as Unreal? Not a bit. Have I made the engine useful to me and possibly many others (for the same scenario)? I sure did. Are there hundreds of people like me that move the engine further and further into a brighter future. I sure, hope so. 6. I've worked in many companies where the Lead Developer didn't do too much coding. He had a lot of knowledge & expertise and was responsible for handling all the hard architectural questions. His skills is much better used this way, I believe. 7. Isn't it awesome that the foundation is behind the steering wheel and not some (as you say) egoistic maniac? He gets a small sum of money for his constant contributions, so I don't feel much money is wasted here. 8. I don't know much of the engines you've listed, but I wish you did a serious comparison between them and tell me they don't suck. Are you really sure they are performant? Cocos editor was so fricking poor that I don't even know where to start comparing it to Godot. Does it mean Godot is just the perfect solution, and (for some strange reasons) people have been ignoring it? Nope. It's an engine that has a lot of half-baked features (modding, pixel-perfect game), scenarios where performance is poor, stability issues and dependency on the contributions. But it's getting better, day by day. Will it ever be as good for 3D rendering as Unreal? I doubt anyone even dares to wish for it. It already has a lot going for it, and even you can't deny it. Editor is fast and working on projects is a breeze. Nodes, (packed) scenes, signals are simple, yet powerful concepts to build on. Adding extensions to the editor itself is such a great way to create a game toolkit for your game. Good animations subsystem (sure, it's not a dedicated animation tool, but still serviceable). And many, many more. Simple 3D games and 2D game should work fine. More and more popular indie titles are being released proving that things can get done with it.
You didn't show the rest of the conversation. I would guess that the guy wanted to make a potentially breaking change for the older version, which is not always a good idea even if it's faster. Edit: I've just found the rest of this conversation. I think he's right, actually there were many problems with his changes. As a programmer I had much harsher code reviewers. (Yes, I prefer nicer way of communication, but I also prefer a good implementation of engine I use)
@@abradotcs I'm not english native but from what I understood the smart guy initiated the talk about this and posted his benchmarks + code, was overall active and helpful. Juan was initially rude, then wrote some bullet points (adhere to their writing style, and a few of his concerns) as this is a crucial component of the engine. I like more polite responses but they got the job done. Also Juan changed his demanor later. Edit: Also agree with the Godot being a technical risk for bigger projects (at this moment).
Blender wasn't always what it is today. It took years to get to the point where companies like Ubisoft Animation started using it professionally. Nothing you have said proves that Godot is not the Blender of game engines. Many of your points are valid, but they only prove that Godot is not already there yet. Like Blender was years ago or still is, depending on who you ask. The Unity situation naturally leads to people overreacting and making quick shots based on their feelings and frustrations about Unity. True story. However, Unity is far from dead or over. And Godot is not an alternative for many projects. Nonetheless, Godot has got some healthy attention out of this situation and it may one day is becomming for game engines what Blender is for 3D software nowadays. Comparing the development history you could indeed say Godot is the Blender of Game engines. I think it would be very nice if that happens one day. I like Godot for what it is and it serves me well at the moment.
unity will never die, people are just too involved with it, the only thing that will die is its leaders. for godot, my idea is other people to fork it, and start developing theyr versions of godot and if they do a good enough job, people will use theyr fork instead of juan`s, people are basicly just using juan`s fork. ofcorse some competition to happen will require these dudes to be rich, but this is the only way i see godot getting out of this procrastinating state. its been years and its barely diffrent from what it was.
@@zendraw3468 IDK... Godot 4.x seems a Lot different to to the 3.x series. I saw some videos, outlining the changes and there where plenty. Seems different enough to me.
@@MrJuliusHibert But those changes are half done. Like the physics or the issues the vulken renderer was supposed to fix like A lack of access to important buffers like A stencil buffer. There is still no way to do portals properly in godot, the best method includes rendering the viewport to another viewport causing massive unnecessary overhead. Peeps have asked for years about fixing this and the answer has always been wait for Godot 4, now Godot 4 has been here nearly A year and is stagnating as the dev that built the first half of the vulken renderer has left to build A proprietary DirectX render for godot so he can make money off of Xbox ports. Its true Godot 4 has lots of small changes but the thing that makes Godot 4 was supposed to be the renderer, which was rushed and is missing promised features. I regret waiting on Godot.
In the end Godot is still an Open source Project and there is no big company with millions of Dollar developing it. People should adjust their excpactations to this fact. Like I Said about Blender, it took a while to have cycles or greace pencil or eevee renderer. But people believed in Blender and supported it. Godot can achieve this too. Give it time and support it and dont excpect an Open source Project to miracoulusly deliver anything you want.
@@MrJuliusHibert I thought it was reasonable for me to have expected these things given that they were promised by the lead rendering dev as part of something they were already working on. My mistake.
I strongly disagree with the idea that Godot is "only for hobbyists." Many, if not most, of the top indie games (in particular, 2d indie games) could have been made with Godot if not for Unity's overwhelming mindshare. Regarding Juan Linietsky's response to the pull request, I saw nothing wrong with it. Godot devs are extremely busy, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect prospective contributors to familiarize themselves with Godot internals before trying to contribute.
Yeah! It may be easy for the Godot devs to accept every code contribution they receive but the thing is that people don't realize is adding code to an engine is one thing. But updating it to match other aspect of the engine and ensure stability is a great commitment.
@@eye776 like a colleague of mine said: "If i's been your engine for years then it's kind of your baby. It's understandable that letting go can be difficult." People do have egos. But overall I think friction in Open Source projects is a good thing as long as it's not toxic. Healthy friction brings progress. It's not pleasant. It's not easy. But it's a good thing. And it takes time. Ego will always exist - it's always a matter of amount and being kept in check. We'll see how things progress but from what I've seen so far I'd subbscribe to Godot being a very good 2D engine. Which also happens to have 3D capabilities, now.
So if both Godot (lack of tools and no console-support) and Unity (best 2D game being overshadowed by bankruptcy cases caused by its runtime fee) aren't our best 2D game engines, then what's our best 2D game engines either way? There's no future here for big crossplatform 2D games anymore
@@alyasVictorio The future belongs to those who aren't overly fanatical about their tools. Compare the amount of criticism Unity receives to Godot's, and observe how each game engine reacts to criticism. If you decide to criticize Godot, you will be canceled from its community forever. That's one of the reasons why professional game developers avoid Godot. Additionally, the choice between Unity vs. Godot is largely a false dilemma. There exist dozens of 2D-capable game engines and frameworks out there, such as Defold.
I have decided to bring some "clarification", as you started the video. I get it, clicks are important. * Not accepting feature patch to old version is a normal decision. Old versions get maintained (read bug fixed if serious enough without workaround), not developed with new features. That is what a new version is for. * Community drive, doesn't mean community decided. That means the pain points brought by the community are getting addressed. That doesn't mean that solution proposed by the member gets implemented. That is pretty much said in the contrinuting guidelines. As is mention that performance takes back seat to ease of maintenance/clarity of a code. * The mentioned issues has been through the grinder in the interwebz, but it had been fixed later (I wouldn't probably do that) and there is 10k+ issues and Godot get 300+ merged PRs each month. Each one fixes or improves something. Cherry picking much? * Rémi Verschelde is the maintainer of Godot as well as PM. He merges most PRs. It seems that he is the primary gatekeeper, not Juan Linietsky. According to Godot foundation, he is also in position to have final say: > The project leaders have final say on all code merges. In theory, this means the leaders will have the final say when maintainers cannot agree. In practice, this authority rarely needs to be invoked because decisions are made by maintainers in consultation with the community. * Juan Linietsky is getting paid despite not contributing the code. Shocking, there are other things of value instead of just code. Blender foundation CEO and founder of blender Tom Rosendaal is getting paid despite not contributing the code since 2015. * When selecting an engine, the size and maturity of the project and momentum behind it as well as size of community should be one of the deciding factors. Otherwise you are spending your time to a project that can be abandoned at any time and you will be stuck with forking or throwing your hard-eared knowledge away and switching engine again. The point of engine is to make game development easier, not developing an engine. That is why Godot is mentioned so often. As an example, the WickedEngine you mentioned is single person project.
Your points miss all the important pieces of the video. 1 - You should still patch things into old versions. LTS is a huge necessity and not every Godot developer will want to / even be able to switch from 3 to 4. 2 - Pain points aren't getting addressed. That's the point. There's too many open issues. Clarity of code is great, but if nothing works then whats the point? 3 - The point is comparing godot to other engines. There's a lot less issues with other engines. 4 - Fair point about Remi and Juan 5 - If you choose Godot then you'll have to develop the engine. There's too many glaring issues and not enough support to help you along. The point in the video is valid: "you will work on the engine instead of your game"
@@zacharykosma531 The crux of the matter is that (at least as far as my cursory glance can see), pretty much every other option is worse (at least open source). 1. WickedEngine - one person operation. You are one person (marriage, disease, lack of interest) from dead. As a single person operation, you won't get any support either. It's just not scaleable. 2. Bevy - 3-4 times smaller. Code first. No editor (seems to be stalled on ECS dogma). It seems to be more of an alpha project ("WARNING: Bevy is still in the early stages of development. "). Would you like to place some some tiles? Code it. This project is suited for people who want to developer of a game engine. 3. Stride3D - basically one person operation, developement is slowing down (more like dying). 4. cocos2d-x - that's a corpse. Look at GitHub contributors graph. 5. FlaxEngine Mostly one person operation. 6. Defold 1016 issues, closed 48 issues in last month. Not open source. Out of these, maybe Defold and that is a big maybe. The rest are pretty much excluded by either being dead, one man operation or alpha. Honestly, you can exclude my opinions on basis of not being game developer (made few toys, that's all), but when I look at this, none of them are even close to something I would invest my time If I wanted to develop a game. I would definitely spend a lot of time on the engine. That is just a nature of something very few people use vs something a lot of people use. I would agree that that Godot should seriously step up its bug fixing game (e.g. author of this channel made a video about a epilepsy inducing bug that hasn't been fixed in a year), but it is still a one-eyed king among blind. Of course that is only if I limit myself to open source ones. Unity is still there. Unreal is still there. Few commercial ones too.
Rémi is a trusted subleader of Juan, and given that there's a hierarchy in Godot, Juan is responsible for his decision to assign Rémi. It means that if Rémi suddenly abandons the project, Juan will be able to find a person similar to him, a gatekeeper. This may sound contradictory at first, but what they ultimately aim for is tight control over Godot's development. They won't allow industry experts to work on Godot, because as per do-ocracy, those industry experts would start to get recognition and power for making Godot great. This is problematic to Juan because he wants to keep donations to himself and the trusted circle of developers/managers called Advisors. Every decision in Godot is based purely on trust. Of course, this trust can be earned in numerous ways, which in some cases accounts for individual merit and devotion of contributors to the project, or even your political orientation. Believe it or not, the quickest way to earn Godot’s leadership trust is by promoting Godot. Which means that you don’t necessarily need to be a developer at all. This is one of the reasons why Godot gets so overzealousously promoted on various game development forums and conferences by individuals.
@@MrXrayez I would like a receipts, i.e. issue/pulls numbers where these industry experts contributed and their contributors were rejected. And by contributing I don't mean complaining or feature requests, but actual work. The only issue so far was 5 years old and was even fixed later. I do maintain OS project and let's say that most people don't want to work for free and PRs are mostly drive-by PRs. There is no money in Open source. Even unbelievably successful Godot had ~$200k/year for whole project pre-august and that is after a decade if development.
@@VoicesInDark Developers behind Winter Pixel Games. They criticized Godot's source code, management, etc. They ended up fixing up GDScript themselves for their custom fork and completely avoided using Godot's built-in physics, opting for Box2D instead. They went through unnecessary conflicts on the topic of netcode in Godot.
@@kozodoev You are both right. I think the OP's point was that for awhile, it was seen as a hobbyist program in the minds of many professionals. If you brought up Blender in professional spaces in the past, you would get laughed at. Now, no one is laughing.
@@deuswulf6193 I was one of those! I checked it out a long time ago while I was using Lightwave, Modo, and Maya, and Blender was at best a nice way to get into 3D as a hobbyist or student. Now it's my core 3D software. I have no idea if Godot will achieve that status, but just because it (or the other free engines) hasn't, doesn't mean it won't. Heck, someone could put together a crack team, fork it, and start the fork on the path to "Blender-ness" tomorrow. From what I've learned though, I agree that as it stands it's not ready to be "the Blender".
@@leoismaking I guess, it won't be so easy in case of a game engine. Blender will export a mesh file, and the mesh is then used in a game. Solving problems with blender on your local machine is enough for you. In case of an engine, the engine is part of your product and all bugs/issues of the engine are also bugs/issues of your game. So there are bigger quality/stability/reliability/compatibility requirements, when you choosing an engine for you game.
Another thing that you are underestimating about creating a 3d game is that is not just throwing millions of 3d assets, thousands of shaders and so and pretends that everything is going to run fine, that is why so many games are broken today, optimization is necessary. This guy @devmar is creating a really gorgeous game in Godot and runs-looks fantastic because the primary focus is optimization.
I think this video lacks nuance to the point of bad-faith. The problems that apply to Godot apply to literally any open source project and yet you're trying to present Godot as 'uniquely bad'. You could have just said 'It's not there yet and its development is messy' and the video would be fine. When it comes to getting big contributions merged into open source projects, you can expect these kind of discussions. Contributions need to happen in coordination with the project/module owners, that's true for all software. Without this, the Godot's codebase would become a mess. You're also praising Blender above other open source projects, but just like any open source project it's had a lot of controversies surrounding design decisions and forks. E-cycles, edit mode selection, sculpting performance, UI, etc. You can find plenty of users disappointed with its development for one reason or another. You've also completely oversimplified the community drama. You just named two people and said they were bad without presenting proper evidence. The one Reddit screenshot you did share had a whole thread attached to it that breaks it down.
No but you were happy to throw out allegations about people's behaviour when you assumed your viewers would just swallow it whole@@abradotcs . You basically tried to cancel them a la Twitter style.
@@nailbomb420 I am not trying to cancel anybody. Behaviour of those people are known by many people in the community and most of them are okay with it that's why they got away with it :)
@@abradotcs Okay, then at least list a google doc with evidence in the description or something. Don't engage in allegations if you're not going to back them up in any way, it doesn't help anyone. Otherwise everyone could just start making stuff up about anyone.
This whole opinion seems like you just have a personal grudge towards juan , that is fine but just keep it for yourself but there is no need to force that biased opinion onto other people.
How did the engine let you down when you were making your commercial game project? Those specific pitfalls are vital informations for godot noobs like myself who came from unity.
Yes! I watched the whole video hoping he'll reveal it but it seemed like a typical disgruntled discord user ramble not addressing exactly how engine has failed him so we know if the particular usecase would affect us. I'll personally be only making low poly game as that's my aesthetic of choice like pixel art is for others. So important to address if high quality textures and stuff was the issue or some functional issue.
@@babeletteI only use low poly in 3d and can say that it works fairly well. You need to optimize your code for it to work well but it's usually not too difficult. I recommend adding functionality to have entities sleep when far away from the camera/player and reducing the number of functions being called every frame. Simple optimisations like this can boost overall performance and leave more time and resources for rendering.
I will talk about my experience with 3.5 but this is still an issue with 4.x When my scenes got bigger I realized the editor became super slow to load. Compile times went up to minutes from seconds. And all I had was a couple hundred models with textures on them. It became literally impossible to develop my game with a consistent pace so I had to simplify a lot of my models. Removed textures from them etc. I can't imagine the pain you would have if you actually wanna create a AA/AAA game with Godot. My experience with Godot 4.x wasn't any different. I was making a Slime rancher clone where I used rigidbodies for the slimes but the physics optimizations was so horrible that game becomes unplayable after a while. That was my first big dissapoinment with Godot 4. These are some of the examples. Also Godot 4's new renderer was so hyped but when it came out it was a huge flip. It looks garbage compared to modern engines and it performs really badly. Unless you have the most cutting edge hardware you won't be able to run games made with Godot 4.
Compare Flax engine's renderer to Godot you will see how much of a difference there is. Also Flax engine (mostly developed by one person) already has DirectX support + Console exports and Godot still doesn't have any of those even though it received millions of dollars in investment.
@@abradotcsIm testing flax, it looks like a unity clone, although it crashes on me randomly dont know why... Godot 4.x never crashed so far... started learning it a week ago. All 3d with built in shaders already looks better than unity. so far runs smoothly. C# no issues so far. Also tired of Unity filled with unfinished features, 3 uncompatible render pipelines, still all unfinished. Input system legacy and new just sucks. Its all a bloated.mess since 2019. Probably will return though lol Im already serveral years using Unity and learning from scratch new engines is no joke, altough entertaining. I should check out Unreal but I have no idea on c++
0:25 "It's gonna be the Blender of the game engines. And that statement couldn't be more wrong." What? You can see into the future now? 4:41 This is false equivalence fallacy. A third party library IS NOT the same as a whole engine. Not to mention third party library license being what? MIT? This it not the same as the Unity issue. 5:10 Uh, no. It's not impossible. The point is that you CAN fix the bugs. If you are lacking the skills, that's different. 6:55 "Godot is deferentially not the Blender of game engines" Straw man. Nobody said it WAS, they say IT CAN BE.
