next »

[gouhadouken]

So, a few days ago I managed to wrangle some of my friends into testing a game I've been working on. The feedback I got was generally constructive and helpful. One of the people testing, however, when asked about the movement controls gave me some very minimalist feedback, telling me very matter of factly : "It feels very unity".

Needless to say, I was a little vexed, as I'd lovingly and painstakingly hand-scripted all the movement, with nary a stock unity controller script. I deduced, after much soul searching, that "feeling very unity" is probably a nicer, albeit more nebulous, way of saying "kind of sloppy", and have thus set out to remedy my janky movement script.

Regardless, it got me thinking about what makes a game feel "unity". For me, I'm gonna have to say that default skybox and stock physics settings are two of the biggest offenders.

But yeah, I'd love to hear what you guys think gives games that "unity feel", and even better, how you've remedied it in the past.

[Richard Kain]

But yeah, I'd love to hear what you guys think gives games that "unity feel", and even better, how you've remedied it in the past.

It's a misnomer. What they mean to say is that it feels unpolished, like any prototype is. Unity has always been a blank slate. It has no "feel" on its own. But because it has become nearly ubiquitous in the realm of small-scale indie titles and Steam-sanctioned shovel-ware, people have started mentally associating it with lower-quality, unfinished titles. It's a mistake to associate this with the engine, as the engine is not to blame. The onus lies on the developer, not the engine designers.

The only way to "remedy" such an impression is to...

1. Remove the Unity logo. (so that users will not make any assumptions before playing the title)
2. Polish the games controls and graphics.

[TitoOliveira]

It's hard to tell what could it be without playing.
But i assume it is that spaceship game in your post history right? It does look very Unity-y. But that's because it's possible to see Unity's lightning / rendering "feel" that we're so used to seeing. I can totally tell when a game is made in Unreal because of the same reasons.
Like you said another culprit could be the physics system. After you play some games that implement Havok, you'll start to see similarities between physics of completely different games. It's very hard to pinpoint objectively what those things are, but you'l "feel" it is similar.

In the realm of rendering, a lot of games manage to look completely unique by using custom shaders that fit their intentions, and also by being smart with their post processing. One example of this is Inside.

[Bauxite]

I'd argue the number one thing that makes me think "Yep, that's Unity" is the default PBR shader, combined with untextured, white meshes. The only way to fix that is to either polish the models/textures of the game, or write your own shaders.

The second thing is that by default, Unity's controls feel a bit sluggish if you're using the keyboard. The reason is that gravity/sensitivity are by default set up to smooth out the input values you get from keyboard axes (e.g. if you press the left arrow key it won't instantly register as -1, but it would slowly slide from 0 to -1). Which is bad if you want responsive controls. See https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-InputManager.html

[GabeD]

I generally don't believe that engines have a "feel". The problem (depending on what kind of game you're making) is that unity has it's own way of dealing with physics. Using physics in Unity is completely different than just using Box2D in Construct, GameMaker or LOVE2D.

"FixedUpdate()" and "Update()" make getting and linking input to physics actions as precise as possible harder. Pressing the "Space" key does not immediately translate into the physics engine applying forces to the player, unless not out of the box.

My solution was to use Raycast2D to do all player-wall collisions, making the Rigidbody2D Kinematic so it can trigger, well, triggers. (you can find a tutorial playlist here: https://goo.gl/J1kiFK, i'm in no way the author).

Basically that unity feel is just how the engine handles physics by default. It happens to most engines, it's just that unity is a bit of an over-achiever and it takes more work to customize it. Plus it's a 3D engine first, 2D after. That's my opinion anyways :D

[powly]

Unity has always been a blank slate. It has no "feel" on its own.

This is not strictly true. Unity has all kinds of bits and pieces already in there. The "Unity feel" isn't of course really a feel of the engine since the engine doesn't show up at all to the end user (maybe apart from some splash screen) but it's the feeling of the prefabs and presets and stuff you've already seen so many times.

Of course that is one of the main things that make it good for prototyping, but you'll have to tweak most things with some love and care to make it fit and feel unique.

[s0]

I generally don't believe that engines have a "feel".

Yes they do. For engines that I'm really familiar with like Unity, Unreal or Game Maker I can usually tell when a game uses them. That said I don't think the "Unity feel" is that much of a problem. Might be a slight barrier to getting attention when when the "feel" is too obvious in your screens and trailers (many people unfairly associate unity with subpar and low effort games), but I don't think it's gonna be a huge hindrance. Just make a good game.

[diegzumillo]

But yeah, I'd love to hear what you guys think gives games that "unity feel", and even better, how you've remedied it in the past.

It's a misnomer. What they mean to say is that it feels unpolished, like any prototype is. Unity has always been a blank slate. It has no "feel" on its own. But because it has become nearly ubiquitous in the realm of small-scale indie titles and Steam-sanctioned shovel-ware, people have started mentally associating it with lower-quality, unfinished titles. It's a mistake to associate this with the engine, as the engine is not to blame. The onus lies on the developer, not the engine designers.

The only way to "remedy" such an impression is to...

1. Remove the Unity logo. (so that users will not make any assumptions before playing the title)
2. Polish the games controls and graphics.

I wish I could get in the debate but this quote pretty much sums it up.

If you're very familiar with the engine you can still recognize things, for sure. But I don't think that's the main factor here.

Jim Sterling made a clever observation once. Unity splash screen only appears on games using the personal edition. The real professional games that can afford the pro version remove the splash screen. It's an "exposure valve" to the regular gamer.

[Indiana-Jonas]

Any good resources or tricks for improving controls or movement?

The second thing is that by default, Unity's controls feel a bit sluggish if you're using the keyboard. The reason is that gravity/sensitivity are by default set up to smooth out the input values you get from keyboard axes (e.g. if you press the left arrow key it won't instantly register as -1, but it would slowly slide from 0 to -1). Which is bad if you want responsive controls. See https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-InputManager.html

I find this very helpful but fiddling with the Input Editor can only take you so far.

[eerr]

You are building a game base on how a player feels.
While it can be useful, bear in mind that players are not a source of high-quality data.

It's like reading animal guts for information.

So that thing about Unity feel? Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

So if it's because of your engine, it's usually stupid to switch unless you have a proven track record.

The overall feel of Unity can't be removed.