Comment by loup-vaillant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by loup-vaillant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> no-one should ever try and create Unity from scratch

Some game developers do write their game engines from scratch. I know of at least one successful example: Jonathan Blow, with Braid (2D engine) and The Witness (3D engine). Note that in both games, a generic engine wouldn't have worked, or at least would have required such an amount of customisation that it's not clear it would have cost less, or looked and felt as good. Sure, don't go rebuild a generic engine from scratch. But a custom one, tailored to a very specific use case? That's not such an obvious no-no.

Another example would be Monocypher¹, my crypto library. Why would I write such a thing when we already have Libsodium? The reason is, I saw that I could do better for my use case: an opinionated, easy to use, portable package. The result is massively simpler than Libsodium. I don't care that I cannot compete with the support and effort of Libsodium team. I made sure I didn't need to.

[1]: https://monocypher.org/

> Another example would be Monocypher¹, my crypto library.

I don't know who you are, nor what Monocypher is, beyond what you have written here, but this example should come with some caveats listed.

It is generally considered "best practice" to -not- attempt to roll your own cryptographic system and use it for production purposes, unless or until it has "ran the gauntlet" of peer review - and that review may be long and harsh.

Maybe your library is a wrapper around existing functionality to make that functionality simpler to use; or maybe your library has "run the gauntlet" and you are also a "well known" person in cryptographic circles, and so your work is trusted.

But again - the general developer should never think to create and distribute their own cryptographic library system, and one would be cautioned that even a crypto library that is "only a wrapper" around other crypto algorithms or libraries should also be thoroughly vetted before incorporating it into your project, especially if that project is anything more than a hobby grade system.

> this example should come with some caveats listed.

No longer. You would know if you spent 10 hours reviewing Monocypher (which I reckon is not a good use of your time), so it's natural that you don't.

> It is generally considered "best practice" to -not- attempt to roll your own cryptographic system

I am keenly¹, painfully² aware of what it takes to write production grade crypto. And I didn't really roll my own. I only implemented primitives everyone trusts. And I wasn't alone either. I've had lots of reviews, as well as substantial external advice and contributions. That you can confirm by scouring the GitHub repository and the Monocypher website for 15 minutes.

[1]: http://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/rolling-your-own-crypto

[2]: https://monocypher.org/quality-assurance/disclosures

---

With that all said, your overly generic advice sounds like you didn't even click the link… did you?

Braid and Witness could have been written in Unity though.

I'd argue that dealing with high level concepts such as game/level design and art direction and low level stuff like graphics and rendering simultaneously is insane. I don't know how Jon Blow did it, but personally being able to abstract away all that low level stuff makes the design process way easier for me.

There was a recent game, 'Return of the Obra Dinn', which went the opposite way. It was the dev's first game with Unity, and he attributed most of his success to the Engine.

It doesn't look like a Unity game, it doesn't play like a Unity game, and it has won several game of the year awards.

Come to think of it, there's Antichamber, a non Euclidean labyrinth based on Unreal Engine (4, I believe).

As for how Jon Blow did it, I suspect having his own engine let him explore gameplay ideas more readily than using a generic one. The time travelling in Braid and all its variations would be pretty hard to bolt on a generic engine: it's not just rewind, it's partial rewind, with some entities being immune to the rewind. There's even a level where time goes forward and backward depending on the position of the main character. Go right, forward. Go left, backwards.

For The Witness, it's a bit more subtle, but about a third of the game required pretty crazy 2D projective analysis of the 3D world (the "environmental puzzles", don't look them up if you don't want spoilers). While it didn't en up being central to the game, it was basically the starting point.

The engines of Jonathan Blow's games are more central to their gameplay than for most games. Still bloody impressive, but probably less unnecessary than one might originally think. Also, Jonathan Blow has pretty strong opinions about game development, and I got the feeling that he disagrees with most generic engines out there. Working with them would probably caused suffering, whose cost he didn't want to pay. (Speaking for myself, my productivity drops pretty sharply when I spot stuff I too strongly disagree with, and I can't fix it.)

Maybe Braid and The Witness could have been written in Unity, but it's not at all clear that it would have saved any time, or that it would have resulted in something as good.

There are a lot of issues I've seen devs run into with using Unity, sometimes much earlier on than you'd expect. Unity was designed to be a generic engine, which means it won't be ideal for every use case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com