You didn't really make any strong argument for any of your points. You gave a single example of each point (or none, for some), all of which were context-less and shallow, and stated that "there's much more like this", and "this is why Godot sucks". - I think everyone will agree that Godot is not great for AAA gamedev, and that's why no-one recommends it for most high-poly 3d games. Guess what, not all pro gamedev is AAA, and you're not automatically a hobbyist just because you're not making 3D games. - Godot accepts so much community code it's crazy. Every version has like 300 community forks integrated into the engine. Showing one single case of them not integrating some code, without even considering that MAYBE the code being offered was ACTUALLY not that great, doesn't prove much. - "This guy founded this company and still gets paid a little bit despite saying he barely does any work for it!". Yes. He's the creator and the founder of the engine, and without him we'd have nothing. That's why he's getting paid. How is this weird? Fair criticism is good, but it seems you were just taking cheap shots to say "look, there's this one time the founder responded to a reddit user. I'm not gonna show you the whole conversation, but trust me, it's bad, and therefore this guy has an EGO, and therefore Godot SUCKS", and "Look, ¿see this guy? He's a racist! (I've no evidence, but trust me on this one).", and "The physics are GARBAGE! I'm not gonna show you a single video that proves this though." Maybe these are correct, but "trust me bro" is not an argument. At least give us sources to look into these situations properly. You sound kind of emotional, and I'm guessing you had a bad experience with the engine, which has led you to passionately hate it. That's certainly how you come across in this video.. Perhaps it was the whole "scam" debacle from a few months ago... But honestly, if you think it's strange to ask for donations for a huge project that's employing who-knows-how-many people and charges NOTHING for their product... I don't know what to tell you. 8 million dollars run out in the blink of an eye at a corporate level, when dealing with console licensing and stuff... If there was any shenanigans going on with money, there's no proof of it whatsoever.
So many bad takes, and it shows you haven't researched or know anything about owning a company. The first critique it might have been unfair to dismiss this guy but as you showed 8k+ contributions, so many different people and you will as a creator encounter 100's of people saying "I fixed your shitty engine bro" all the while making a few things, completely missing the point as how to work with their design philosophy creating more issues down the road. And he even corrected himself? Doesn't this show a good thing, that he can correct mistakes. You used 1 example to make a whole statement on the community-driven aspect. Is blocking bad? Show an example of constructive criticism which he chooses to block, rather than trolls / big ego devs saying "Fix this shitty implementation" which was probably why he blocked them. Do you know the inner workings of the physics or do you just know that this systems physics/collision isn't fully working right now. The part about hiring people, did they know he bullied and did this bad stuff before hiring him, and have they fired him now? This is open source so idk how you would track every person. You also said there is NO commercial use of this game engine, despite it being perfect for ANY 2D-game commercially, you are only focused on 3D which isnt the main use-case. Why does the creator / founder of Godot deserve a cut after he stopped working??? Maybe because it wouldn't exist without him? So if you made a game, and you stopped working after some time, but you hired someone to do a few updates, should he get 100% revenue for your project? Would you do that to your own game, or are you just trying to critique Godot?
Look at Ton Roosendaal (Blender founder) and his history with Blender. There are a lot of parallels between him and Juan Linietsky. Ton also did a bunch of questionable stuff throughout the history of Blender. Blender went though most of these growing pains that Godot is seeing right now all the way back from about 2005 to 2011. The only thing to hope for here is that the community sticks together.
"The truth about godot" proceeds to do a deep dive criticism of the project owner instead of engine. I could probably do a "The truth about unity" and do a deep dive on its current ceo and make unity worse than godot if that's what you are trying to do. I am all for criticism on the engine but I got nothing of substance for what I was trying to do. And what's with the gameplay background, this deep dive videos are getting lazier now. All the criticism you have provides may also apply on your engine alternatives and not specific to godot.
Yea this video had nothing to do with the engine itself. Sounds like he’s got a personal problem with the GODOT developers. He didn’t really appear to define “large projects” either, so I’d assume GODOT is good for most games made by indie developers. :)
I feel like the arguments are wrong and contradictory. I know you've already had lots of people telling you why you're wrong, but I couldn't help myself :p Godot is not just for Hobbyists: It's also for indie devs and small to medium sized games, which can be made by professionals. It certainly seems to work for you, and you introduced yourself as not being a hobbyist. Also, not everything needs to "scale": games like Genshin Impact, CoD Mobile, League of Legends and Valorant are nowhere near the "scale" of high fidelity games like Warzone or Cyberpunk. Even if it were they're more than capable of hiring engine specialists to implement 10x faster culling or whatever they might need. Godot is Community Driven: Juan had a whole conversation with the culling contributor before closing the PR (as shown in the screenshots you took) and he (or the team) even added in most of the changes after the re-architecture. Adding it to 3.5 would have created issues that would have added a maintenance burden. Also, one case (or even 10) is not prove anything out of a thousand or more. Juan still performs admin tasks, and is clearly involved with the project. In that light a token amount should be acceptable. Your comment about flappy bird devs telling you to contribute can also be applied to you saying how a game engine used by thousands or millions should be made. The same comment is also an incredibly aggressive stance while (at the same time) you disapprove of hiring people who are aggressive (even if this video is milder), which comes across as hypocrisy. You also perform the same action you disapprove of by adopting this tone in targetting Juan and the Godot developers. Overall, the arguments/proof you present seems to contradict your own arguments, which makes this video come across as a troll, especially compared to your other videos. No ill will; I appreciate the work you do, and I like your games and devlogs.
My biggest fear in using Unreal is that it is a product of a big company, and not a open source free yada-yada. And it is not impossible to Unreal pull a "Unity installation fee" at some point in the future. I used 3DsMax to learn how to 3D model but I have to move when Adobe stopped the Free to use lincese (They still have for students who had your school subscribed in their learn program, wich is not my case. ) Since the price of 3DsMax are equal to a car in my country I started to use Blender. Scalded cat are afraid of water. I don't want to waste months, even years learning an engine, just to migrate to another because I have to pay if I made a successful Free game.
I think that’s part of the give and take, though. There’s no real competitor to Unreal besides Unity in terms of indie support and development - most engines for more complex games are proprietary and aren’t as well supported. Yes, there is the possibility of them retracting the terms of service - is it likely to happen, especially with them seeing how this worked out for Unity? That’s up to you to decide, but Godot is absolutely nowhere near the features that Unreal has, so there’s not really an alternative. Blender is honestly a bit of a unicorn in the open source software space, and it did take a very long time for it to achieve even that. Personally, I’m not too pressed about the license - I trust that Unreal/Epic Games at least has seen the Unity debacle as textbook what not to do in terms of branding and PR, and act in their own self-interest. For me, the “peace of mind” that something is open source pales in comparison to actual features, and Godot is really lacking in that.
First off it won't be a total waste of time learning Unreal; the skills you learn will transfer to and help you better understand other game engines if you decide to change.
While the chances of Unreal Engine's terms changing unfavorably for users of the engine are greater than zero, it doesn't seem very likely. They're a big company with multiple irons in the fire, and with the recent changes to their terms they will be making more money off of their engine being used to showcase new car designs, and make movies, architectural work, anything not video game related. And with a deal as sweet as they have already (no royalties whatsoever until after first $1 million, only 5% royalties after that), even if they do change the terms, they would have to change them ALOT to make them bad. I'm pretty new to using game engines and only have some experience with Unity, and even less experience with Unreal Engine, but Unreal Engine seems to be one of the best based on everything I've experienced with it and heard about it. In addition to having powerful tools to work with, it seems it's probably one of the easiest game engines to learn (if you only count the ones that make the highest-end games). I'm already doing things in Unreal that took me several times longer to learn in Unity
Well 2D in godot is way faster than unity. So any 2D game Godot you can surely scale it up however in 3D anything low poly-mid poly is good. Unity needs a strong pc to run and if you want 3D just go to unreal. Unity try to do both 2d and 3d and it is lacking compared to godot in 2d and to unreal in 3d it all depend on what you want to do.I have tried unity and it takes like 10-15 minutes to run an empty scene so is the case with unreal
jesus.. What kind of computer do you have?!?! Intel core with 2 gb ram? Do you know how long a 5-10 minutes really is or you just making up numbers to feel good about yourself?
@@kerduslegend2644 8 gigs of ram core i5 7th 940mx nvidia . Godot on the other hand runs on my 100$ phone🤣 not to mention unity's size. I mean 10-15 is alot of time when you just starting a new project and it is a well known issue with both unity Idk why are you surprised
Godot still wins in size battle easily you need at least one day to download or update unreal. The engine depends on what you want for 2D Godot is king for 3D unreal is. And for unity it does both but not better than either
I remember when Blender was in its infant stage. It faced a lot of the same issues. But in my opinion, it's the community that drives it forward. And Godot has a very nice and groving community. We are all toxic sometimes
Hey man I agreed with your last video on Godot’s flaws, and I still agree about problems with Juan, but I think you are exaggerating how unusable godot is
he's not saying godot is unusable , he's saying that it can't replace Unity capabilities not at the moment at least hopefully with the right funding it will in the future!
I'm not really sure the criticism made here is all entirely valid, majority of it is philosophy disagreements, (and nitpicking over leaders doesn't really mean much when literally almost everything you can name has unsavory characters who are asshats, that doesn't mean much of anything in actual work, thick skins work harder anyway and its likely why they end up in a semi-successful place) not proofs, and any actual software engineer will tell you philosophy is worthless, its benchmarks in actual production that matter, I've literally had friends entire work shutdown on the principal of lacking benchmarks for the respective subject, and stability is a lot more important then bleeding edge. And I don't think much of the alternative engines outside of Unreal and Godot can pick up on the Unity fallout, I'm rather confident in saying that, if Godot continues in its trajectory Godot would be comparable to the Blender of game engines, the only big thing hampering it in even the AA field is console support, a lot of the other things are usable in their current workflow just about as good or better then what Unity provided honestly. (course if you're thinking mobile games, that's still gotta be fixed up, but I really don't think that's as big an issue to fix as consoles which would actually make this a viable competitor with the other two big names)
Literally the concept of Godot is to use 3rd party add ons, I'm not so sure about that critique. I've been having a fantastic time with Godot in 2D, and it's working perfectly fine. I've encountered no bugs whatsoever, and it's been faster to learn than Unity, even as someone who's almost exclusively used C#. I'm not trying to say it's perfect, but it's certainly better than the picture you're painting. And they've gotten one Hell of a budget recently to expand. This review feels more click driven than genuine. You're being actively derisive towards your audience, insulting people who are beginning game development and critiquing hobbyist devs. And let's not pretend your game is Skyrim. We all start somewhere, and I genuinely hope you're proud to have a game on Steam. That's more than most, and it's an awesome achievement. What it isn't is an excuse to add vitriol to the game dev community. We're all better when we support each other, and the platforms we use.
Godot has built a following of zealots and fanboys that go out of their way to hate on anyone and anything that doesn't like their holy engine and their holy leaders. I think is a badly designed but fun to use and prototype engine and is especially useful as a kind of sketching pad for game devs but if you want to do a proper project use Unreal or Unity or Construct etc. I still use the engine is not too bad.
Exactly, they could focus on making the "sketching pad for game developers" as you word it, but they are trying to attract AAA investors. It's impossible to achieve both goals, so they end up failing miserably. Paradoxically, they could increase adoption within the AAA industry by making Godot an ultimate prototyping tool, but their greed prevents them from recognizing this route.
@@MrXrayez Godot will never be a AAA game engine anytime soon. Is already been 10 years and is still struggling with some basic functionality and so many bugs. Right now the most you can use it for is AA indie game but most people use it to learn game dev and for fun. What Godot is good for is modifying it in C++ using modules/gdextension/gdnative and creating customized engine that perfectly fits your game needs.
Godot is pretty fantastic for 2d, even for games of larger scope, but I can definitely see where people would be much less thrilled on the state of the 3d side.
Cassette Beasts, a game developed by just 2 guys, is a great example of that. One of the developers said that if it weren't for Godot's amazing workflow efficiency, they wouldn't have been able to develop the game by themselves. I believe Godot to be the best 2D game engine out there after using multiple before it, but I'm a hobbyist with no commercial games yet so I realize my opinion doesn't hold too much weight.
I've been using godot for most of my gamedev experience (I have made games in other engines like unity), and in my perspective godot is good, but it does have some issues. Does that mean I should stop using it?
Don't stop using it , just don't try to make overly complex projects using it , Godot is a wonderful engine , its everything good about a game engine its pretty straight forward to use! and if you know how to work with the source code , maybe add some of your stuff and modify it! :)
@@mrjshzkIf that was the case, Godot would still be on version 1 with no bugs fixed lol. Do you think everyone using Godot up to this point was an engine developer?
@@catcactus1234 I don't think you realize most of bugs fixed are found by the devs themselves. Unfortunately most people don't really post issues. Godot 4 currently is very unfinished (as someone who has made games on it - check my itchio if you wanna play them ;) ) I love Godot as much as you, but it's definitely still very flawed!
5:02 - yes. That’s what means opensource. No one owns this since it’s community driven. That’s how Linux works. Edit: yeah by technicality the Godot is owned by Juan Linietsky and Ariel Manzur, just like Debian is owned by Debian Project, or Blender by Blender Foundation. That does not mean the "owners" are the only one to contribute. Like the comments said - if you are not happy with the way Godot is you can fork and start your own project, or in case you don't know how to fix the issues, just move to a new engine. Aside from the last two points where you said there are bad actors in the team (which I can't confirm or deny) the rest of your points has no substance. The entire video sounds like you are butthurt by something with the engine and can't let it go. The only reason everyone want to use the engine is because they can publish games and keep the reward without a company in the background taking everything out of greedness. We still have Unreal, but until when? How long until the Unreal notice that they can screw all developers in the same way Unity screwed everyone? Also the engine is weak, but still we have Cruelty Squad and the game is amazing even with the "technical limitations".
I can't really agree with your framing. It comes across as biased. For starters, there is already a huge writeup from Juan about what needs to be done to make the engine AA/AAA game ready. The TLDR of it is that it needs a lot more work. Its odd for you to claim that it is designed only for hobbyist, when its been quite clear that is not the case. Its designed to be a general purpose game engine, and which both you and Juan have noted needs more work. You have selectively picked some comments, and framed it in a way where no one can really see the entire context of that dialogue chain either, especially with regards to how the discussion may have went with users on both sides getting "aggressive". If the point is to re-write something from the ground up, trying to patch the previous version is not always ideal. Regarding the physics, you are either being dishonest or just simply don't know the details of why its changing. From what's been said, the extension is being developed to incorporate the Jolt Physics engine, which HAS been used in AAA games (Horizon Forbidden West for example). This seems like a LOGICAL move on Godot's part. Are you mad at them for going with what appears to be a better solution? The thing about ego, is that those who often complain about it also have a "huge ego". Egos are not uncommon, it can come from all sides. Its often the most eccentric people who create projects and foundations. Blender's Ton is one, so is Epic's Tim Sweeny, Id Soft's (former) Carmack...etc There are net positives, as well as negatives that can come from ego. So far you haven't made a good case for the negatives on this one. Blender in the early days was pretty bad too with contributors being rejected because it does not fit Ton's vision. I still remember the user outrage when one developer did what the community wanted, which was to make colored wireframes. Ton shot that down even after it had already been made. We later got something that fit within his vision in 2.8+, and now no one is complaining. Its about perspective. You do bring up something interesting, on one hand you say they hire a transphobic racist, and then follow it up with an abusive mod (which he is) that runs a discord server full of nothing but trans and rainbow imagery. His most infamous abuse was mass banning of anyone using the pepe emoji. So all you have done is prove they hire/use people who don't agree fundamentally on ideological grounds. How do you know first guy just doesn't want to see trans and gay propaganda all over a game engine's social media? Its not a neutral position to take when you convert those support areas into one ideologies play ground. The only take away I can agree with your biased rant about is that Godot is not Unity. They have some things in common, and many things that are different. No engine is going to be an exact copy of another, generally speaking. What it CAN be is the next best general purpose game engine, which is the role Unity fills atm. Whether it gets to that point or not is to be seen, however no one should be putting all their eggs in one basket. At the end of the day, these are tools. If Godot really ends up going in a craptastic direction, then guess what? FORK. Hasn't been the first time its happened in this space, nor will it be the last.
Not defending anyone here but I like to have a simple Proof of people behaving incorrect when you blame them for something. Otherwise to me it's just gossip. I live at a place where people are considered innocent UNLESS proven guilty.
Most of your points are horribly wrong and biased, i can't belive you're a "non hobbyist" with this statements. Let's begin from other engines: most. of that you mentioned hard to call "for hobbyist", its more like prototypes, unstable, not production ready, early development, super small community, lack of tools, lack of documentation, no editor in most cases. How do you "scale" those engines if they don't even have occlusion culling or basic AI algos, like navigation mesh or pathfinding, or netcode, lack of profilers, lack of importers, they literally has nothing more than basic stuff you could code yourself. Oh it's open source you could always add your own right? But somehow can't fix bugs in well structured, well documented engine? People ho make rpg are not game developers now? Wtf bro? you just hatin'. Why?
No point in arguing, whatever remotely negative you say will make you "cope" cause you're just a godot user to him. Anyone with 10 minutes of free time can see that 90% of what he said was either fake, misinterpreted or very stretched to fit his agenda.
