Unity rendering

Why all 3d games made in unity allways have the same rendering feeling. One can tell if it's a unity game even by an in game screenshot. Because I a mostly an artist and then anything beyond that, I cant actually tell what is missing from unity technical wise, but my asset allways look and feel better in other engines like Leadwerks, GameStart3d, GameCore, Unreal. So please don't take this as a Unreal vs Unity rendering, cause this is not about Unreal and I actually dont like it better than the other. It is just that I don't know what is lacking in the Unity rendering system from the technical perspective.
This post is a bit of a rant, but also ment for elaboration, so please do so if you will.

 

If you spend few months with any other engine you will notice that models in any engine look the same or at least you can easily recognise them becouse not due to one feature but rather many features that are implemented in engine. Image effects, lighting, shader quallity are usually the most important things where you can determine if model is rendered in one or other engine.
And to answer question why assets look better in other engines is usually due to GI, better posteffects or lighting. This are the things that are still better in UDK, CE or Leadwerks, probably even with Unity 4. My advice would be if you want to use engine just to render your assets, or make showcase scenes use UDK, if you want to make games use Unity.

 

Without an image you want to improve I can't really help, but it is possible to change your results.

 

I will agree that if you are used to an engine you will eventually be able to tell if something is rendered in that engine like I do now with Unity.
Well, GI is only in the Unreal4, but lets forget about Unreal and look at the rest, which yes I would agree it's mostly due to lighting, while I can't tell those technical specifics about it.
I must admit that I was kinda let down with the Unity 4 DX 11 implementation at least from the video. The video itslef may be nice and good work to the guys who made it, but damn, even that DX 11 video "smelled" unity rendering especially at the outdoor scenes.
They said that in Unity 4, they are opening the rendering to low level changes. Might that mean that people (not me for sure , will be able to provide better rendering solutions?
And finaly, no I am not after rendering my stuff, but rather after making games and eitherway I use Unity at work, so...

 

A big easily recognizable thing in most Unity games is that you find a lot of people using default skin on the built in GUI.
Second is using the default mouse look controller, or any of the standard package controllers.
Third is using standard lighting (throw a couple directionals in and your done).

What this all comes down to is that you can tell when people have not sank the time into working with customization and specialization. Unity is a great and easy to use tool, as evidenced by the glut of games that are shoved out wherein devs and designers have not taken the time to completely customize their game. If you don't want to spend the time to specialize and customize your game, you don't have to, and you can instead focus on getting your game mechanics and play done. Sadly this is the point where most of the hoard of developers stop.

As an example, without being told (and even with being told), would you have pegged The Other Brothers as a game built in Unity? I do see that you said all 3D games, so what about Basket Dudes?

 

http://filmicgames.com/archives/75

 

Hey Koyima.
It's not about a specific image, but rather a global understanding after fidling with unity for quite a while now as well as other engines, using same assets, lighting and post-processing capabilities provided by each respectively.

 

Show me the assets and the desired result and let's see if it's possible to replicate it in Unity.

 

Thanks for the links and elaboration. @democre, I wasnt refering to the whole game look so GUI is out of the question for example. regarding the 3D game you are refering to, I was talking for abit more...high end stuff (visual wise), but thanks for elaboration as well.

 

@koyima, I'll do some kind of comparison with same assets on different engines tomorrow or the day after, since we both know that its very late in Greece now.

 

Like what for example. How can you get a solution if you don't elaborate on the issue?

 

Sorry, but I didn't get your kinda offensive point here. :-?

 

My point is not offensive, your hypothesis is that games in Unity "look alike" and you also mention that other engines "look better".

I ask you to provide me with said assets and desired look to test your hypothesis.

De ginetai na milame ston aera oli tin ora.

 

You're welcome.
I know you didn't mention GUI, but you did say you can tell from screenshots that a game was made with Unity. All the default stuff adds to a common look and feel. I would proffer this as an answer to your question, that the lacking thing that you're looking for, that which you cannot put a finger on, is not a technical lack from Unity, but more a lack of complete (or even major) customization from the majority of user developers.

