Godot's showcase game was supposed to be the poorly-reviewed remaster of Sonic Colors Ultimate that came out 2 years ago. Unfortunately, the remaster was extremely buggy to the point of being unplayable on a PC.
And Godot has pretty much been DOA for AA/AAA development since then.
It doesn't help that they just dropped the Bullet physics engine because it was "too hard" to implement and now promise to make an "engine agnostic" interface for physics engines, which is significantly more more work than just figuring out how to implement a single physics engine (and extending that implementation to be engine agnostic).
Godot is the anti-Blender; it's perpetually 70% of the way "there" but they are always abandoning that last 30% because it's too hard, or too boring, to finish.
(For comparison, at this point in its lifecycle, i.e., 9 years old, Unity was well-polished and had already been the choice for indie and mobile game development for several years. In the past week alone, multiple one-developer games made in Unity have made it to the front page of HN.)
> It doesn't help that they just dropped the Bullet physics engine because it was "too hard" to implement
If it's "too hard" for Unreal, why wouldn't it be too hard for Godot? I think this is really an unfair criticism when you look at other game engines. Unreal had Bullet support in version 3 and dumped it. And they had PhysX in version 4 and dumped it in 5.
> now promise to make an "engine agnostic" interface for physics engines
Which is exactly what Unity did.
It seems like you have a problem with what Godot does no matter what they do, even when they just follow what Unity and Unreal are doing.
The difference is that you can, and could, make fully functional physics-based games in Unity and Unreal because their in-house engines were accurate and performant enough. The point of integrating Bullet/physX was to provide the option for even more accurate physics engines.
Godot's in-house engine is neither performant, nor accurate, and it boggles the mind to think that having abandoned the relatively easy task of implementing a single physics engine written in the same language as their game engine (and that their competitors were able to integrate and support) that they would be able to accomplish the far more difficult task of implementing an engine-agnostic interface supporting multiple physics engines, as accomplishing the latter would require them to first accomplish the former...
And Godot has pretty much been DOA for AA/AAA development since then.
It doesn't help that they just dropped the Bullet physics engine because it was "too hard" to implement and now promise to make an "engine agnostic" interface for physics engines, which is significantly more more work than just figuring out how to implement a single physics engine (and extending that implementation to be engine agnostic).
Godot is the anti-Blender; it's perpetually 70% of the way "there" but they are always abandoning that last 30% because it's too hard, or too boring, to finish.
(For comparison, at this point in its lifecycle, i.e., 9 years old, Unity was well-polished and had already been the choice for indie and mobile game development for several years. In the past week alone, multiple one-developer games made in Unity have made it to the front page of HN.)