@@abradotcs > Godot falls short compared to most How so? Don't understand. Except unreal and maybe Defold (which is super ugly and uses LUA wtf, how does that scale) all others are just completely "underground". So only competitor is Unreal and well, Unity. You also did not mention o3de, which is pretty much mature AAA grade engine no one cares about somehow.
@DevSolution why is it hard for you to understand that Godot game engine is good and amazing but can't handle over complicated projects? why is it hard to understand that godot is good for low poly games not high poly ones?
@@madduckling4436 I never commented on the things you mention in your reply. Just his egotistical rant against people that supposedly has big egos. It is funny. In the future, maybe keep your comments factual and don't invent a scenario to comment on.
Eh, I've seen my options and none are perfect, Godot I feel has the most potential right now, that could change, nothing is for certain. Where it lacks, it can improve, at least Godot is making progress unlike some engines. I'd say for commercial 3D projects, without a doubt go unreal but that ain't for everybody, Unity was for everybody, obviously not without it's majors flaws but I feel Godot is the same. But one engine is going downhill and the other is going uphill.
Dear TH-camr , nobody with common sense say is the new Unity, no engine can be another one that already exist. Is all about be independent and no depend on others for you project and learn more ways . As an option is Godot, yes but if you go only to a engine just because is popular in the media ( you def... got a problem ) Good luck to you with u branded mind xd Gimp vs Photoshop... wtf seriously
And your tone to me sounds potentially profoundly biased. The convo's you screenshotted sound reasonable from Godot's perspective, and don't show some of the context (eg. the accused tone). The Russian' dude's handle being Rus Warrior - who cares? We don't know if that has anything to do with the War in Ukraine, could be related to gaming or history or whatever. As a GenX'er people do seem so fragile these days to me and quick to judge. I do appreciate your POV but I'm left wondering how accurate it is because of the strong scent of bias and attitude.
It seems that you are trying to be objective but your disdain for the people involved in Godot is the only point that comes across. I have never cared who was running Godot or Unity but it won't be that big of a stretch to assume that in the Unity's team there are probably people with the same personality as in Godot that you haven't had the "opportunity" to run into yet. Chances are that the company that built the chair that you sit on also has such characters and the same goes for any other product/service. This doesn't mean that you should continue to support them but maybe there are other people working on Godot that are not bullies and those 2-3 nasty ones are not a representation of the whole Godot team. As for the engines. I haven't messed with Unity for years (since back when there was a free and a paid version), but I found that it is extremely intuitive and easy to pick up. I liked it a lot. What I didn't like was when I upgraded to a new version and it broke my tiny project to a point that I could not recover it. Unity is quite heavy. I was amazed how adding 20 plain cubes in a scene can make a huge impact on performance. You might say that this was many years ago but to this day if I hear that the GPU fan is running overtime and the graphics on the screen are nothing special the game is made in Unity. At least back then it was only a 3D game engine. If you wanted a 2D game then you still had to make it in the 3D "editor" (for lack of a better word) which was a funky process. By comparison Godot has a dedicated 2D and 3D "editors" which means that you don't have to adapt the 3D environement to create your purely 2D game. The problem I have with Godot is that I don't find it as intuitive as Unity. You really need to get into the mindset of the developer to make sense of some of the concepts. I haven't tried making anything 3D in Godot so I don't know how viable it is, but as a 2D game maker it is pretty decent and there are a bunch of nice moderately popular games made with it. If it comes to creating a high profile high-tech game your only option is Unreal. There is no other freely available engine for this purpose. This being said I will check out your other engine suggestions because I might find some of them more suitable for me than Godot. In my case simpler is better. Thank you for the recommendations.
Most other engines have similar problems. Flax is also developed by one person. Defold apparently only supports HTML5 as a platform. Heaps engine has documentation problems. Cocos apparently has no community. It's not a perfect world.
Not sure where you picked up that Defold only supports HTML5. According to their homepage, you can build to a few more platforms than that: PlayStation 4 Nintendo Switch Android iOS macOS Linux Windows Steam HTML5 Facebook Q3 2023 PlayStation 5 Q2 2024 XBox I have personally built to Windows, Mac and HTML5, and they all worked fine.
Defold in fact is a good 2D engine. Even better than Godot in my opinion. There is more commercial and made games out there I can find with defold compare to Godot
@@zhenobiikuzo4957 Repeat: I said "apparently" since I wasn't sure of that fact. I leave it to whoever reads the comment to investigate. I'm not here to educate anyone on the characteristics of individual 3d engines. My point was that all engine have either performance or governance issues. I appreciate the info and have begun looking into Defold more.
Im sorry but this video screams of you being butthurt over something personal. Even if all the things you said are true and correct, your way of saying, the verbs and adjetives you use, the reason (makers of godot want the engine to be bad??) just doesn't add up to a conclusion you want to make. You suggest using bevy because godot is bad for scaling? Try scaling with bevy... I love bevy but it's not even in alpha. It's not practical to use in it's current state. Sorry, but there's so many red flags in this video, I can't trust your intepretation or conclusions.
I checked out your games and realized that their graphic quality is within the scope that godot supports. However, there is a very common bug that occurs with the device that sits between the chair and the monitor. The only way to fix it is to replace it with one that works, otherwise, regardless of the engine, the game will never run smoothly. I hope I've helped
I don't understand something. If Juan is not realy interested in performance, why can't the contributors make their own ultimate Godot version? They are doing it anyways with those suggestions?
if its open source they shout try . sorry but if you are allowed to modify the engine why not just use godot as a template and make you own version of godot . i dont know if can handle over 20gb of assess thaw that's more of the computer problem not the game engine
I am interested in making a 2d rgp game , you suggest me to choose unity or godot ? ( I want to start it as a hobby , however i want to publish at least one game in steam someday )
Try Godot! I'm currently working on a procedurally generated dungeon crawler, inspired by the first Legend of Zelda and it's going great! An RPG is naturally a lot of work no matter what engine you use but in terms of pure gameplay, Godot should be fine. The thing that I find ends many Godot projects is a lack of good optimization and organization.
This video is negative, not constructive. Maintainer username being an issue? Transphobia? What it has to do with Game Engine? Nothing! It sounds like you want to bash Godot just because it is doing well. As you said, you don't want to contribute (because it's costly in time). You shouldn't bash the ones that did contribute their time. Stop spreading hatred, fear, uncertainty, doubt. This video is unfortunate to say the least.
I do definitely think Godot will go on to be the blender of game engines in the future. I love Unity and it is how I learned to make games, but If I wasn't a hobbyist I would seriously be concerned about using it for any future projects. It's not just to do with the recent pricing changes, but Unity as a company seems fundamentally not viable at it's current scale. It seems likely to me that we will see the company be bought out from a large buyer like Microsoft relatively soon. IMO if you are a game studio trying to roll out with Unity today not only do you need to put your trust in Unity as a company but also what ever future unknown buyer acquires them.
I've been using Godot for nearly 3 years now. I've worked in it in a professional environment as well. I love the object oriented nature of it, the node tree, and GDScript. I have to say that Godot has yet to make anyone any real money as far as I can see. The 2D side of the engine is great, but the 3D side is still a work in progress. I think one of the biggest problems is that the engine seems much more focused on Steam and PC gaming than it is mobile but mobile is crucial for financial gain these days. Platform support needs to be first class for the engine to be taken seriously in the future. I know W4 is working on it, but at the same time I'm hoping they don't take too long.
For me its the opposite, the lead rendering dev in charge of the rest of the vulken renderer has left to build A new rendering pipline in DirectX to sell to Godot users. I find this upsetting given the base engines vulken rendering pipeline is not done yet and major issues and improvements have been dropped for something Godot wont even benefit from directly. Godot's alright for what it is, and it *is* A working game engine. But I don't trust its management at all, Juan can fuck off with exaggerated promises and business first focus. Not cool.
There are loads of successful games that have come out lately with Godot, most don't know as the games don't do a popup mentioning Godot. An example is Halls Of Torment which blew the fuck up, it came out like 4 months ago and already sold 500K to 1million copies according to SteamSpy. Most people don't know games like this are even made with Godot!
Definitely with the mobile support aspect. That is the number 1 issue I've heard, is that Godot 4 has some compatibility issues, to be expected with an entirely new renderer among many other changes. One thing rarely mentioned is that godot 4 does still have OpenGL3 as an option, although I haven't tried to use it myself.
@@nullvoid3545 "business first focus", odd. I had the opposite impression and though he should be more business focused. It was odd when Juan said Godot is not competing with other engines like Unity, which is a poor mentality imo. Blender's Ton R. said the same thing about not competing against Maya/Max..etc As long as their users are part of the same larger target audience, it is going to be competition.
Its funny to think blender used to have its own game engine. Recently, godots blend file support improved, and the 3D editor looks similar with that axis thingy in the corner. What if godot and blender combined lmao
The blender game engine still exist in modern versions, its just A separate project supported by A separate team instead of the blender foundation. Not to many people use it because Its GPL and therefore your games have to be but I'm considering it because I ultimately want to make open source games anyway and geometry nodes support is either already supported or becoming A thing soon.
@@nullvoid3545I don't think that is how the GPL license work. Since one can make a proprietary program using a gpl language, I would assume the same is true for games.
@@Sitwayen As best I know unless its considered "program output", It counts as "linked code". For example the Blender python API for making addons is GPL and therefore any Addons made with it must be as well because they will be linked with the Blender codebase on installation. But .blend files are program output and therefore they can be licensed however their creator sees fit. If godot was GPL making A game in it would require that game be GPL as well, much like how the blender game engine is because it uses blender for its runtime. I just don't think that would be that much of an issue. Sure big studios would have to adapt, but it would keep the engine modern through adapting new features from forks. And the GPL still lets you sell commercially.
That was the goal of the Armory engine, rather to build an engine on top of Blender, much in the way Maya had a few engines built on top of it. Development for Armory has been disappointing, but I believe that is largely due to the lead developer focusing on other things.
I can't tell if you have a good argument against Godot or not. I never used it so I am objective. But after this video I'm more curious to use it. It might not be intentional but you come off as very butt-hurt. You go on a long rant against Godot but barely say anything tangible about what is bad with the engine. You briefly say it scales bad but don't really give a good explanation why. Then the rest is just about you not liking the lead, and thinking they hired someone you should not. While simultaneously generalizing that everyone who uses it is a hobbyist scrub. Again while providing no source on that.
Videos like this are so necessary, especially by people who have used Godot for their past finished projects like you. I'm using Godot for my current gamedev projects but it is not a fairyland, and Juan does have a huge ego.
Thanks for this! This needs more eyes. I've been doing my own research a few months back (even before the latest Unity drama) and came to similar conclusions. It's just not the (commercially suitable) alternative some folks believe it to be, at this stage…
I think the main thing to note, as far as Godot's capabilities go, it's a very 2D-focused engine. Similar to how a Unity dev who makes 3D games will find Godot very lacking, I, as a 2D dev, simply could not stand using Unity. It works as a 2D engine, don't get me wrong, but compared to Godot, I found it severely lacking and overall using it for 2D games was just a really bad experience. On the 3D side of things, though, I found it really intuitive and easy-to-use, though I didn't muck with Unity3D for long -- like I said, I'm mainly a 2D dev. I think videos like this often ignore that, while Godot is absolutely, at least in its current state, a no-go for 3D, it far outshines Unity as a 2D engine. Sure, AAAs aren't going to be using Godot to make the next game with Cyberpunk 2077-level graphics, but pretty much any indie dev making 2D games will find Godot to be one of, if not the, best choice for making 2D games.
To be frank, Godot is not a 1 to 1 replacement for Unity. Ofc, how could it be? People that used Unity a lot most likely relied on its numerous assets. That was it's biggest strength to begin with. The same people, even if 100% proficient in both engines could not swap to Unreal Engine either. Godot also lacks the Tutorials as of yet. It's not that there's no way to go full production, the problem is, we only have teachers in this field that never made a full commercial game. And those who do get close to it don't teach in depth, which is what we need the most here. Advanced, thorough tutorials. Like Unity has (to some extend) and like Blender has. Paid or otherwise, doesn't matter. If you pick up a Book about Godot, you are left with the same beginner tutorials that are free on the internet. That is ridiculous. Ofc. there should be beginner books, no question about that. But there simply is no way of deepening your understanding of the engine related to game making in general that is giving enough input to actually learn anything beyond the initial ramp that leads to this pit of getting lost and dropping game dev alltogether. Same for Game Maker btw. If people want more finished games, they should be able to take the action and learn about these advanced concepts. As it stands, you can be looking through ALL tutorials available, read every book on the matter and be left a lower level intermediate at BEST. You shouldn't be required to learn advanced game development or programming concepts outside of the game engine, if the game engine purpose is to help making games easy and drives to be commercially sucessful.
Pro Godot devs will know to use the lower-level Rendering and Physics servers to create map objects thru code at runtime to avoid having a map with hundreds of editor nodes.
Considering I started with Godot 1 and seeing so much improvements in Godot 4. I have faith it will get better overtime. You also have to remember that Godot was primarily 2d engine and it just got started on improving on its 3D while unity and unreal has been a 3d engine decades ago. So they are miles ahead in 3D compare to Godot. I think Godot is good for indie developers, and Unreal will always be better for AAA game studios.
@@radioheadfan7279 Unity, trust me!!! You probs won't make $200,000 in one year and so you'll keep all of your revenue, plus Unity has been proven to be capable of producing good and high quality 2d games over the past years. If you want a stable and reliable engine, Unity is the choice.
@@radioheadfan7279 I think Godot can handle large scale projects but it strongly depends on what you're aiming to make. Try making a prototype in it and see how it works. Good optimization is going to be the key to making a large scale project work.
@@radioheadfan7279berry just isn't very good at making games, you can make massive scale 2D games in Godot. But it requires you to know or learn how to optimize the parts that may become slow, depending on what kind of game you're making. Unfortunately, it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles that handle these things automatically, unlike some of the more mature engines, but its ease-of-use in all the other areas makes it worth it imo.
Would you say that Godot is sufficient for a retro 2D pixel art style game? I imagine the issues you mention are a bigger deal for some kinds of games than others.
For sure. The problem with godot is when you rely on scalability for large projects, specially within the 3D side of things, for 2D games I think the main problems with godot is it physics engine that seems way worse than Box2D for example, but that is a complete other problem, I think that godot is great for small games, specially 2D, and for hobbists or people that want to learn about game development in general. That being said, the only other think i don't really like about godot is the fact that it has its own scripting language that makes really hard to translate stuff your learn from the language to another engine, and yeah, you could use c# with the mono version, but c# has a long way to be as reliable as gdscript in the godot environment. That is the exact reason that I, personally am looking into another engine at the moment, but don't let other opinions change your mind, if you think godot has serving you well up to this point, then by all means go ahead! I also love godot.
2:25 @BerryDev Why would he spend all that effort in adding in & doing a massive amount of testing of 3.0 changes when he could instead work Godot 4, where those changes are already made? This expectation is beyond absurd - it's like expecting Adobe to rework the internals of Photoshop CS6 instead of further developing Photoshop CC.
Imagine marketing your game engine as the Unity killer only to recreate the exact same company structure Unity has, except you don't even have a big enough engine to keep the technical people inside.
Yeah, years of wishful thinking of "dethroning" Unity and now notice how Godot's leadership all of a sudden started to distance themselves from "Godot is the open-source version of Unity" false claims that they touted for years, literally.
Tbh I don't know if this is just poor management but I personally that the node system in Godot just doesn't scale very well in dynamic scenes. Godot doesn't provide many functions to find nodes in this system and besides that the core feature of the node system, that nodes can have children. Isn't even useful in many cases. Even Godot uses this only for a few things like relative transform or for Nav Gen. But besides that doesn't feel very flexible when compared to the ECS in bevy. But I don't know if this is just me.
i've been using godot for the past few months and as far as 3D I completely aggree with your statements, however, in 2D I do think it works mostly fine, despite the physics being a little weird. That beign said, I do dislike some aspects of godot development. Using GDScript is far better than C# as of right now and I don't really like using a language that is highly coupled to an engine and hardly translated to another. Even when the scripting language itself is really similar to a proper language (python in godot's case). I've been experimenting with c# in godot and there is a lot of stuff that has to be done differently or that requires a workaround to work properly. I'm looking to start messing with another engine, unreal beign the first one that comes to mind. But as I primarily do 2D games and unreal is not really the most known for making 2D games easier to make, even though it is possible. I would like to hear from you what are your thoughts on an engine to start using for 2D games, Game Maker seems fine but it has the same problem as godot, it uses GML (although i'm aware you can write your own c++ dlls for your games). What do you think?
Defold is the king of 2D games. - The exported games are tiny compared to other engines. Which is why it's good for web and mobile games. - It can export to all the platforms plus Facebook games. - It uses modern graphics APIs, Vulkan, Metal and DX12. - 3D workflow sucks. Forget about making 3D games in Defold. Basically, it's optimized for web and mobile development.