Unity makes it easy for user developers to focus on the aspects of the game development that they want to, by providing either directly (standard packages) or indirectly (asset store) a plethora of assets for a user developer to use so that they don't have to specialize in that manner. Other engines may or may not offer the same level of scaffolding, which can explain any greater variance in games from other platforms by supposing that user developers of other engines must begin to master many other areas of game development that the scaffolding does not provide.

Any how, in my previous example, can you tell that the basketball game was made with Unity just from the screenshots, if you hadn't been told it was made with Unity?

 

Then it was just me I guess.
I can't actually give the assets koyima, but as I said earlier I will do some kind of comparison between Unity and some other engines in terms of rendering for this thread and elaborate on those further if you want then.
thanks

 

Screenshots then?

 

+1

 

I think that its normal to recognize engine's rendering when u've worked with one for years or even month.
But be assured, 95% of the customers will have no idea.
Personally, if the art and lighting is setup correctly, i wouldnt agree that other engines give better representation of the assets.

 

So here they are. A simple sample scene for elaboration.A screenshot for a better view and a video just for the shake of it.
For this thread, disregard the flat emmisive green helmet glass, as this is mostly done so for gameplay purposes.

The thing is that the same assets with relatively same scene setup in some other engine provides a better visual or the engine provide the possibility for better visuals that like for example emmisive glow, which i truly havent found a descent way of doing this in unity, and no bloom just doesnt cut it. Again, that was just an example. The lack of a descent motion blur is another (aka vector motion blur)

Another important thing is that while this might look good ( at least I hope so. Im not the one to judge it), the setting are prety much cranked up which from what I've seen till now, it won't be playable and obviously the most important thing about a game is that one. But being an artist, I want to enchance my game design with such visuals.

 

I think unity should make a AAA quality game and then share the assets with unity users, that way we could have top quality shaders and some really good assets to play around with ontop of this it would give proven results that unity is 100% capable of making a AAA game.

If you look at the other "big" game engines Cry Engine and UDK(Unreal engine) they each have the distinct rendering style of Crysis and Gears Of War but sense unity has not been used for anything like those it doesn't come near in graphical quality (even if it is capable)

 

This video is looking EPIC... Unity is indeed capable of awesome graphics and different styles in capable hands...

 

Yes but thats why Unity hasnt been famous for AAA studio engine, but engine for indie developers. Its hard to expect some big studio throwing their money arround just to prove Unity developers what can or cant be made. But then game as whole doesnt prove what engine is capable, usually already 1 big scene is enough, and anything like that can be done by yourself, if you take some time. For example what you can do is, download UDK and import all default project models and files that you get (fbx) and import them into Unity project. You have already set them together in scene files as merged objects so you can make identical scene to UDK Sanctuary map and then play with tweaks in Unity. Then you can compare things together. You will notice that even if you use completly the same assets, the feeling and visual results will be very different.

 

Could always be a engine company first and a game company second?

I think what the problem is is that that butterfly effect demo looks great but it is a certain style(kind of pixar style) which is good.... for that one project but not really for most games, a realistic demo would be a much better choice as like 70% of games use realistic graphics and the other 30% are all over the place in styling, and it is common belief (misconception) that realistic graphics are the leading edge of everything.

These are comments from the YouTube video of the demo, these are most likely from un educated fools but still they are the kind of people that would be buying a game, and if they think Unity sucks (even though it could look good) and a AAA studio makes a game with it, before screenshots are out an interviewer asks them "What engine are you using?" they will say "Errrr Unity" and all there future customers will think it will be shait and run for cover.

That is just my opinion and I'm biased as i would like some super nice shaders

 

You mention:

Emissive glow:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/115510-Released-Glow-Per-Object?highlight=object+glow

Asset Store:
http://u3d.as/content/aubergine/glow-per-object/2vV

If you can't write it yourself, 35$ is pretty cheap and you are good to go - it's not worth 25% of my revenue, I highly doubt it's worth yours or your client's. I bookmarked it already.

You mention Bloom/Glow:
http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/script-BloomAndLensFlares.html
http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/script-GlowEffect.html

Tweaking these effects is key. Using HDR and Tonemapping is also important. Tonemapping will give you the effect of walking from shaded to lit areas too.

