So these two things would make me questioned why they switched. It sounds like Unity became unenjoyable but every game has moments that you do not enjoy. Not a single game's development is all sunshine and kittens. So I question why they even switched from something they knew they could release with and had the most experience with to something else if they really want to enjoy the full process. To me, it sounds like they want to enjoy a subset of the process rather than the full process.

So then they switched to Godot which they seemingly jumped into the not LTS version and expected it to not have issues. I'm using Godot 4.1.1 and made the switch from 3.x but in doing so I realized I'd be taking a large stop in production of my actual game to get some of the features that Godot 4.x gives as a trade off. Godot 4.x has features that I can't imagine where I'd be without them. For a 2D game though, Godot 3.x is likely what they should have stuck with. The LTS version is always more stable and that seems to be what they are searching for.

Bevvy, it's not going to be more stable than Godot. It's a very much in development engine, so small I thought it was a game framework. No development goes perfect which seems to be what this person is expecting from their engine.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Seems to me like they point out the issues starting at 0:55, and that it's clear those issues are not because of their game or development in general. That the editor was increasingly adding friction on top of concerns they were already ignoring.

I would say they probably should've tried the Godot 4.X (or 3.X) Rust bindings before switching over to Bevy (especially if they could try something else with data structure, potentially something from the assetlib... Nodot is a thing but I'm not sure if it's what they want).

I would also say that 4.X does have some improvements to 2D (here's an animated eye I did with a feature new to 4.X, also scene tilemaps allow in-engine polygonal art there too), plus just because they're making a 2D game does not mean they never want to do anything with 3D. (I mean sticking for 3.X for 2D certainly could be a thing, but it may add confusion if they need to switch over to 4.X for 3D)

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every game engine that I have used (Godot, Unreal, Unity) has a bloated or buggy editor. It's inevitable. They complain about closed source but then when they hit the issue in Godot it doesn't seem like they utilize the open source nature. If they are just going to wait for fixes then the openness of the source truly doesn't matter. Lastly for 2D or 3D, I see more reason to switch to Godot 4.x over Godot 3.x if you are using 3D. For 2D there are still features but it's not like everything is busted or missing key features like 3D was in 3.x. There is a reason 3.x is still LTS and 4.x isn't. For hobbyists willing to put up with bugs, 4.x is fine. For professional studios and those not willing or able to deal with all the bugs that 4.x brought, waiting until 4.2 or 4.3 would be ideal.

[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every game engine that I have used (Godot, Unreal, Unity) has a bloated or buggy editor. It’s inevitable

From a user perspective, bloated generally means it's sluggish to open and/or run. Never tried Unity, but I tried Unreal a while ago and on my old machine it was almost a minute (on an SSD I bought specifically to try Unreal!) to open up the project launcher and then even more time to open up a basic project. Godot by comparison is instant. Similarly it was a 100GB+ compile whereas Godot is significantly lighter even with 4.X.

They complain about closed source but then when they hit the issue in Godot it doesn’t seem like they utilize the open source nature

I mean yeah... though open source can sometimes mean looking at the code or even the ability to test/give feedback on PRs. If someone doesn't know C++ and can't fix every issue I wouldn't say it's a failure.

For 3.X vs 4.X you're absolutely right, but I see it as more of a guarantee for existing 3.X projects or even existing users. If someone's starting completely fresh I don't really blame them for wanting to start with the current/future workflow. And FWIW the showstopper they encountered seems to be specific to C#, thus one reason why I mentioned the bindings (especially as they switched languages anyway).

For most people I think the features will outweigh the downsides, especially being good enough that one can hold out for workflow/release improvements. Though even 4.2/4.3 might not be perfect, especially with a faster release schedule. Some people might want to stick to 3.X even then, but I think it depends on the user.