Dude, I've been saying the same thing with Godot being a hobbyist engine. My issue with Godot is that it's using its own script for its engine(gdscript) inspired by python, which is a language I genuinely hate imo. It doesn't benefit me as a developer because gdscript is exclusively for this engine and nothing else. Compare that to C#, C++, or even Java, which has tons of uses, like making a website or easily converting to another engine. I know that Godot has C# support, but it's still in its infancy. However, I do think that Godot has a lot of potential. I wouldn't say it's the blender of game engines, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare Godot with Gimp since it has grown considerably well. I just don't think Godot is even close to ready when it comes to being an engine that a company could potentially use, both indie and AAA. But I might be wrong. Who knows?
What about a game like hollow knight? Do you think someone could create a game with the size of hollow knight but still have good performance? Cause that is as far as I want to go with my future games. I don’t intend to make any double or triple A games, just simple 2d indie games.
Tbh i still think Godot is better than some engines in some aspects. But suggestion from me: Godot = 2D, Mobile and Beginners Unreal = 3D console and PC games
Literally not, Flappy Bird copy-pasted from a tutorial was given as an example of someone barely experienced with the engine and its guts, to indicate that you're not really diving into it and trying to solve your issues head-on, or if you even faced some nasty ones. Similar story when you're copy-pasting a tutorial for Unity step-by-step. Doing something like this does not give you much credibility to deny technical issues that an engine may have nor suggest you to fork the tech over and fix it yourself (because far from everyone is a c++ engine dev or wants to spend time fixing the tech rather than making a game).
@@Kolyasisan, this video comes across as extremely dismissive of anyone who doesn't share the guy's opinions and experience. He shits on Godot as strictly for hobbyists, then in the comments says, "Oh, but it's fine for indies." Godot is fine for games that it's fine for, but terrible for others. What's helpful is to point out where that line is drawn. What isn't helpful is to insult its users and bash the company because of who works there.
@@sm5574 never even denied your view and I wholeheartedly agree with it. My point still stands though: you're not quite credible with dismissing the tech issues if you're not even barely familiar with the engine, and suggesting to fork it over and fix it yourself is hardly a universally good solution. That was the message behind the author's argument, I can't see how it can be interpreted differently.
@@Kolyasisan, when did I dismiss any tech issues? And yes, if the author had stuck to tech issues and had addressed them more specifically and left it at that, then I wouldn't have said anything. But instead, he starts off with vague references to high-resolution assets, and then quickly moves into insulting Godot users for not being top-tier enough to have a valid opinion (despite the fact that there are, in fact, commercially released games on Godot), and then he starts complaining about the people at the company.
@@sm5574 you never dismissed them, and this wasn't the point. What you did is satirically quoted "if you don't make big games, like I do, then you are not a true game developer and your opinion doesn't matter". This is in response to the statement at 4:55 where the author criticizes the idea of fixing the engine by forking it yourself, where he brought up the flappy bird example and the whole idea of "you can't sanely suggest that if you don't have some experience with the engine, plus natural issues of forking tech and fixing it". You are directly criticizing this particular point with your satirical quote, the following comments do not continue the narration started by your original comment and focus on the overall issues of the video and the author's clear biases. If I misunderstood your satirical quote, then apologies, and please explain what precisely you were referring to.
So if both Godot (lack of tools and no console-support) and Unity (best 2D game being overshadowed by bankruptcy cases caused by its runtime fee) aren't our best 2D game engines, then what's our best 2D game engines either way? There's no future here for big crossplatform 2D games anymore
Nobody cares about who is mean to whom, or if they have a mean name. What users care about is if the engine can deliver on features, usability, stability and performance. You should criticize it based on those points with some more concrete facts or test, like when does performance tank on a certain amount of assets imported - when compared to a similar project in Unity. Or the framerate at the same scene (same assets and textures, standard PBR shaders) in Godot and Unity.
I do care more about the lead developer not taking improvements onto his branch out of ego than I do what someone does to someone else on Discord. I felt like that part of the video made the former part feel like unnecessary drama.
@@JonathanJuan That this improvement was rejected could be as simple as it breaking other dependent systems, or the codebase being already reworked in a totally new direction for the next release. As he wrote, changing a stable (old) version for a new but untested feature is not a good idea for stability.
"Nobody cares about who is mean to whom" -- So, nobody cared when Riccitiello called developers "fucking idiots" if they don't use microtransactions? Wasn't that prominently featured in just about every TH-cam video criticizing Unity's recent events? The bigotry and pro-war-crime stuff is NOT going to play well under the spotlight and Godot is currently under the spotlight.
@@potato9832 People (mostly hobbyists and small developers) move to Godot because Unity is unreliable now announcing ridiculous and retroactive pricing changes, and not because some CEO had thoughts about some possible microtransaction at some point 12 years ago.
Freecad was also horrible, but as commercial CAD programs started to tighten control on licensing things started to massively improve on Freecad. Godot is not there today, but it will be when the options start to run out. Unity only gave devs a little slack, but it will not last.
GODOT is the better 2D engine. From benchmarking it’s performance is much better than Unity for 2D. I had similar experience. I was using a buoyancy plugin for unreal and I modified the code a bit (30 minutes it took) and got better performance. I messaged the creator and he blew me off.
This is the first negative I'm hearing after a few days of using Godot. But listen - that's a GOOD thing! Open source software will only get better through open dialogue and open criticism. So I, for one, welcome it, and hope the Godot team can continue to push the technology forward with all the recent influx of support from Unity devs
@@CyrilCommandothis is false. The video gave one example that literally was pulled from 4-5 years ago, they had to go that far back. There's countless community commits and feedback that gets implemented I can attest to this myself watching people suggest things and figure out bugs and ways to tweak things and it gets added
As the saying goes, "There are two types of game engine, the ones people criticize about and the ones nobody uses". :P It's glad to hear someone tells the truth and the limitations of the engine, even he may be blocked by the lead dev after this. The most urgent one I think is the physics, godot physics is just not working as it should, hoping jolt would become the default engine ASAP.
Juan confirmed Jolt is becoming the default and has been worked on to become that, and already everybody can easily use Jolt now with a simple download and change of a setting :) I've got Jolt in my projects
Many of the points are poorly presented, if not outright fallacious. He mentions his game projects from 3.5, where he had hundreds of high poly assets with no LODs performing poorly. 3.5 had no automatic LOD generation, which is a feature in 4.0.
I want to make my point, don't use Godot, because this engine is doomed from the start and has no future. 1. This engine looks as if it was made by the community, but in fact, it's just an engine made by the creator alone, and this creator is not a professional, and only likes to build wheels over and over again without any libraries outside of the engine, and repeats a large number of wheels, and each of these wheels has a lot of problems, and yet, the most basic core of the engine is the extremely inefficient conversions. 2. This engine is not a professional game engine at all, it is only suitable for demos, countless people flock to Godot, successful games just a little bit, the conversion rate here already says it all. It is that this engine is not suitable for commercial games. 3.I have personally used Godot, obviously, at first, you feel quite easy to use, in-depth, you know that this engine is simply a scam, the performance of the bottleneck is almost impossible to break through, the crash situation is almost unavoidable, you can only therefore change the game design, remove the content. After being forced to remove content, after creativity is drastically limited, does your game really work in the end? 4. This engine optimization issue, which was raised 5 years ago and still exists today, is the most important and should be the highest priority issue, and the creator seems to be completely unconcerned about it, and this creator, personally, can you expect him to lead you to make a game all by himself?
Godot does use third-party libraries, but the quality of these libraries is often suboptimal and buggy. This is because they prioritize minimalism over the quality of the libraries they choose. As a result, they often end up replacing these third-party libraries with their own solutions that are even more buggy. For instance, in Godot 4, they opted to replace the Bullet physics engine with their own implementation...
I appreciate your opinion but the one thing I did not like is when you said that developing a flappy bird game or 8-bit RPG doesn't make you a game dev.. That's pretty ridiculous and damaging to say to new devs (any devs). I was following the Godot engine because I agree, I don't like it either or the people running it. However when you directly jumped into attacking 2D devs / newer devs, that's when you lost my respect. I am sorry that you don't like Godot, but treating newer devs like they aren't devs because of whatever game they decide to make is elitist and gatekeeping.
I wouldn't do a game with a bunch of high poly assets in unity either. It was never built for it either. It might be better suited for that than Godot, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good fit.
@deeaa.5090That is not true, there are two ways I can think of to circumvent GC lag spikes: 1. Not creating any garbage on hotpaths, this is not as impossible as some people think. Pooling & stack allocating basically allow you to circumvent like 80% of the garbage you usually create. 2. Incremental GC, unity provides an incremental garbage collector that does its workload over multiple frames, thus not causing the game to freeze to collect garbage. Utilizing these two methods will ensure your game doesn't suffer from gc lag spikes.
So I took the last 2 weeks up Godot from Unity, I'm at that point where I finished a small project (32 bit 2d game). The project I was conceptualizing in Unity is a 2d isometric game 32x32. The idea is fairly simple as to why I went to godot instead of Unreal - people say Godot is the better option for 2d development. The goal of this project is pretty large scale, and while I'm not a fan of godots architecture composition worked... okay... so your conclusion is that godot simply cannot scale for a production game?
Please check out my new video where I cover more topics in depth: th-cam.com/video/QSgH8BHtNWE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=I8FX1zaX_sMGMaZg
I brought this video back. I was going to make a new video about the new events happening with Godot but then I realized I already made the perfect video months ago. This video was listed as private for a while for the reasons I talked about in one of my videos but honestly I don't think it matters anymore. In case you don't know the person I talked about in this video has been proven to be racist and homophobic lately and that discord mod I talked about is known for using lots of racial slurs in official godot discord. So I was right about it but nobody cared. Whatever else I say about this video is also still valid.
Thank you for keeping this video and for speaking out.
For as much as to OP is quick to dismiss Godot users as hobbyists this seems like the take of someone who has a fairly limited perspective on development. I've shipped commercial games using Quake, Unreal 2.5, Unreal 4, Cocos, Unity, and several inhouse engines. Pretty much every engine I've worked with has had things it's bad at, hasn't had all the features it promised, and has had bugs. There was a time when Unity was synonymous with crappy 'hobby' games and UE4 had a ton of bugs, half baked features, and poor documentation when it first launched. I seriously can't think of a single engine that doesn't have some folks somewhere that hate working with it.
Godot is not without its issues, but in a year or so I've been experimenting with it's made a lot of progress, and I hopefully, with it's increased funding, that'll only improve, but even taking it right now, it's perfectly fine for some types of games, less so for others but that doesn't mean it's only for 'hobbyists'. On a technical level, a lot of the best indie games of all time aren't all that complicated, Hades is an amazing game but not particularly complex technically speaking; the same could be said for Slay the Spire, Super Meat Boy, Inscryption, Signalis, Amnesia the Dark Descent, etc.. you could make any of those in Godot without too many problems beyond the ones that everyone faces in game development. It's rare for anyone to make a game purely out of the box without making some amount of custom tools or adjustments to the engine to suit the projects needs regardless of the engine.
Also, if the idea of using a 3d party plugin to compensate for the weakness of an engine sounds absurd, then I've also got to question how much dev experience they really have. Hades for example licenses Bink for their sprites sheets; there's tons of middleware providers that provide add-ons (or replacement systems) for both Unreal,Unity, and other engines that cost tens of thousands of dollars a license. (Popcorn FX, Coherent UI, Noesis GUI, Simplygon, to name a few)
If you don't like the engine by all means don't use it, but this video comes off more like someone who's got an axe to grind with Godot's founder than an earnest critique and honestly the github critiques didn't really seem that out of line.
Just because you "can" make something good with the tool, doesn't mean it's a good tool.
@@CyrilCommando Just because you can’t make something good with a tool doesn’t mean it’s a bad tool. It can be a ‘bad’ tool for your purposes and still be a good tool for others. Flax charges a 4% royalty and isn’t open source, Stride hasn’t seen a meaningful update in over a year. Maybe those trade offs are ok for you, my point is don’t confuse ‘bad for you’ with ‘bad for everyone’
@@CyrilCommandoso basicly every single engine that exists , is a bad tool. Lol
I appreciate this take from someone experienced
Thank you! Something smelled off about this video, but I'm not a pro dev. Thanks for contributing your gamedev experience to the discussion.
Blender also used to be terrible and only used by hobbyists, but that changed over time. This can happen for Godot as well.
Well that's true but thats true with almost any app. Not about the if but rather now
I think the point Berry was trying to make was that Godot could be the next Blender on paper, but because it’s not truly community driven and accepting of feedback and change, it won’t be.
That's what I am hoping for. That's the reason I criticise the engine with all my honesty
@@RonaldFinger Thanks, that's exactly it!
@@RonaldFinger He may be right. I started using Godot only about a month ago so I haven't been a part of any of the drama he reference. I did look into how they handle finances and who makes decisions and found they have a board of directors made from developers and members of the community. This board decides what is worked on and how funds are allocated. It may look like one guy runs everything, but, at least on paper, that isn't the case.
I don't disagree with much of what he said, but I certainly hope things can improve no matter what their current state is. Especially now with the influx of funds and experienced developers.
So if someone came to me saying "you know that guy is really bad!" and i'm like "oh, yeah? how bad?" and the example is like "so 4 years ago, he didn't want to include a pull request with breaking changes..." that does not paint the accused as a bad person.
That indirectly shows that the person is actually pretty fine because otherwise there would be more, worse and more recent examples.
Exactly. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel
He also eventually implemented the suggestions...
This video is drama bait. The uploader makes a very bold claim that the Godot engine is not _"production ready"_ and is a _"hobbyist game engine"_ when there are plenty of successful commercial games out there that were developed using Godot.
@@Omar_Al_Seddik May I ask for successful commercial game examples? If you know specifically some mobile 3d game with great "realistic" graphics (no low poly), it would be the example I am looking for. Thanks.
@@visitor1588 your question rests on at least one bad premise and fails to be valid out of the gate. Realistic graphics are not a prerequisite for commercial success. In fact Vampire Survivors was one of the best selling games of 2022 and it has extremely simplistic graphics even by the standards of stylized 2D content.
Now, it's still fair to say Godot has not had a smash hit yet, possibly with the recent exception of Brotato which just released and has 50,000 steam reviews (with an average of "Overwhelmingly Positive"). If fully 10% of purchasers left reviews, and that's highly unlikely, that would be a VERY conservatively estimated half a million copies shipped and $2.5 million in revenue (and most sites estimate 3-4 times that), and the game just dropped at the end of June. Are you really going to say that's not commercially successful?
It remains to be seen if decent numbers of genuinely successful games release, but the engine is both very capable on the indie side (and even managed a remake of Sonic Colors - of all the games Sega could have picked) and is gaining enough popularity that there's really no reason to think we won't see that - the next year or two will certainly tell.
I noped-out when this Content Creator figured that being "transphobic" was cause for not hiring someone.
BerryDev can go masturbate by himself in a corner.
I think dismissing the community's contributions because of your problem with the lead developer is disingenuous. Blender wouldn't be what it is today without its community either.
The fish rots from the head. They make a cult of personality out of Juan Linietsky, which effectively means that contributors are also not able to make informed decisions, but have to abide by whatever Juan says, and never disagree if they want to gain his trust. Which is a problem, obviously.
@@eye776 Well, if that's the case, then that's the fate of a lot of open-source projects, then... But it all boils down to the personality of each individual. In either case, I can tell you upfront that Juan does not inspire confidence or trust. There's a lot of evidence suggesting that Godot makes itself unappealing to the professional game development industry. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which is impossible (make so-called "clever optimizations" to appease AAA developers, despite being allergic to ECS, all while wanting to retain user-friendliness, ease of use, and simplicity). Godot is tearing itself apart in several incompatible directions.
The fact that Blender is able to be remodeled into other variants like the Goo engine or BforArtist to supply the needs that weren't fulfilled by the main build is the exact reason why Godot will stay at where it is right now and not improve, its missing a lot of key features to produce a decent looking 3D game, and unless the community are willing to do something about that and not just praise juan Linietsky like a demigod, its gonna stay a primitive engine
@@bigboss8647 Blender was in a similar position from around 2005 to 2011. What helped Blender was the Open Movie initiative. Basically pro artists using it to make high quality short films, along with the required improvements to make that work. And Godot needs a similar drive. High quality scenes, vertical slices and cinematics to prove itself.
@@bigboss8647I want to try Goo Engine so badly but I’m too broke to spend an extra $5 a month currently 😭
Let me tell a story... I started programming in another engine for 6 years, was active on its communities, had a channel focused on tutorials (even the members of the team I work nowadays were people who commented on my tutorial videos), and even created some tools that people still use nowadays. When we had to move to another engine due to limitations, it was pretty hard to let go all of this and start from scratch, even at an emotional level, since we're talking years of using a tool and sharing experiences with the community. Godot was the new choice for the last 2 years.
My point is that people get emotionally invested on everything around the engine, and those dramas start to arise. I know that this is also the reason why people give their free time to contribute and make the engine and its ecosystem better, but I'm focusing on its worst side here.
At the end of the day, I don't give a damn about Juan and his ego, Yuri and his character, money issues and stuff: I just want to focus on my team, my games and not be screwed by companies and their licenses. Don't get me wrong: I published 3 addons, report bugs and help the community the way I can, but I also did my homework. You can keep the drama to yourselves.
Door-in-the-face_technique this only work on products that customer gets emotionally attached and had no similar/close to same alternative
your right. If godot has the features you want then its just an engine and A good one at what it does.
I started learning godot 3-4 years ago thinking the features I was told would be in godot 4 by the time I could make use use of them would be implemented.
