[oneoff786]

I have found unreal’s basic ui editor to be fine.

Unity is, in my opinion, just a poorly managed company with a good product in spite of it. They’ve failed to deliver on many things and the engine has glaring weaknesses, e.g. no networked multiplayer built in. I would bet on the engine generally getting worse over time as management tries to push non functioning new stuff.

[flafla2]

This is going to sound a bit hyperbolic but I haven’t been truly impressed with any new features in Unity since the introduction of PBR and dynamic indirect lighting in Unity 5.0. If your game doesn’t require cutting-edge technology then you would be hard-pressed to find a significant difference between the latest version and say version 5.4. If your game does require excellent optimization, rendering tech, etc, then Unreal is simply the better option.

[oneoff786]

I tend to agree. I find unreal to have a higher initial learning curve but then generally be an easier engine to develop for. The core engine components have a wider coverage of basic game concepts like movement and network replication. The difference between fixed updates and tick updates is not a concern which is a trap for newbies. The engine source is available.

Unity has better support for 2D games. And seems to be more mobile friendly. The asset store is better if you want to just pull in some other peoples stuff, which I find unpleasant for anything but photo realistic mundane objects. That is to say, I think Unity tends to be the best choice for making mediocre games, which is not to say that games made in Unity are intrinsically mediocre at all.

[41209]

I vastly prefer code over blueprints, and C# is much easier than C++.

I've tried learning Unreal like 3 times. I still can't even get the build chain working