Godot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Godot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Impressions after one week in the engine
this seems a well-argued article to me the 'General directionless development' seems the most concerning point, I don't think the 'let's go with what the community ask\want' model is gonna work in the end.
what do you think?
You're viewing a single thread.
The probative value of the article is massively outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
In other words, it's a smear campaign. The author is literally saying, oh I can fix all of these issues, but I don't know what other issue might come up. This is horse raddish. Balloon juice. A downright dismissal. As if you'd have better luck with the walled-off garden that is Unity or UE. They simply stated issues the community has already been talking about, and framed it as Godot is a lost cause not even worth fixing.
And here's the bullshido that the author implemented. They sprinkled in the thing about Godot being tied to the Vulkan API. This is valid criticism. Surprise surprise, a FOSS engine being worked on by a handful of paid devs and some volunteers has more work that it needs done on it. But now if you disagree with the thing I said about it being a smear campaign, they throw Ol' Faithful at you:
"An engine is a tool, not a cult." "Oh, you disagree with the article. Are you saying that Godot is perfect?" "So you're saying that there are no technical issues with Godot?" "You can only release low poly games with 3D Godot."
As soon as the status quo was disturbed, suddenly the imperfections of Godot are on full blast. Juan Linietsky and Co. are now to drop literally everything they were doing and address the smear campaign's concerns, lest it be successful. I suppose that's both a positive and a negative.
The author is literally saying, oh I can fix all of these issues, but I don’t know what other issue might come up.
That's very often a reasonable thing to say.
The problem here is that Godot is the one that is up-front with its limitations, while the others are always trying to hide them. So yeah, this becomes smearing on this context. And completely false.
Yes! It very often is a reasonable thing to say! In the sense that if you fix one bug, you might be creating a couple more bugs. Like opening a can of worms. But the author in this case used this as a retort to the community saying "if you have an issue with the engine, and you can fix it, then please contribute the fix to the github repo". So ultimately, the argument seems to be why would one contribute fixes to the engine when one might have to fix another issue afterwards. This is antithetical to the nature of FOSS and immediately discredited the author, in my mind, as having a technical discussion in good faith. I'd love to give quotes that brought me to this conclusion, but the article seems to have been taken down as I write this.
They are better served using Unreal Engine and there's nothing wrong with that.