But that didn't happen and the more I look the more I see examples of the management refocusing their attention on other things that are more financially lucrative, like W4.
My dream is to make open source games and community's around them, I want to make cool editor tools, and contribute to make godot better someday. But I am genuinely concerned about the amount of contributors I have seen speak up about not liking the managements communication and decision making.
The approach godot has taken to this has been to address it as just haters and drama. Which cannot last when this is A growing issue. I have only really known about these issues for A few months, but I have seen and ignored others trying to raise them for far longer, so I don't think this is going away on its own.
Fair take
and you can always fork godot if Yuri and Juan have a bad day. You can't do that with Unity.
@@shadowpillar2483 yep theres that but look at atom some one forked and rebranded but its just dont have that feel anymore and remember game developers are game developer not general software devs of hobbyist software devs they are pro/hobbyist game dev they probably dont have time to make a engine before make a games and its not easy to contribute to a project cause you have too look at the architecture understand how it works are codes work and it will take a lot of time thats why people use a engine in the first place and these who like they definitely contribute or make their own
My experience is very different from yours, I only mentioned and discussed a couple features I have in other engines on Twitter, and every single one is now implemented in Godot4.
So I feel it's very much community driven.
That they don't put more time into improving Godot3 sucks for everyone still using version 3, but it's understandable IMO. You say it yourself, Godot 4 still has lots of issues, and spending time on adding to Godot3 would take time away from Godot 4.
"I used godot to produce a commercial game, I'm not just a tutorial channel or a hobbyist" bro your game has 3 reviews on steam, stop trying to act like you're better than others when all you did was pay $100 to put your hobby game on steam.
1. I feel you have a tendency of mixing facts with opinions and ending up with some "logical" conclusions.
2. I don't know why you are assuming Godot doesn't try to get faster. The whole Vulkan rendering engine rewrite was done mostly for this very reason. 2D got bucketing performance improvements (collapsing atlases/shaders to avoid context/pipeline switches). Physics was rewritten for stability and performance. Octree has seen great improvements. There are serious discussion about hive & lightweight structs (especially useful for packed arrays) to handle many nodes/elements efficiently.
3. You are contradicting yourself by saying that the engine is a shitshow and unstable, but you really liked the idea of incorporating a performance optimization into 3.0 branch. Same goes for having half-baked features. There is quite a push to stabilize Godot nowadays, and it doesn't only include optimizations but also many cool features. Supporting 3.0 and 4.0 is madness for such a small team.
4. I am a professional C++ developer and I don't mind the mediocre support for it in Godot. Gdscript is truly awesome. Sure, it's not as low level, and some abstractions are a bit too heavy-weight, but it's a very handy scripting language. How many languages do you wish to support in such a project? I wish we sticked to Gdscipt, C# and think bridge to C++ .dll. No more.
5. No one asks you to fix all the problems yourself (in the engine). I've worked on 2 bugs in the engine and fixed them. Will it make your game fast as Unreal? Not a bit. Have I made the engine useful to me and possibly many others (for the same scenario)? I sure did. Are there hundreds of people like me that move the engine further and further into a brighter future. I sure, hope so.
6. I've worked in many companies where the Lead Developer didn't do too much coding. He had a lot of knowledge & expertise and was responsible for handling all the hard architectural questions. His skills is much better used this way, I believe.
7. Isn't it awesome that the foundation is behind the steering wheel and not some (as you say) egoistic maniac? He gets a small sum of money for his constant contributions, so I don't feel much money is wasted here.
8. I don't know much of the engines you've listed, but I wish you did a serious comparison between them and tell me they don't suck. Are you really sure they are performant? Cocos editor was so fricking poor that I don't even know where to start comparing it to Godot.
Does it mean Godot is just the perfect solution, and (for some strange reasons) people have been ignoring it? Nope. It's an engine that has a lot of half-baked features (modding, pixel-perfect game), scenarios where performance is poor, stability issues and dependency on the contributions. But it's getting better, day by day. Will it ever be as good for 3D rendering as Unreal? I doubt anyone even dares to wish for it. It already has a lot going for it, and even you can't deny it. Editor is fast and working on projects is a breeze. Nodes, (packed) scenes, signals are simple, yet powerful concepts to build on. Adding extensions to the editor itself is such a great way to create a game toolkit for your game. Good animations subsystem (sure, it's not a dedicated animation tool, but still serviceable). And many, many more. Simple 3D games and 2D game should work fine. More and more popular indie titles are being released proving that things can get done with it.
You didn't show the rest of the conversation. I would guess that the guy wanted to make a potentially breaking change for the older version, which is not always a good idea even if it's faster. Edit: I've just found the rest of this conversation. I think he's right, actually there were many problems with his changes. As a programmer I had much harsher code reviewers. (Yes, I prefer nicer way of communication, but I also prefer a good implementation of engine I use)
Yes Juan ended up including his code in the engine I think...
@@abradotcs I'm not english native but from what I understood the smart guy initiated the talk about this and posted his benchmarks + code, was overall active and helpful. Juan was initially rude, then wrote some bullet points (adhere to their writing style, and a few of his concerns) as this is a crucial component of the engine. I like more polite responses but they got the job done. Also Juan changed his demanor later.
Edit: Also agree with the Godot being a technical risk for bigger projects (at this moment).
Blender wasn't always what it is today. It took years to get to the point where companies like Ubisoft Animation started using it professionally. Nothing you have said proves that Godot is not the Blender of game engines.
Many of your points are valid, but they only prove that Godot is not already there yet. Like Blender was years ago or still is, depending on who you ask.
The Unity situation naturally leads to people overreacting and making quick shots based on their feelings and frustrations about Unity.
True story. However, Unity is far from dead or over.
And Godot is not an alternative for many projects.
Nonetheless, Godot has got some healthy attention out of this situation and it may one day is becomming for game engines what Blender is for 3D software nowadays. Comparing the development history you could indeed say Godot is the Blender of Game engines.
I think it would be very nice if that happens one day.
I like Godot for what it is and it serves me well at the moment.
unity will never die, people are just too involved with it, the only thing that will die is its leaders.
for godot, my idea is other people to fork it, and start developing theyr versions of godot and if they do a good enough job, people will use theyr fork instead of juan`s, people are basicly just using juan`s fork.
ofcorse some competition to happen will require these dudes to be rich, but this is the only way i see godot getting out of this procrastinating state. its been years and its barely diffrent from what it was.
@@zendraw3468 IDK...
Godot 4.x seems a Lot different to to the 3.x series. I saw some videos, outlining the changes and there where plenty.
Seems different enough to me.
@@MrJuliusHibert But those changes are half done.
Like the physics or the issues the vulken renderer was supposed to fix like A lack of access to important buffers like A stencil buffer.
There is still no way to do portals properly in godot, the best method includes rendering the viewport to another viewport causing massive unnecessary overhead.
Peeps have asked for years about fixing this and the answer has always been wait for Godot 4, now Godot 4 has been here nearly A year and is stagnating as the dev that built the first half of the vulken renderer has left to build A proprietary DirectX render for godot so he can make money off of Xbox ports.
Its true Godot 4 has lots of small changes but the thing that makes Godot 4 was supposed to be the renderer, which was rushed and is missing promised features.
I regret waiting on Godot.
In the end Godot is still an Open source Project and there is no big company with millions of Dollar developing it.
People should adjust their excpactations to this fact.
Like I Said about Blender, it took a while to have cycles or greace pencil or eevee renderer. But people believed in Blender and supported it.
Godot can achieve this too. Give it time and support it and dont excpect an Open source Project to miracoulusly deliver anything you want.
@@MrJuliusHibert I thought it was reasonable for me to have expected these things given that they were promised by the lead rendering dev as part of something they were already working on.
My mistake.
I strongly disagree with the idea that Godot is "only for hobbyists." Many, if not most, of the top indie games (in particular, 2d indie games) could have been made with Godot if not for Unity's overwhelming mindshare. Regarding Juan Linietsky's response to the pull request, I saw nothing wrong with it. Godot devs are extremely busy, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect prospective contributors to familiarize themselves with Godot internals before trying to contribute.
Yeah! It may be easy for the Godot devs to accept every code contribution they receive but the thing is that people don't realize is adding code to an engine is one thing. But updating it to match other aspect of the engine and ensure stability is a great commitment.
@@eye776 like a colleague of mine said: "If i's been your engine for years then it's kind of your baby. It's understandable that letting go can be difficult."
People do have egos. But overall I think friction in Open Source projects is a good thing as long as it's not toxic. Healthy friction brings progress. It's not pleasant. It's not easy. But it's a good thing. And it takes time. Ego will always exist - it's always a matter of amount and being kept in check. We'll see how things progress but from what I've seen so far I'd subbscribe to Godot being a very good 2D engine. Which also happens to have 3D capabilities, now.
What Godot's leadership does is excuse-making. They are unable to see their faults, so they project their lack of responsibility onto others.
So if both Godot (lack of tools and no console-support) and Unity (best 2D game being overshadowed by bankruptcy cases caused by its runtime fee) aren't our best 2D game engines, then what's our best 2D game engines either way? There's no future here for big crossplatform 2D games anymore
@@alyasVictorio The future belongs to those who aren't overly fanatical about their tools. Compare the amount of criticism Unity receives to Godot's, and observe how each game engine reacts to criticism. If you decide to criticize Godot, you will be canceled from its community forever. That's one of the reasons why professional game developers avoid Godot.
Additionally, the choice between Unity vs. Godot is largely a false dilemma. There exist dozens of 2D-capable game engines and frameworks out there, such as Defold.
I have decided to bring some "clarification", as you started the video. I get it, clicks are important.
* Not accepting feature patch to old version is a normal decision. Old versions get maintained (read bug fixed if serious enough without workaround), not developed with new features. That is what a new version is for.
* Community drive, doesn't mean community decided. That means the pain points brought by the community are getting addressed. That doesn't mean that solution proposed by the member gets implemented. That is pretty much said in the contrinuting guidelines. As is mention that performance takes back seat to ease of maintenance/clarity of a code.
* The mentioned issues has been through the grinder in the interwebz, but it had been fixed later (I wouldn't probably do that) and there is 10k+ issues and Godot get 300+ merged PRs each month. Each one fixes or improves something. Cherry picking much?
* Rémi Verschelde is the maintainer of Godot as well as PM. He merges most PRs. It seems that he is the primary gatekeeper, not Juan Linietsky. According to Godot foundation, he is also in position to have final say:
> The project leaders have final say on all code merges. In theory, this means the leaders will have the final say when maintainers cannot agree. In practice, this authority rarely needs to be invoked because decisions are made by maintainers in consultation with the community.
* Juan Linietsky is getting paid despite not contributing the code. Shocking, there are other things of value instead of just code. Blender foundation CEO and founder of blender Tom Rosendaal is getting paid despite not contributing the code since 2015.
* When selecting an engine, the size and maturity of the project and momentum behind it as well as size of community should be one of the deciding factors. Otherwise you are spending your time to a project that can be abandoned at any time and you will be stuck with forking or throwing your hard-eared knowledge away and switching engine again. The point of engine is to make game development easier, not developing an engine. That is why Godot is mentioned so often. As an example, the WickedEngine you mentioned is single person project.
Your points miss all the important pieces of the video.
1 - You should still patch things into old versions. LTS is a huge necessity and not every Godot developer will want to / even be able to switch from 3 to 4.
2 - Pain points aren't getting addressed. That's the point. There's too many open issues. Clarity of code is great, but if nothing works then whats the point?
3 - The point is comparing godot to other engines. There's a lot less issues with other engines.
4 - Fair point about Remi and Juan
5 - If you choose Godot then you'll have to develop the engine. There's too many glaring issues and not enough support to help you along. The point in the video is valid: "you will work on the engine instead of your game"
@@zacharykosma531 The crux of the matter is that (at least as far as my cursory glance can see), pretty much every other option is worse (at least open source).
1. WickedEngine - one person operation. You are one person (marriage, disease, lack of interest) from dead. As a single person operation, you won't get any support either. It's just not scaleable.
2. Bevy - 3-4 times smaller. Code first. No editor (seems to be stalled on ECS dogma). It seems to be more of an alpha project ("WARNING: Bevy is still in the early stages of development. "). Would you like to place some some tiles? Code it. This project is suited for people who want to developer of a game engine.
3. Stride3D - basically one person operation, developement is slowing down (more like dying).
4. cocos2d-x - that's a corpse. Look at GitHub contributors graph.
5. FlaxEngine Mostly one person operation.
6. Defold 1016 issues, closed 48 issues in last month. Not open source.
Out of these, maybe Defold and that is a big maybe. The rest are pretty much excluded by either being dead, one man operation or alpha.
Honestly, you can exclude my opinions on basis of not being game developer (made few toys, that's all), but when I look at this, none of them are even close to something I would invest my time If I wanted to develop a game. I would definitely spend a lot of time on the engine. That is just a nature of something very few people use vs something a lot of people use.
I would agree that that Godot should seriously step up its bug fixing game (e.g. author of this channel made a video about a epilepsy inducing bug that hasn't been fixed in a year), but it is still a one-eyed king among blind. Of course that is only if I limit myself to open source ones. Unity is still there. Unreal is still there. Few commercial ones too.
Rémi is a trusted subleader of Juan, and given that there's a hierarchy in Godot, Juan is responsible for his decision to assign Rémi. It means that if Rémi suddenly abandons the project, Juan will be able to find a person similar to him, a gatekeeper. This may sound contradictory at first, but what they ultimately aim for is tight control over Godot's development. They won't allow industry experts to work on Godot, because as per do-ocracy, those industry experts would start to get recognition and power for making Godot great. This is problematic to Juan because he wants to keep donations to himself and the trusted circle of developers/managers called Advisors.
Every decision in Godot is based purely on trust. Of course, this trust can be earned in numerous ways, which in some cases accounts for individual merit and devotion of contributors to the project, or even your political orientation. Believe it or not, the quickest way to earn Godot’s leadership trust is by promoting Godot. Which means that you don’t necessarily need to be a developer at all. This is one of the reasons why Godot gets so overzealousously promoted on various game development forums and conferences by individuals.
@@MrXrayez I would like a receipts, i.e. issue/pulls numbers where these industry experts contributed and their contributors were rejected. And by contributing I don't mean complaining or feature requests, but actual work.
The only issue so far was 5 years old and was even fixed later. I do maintain OS project and let's say that most people don't want to work for free and PRs are mostly drive-by PRs.
There is no money in Open source. Even unbelievably successful Godot had ~$200k/year for whole project pre-august and that is after a decade if development.
@@VoicesInDark Developers behind Winter Pixel Games. They criticized Godot's source code, management, etc. They ended up fixing up GDScript themselves for their custom fork and completely avoided using Godot's built-in physics, opting for Box2D instead. They went through unnecessary conflicts on the topic of netcode in Godot.
I remember Blender was considered hobbyist 3d program for many years as well until it became what it is today.
@@kozodoev You are both right. I think the OP's point was that for awhile, it was seen as a hobbyist program in the minds of many professionals. If you brought up Blender in professional spaces in the past, you would get laughed at. Now, no one is laughing.
@@deuswulf6193 I was one of those! I checked it out a long time ago while I was using Lightwave, Modo, and Maya, and Blender was at best a nice way to get into 3D as a hobbyist or student. Now it's my core 3D software. I have no idea if Godot will achieve that status, but just because it (or the other free engines) hasn't, doesn't mean it won't. Heck, someone could put together a crack team, fork it, and start the fork on the path to "Blender-ness" tomorrow. From what I've learned though, I agree that as it stands it's not ready to be "the Blender".
@@leoismaking I guess, it won't be so easy in case of a game engine. Blender will export a mesh file, and the mesh is then used in a game. Solving problems with blender on your local machine is enough for you. In case of an engine, the engine is part of your product and all bugs/issues of the engine are also bugs/issues of your game. So there are bigger quality/stability/reliability/compatibility requirements, when you choosing an engine for you game.
Another thing that you are underestimating about creating a 3d game is that is not just throwing millions of 3d assets, thousands of shaders and so and pretends that everything is going to run fine, that is why so many games are broken today, optimization is necessary. This guy @devmar is creating a really gorgeous game in Godot and runs-looks fantastic because the primary focus is optimization.
Professionalism is an illusion an appeal to professionalism is irrelevant
I think this video lacks nuance to the point of bad-faith. The problems that apply to Godot apply to literally any open source project and yet you're trying to present Godot as 'uniquely bad'. You could have just said 'It's not there yet and its development is messy' and the video would be fine.
When it comes to getting big contributions merged into open source projects, you can expect these kind of discussions. Contributions need to happen in coordination with the project/module owners, that's true for all software. Without this, the Godot's codebase would become a mess.
You're also praising Blender above other open source projects, but just like any open source project it's had a lot of controversies surrounding design decisions and forks. E-cycles, edit mode selection, sculpting performance, UI, etc. You can find plenty of users disappointed with its development for one reason or another.
You've also completely oversimplified the community drama. You just named two people and said they were bad without presenting proper evidence. The one Reddit screenshot you did share had a whole thread attached to it that breaks it down.
Feel free to make your own research on the topics. This video isn't all about specific people. I can't give out all the details in a short video.
No but you were happy to throw out allegations about people's behaviour when you assumed your viewers would just swallow it whole@@abradotcs . You basically tried to cancel them a la Twitter style.
