If you're half-clever with your 3D knowledge (don't render an entire world in 1 mesh), Godot 3 is perfectly fine. The tooling of UE4 will win any time if you want to do open world though. Even though I've made a pretty convincing prototype, _huge_ blade-runner kind of world in Godot with flying cars; so it's all technically possible.
In other words, if you don't need consoles (and frankly as an indie you don't want to deal with the big boys), Godot is perfect.
Just don't hope you'll live off your game any time soon though, the indie market is utterly algorithm driven and therefor fucked. The learning experience and the joy of using Godot however, is well worth learning game development with.
Godot and Blender are really becoming some of the best in class in their own field.
- open source,
- easy to learn and
- crowd funded.
Remember yesterday PHP 8.1 was released. Much the same story but in entirely different parts of the same spectrum.
this is quite important - a good, smooth learning curve for a product (whatever it is) is important to adoption.
Being able to get up and running, and get a simple scene/game working is really great, but you also need power for the power users. Luckily for godot, since is pluggable, you can actually make it as advanced as you wish, and also have others contribute.
I hope godot success - it's one of the best open source engines out there.
I've worked on games where the entire team was using Krita for 2D assets and I feel like we were actually more productive than when everyone was on Photoshop. Outside of photography, I don't think I've even touched Photoshop in a few years now - Krita can even open PSD files.
Seriously, too many games nowadays focus on just the "visual wow" with millions of vertex + raytracing, they fall flat in terms of gameplay.