Vector motion blur:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/61133-Motion-blur-for-Unity-3

Download:
http://forum.unity3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13485&d=1285338520

Image space motion blur:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/58018-Image-Motion-Blur-in-progress/page2
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/59...Blur-now-available!(Updated-Demo-22.09)/page4

Download:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10887020/MotionBlurU30.unitypackage

As far as quality of the image provided:

It looks nice. I don't see why you need everything maxed out though.
What exactly is set high and looks like a resource hog?

For example if you want crisp textures, there is no going around using large textures (though there is a sharpen effect),
but for lights/lighting tweaking is usually what works and you can get working results with low settings too. It's all in the
tweaking.

Visually I think it lacks contrast. Everything in the background blends together (I didn't even notice the machine on the left was closing at first) and the character is also muted. I guess realistically speaking the situation is fine, but not so much if you are art directing an experience.

As for the youtube comments and general talk about the visual quality of Gears of War or Crysis....
what can I say?

Just because you see the same rendering and you know it's Unreal/Crytek (since you recognize the water or the lighting) doesn't mean it's a good thing. All it says is you are using their engine, so welcome generic Gears/Crysis clone with all the effects, but not much else. The games that are made with engines, but don't look like clones go out of their way to avoid the Unreal Look. (not enough games made with Crytek to make a real judgement and from what I have seen there is nothing memorable about them)

I remember when Spinter Cell was being developed, you know they were making a night vision shader, but it was sluggish, so nVidia made one for them and I think it was also released for free. You see the "small team" making Splinter Cell got shaders from somewhere else, but it should be commonplace for a singular developer in his apartment to have access to every shader conceivable for every engine conceivable, right? It is 2012 isn't it?

Cryengine is the pinnacle of rendering, they spent years on that feature set alone. Their main character required 1,5 man years. I talked to them during GDC, people spent a year+ getting just the water working as they wanted it (and they had 2 versions before that), they photographed thousands of plants and they had to build everything in CG in the end so they could get the normal maps they needed. Now you are using those assets and you think: "wow, I'm awesome! Look how awesome my barrel looks in the water."

I think we have become a tad entitled. Seriously just a few years ago companies went under because the tech was so out of reach and now we are under the impression it's outrageous if every 15 year old doesn't have access to the latest feature (for FREE I might add). Development isn't a hobby to everyone and to expect hobby prices or everything solved is not realistic.If your job depended on one effect go onto Elance or rent-a-coder or whatever and get it done, it's not free, but it's possible.

Or you can switch engines and get ready to pay your dues. I would personally keep c# and the asset pipeline provided by Unity, than have to deal with UnrealScript and essentially having to mod Unreal to make a game. (oh, sorry I could use Kismet...)

 

Ok, these are comments from the YouTube video of the Unreal 4 Engine demo.

So what have we learned from the quote game? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest "not much", and that includes my quotes.

 

Well if you take each and every Youtube comment to heart, you won't go anywhere. I stopped reading all those idiotic comments from self proclaimed experts a long time ago.
No matter what engine, console, Mac or PC, martial arts style, car, you name it, there are always people who bash it. Get over it.

As for the DX11 demo video. I find that quite impressive for Unity. Though, it is no match with Square's Luminous demo, the new UE4 demo, or the Crysis 3 demo.

 

I think there is a serious lack of demo material (source) for V4's features. Normally you get examples for every new feature, when a new version is released.

Is there more to come (maybe once it steps out of Beta) and will the butterfly demo also be available as a project file?

 

The unity video has ~16000 views compared to unreal engine which is around ~400000 view, there are many more factors to be considered when comparing these engines.

 

Also:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/149178-Easyflow-Motion-Blur-RELEASED

 

Pretty sure most DX9 3d games look like Unity. Lots of games I've thought were made with Unity aren't, but you could make them with Unity. Also that's talking about 3d. With 2d you can't tell one engine from the other.