@@nailbomb420 I am not trying to cancel anybody. Behaviour of those people are known by many people in the community and most of them are okay with it that's why they got away with it :)
@@abradotcs Okay, then at least list a google doc with evidence in the description or something. Don't engage in allegations if you're not going to back them up in any way, it doesn't help anyone. Otherwise everyone could just start making stuff up about anyone.
This whole opinion seems like you just have a personal grudge towards juan , that is fine but just keep it for yourself but there is no need to force that biased opinion onto other people.
How did the engine let you down when you were making your commercial game project?
Those specific pitfalls are vital informations for godot noobs like myself who came from unity.
Yes! I watched the whole video hoping he'll reveal it but it seemed like a typical disgruntled discord user ramble not addressing exactly how engine has failed him so we know if the particular usecase would affect us. I'll personally be only making low poly game as that's my aesthetic of choice like pixel art is for others. So important to address if high quality textures and stuff was the issue or some functional issue.
@@babeletteI only use low poly in 3d and can say that it works fairly well. You need to optimize your code for it to work well but it's usually not too difficult. I recommend adding functionality to have entities sleep when far away from the camera/player and reducing the number of functions being called every frame. Simple optimisations like this can boost overall performance and leave more time and resources for rendering.
I will talk about my experience with 3.5 but this is still an issue with 4.x
When my scenes got bigger I realized the editor became super slow to load. Compile times went up to minutes from seconds. And all I had was a couple hundred models with textures on them. It became literally impossible to develop my game with a consistent pace so I had to simplify a lot of my models. Removed textures from them etc. I can't imagine the pain you would have if you actually wanna create a AA/AAA game with Godot. My experience with Godot 4.x wasn't any different. I was making a Slime rancher clone where I used rigidbodies for the slimes but the physics optimizations was so horrible that game becomes unplayable after a while. That was my first big dissapoinment with Godot 4. These are some of the examples. Also Godot 4's new renderer was so hyped but when it came out it was a huge flip. It looks garbage compared to modern engines and it performs really badly. Unless you have the most cutting edge hardware you won't be able to run games made with Godot 4.
Compare Flax engine's renderer to Godot you will see how much of a difference there is. Also Flax engine (mostly developed by one person) already has DirectX support + Console exports and Godot still doesn't have any of those even though it received millions of dollars in investment.
@@abradotcsIm testing flax, it looks like a unity clone, although it crashes on me randomly dont know why...
Godot 4.x never crashed so far... started learning it a week ago. All 3d with built in shaders already looks better than unity. so far runs smoothly. C# no issues so far.
Also tired of Unity filled with unfinished features, 3 uncompatible render pipelines, still all unfinished. Input system legacy and new just sucks.
Its all a bloated.mess since 2019.
Probably will return though lol Im already serveral years using Unity and learning from scratch new engines is no joke, altough entertaining.
I should check out Unreal but I have no idea on c++
0:25 "It's gonna be the Blender of the game engines. And that statement couldn't be more wrong." What? You can see into the future now?
4:41 This is false equivalence fallacy. A third party library IS NOT the same as a whole engine. Not to mention third party library license being what? MIT? This it not the same as the Unity issue.
5:10 Uh, no. It's not impossible. The point is that you CAN fix the bugs. If you are lacking the skills, that's different.
6:55 "Godot is deferentially not the Blender of game engines" Straw man. Nobody said it WAS, they say IT CAN BE.
You didn't really make any strong argument for any of your points. You gave a single example of each point (or none, for some), all of which were context-less and shallow, and stated that "there's much more like this", and "this is why Godot sucks".
- I think everyone will agree that Godot is not great for AAA gamedev, and that's why no-one recommends it for most high-poly 3d games. Guess what, not all pro gamedev is AAA, and you're not automatically a hobbyist just because you're not making 3D games.
- Godot accepts so much community code it's crazy. Every version has like 300 community forks integrated into the engine. Showing one single case of them not integrating some code, without even considering that MAYBE the code being offered was ACTUALLY not that great, doesn't prove much.
- "This guy founded this company and still gets paid a little bit despite saying he barely does any work for it!". Yes. He's the creator and the founder of the engine, and without him we'd have nothing. That's why he's getting paid. How is this weird?
Fair criticism is good, but it seems you were just taking cheap shots to say "look, there's this one time the founder responded to a reddit user. I'm not gonna show you the whole conversation, but trust me, it's bad, and therefore this guy has an EGO, and therefore Godot SUCKS", and "Look, ¿see this guy? He's a racist! (I've no evidence, but trust me on this one).", and "The physics are GARBAGE! I'm not gonna show you a single video that proves this though." Maybe these are correct, but "trust me bro" is not an argument. At least give us sources to look into these situations properly.
You sound kind of emotional, and I'm guessing you had a bad experience with the engine, which has led you to passionately hate it. That's certainly how you come across in this video.. Perhaps it was the whole "scam" debacle from a few months ago... But honestly, if you think it's strange to ask for donations for a huge project that's employing who-knows-how-many people and charges NOTHING for their product... I don't know what to tell you. 8 million dollars run out in the blink of an eye at a corporate level, when dealing with console licensing and stuff... If there was any shenanigans going on with money, there's no proof of it whatsoever.
and apex is not made by unity or godot.
So many bad takes, and it shows you haven't researched or know anything about owning a company. The first critique it might have been unfair to dismiss this guy but as you showed 8k+ contributions, so many different people and you will as a creator encounter 100's of people saying "I fixed your shitty engine bro" all the while making a few things, completely missing the point as how to work with their design philosophy creating more issues down the road. And he even corrected himself? Doesn't this show a good thing, that he can correct mistakes. You used 1 example to make a whole statement on the community-driven aspect. Is blocking bad? Show an example of constructive criticism which he chooses to block, rather than trolls / big ego devs saying "Fix this shitty implementation" which was probably why he blocked them. Do you know the inner workings of the physics or do you just know that this systems physics/collision isn't fully working right now. The part about hiring people, did they know he bullied and did this bad stuff before hiring him, and have they fired him now? This is open source so idk how you would track every person.
You also said there is NO commercial use of this game engine, despite it being perfect for ANY 2D-game commercially, you are only focused on 3D which isnt the main use-case.
Why does the creator / founder of Godot deserve a cut after he stopped working??? Maybe because it wouldn't exist without him? So if you made a game, and you stopped working after some time, but you hired someone to do a few updates, should he get 100% revenue for your project? Would you do that to your own game, or are you just trying to critique Godot?
Look at Ton Roosendaal (Blender founder) and his history with Blender.
There are a lot of parallels between him and Juan Linietsky.
Ton also did a bunch of questionable stuff throughout the history of Blender.
Blender went though most of these growing pains that Godot is seeing right now all the way back from about 2005 to 2011.
The only thing to hope for here is that the community sticks together.
"The truth about godot" proceeds to do a deep dive criticism of the project owner instead of engine.
I could probably do a "The truth about unity" and do a deep dive on its current ceo and make unity worse than godot if that's what you are trying to do.
I am all for criticism on the engine but I got nothing of substance for what I was trying to do. And what's with the gameplay background, this deep dive videos are getting lazier now. All the criticism you have provides may also apply on your engine alternatives and not specific to godot.
Yea this video had nothing to do with the engine itself. Sounds like he’s got a personal problem with the GODOT developers. He didn’t really appear to define “large projects” either, so I’d assume GODOT is good for most games made by indie developers. :)
I feel like the arguments are wrong and contradictory. I know you've already had lots of people telling you why you're wrong, but I couldn't help myself :p
Godot is not just for Hobbyists:
It's also for indie devs and small to medium sized games, which can be made by professionals. It certainly seems to work for you, and you introduced yourself as not being a hobbyist. Also, not everything needs to "scale": games like Genshin Impact, CoD Mobile, League of Legends and Valorant are nowhere near the "scale" of high fidelity games like Warzone or Cyberpunk. Even if it were they're more than capable of hiring engine specialists to implement 10x faster culling or whatever they might need.
Godot is Community Driven: Juan had a whole conversation with the culling contributor before closing the PR (as shown in the screenshots you took) and he (or the team) even added in most of the changes after the re-architecture. Adding it to 3.5 would have created issues that would have added a maintenance burden. Also, one case (or even 10) is not prove anything out of a thousand or more.
Juan still performs admin tasks, and is clearly involved with the project. In that light a token amount should be acceptable.
Your comment about flappy bird devs telling you to contribute can also be applied to you saying how a game engine used by thousands or millions should be made. The same comment is also an incredibly aggressive stance while (at the same time) you disapprove of hiring people who are aggressive (even if this video is milder), which comes across as hypocrisy. You also perform the same action you disapprove of by adopting this tone in targetting Juan and the Godot developers.
Overall, the arguments/proof you present seems to contradict your own arguments, which makes this video come across as a troll, especially compared to your other videos.
No ill will; I appreciate the work you do, and I like your games and devlogs.
My biggest fear in using Unreal is that it is a product of a big company, and not a open source free yada-yada.
And it is not impossible to Unreal pull a "Unity installation fee" at some point in the future.
I used 3DsMax to learn how to 3D model but I have to move when Adobe stopped the Free to use lincese (They still have for students who had your school subscribed in their learn program, wich is not my case. )
Since the price of 3DsMax are equal to a car in my country I started to use Blender.
Scalded cat are afraid of water. I don't want to waste months, even years learning an engine, just to migrate to another because I have to pay if I made a successful Free game.
I think that’s part of the give and take, though. There’s no real competitor to Unreal besides Unity in terms of indie support and development - most engines for more complex games are proprietary and aren’t as well supported. Yes, there is the possibility of them retracting the terms of service - is it likely to happen, especially with them seeing how this worked out for Unity? That’s up to you to decide, but Godot is absolutely nowhere near the features that Unreal has, so there’s not really an alternative.
Blender is honestly a bit of a unicorn in the open source software space, and it did take a very long time for it to achieve even that. Personally, I’m not too pressed about the license - I trust that Unreal/Epic Games at least has seen the Unity debacle as textbook what not to do in terms of branding and PR, and act in their own self-interest. For me, the “peace of mind” that something is open source pales in comparison to actual features, and Godot is really lacking in that.
First off it won't be a total waste of time learning Unreal; the skills you learn will transfer to and help you better understand other game engines if you decide to change.
While the chances of Unreal Engine's terms changing unfavorably for users of the engine are greater than zero, it doesn't seem very likely. They're a big company with multiple irons in the fire, and with the recent changes to their terms they will be making more money off of their engine being used to showcase new car designs, and make movies, architectural work, anything not video game related. And with a deal as sweet as they have already (no royalties whatsoever until after first $1 million, only 5% royalties after that), even if they do change the terms, they would have to change them ALOT to make them bad. I'm pretty new to using game engines and only have some experience with Unity, and even less experience with Unreal Engine, but Unreal Engine seems to be one of the best based on everything I've experienced with it and heard about it. In addition to having powerful tools to work with, it seems it's probably one of the easiest game engines to learn (if you only count the ones that make the highest-end games). I'm already doing things in Unreal that took me several times longer to learn in Unity
Wow, you really have a low opinion of indie developers. It's always a great strategy to insult the people you're making the video for.
i am an indie dev
There's been a reasonable amount of games made in Godot that are high quality. Includes mobile games.
Imo, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well 2D in godot is way faster than unity. So any 2D game Godot you can surely scale it up however in 3D anything low poly-mid poly is good. Unity needs a strong pc to run and if you want 3D just go to unreal. Unity try to do both 2d and 3d and it is lacking compared to godot in 2d and to unreal in 3d it all depend on what you want to do.I have tried unity and it takes like 10-15 minutes to run an empty scene so is the case with unreal
jesus.. What kind of computer do you have?!?! Intel core with 2 gb ram? Do you know how long a 5-10 minutes really is or you just making up numbers to feel good about yourself?
@@kerduslegend2644 8 gigs of ram core i5 7th 940mx nvidia . Godot on the other hand runs on my 100$ phone🤣 not to mention unity's size. I mean 10-15 is alot of time when you just starting a new project and it is a well known issue with both unity Idk why are you surprised
upgrade your processor. Unity is slow but 10-15 is too much
@@kerduslegend2644 I should but for now godot is working well for what I make thanks anyway
Godot still wins in size battle easily you need at least one day to download or update unreal. The engine depends on what you want for 2D Godot is king for 3D unreal is. And for unity it does both but not better than either
I remember when Blender was in its infant stage. It faced a lot of the same issues. But in my opinion, it's the community that drives it forward. And Godot has a very nice and groving community. We are all toxic sometimes
Hey man I agreed with your last video on Godot’s flaws, and I still agree about problems with Juan, but I think you are exaggerating how unusable godot is
I am not saying Godot is unusable but it's definitely not suitable for bigger projects
he's not saying godot is unusable , he's saying that it can't replace Unity capabilities not at the moment at least hopefully with the right funding it will in the future!
@@madduckling4436 Unfortunately, wish-thinking is what makes people stuck with Godot... No need to wait...
I'm not really sure the criticism made here is all entirely valid, majority of it is philosophy disagreements, (and nitpicking over leaders doesn't really mean much when literally almost everything you can name has unsavory characters who are asshats, that doesn't mean much of anything in actual work, thick skins work harder anyway and its likely why they end up in a semi-successful place) not proofs, and any actual software engineer will tell you philosophy is worthless, its benchmarks in actual production that matter, I've literally had friends entire work shutdown on the principal of lacking benchmarks for the respective subject, and stability is a lot more important then bleeding edge. And I don't think much of the alternative engines outside of Unreal and Godot can pick up on the Unity fallout, I'm rather confident in saying that, if Godot continues in its trajectory Godot would be comparable to the Blender of game engines, the only big thing hampering it in even the AA field is console support, a lot of the other things are usable in their current workflow just about as good or better then what Unity provided honestly. (course if you're thinking mobile games, that's still gotta be fixed up, but I really don't think that's as big an issue to fix as consoles which would actually make this a viable competitor with the other two big names)
I also disagree with some of the thing that Godot lead developer does, But I disagree with most of the thing you are saying
Literally the concept of Godot is to use 3rd party add ons, I'm not so sure about that critique.
I've been having a fantastic time with Godot in 2D, and it's working perfectly fine. I've encountered no bugs whatsoever, and it's been faster to learn than Unity, even as someone who's almost exclusively used C#. I'm not trying to say it's perfect, but it's certainly better than the picture you're painting. And they've gotten one Hell of a budget recently to expand.
This review feels more click driven than genuine. You're being actively derisive towards your audience, insulting people who are beginning game development and critiquing hobbyist devs. And let's not pretend your game is Skyrim. We all start somewhere, and I genuinely hope you're proud to have a game on Steam. That's more than most, and it's an awesome achievement.
What it isn't is an excuse to add vitriol to the game dev community. We're all better when we support each other, and the platforms we use.
Godot has built a following of zealots and fanboys that go out of their way to hate on anyone and anything that doesn't like their holy engine and their holy leaders. I think is a badly designed but fun to use and prototype engine and is especially useful as a kind of sketching pad for game devs but if you want to do a proper project use Unreal or Unity or Construct etc. I still use the engine is not too bad.
Exactly, they could focus on making the "sketching pad for game developers" as you word it, but they are trying to attract AAA investors. It's impossible to achieve both goals, so they end up failing miserably. Paradoxically, they could increase adoption within the AAA industry by making Godot an ultimate prototyping tool, but their greed prevents them from recognizing this route.
@@MrXrayez Godot will never be a AAA game engine anytime soon. Is already been 10 years and is still struggling with some basic functionality and so many bugs. Right now the most you can use it for is AA indie game but most people use it to learn game dev and for fun. What Godot is good for is modifying it in C++ using modules/gdextension/gdnative and creating customized engine that perfectly fits your game needs.
Godot is pretty fantastic for 2d, even for games of larger scope, but I can definitely see where people would be much less thrilled on the state of the 3d side.
Agree! But things will change
agree, AAA 2D games, not much problem, but for AAA or complex 3D games, still need a lot of work
i don't: www.youtube.com/@actualdevmar
Cassette Beasts, a game developed by just 2 guys, is a great example of that. One of the developers said that if it weren't for Godot's amazing workflow efficiency, they wouldn't have been able to develop the game by themselves.
I believe Godot to be the best 2D game engine out there after using multiple before it, but I'm a hobbyist with no commercial games yet so I realize my opinion doesn't hold too much weight.
I've been using godot for most of my gamedev experience (I have made games in other engines like unity), and in my perspective godot is good, but it does have some issues. Does that mean I should stop using it?
if it suits you no dont stop its still an okay engine for small projects
Don't stop using it , just don't try to make overly complex projects using it , Godot is a wonderful engine , its everything good about a game engine its pretty straight forward to use! and if you know how to work with the source code , maybe add some of your stuff and modify it! :)
No way don't stop using it if it's clearly working for you. There are plenty of TH-camrs that love Godot but can't expect them all too
I think this wave of Unity refugees to Godot will speed up fixing/improving stuff you are taking about
game developers that are migrating for godot want to make their game. not fix an engine.
@@mrjshzkthey will report more bugs though.
@@franciscomalmeida that means nothing. just look at the amount of bugs still unfixed
@@mrjshzkIf that was the case, Godot would still be on version 1 with no bugs fixed lol. Do you think everyone using Godot up to this point was an engine developer?
