I see this compliant so much and it annoys me. While searching on YouTube concerning unity and graphics I found this.
THIS WAS MADE BY YOUTUBE USER Yaboiicey , not me
Graphics are so yesterday anyways 
^ +1
Anyways, most people expect graphics to just happen, like CE3 and UDK. They don’t realize it takes work.
And those people don’t realize, either, that the graphics is not so important.
As for me, I DON’T EVEN WANT such graphics in the games (sorry for caps). I mean, nowadays games really suck, everybody wants realistic skin, realistic fur and hair, realistic water, realistic EVERYTHING, but they forget about the game play, the idea and game story. You play such games and get bored in 30 minutes! And compare up-to-date games with the old ones (like The Lost Vikings, etc, there are lots of examples) - they had rather primitive graphics, but what a nice game play and story! Games with a soul!
No, but the artist can.
(Technical artists play a big role in modern graphics.)
That sucks. Get some retro pixels into you son.
Eventually pixel art will be too fancy for everyone and it will return to being just text, then pong graphics.
i still think gamecube games look just fine
I think graphics are as important as you want them to be. Good graphics and good gameplay/storyline are not mutually exclusive, just look at The Last of Us. The problem is that so many games these days focus ONLY on graphics and leave the storyline and gameplay as a side dish, when they should at the VERY LEAST be equal on the plate, if not the main course.
Okay I’m hungry now.
For me, graphics boost immersion. They don’t have to be photorealistic, just done well…they fit the game. My brain can fill in the gaps, but it definitely doesn’t like clunky art.
Graphics only support the story world. The visuals either help or hurt the suspension of belief/disbelief. If we didn’t believe that a little weird creature could create a star using weird objects that stick together when you roll them, Katamari Damacy wouldn’t be as fun. If we didn’t believe that Superman could fly, he’d be a weird floating person in the air that we laugh at.
Once upon a time people were terrified after watching the movie, “JAWS”, but now it’s laughably horrible! The role and quality of graphics have changed, but story world still reigns over graphics.
in any event, I do think graphics are a major selling point for any game engine. I think the video just shows the great quality unity can produce with the right models and shaders.
I don’t think there was ever a doubt unity can produce good graphics…
Theres so much more to games than just good graphics though.
You’d be surprised how many people complain and say “OMG Unity Sux Cuz’ Iz So Ugly, I think UDK is betta cuz’ I can make another generic fps”, I just sit and facepalm.
Indeed, graphics takes work. If you give me a C compiler and an OpenGL library and a good graphics card, and a lot of money and a team of brilliant artists and programmers, I could give you very great graphics, with a great amount of work.
The idea behind buying a game engine is that SOMEONE ELSE has already done the hard programming work, and you are paying them to use the fruits of their labor. If all Unity provides, graphics wise, is a thin layer around OpenGL (I know I am exaggerating, it does more than that), where to do fancy effects you have to code them all yourself, then yes, indeed, Unity would have poor graphics support. An ideal graphics engine would come pre-stocked with all the fancy graphics algorithms and shaders you need to get amazing things happening. Just drop in some art (yes, the art has to be good), and BOOM, the engine renders fancy soft volumetric shadows, realistic global illumination, subsurface scattering, and everything else under the sun.
I have noticed on these forums that when somebody asks “does Unity do this”, the response is always “of course it can, but you have to program it yourself”. What’s the point of using an engine if you have to do the work yourself? I know, using Unity is easier than working directly with OpenGL, but my point is that it is really strange to say that Unity supports X just because it is possible for a brilliant team of programmers to implement X on TOP of Unity. What people are asking is does Unity support X OUT OF THE BOX.
If somebody asked: what is a better raytracing package, povray or C++, would you answer C++ because C++ allows you more flexibility in the types of raytracers you can create? Of course not, you would answer povray because the work has already been done.
I am not an expert on the various game engines, but if Cryengine comes with more built-in graphics algorithms than Unity, then it is accurate to say that cryengine has superior graphics.
Not necessary. You are trying to compare two different things here. Can Unity do the trick? Yes it can. Can Cryengine do the trick? Yes it can. It all depends on what it is you are trying to do. Some might be easy to do in one then the other. I am not going to sit and write a Visual Basic program while I can do it much faster and easier in C++. But can it be done… Yes it can be done in Visual Basic. It is up to the person doing it.
You stating that you want X Out of the box is like going to the store and buying a cake mix. And thinking that if you open the box… poof out comes a perfectly cooked cake. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! You have to put the time and energy into it to make it come out perfect. Might not be perfect the first time either. Just because I own 3DS Max doesn’t make me a AAA modeler/rigger/texturer. There is no magic button that is there to hit and poof out comes my model perfectly.
Again, the game engine is a tool. Not an end all. The limit is up to you and what you are willing to do.
The real question is, can you produce good graphics?
This is the kind of attitude that I see all the time on here, and I don’t understand it.
This isn’t a forum about people’s skills. This is a forum about a game engine, a product with pros and cons.
As I said before, give me a C compiler, OpenGL, and a lot of time and money, and yes of course I can produce good graphics, either personally or by paying someone else.
The real question is: is Unity the right product?
If you goal is good graphics, does Unity help you achieve that?
What does Unity provide that helps you get great graphics, that you wouldn’t get by using the standard C and OpenGL tools it builds upon?
I am not an expert on Unity, but my impression is that it provides a lot of tools for scripting the interactions between the graphics, the user, and the physics, and it provides enough programabability that you can write your own fancy shaders and multi-pass effects to achieve the same kinds of graphics you could in raw OpenGL. But the question is: does it come pre-built with the latest and greatest fancy algorithms, or do you have to roll your own?
Unity has the capabilities of DX11 and such, but it is not just an “out of the box, everything is finished” kind of engine. A lot of work goes into a game, and Unity has taken a lot of the harder work out. Now it’s just writing your own shaders (or paying somebody else to do it). Sure, prettier shaders out of the box would be a nice plus, but it’s really not necessary. The lack of out of the box shaders does not limit you; all that limits you is your willingness and ability.