 

Not really true. A lot of DX9 games look different. Crysis for example looks nothing like Gears of War. It's all in the shaders and DX9 is plenty capable of creating games that look different. It's that many games simply slap a generic normal phong shader on everything and call it a day. It's all about art direction and effort. With enough of these no matter the engine your game will look unique.

 

Most people largely stick to the shaders and default lighting model provided with an engine, which go a long way towards defining the overall "look and feel" of the renderer's output. That and assets or components used out-of-the-box with little or no modification go towards giving certain aspects of images a similar feel even if the art itself is different.

Those things can be changed, though, and when you do you'll find that games can look pretty unique even if they have the same underlying renderer or engine. Stuff doesn't look samey because it uses the same engine, it looks samey because it uses the same assets. And it's not necessarily a bad thing - I certainly don't avoid using defaults in my work where it saves me time. After all, if I were the do-everything-myself type of guy I wouldn't be using an off the shelf engine in the first place.

 

Indeed, if you know what you are doing (or at least have someone to take care of it) it will look really nice. Here are some screenshots from our current project "Forgotten Memories", full game (no demo), using post-effects, soft-shadowmapping, advanced character shaders and running on iPad2/3 more than 30fps:

 

@tatoforever - Wow that looks great...considering it's running on an iPad2, 3 it looks up to par for a PC title! For those that have not seen it before check this out: http://vimeo.com/19551972 Amazing looking visuals. There is no telling what engine this could have been done in, but it just so happens it's a Unity project.

 

@James,

http://vimeo.com/27669302
The game you just posted (Parsimonia), It's using Unity3D, but lightmapping was done in Maya with MR, that's explain why it is gazillion times better.

 

Yeah. I don't actually use Beast in Unity myself. I bake lightmaps in Maya as well.

 

So, all Unity games look the same (and I agree that most do), but if Unity changes things one way, they'll all look the same in a new way, right? This is why it is completely up to you. If you want a unique look, hire someone to make a unique look for you.

 

Unity games might look the same... but at least they don't play the same *cough*liketheydoinudk*cough*, the variety in every game's core, its design, and everything else is as vast as human imagination and their budgets allows it!

 

There are many nice looking games in Unity out there, they are simple from a graphics/rendering perspective though and thats fine, art is still good. Smart developers use the tools knowing its limitation and choose a direction based on this. That might be one of the reason we see similaraties in Unity games. Unity won't produce WOW! looking games cause thats not its strenghts. So you will see lots of great looking cartoonish games. Some go for the "realistic" approach, or lighting and fx driven way if you will, which I believe is a mistake cause Unity can't compete in that area so the result will look dated and by todays standard even ugly (you don't need to post examples to prove me wrong cause I'm pretty sure i've seen most, Interstellar marines is not it )

 

Here is something I am working on... looking to push Unity graphically... on the model is a shader that I put together to emulate the shine on the models' skin

 

Check out the games in this link and then say all Unity games look the same;

http://unity3d.com/gallery/made-with-unity/game-list

Some of the best looking mobile games released so far have been made with Unity.

 

Right, Unity doesn't produce 'WOW! looking games' Awesome artists produce 'WOW! looking games' in Unity ;] Maybe not in terms of incredible graphics. But in terms of art direction.

And I gotta agree. Unity is not on par with CE or UE4 when it comes to realistic and FX driven games. But does it need to be?
I say no. ( All I personally want are better default shaders and a better terrain engine.)
Making the next Battlefield is out of reach for small indies anyways. The keys are creativity, niche games, games that big studios wouldn't produce. Slender is a great example for that. It's a big success even without great graphics.

Nice portfolio btw.

 

All I can think of is this game I saw on Kickstarter using UDK(which got funded). Basically it was a bunch of poorly textured stock models overlaid with gratuitous UDK image processing effects, and it looked a total mess. I never would have thought it was UDK- I'd thought Source Engine mod at first, honestly.

You need good art direction and a lot of work to make any game look top notch if you aren't just using the standard assets of your package.

 

If you hadn't said it was UDK, I would have thought it was TGC's FPS Creator...hrmmm.

 

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks so- from the reviews you'd think the graphics were AAA... Bear in mind that this game costs more than an episode of Tales of Monkey Island... and people are paying.