@@catcactus1234 I don't think you realize most of bugs fixed are found by the devs themselves. Unfortunately most people don't really post issues.
Godot 4 currently is very unfinished (as someone who has made games on it - check my itchio if you wanna play them ;) )
I love Godot as much as you, but it's definitely still very flawed!
5:02 - yes. That’s what means opensource. No one owns this since it’s community driven. That’s how Linux works.
Edit: yeah by technicality the Godot is owned by Juan Linietsky and Ariel Manzur, just like Debian is owned by Debian Project, or Blender by Blender Foundation. That does not mean the "owners" are the only one to contribute. Like the comments said - if you are not happy with the way Godot is you can fork and start your own project, or in case you don't know how to fix the issues, just move to a new engine. Aside from the last two points where you said there are bad actors in the team (which I can't confirm or deny) the rest of your points has no substance.
The entire video sounds like you are butthurt by something with the engine and can't let it go. The only reason everyone want to use the engine is because they can publish games and keep the reward without a company in the background taking everything out of greedness. We still have Unreal, but until when? How long until the Unreal notice that they can screw all developers in the same way Unity screwed everyone?
Also the engine is weak, but still we have Cruelty Squad and the game is amazing even with the "technical limitations".
Indeed, that means that users are also free to abandon Godot and move to other engines. 😉
Does the on-screen gameplay footage have anything to do with the subject of this video? What am I even looking at here?
I can't really agree with your framing. It comes across as biased. For starters, there is already a huge writeup from Juan about what needs to be done to make the engine AA/AAA game ready. The TLDR of it is that it needs a lot more work.
Its odd for you to claim that it is designed only for hobbyist, when its been quite clear that is not the case. Its designed to be a general purpose game engine, and which both you and Juan have noted needs more work.
You have selectively picked some comments, and framed it in a way where no one can really see the entire context of that dialogue chain either, especially with regards to how the discussion may have went with users on both sides getting "aggressive". If the point is to re-write something from the ground up, trying to patch the previous version is not always ideal.
Regarding the physics, you are either being dishonest or just simply don't know the details of why its changing. From what's been said, the extension is being developed to incorporate the Jolt Physics engine, which HAS been used in AAA games (Horizon Forbidden West for example). This seems like a LOGICAL move on Godot's part. Are you mad at them for going with what appears to be a better solution?
The thing about ego, is that those who often complain about it also have a "huge ego". Egos are not uncommon, it can come from all sides. Its often the most eccentric people who create projects and foundations. Blender's Ton is one, so is Epic's Tim Sweeny, Id Soft's (former) Carmack...etc There are net positives, as well as negatives that can come from ego. So far you haven't made a good case for the negatives on this one.
Blender in the early days was pretty bad too with contributors being rejected because it does not fit Ton's vision. I still remember the user outrage when one developer did what the community wanted, which was to make colored wireframes. Ton shot that down even after it had already been made. We later got something that fit within his vision in 2.8+, and now no one is complaining. Its about perspective.
You do bring up something interesting, on one hand you say they hire a transphobic racist, and then follow it up with an abusive mod (which he is) that runs a discord server full of nothing but trans and rainbow imagery. His most infamous abuse was mass banning of anyone using the pepe emoji. So all you have done is prove they hire/use people who don't agree fundamentally on ideological grounds. How do you know first guy just doesn't want to see trans and gay propaganda all over a game engine's social media? Its not a neutral position to take when you convert those support areas into one ideologies play ground.
The only take away I can agree with your biased rant about is that Godot is not Unity. They have some things in common, and many things that are different. No engine is going to be an exact copy of another, generally speaking. What it CAN be is the next best general purpose game engine, which is the role Unity fills atm. Whether it gets to that point or not is to be seen, however no one should be putting all their eggs in one basket. At the end of the day, these are tools.
If Godot really ends up going in a craptastic direction, then guess what? FORK. Hasn't been the first time its happened in this space, nor will it be the last.
Bro had a vision one year ago...
Not defending anyone here but I like to have a simple Proof of people behaving incorrect when you blame them for something. Otherwise to me it's just gossip. I live at a place where people are considered innocent UNLESS proven guilty.
and who are you??
Most of your points are horribly wrong and biased, i can't belive you're a "non hobbyist" with this statements.
Let's begin from other engines: most. of that you mentioned hard to call "for hobbyist", its more like prototypes, unstable, not production ready, early development, super small community, lack of tools, lack of documentation, no editor in most cases. How do you "scale" those engines if they don't even have occlusion culling or basic AI algos, like navigation mesh or pathfinding, or netcode, lack of profilers, lack of importers, they literally has nothing more than basic stuff you could code yourself. Oh it's open source you could always add your own right? But somehow can't fix bugs in well structured, well documented engine?
People ho make rpg are not game developers now?
Wtf bro? you just hatin'. Why?
Godot is not any better than all the engines I listed there. Godot falls short compared to most of them doe so keep on coping
No point in arguing, whatever remotely negative you say will make you "cope" cause you're just a godot user to him. Anyone with 10 minutes of free time can see that 90% of what he said was either fake, misinterpreted or very stretched to fit his agenda.
@@abradotcs > Godot falls short compared to most
How so? Don't understand. Except unreal and maybe Defold (which is super ugly and uses LUA wtf, how does that scale) all others are just completely "underground". So only competitor is Unreal and well, Unity. You also did not mention o3de, which is pretty much mature AAA grade engine no one cares about somehow.
@@GopherDevMain yes its fake that godot physics sucks i am delusional and i need to be locked up in an insane asylum
@@abradotcs Godot physics sucks, but can be replaced with few clicks, unlike any other engine, huh
funny how you complain about ego and then goes on the absolute most egotistical rant ever. Good job :)
True
nobody is allowed to speak their mind in this community , how is that a "egotistical" rant ever ? all these points are valid!
@DevSolution why is it hard for you to understand that Godot game engine is good and amazing but can't handle over complicated projects? why is it hard to understand that godot is good for low poly games not high poly ones?
@@madduckling4436 I never commented on the things you mention in your reply. Just his egotistical rant against people that supposedly has big egos. It is funny.
In the future, maybe keep your comments factual and don't invent a scenario to comment on.
Eh, I've seen my options and none are perfect, Godot I feel has the most potential right now, that could change, nothing is for certain. Where it lacks, it can improve, at least Godot is making progress unlike some engines. I'd say for commercial 3D projects, without a doubt go unreal but that ain't for everybody, Unity was for everybody, obviously not without it's majors flaws but I feel Godot is the same. But one engine is going downhill and the other is going uphill.
Dear TH-camr , nobody with common sense say is the new Unity, no engine can be another one that already exist.
Is all about be independent and no depend on others for you project and learn more ways .
As an option is Godot, yes but if you go only to a engine just because is popular in the media ( you def... got a problem )
Good luck to you with u branded mind xd
Gimp vs Photoshop... wtf seriously
Unity doesn't exist in my eyes anymore 🤷♂️
Fair enough 😂
And your tone to me sounds potentially profoundly biased. The convo's you screenshotted sound reasonable from Godot's perspective, and don't show some of the context (eg. the accused tone). The Russian' dude's handle being Rus Warrior - who cares? We don't know if that has anything to do with the War in Ukraine, could be related to gaming or history or whatever. As a GenX'er people do seem so fragile these days to me and quick to judge. I do appreciate your POV but I'm left wondering how accurate it is because of the strong scent of bias and attitude.
It seems that you are trying to be objective but your disdain for the people involved in Godot is the only point that comes across. I have never cared who was running Godot or Unity but it won't be that big of a stretch to assume that in the Unity's team there are probably people with the same personality as in Godot that you haven't had the "opportunity" to run into yet. Chances are that the company that built the chair that you sit on also has such characters and the same goes for any other product/service. This doesn't mean that you should continue to support them but maybe there are other people working on Godot that are not bullies and those 2-3 nasty ones are not a representation of the whole Godot team.
As for the engines. I haven't messed with Unity for years (since back when there was a free and a paid version), but I found that it is extremely intuitive and easy to pick up. I liked it a lot. What I didn't like was when I upgraded to a new version and it broke my tiny project to a point that I could not recover it. Unity is quite heavy. I was amazed how adding 20 plain cubes in a scene can make a huge impact on performance. You might say that this was many years ago but to this day if I hear that the GPU fan is running overtime and the graphics on the screen are nothing special the game is made in Unity. At least back then it was only a 3D game engine. If you wanted a 2D game then you still had to make it in the 3D "editor" (for lack of a better word) which was a funky process. By comparison Godot has a dedicated 2D and 3D "editors" which means that you don't have to adapt the 3D environement to create your purely 2D game. The problem I have with Godot is that I don't find it as intuitive as Unity. You really need to get into the mindset of the developer to make sense of some of the concepts. I haven't tried making anything 3D in Godot so I don't know how viable it is, but as a 2D game maker it is pretty decent and there are a bunch of nice moderately popular games made with it.
If it comes to creating a high profile high-tech game your only option is Unreal. There is no other freely available engine for this purpose. This being said I will check out your other engine suggestions because I might find some of them more suitable for me than Godot. In my case simpler is better. Thank you for the recommendations.
Most other engines have similar problems. Flax is also developed by one person. Defold apparently only supports HTML5 as a platform. Heaps engine has documentation problems. Cocos apparently has no community. It's not a perfect world.
Not sure where you picked up that Defold only supports HTML5. According to their homepage, you can build to a few more platforms than that:
PlayStation 4
Nintendo Switch
Android
iOS
macOS
Linux
Windows
Steam
HTML5
Facebook
Q3 2023 PlayStation 5
Q2 2024 XBox
I have personally built to Windows, Mac and HTML5, and they all worked fine.
@@jernaugurgeh451 i did say “apparently”, ‘cause I wasn’t 100 % sure. Thx for the info. Will look more into that engine
Would definitely get your facts straight next time to avoid getting roast.
Defold in fact is a good 2D engine. Even better than Godot in my opinion. There is more commercial and made games out there I can find with defold compare to Godot
@@zhenobiikuzo4957 Repeat: I said "apparently" since I wasn't sure of that fact. I leave it to whoever reads the comment to investigate. I'm not here to educate anyone on the characteristics of individual 3d engines. My point was that all engine have either performance or governance issues. I appreciate the info and have begun looking into Defold more.
Im sorry but this video screams of you being butthurt over something personal.
Even if all the things you said are true and correct, your way of saying, the verbs and adjetives you use, the reason (makers of godot want the engine to be bad??) just doesn't add up to a conclusion you want to make.
You suggest using bevy because godot is bad for scaling? Try scaling with bevy... I love bevy but it's not even in alpha. It's not practical to use in it's current state.
Sorry, but there's so many red flags in this video, I can't trust your intepretation or conclusions.
I checked out your games and realized that their graphic quality is within the scope that godot supports. However, there is a very common bug that occurs with the device that sits between the chair and the monitor. The only way to fix it is to replace it with one that works, otherwise, regardless of the engine, the game will never run smoothly. I hope I've helped
I knew my desk was the one preventing me from finishing my game! Damned piece of wood...
I don't understand something. If Juan is not realy interested in performance, why can't the contributors make their own ultimate Godot version? They are doing it anyways with those suggestions?
if its open source they shout try .
sorry but if you are allowed to modify the engine why not just use godot as a template and make you own version of godot .
i dont know if can handle over 20gb of assess thaw that's more of the computer problem not the game engine
I am interested in making a 2d rgp game , you suggest me to choose unity or godot ? ( I want to start it as a hobby , however i want to publish at least one game in steam someday )
Try Godot! I'm currently working on a procedurally generated dungeon crawler, inspired by the first Legend of Zelda and it's going great! An RPG is naturally a lot of work no matter what engine you use but in terms of pure gameplay, Godot should be fine. The thing that I find ends many Godot projects is a lack of good optimization and organization.
Godot
This video is negative, not constructive. Maintainer username being an issue? Transphobia? What it has to do with Game Engine? Nothing! It sounds like you want to bash Godot just because it is doing well. As you said, you don't want to contribute (because it's costly in time). You shouldn't bash the ones that did contribute their time. Stop spreading hatred, fear, uncertainty, doubt. This video is unfortunate to say the least.
Okay then talk about Godot physics ;) or the current state of Godot 4?
Berry is spicy today.
i have always been 🤓
I found the answer from the Godot guy not arrogant. And since I switched from Photoshop to Gimp in 2016 I never looked back.
I do definitely think Godot will go on to be the blender of game engines in the future. I love Unity and it is how I learned to make games, but If I wasn't a hobbyist I would seriously be concerned about using it for any future projects. It's not just to do with the recent pricing changes, but Unity as a company seems fundamentally not viable at it's current scale. It seems likely to me that we will see the company be bought out from a large buyer like Microsoft relatively soon. IMO if you are a game studio trying to roll out with Unity today not only do you need to put your trust in Unity as a company but also what ever future unknown buyer acquires them.
Let's hope that Microsoft buys out a controlling share. I think that would be great for Unity.
I've been using Godot for nearly 3 years now. I've worked in it in a professional environment as well. I love the object oriented nature of it, the node tree, and GDScript. I have to say that Godot has yet to make anyone any real money as far as I can see. The 2D side of the engine is great, but the 3D side is still a work in progress. I think one of the biggest problems is that the engine seems much more focused on Steam and PC gaming than it is mobile but mobile is crucial for financial gain these days. Platform support needs to be first class for the engine to be taken seriously in the future. I know W4 is working on it, but at the same time I'm hoping they don't take too long.
So if I want to work in 2D games godot is nice? Even though they are big?
For me its the opposite, the lead rendering dev in charge of the rest of the vulken renderer has left to build A new rendering pipline in DirectX to sell to Godot users.
I find this upsetting given the base engines vulken rendering pipeline is not done yet and major issues and improvements have been dropped for something Godot wont even benefit from directly.
Godot's alright for what it is, and it *is* A working game engine.
But I don't trust its management at all, Juan can fuck off with exaggerated promises and business first focus.
Not cool.
There are loads of successful games that have come out lately with Godot, most don't know as the games don't do a popup mentioning Godot. An example is Halls Of Torment which blew the fuck up, it came out like 4 months ago and already sold 500K to 1million copies according to SteamSpy. Most people don't know games like this are even made with Godot!
Definitely with the mobile support aspect. That is the number 1 issue I've heard, is that Godot 4 has some compatibility issues, to be expected with an entirely new renderer among many other changes. One thing rarely mentioned is that godot 4 does still have OpenGL3 as an option, although I haven't tried to use it myself.
@@nullvoid3545 "business first focus", odd. I had the opposite impression and though he should be more business focused. It was odd when Juan said Godot is not competing with other engines like Unity, which is a poor mentality imo. Blender's Ton R. said the same thing about not competing against Maya/Max..etc As long as their users are part of the same larger target audience, it is going to be competition.
Glad someone said it been thinking about this for months.
Someone is crying Lord...
I cri evrytiem :(
Its funny to think blender used to have its own game engine.
Recently, godots blend file support improved, and the 3D editor looks similar with that axis thingy in the corner.
What if godot and blender combined lmao
The blender game engine still exist in modern versions, its just A separate project supported by A separate team instead of the blender foundation.
Not to many people use it because Its GPL and therefore your games have to be but I'm considering it because I ultimately want to make open source games anyway and geometry nodes support is either already supported or becoming A thing soon.
@@nullvoid3545I don't think that is how the GPL license work. Since one can make a proprietary program using a gpl language, I would assume the same is true for games.
@@Sitwayen As best I know unless its considered "program output", It counts as "linked code".
For example the Blender python API for making addons is GPL and therefore any Addons made with it must be as well because they will be linked with the Blender codebase on installation.
But .blend files are program output and therefore they can be licensed however their creator sees fit.
If godot was GPL making A game in it would require that game be GPL as well, much like how the blender game engine is because it uses blender for its runtime.
I just don't think that would be that much of an issue.
Sure big studios would have to adapt, but it would keep the engine modern through adapting new features from forks.
And the GPL still lets you sell commercially.
That was the goal of the Armory engine, rather to build an engine on top of Blender, much in the way Maya had a few engines built on top of it. Development for Armory has been disappointing, but I believe that is largely due to the lead developer focusing on other things.
I can't tell if you have a good argument against Godot or not. I never used it so I am objective. But after this video I'm more curious to use it. It might not be intentional but you come off as very butt-hurt. You go on a long rant against Godot but barely say anything tangible about what is bad with the engine. You briefly say it scales bad but don't really give a good explanation why. Then the rest is just about you not liking the lead, and thinking they hired someone you should not. While simultaneously generalizing that everyone who uses it is a hobbyist scrub. Again while providing no source on that.
I didn't beleive you. I was wrong.
you said you trusted the engine and it let you down, could you please tell us more about that story?
Videos like this are so necessary, especially by people who have used Godot for their past finished projects like you. I'm using Godot for my current gamedev projects but it is not a fairyland, and Juan does have a huge ego.
Thanks for this! This needs more eyes. I've been doing my own research a few months back (even before the latest Unity drama) and came to similar conclusions. It's just not the (commercially suitable) alternative some folks believe it to be, at this stage…
I think the main thing to note, as far as Godot's capabilities go, it's a very 2D-focused engine. Similar to how a Unity dev who makes 3D games will find Godot very lacking, I, as a 2D dev, simply could not stand using Unity. It works as a 2D engine, don't get me wrong, but compared to Godot, I found it severely lacking and overall using it for 2D games was just a really bad experience. On the 3D side of things, though, I found it really intuitive and easy-to-use, though I didn't muck with Unity3D for long -- like I said, I'm mainly a 2D dev.
