In any respectable engine this game should be running over 1000 FPS, even Half-life 2 has more complex scenes than this.Ĭities:Skylines, it's got no effects other than shadows, it looks acceptable thanks to the consistent, slightly cartoonish art style.
#Parkitect day night cycle ps3#
KSP, it's got like worse than PS3 graphics, almost zero effects, just plain geometry, yet I could not run that game at 4k 60FPS until I got a 2080ti, even then we have to assume small crafts. When was the last time you saw a game made in Unity run truly modern levels of graphical fidelity or effects? I haven't ever seen that, it's always either cartoon graphics, simple graphics, or very rarely, pretending to be modern through heavy use of pre-rendered textures. And quite often, a game is simple enough that modern hardware will be able to power through the shittiness that the game in the end still has acceptable performance, and people take this as proof that Unity isn't shit, but that's just low standards. You see the issue is that when I say Unity is shit, I am mainly talking about the performance of games it produces, specifically physics and rendering performance.
Obviously, there are good games made with Unity, but that's actually a fallacy of equivocation. I've made this argument many times, that Unity is a horrible game engine and people bring up the same invalid arguments over and over again, it's the bad developers, not the engine.