I think videos like this often ignore that, while Godot is absolutely, at least in its current state, a no-go for 3D, it far outshines Unity as a 2D engine. Sure, AAAs aren't going to be using Godot to make the next game with Cyberpunk 2077-level graphics, but pretty much any indie dev making 2D games will find Godot to be one of, if not the, best choice for making 2D games.
To be frank, Godot is not a 1 to 1 replacement for Unity. Ofc, how could it be? People that used Unity a lot most likely relied on its numerous assets. That was it's biggest strength to begin with.
The same people, even if 100% proficient in both engines could not swap to Unreal Engine either.
Godot also lacks the Tutorials as of yet. It's not that there's no way to go full production, the problem is, we only have teachers in this field that never made a full commercial game. And those who do get close to it don't teach in depth, which is what we need the most here. Advanced, thorough tutorials. Like Unity has (to some extend) and like Blender has. Paid or otherwise, doesn't matter.
If you pick up a Book about Godot, you are left with the same beginner tutorials that are free on the internet.
That is ridiculous.
Ofc. there should be beginner books, no question about that.
But there simply is no way of deepening your understanding of the engine related to game making in general that is giving enough input to actually learn anything beyond the initial ramp that leads to this pit of getting lost and dropping game dev alltogether.
Same for Game Maker btw.
If people want more finished games, they should be able to take the action and learn about these advanced concepts. As it stands, you can be looking through ALL tutorials available, read every book on the matter and be left a lower level intermediate at BEST.
You shouldn't be required to learn advanced game development or programming concepts outside of the game engine, if the game engine purpose is to help making games easy and drives to be commercially sucessful.
Pro Godot devs will know to use the lower-level Rendering and Physics servers to create map objects thru code at runtime to avoid having a map with hundreds of editor nodes.
I saw some demonstrations of how to have a gigantic amount of nodes ran and it was pretty straightforward, and the performancr was impressive
Considering I started with Godot 1 and seeing so much improvements in Godot 4. I have faith it will get better overtime.
You also have to remember that Godot was primarily 2d engine and it just got started on improving on its 3D while unity and unreal has been a 3d engine decades ago. So they are miles ahead in 3D compare to Godot.
I think Godot is good for indie developers,
and Unreal will always be better for AAA game studios.
Agreed, Godot is viable for small indie projects
I want to make a big scale 2D indie game. Should I use Unity or Godot?
@@radioheadfan7279 Unity, trust me!!! You probs won't make $200,000 in one year and so you'll keep all of your revenue, plus Unity has been proven to be capable of producing good and high quality 2d games over the past years. If you want a stable and reliable engine, Unity is the choice.
@@radioheadfan7279 I think Godot can handle large scale projects but it strongly depends on what you're aiming to make. Try making a prototype in it and see how it works. Good optimization is going to be the key to making a large scale project work.
@@radioheadfan7279berry just isn't very good at making games, you can make massive scale 2D games in Godot. But it requires you to know or learn how to optimize the parts that may become slow, depending on what kind of game you're making.
Unfortunately, it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles that handle these things automatically, unlike some of the more mature engines, but its ease-of-use in all the other areas makes it worth it imo.
I love this critique of Godot! I have the option too. Didn’t know the lead got butt hurt over c++ code 😂
Very infomative thanks, I am just checking game dev, maybe Ill try out flax.
Totally agree. If you're an XR developer, it's even worse. Godot 4 no longer has a working render engine for XR mobile. It's a total disaster.
Would you say that Godot is sufficient for a retro 2D pixel art style game? I imagine the issues you mention are a bigger deal for some kinds of games than others.
For sure. The problem with godot is when you rely on scalability for large projects, specially within the 3D side of things, for 2D games I think the main problems with godot is it physics engine that seems way worse than Box2D for example, but that is a complete other problem, I think that godot is great for small games, specially 2D, and for hobbists or people that want to learn about game development in general.
That being said, the only other think i don't really like about godot is the fact that it has its own scripting language that makes really hard to translate stuff your learn from the language to another engine, and yeah, you could use c# with the mono version, but c# has a long way to be as reliable as gdscript in the godot environment. That is the exact reason that I, personally am looking into another engine at the moment, but don't let other opinions change your mind, if you think godot has serving you well up to this point, then by all means go ahead! I also love godot.
2:25 @BerryDev Why would he spend all that effort in adding in & doing a massive amount of testing of 3.0 changes when he could instead work Godot 4, where those changes are already made? This expectation is beyond absurd - it's like expecting Adobe to rework the internals of Photoshop CS6 instead of further developing Photoshop CC.
Imagine marketing your game engine as the Unity killer only to recreate the exact same company structure Unity has, except you don't even have a big enough engine to keep the technical people inside.
lol
Yeah, years of wishful thinking of "dethroning" Unity and now notice how Godot's leadership all of a sudden started to distance themselves from "Godot is the open-source version of Unity" false claims that they touted for years, literally.
Tbh I don't know if this is just poor management but I personally that the node system in Godot just doesn't scale very well in dynamic scenes. Godot doesn't provide many functions to find nodes in this system and besides that the core feature of the node system, that nodes can have children. Isn't even useful in many cases. Even Godot uses this only for a few things like relative transform or for Nav Gen. But besides that doesn't feel very flexible when compared to the ECS in bevy. But I don't know if this is just me.
i've been using godot for the past few months and as far as 3D I completely aggree with your statements, however, in 2D I do think it works mostly fine, despite the physics being a little weird. That beign said, I do dislike some aspects of godot development. Using GDScript is far better than C# as of right now and I don't really like using a language that is highly coupled to an engine and hardly translated to another. Even when the scripting language itself is really similar to a proper language (python in godot's case). I've been experimenting with c# in godot and there is a lot of stuff that has to be done differently or that requires a workaround to work properly.
I'm looking to start messing with another engine, unreal beign the first one that comes to mind. But as I primarily do 2D games and unreal is not really the most known for making 2D games easier to make, even though it is possible. I would like to hear from you what are your thoughts on an engine to start using for 2D games, Game Maker seems fine but it has the same problem as godot, it uses GML (although i'm aware you can write your own c++ dlls for your games). What do you think?
Defold is the king of 2D games.
- The exported games are tiny compared to other engines. Which is why it's good for web and mobile games.
- It can export to all the platforms plus Facebook games.
- It uses modern graphics APIs, Vulkan, Metal and DX12.
- 3D workflow sucks. Forget about making 3D games in Defold.
Basically, it's optimized for web and mobile development.
@@Entikai I'll definitely look into it, see if it fits my needs, thanks for the suggestion
Hey, I code in Bevy engine and I love it, but saying that all those engines are better than Godot does not make any sense.
Dude, I've been saying the same thing with Godot being a hobbyist engine. My issue with Godot is that it's using its own script for its engine(gdscript) inspired by python, which is a language I genuinely hate imo. It doesn't benefit me as a developer because gdscript is exclusively for this engine and nothing else. Compare that to C#, C++, or even Java, which has tons of uses, like making a website or easily converting to another engine. I know that Godot has C# support, but it's still in its infancy. However, I do think that Godot has a lot of potential. I wouldn't say it's the blender of game engines, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare Godot with Gimp since it has grown considerably well. I just don't think Godot is even close to ready when it comes to being an engine that a company could potentially use, both indie and AAA. But I might be wrong. Who knows?
So the same things apply for Game Maker Studio?
What about a game like hollow knight? Do you think someone could create a game with the size of hollow knight but still have good performance? Cause that is as far as I want to go with my future games. I don’t intend to make any double or triple A games, just simple 2d indie games.
yes
Hollow Knight is not simple in the slightest.
@@SylvanFeanturi by simple I meant indie, but yeah I agree.
Tbh i still think Godot is better than some engines in some aspects. But suggestion from me:
Godot = 2D, Mobile and Beginners
Unreal = 3D console and PC games
You show only snipped to proof your takes and most of the time not even that. Most of your source it seems is "Trust me bro" ...
"If you don't make big games, like I do, then you are not a true game developer and your opinion doesn't matter. Oh, and Godot people are arrogant." 🙄
Literally not, Flappy Bird copy-pasted from a tutorial was given as an example of someone barely experienced with the engine and its guts, to indicate that you're not really diving into it and trying to solve your issues head-on, or if you even faced some nasty ones. Similar story when you're copy-pasting a tutorial for Unity step-by-step. Doing something like this does not give you much credibility to deny technical issues that an engine may have nor suggest you to fork the tech over and fix it yourself (because far from everyone is a c++ engine dev or wants to spend time fixing the tech rather than making a game).
@@Kolyasisan, this video comes across as extremely dismissive of anyone who doesn't share the guy's opinions and experience. He shits on Godot as strictly for hobbyists, then in the comments says, "Oh, but it's fine for indies."
Godot is fine for games that it's fine for, but terrible for others. What's helpful is to point out where that line is drawn. What isn't helpful is to insult its users and bash the company because of who works there.
@@sm5574 never even denied your view and I wholeheartedly agree with it. My point still stands though: you're not quite credible with dismissing the tech issues if you're not even barely familiar with the engine, and suggesting to fork it over and fix it yourself is hardly a universally good solution. That was the message behind the author's argument, I can't see how it can be interpreted differently.
@@Kolyasisan, when did I dismiss any tech issues?
And yes, if the author had stuck to tech issues and had addressed them more specifically and left it at that, then I wouldn't have said anything. But instead, he starts off with vague references to high-resolution assets, and then quickly moves into insulting Godot users for not being top-tier enough to have a valid opinion (despite the fact that there are, in fact, commercially released games on Godot), and then he starts complaining about the people at the company.
@@sm5574 you never dismissed them, and this wasn't the point. What you did is satirically quoted "if you don't make big games, like I do, then you are not a true game developer and your opinion doesn't matter". This is in response to the statement at 4:55 where the author criticizes the idea of fixing the engine by forking it yourself, where he brought up the flappy bird example and the whole idea of "you can't sanely suggest that if you don't have some experience with the engine, plus natural issues of forking tech and fixing it".
You are directly criticizing this particular point with your satirical quote, the following comments do not continue the narration started by your original comment and focus on the overall issues of the video and the author's clear biases.
If I misunderstood your satirical quote, then apologies, and please explain what precisely you were referring to.
So if both Godot (lack of tools and no console-support) and Unity (best 2D game being overshadowed by bankruptcy cases caused by its runtime fee) aren't our best 2D game engines, then what's our best 2D game engines either way? There's no future here for big crossplatform 2D games anymore
Nobody cares about who is mean to whom, or if they have a mean name. What users care about is if the engine can deliver on features, usability, stability and performance. You should criticize it based on those points with some more concrete facts or test, like when does performance tank on a certain amount of assets imported - when compared to a similar project in Unity. Or the framerate at the same scene (same assets and textures, standard PBR shaders) in Godot and Unity.
I do care more about the lead developer not taking improvements onto his branch out of ego than I do what someone does to someone else on Discord. I felt like that part of the video made the former part feel like unnecessary drama.
@@JonathanJuan That this improvement was rejected could be as simple as it breaking other dependent systems, or the codebase being already reworked in a totally new direction for the next release. As he wrote, changing a stable (old) version for a new but untested feature is not a good idea for stability.
Go read the git issue before just taking this one-sided video as judge, jury and executioner. @@JonathanJuan
"Nobody cares about who is mean to whom" -- So, nobody cared when Riccitiello called developers "fucking idiots" if they don't use microtransactions? Wasn't that prominently featured in just about every TH-cam video criticizing Unity's recent events?
The bigotry and pro-war-crime stuff is NOT going to play well under the spotlight and Godot is currently under the spotlight.
@@potato9832 People (mostly hobbyists and small developers) move to Godot because Unity is unreliable now announcing ridiculous and retroactive pricing changes, and not because some CEO had thoughts about some possible microtransaction at some point 12 years ago.
Not focusing on optimizing the game engine is just straight up stupid. I'm switching to Defold now.
Freecad was also horrible, but as commercial CAD programs started to tighten control on licensing things started to massively improve on Freecad. Godot is not there today, but it will be when the options start to run out. Unity only gave devs a little slack, but it will not last.
Freecad is still pretty unstable. Design a piece from start to finish over 12 hours without saving and see how far you get.
GODOT is the better 2D engine. From benchmarking it’s performance is much better than Unity for 2D.
I had similar experience. I was using a buoyancy plugin for unreal and I modified the code a bit (30 minutes it took) and got better performance. I messaged the creator and he blew me off.
This is the first negative I'm hearing after a few days of using Godot. But listen - that's a GOOD thing! Open source software will only get better through open dialogue and open criticism. So I, for one, welcome it, and hope the Godot team can continue to push the technology forward with all the recent influx of support from Unity devs
They don't seem the type of people that can take criticism
@@CyrilCommandothis is false. The video gave one example that literally was pulled from 4-5 years ago, they had to go that far back. There's countless community commits and feedback that gets implemented I can attest to this myself watching people suggest things and figure out bugs and ways to tweak things and it gets added
Hi Berry, I am going to make a big 2D game but after watching your video my mind blurred. Should I choose Unity or stay with Godot?
Unity all the way
check the description of the video for other engines.
But honestly Godot's 2d performance is great!
for 2d, go with Godot
As the saying goes, "There are two types of game engine, the ones people criticize about and the ones nobody uses". :P
It's glad to hear someone tells the truth and the limitations of the engine, even he may be blocked by the lead dev after this.
The most urgent one I think is the physics, godot physics is just not working as it should, hoping jolt would become the default engine ASAP.
Juan confirmed Jolt is becoming the default and has been worked on to become that, and already everybody can easily use Jolt now with a simple download and change of a setting :) I've got Jolt in my projects
@@xplodegg That actually sounds great. Where can I read about it?
Many of the points are poorly presented, if not outright fallacious. He mentions his game projects from 3.5, where he had hundreds of high poly assets with no LODs performing poorly. 3.5 had no automatic LOD generation, which is a feature in 4.0.
I want to make my point, don't use Godot, because this engine is doomed from the start and has no future.
1. This engine looks as if it was made by the community, but in fact, it's just an engine made by the creator alone, and this creator is not a professional, and only likes to build wheels over and over again without any libraries outside of the engine, and repeats a large number of wheels, and each of these wheels has a lot of problems, and yet, the most basic core of the engine is the extremely inefficient conversions.
2. This engine is not a professional game engine at all, it is only suitable for demos, countless people flock to Godot, successful games just a little bit, the conversion rate here already says it all. It is that this engine is not suitable for commercial games.
3.I have personally used Godot, obviously, at first, you feel quite easy to use, in-depth, you know that this engine is simply a scam, the performance of the bottleneck is almost impossible to break through, the crash situation is almost unavoidable, you can only therefore change the game design, remove the content. After being forced to remove content, after creativity is drastically limited, does your game really work in the end?
4. This engine optimization issue, which was raised 5 years ago and still exists today, is the most important and should be the highest priority issue, and the creator seems to be completely unconcerned about it, and this creator, personally, can you expect him to lead you to make a game all by himself?
Godot does use third-party libraries, but the quality of these libraries is often suboptimal and buggy. This is because they prioritize minimalism over the quality of the libraries they choose. As a result, they often end up replacing these third-party libraries with their own solutions that are even more buggy. For instance, in Godot 4, they opted to replace the Bullet physics engine with their own implementation...
I appreciate your opinion but the one thing I did not like is when you said that developing a flappy bird game or 8-bit RPG doesn't make you a game dev.. That's pretty ridiculous and damaging to say to new devs (any devs). I was following the Godot engine because I agree, I don't like it either or the people running it. However when you directly jumped into attacking 2D devs / newer devs, that's when you lost my respect. I am sorry that you don't like Godot, but treating newer devs like they aren't devs because of whatever game they decide to make is elitist and gatekeeping.
I wouldn't do a game with a bunch of high poly assets in unity either. It was never built for it either. It might be better suited for that than Godot, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good fit.
**cough** shader compilation stutters **cough**
Finally someone who gets it
@deeaa.5090 Irrelevant in this context
@deeaa.5090That is not true, there are two ways I can think of to circumvent GC lag spikes:
1. Not creating any garbage on hotpaths, this is not as impossible as some people think. Pooling & stack allocating basically allow you to circumvent like 80% of the garbage you usually create.
2. Incremental GC, unity provides an incremental garbage collector that does its workload over multiple frames, thus not causing the game to freeze to collect garbage.
Utilizing these two methods will ensure your game doesn't suffer from gc lag spikes.
So I took the last 2 weeks up Godot from Unity, I'm at that point where I finished a small project (32 bit 2d game).
The project I was conceptualizing in Unity is a 2d isometric game 32x32. The idea is fairly simple as to why I went to godot instead of Unreal - people say Godot is the better option for 2d development.
The goal of this project is pretty large scale, and while I'm not a fan of godots architecture composition worked... okay... so your conclusion is that godot simply cannot scale for a production game?
I was mostly talking about 3D godot if you are doing 2D godot could still be viable for your needs
@@abradotcs
Thanks for the clarity, my idea has been that if I do a 3d project I'll use Unreal and for 2d I'd use Godot.