We basically looked into the very new technology that Unity was offering, and that turned out to be a mistake, in the sense that there were features that didn’t actually fulfill the promise
Sounds like the Unity marketing convinced them that the capabilities they needed were soon to be added to the engine and they believed it.
AIUI, Unity has two types of systems the sparkly new stuff, which has the cutting-edge features but is unstable, and the old stuff, which had cutting-edge features 5 years ago but was abandoned while unstable, except in the last 5 years the bugs have been mostly documented and worked around. So the only way you can get new features is by adopting the shiny new thing, and the only way to get a stable engine is to go write one yourself. The latter is a terrible idea, FYI.
They also used Unity for Cities in Motion 2, which was a de facto prototype for Cities Skylines.
I much preferred their own homegrown engine from Cities in Motion 1; although since it is single threaded, it can bring even modern systems to their knees (at 1440+ resolutions) with mods, a map that maxes out the engine and freelook (especially if you do a horizon view of the city).
Cities in Motion 1 is exclusively focused on public transport company management, CiM 2 allows construction of roads/buildings in a more expansive manner (it was clearly a prototype for Cities Skylines), but is still missing much of the gameplay you would expect from a city-builder.
I really liked CiM 1 because it wasn’t made in unity and the euro focus (Vienna, Helsinki, Berlin, but there is also DLC for New York and Tokyo).
CiM is also very hard and I would argue the data vizualization expansion mod is a must for QoL.
How‽ You used Unity for the first game! Why would expect a difference for the second?
Sounds like the Unity marketing convinced them that the capabilities they needed were soon to be added to the engine and they believed it.
AIUI, Unity has two types of systems the sparkly new stuff, which has the cutting-edge features but is unstable, and the old stuff, which had cutting-edge features 5 years ago but was abandoned while unstable, except in the last 5 years the bugs have been mostly documented and worked around. So the only way you can get new features is by adopting the shiny new thing, and the only way to get a stable engine is to go write one yourself. The latter is a terrible idea, FYI.
They also used Unity for Cities in Motion 2, which was a de facto prototype for Cities Skylines.
I much preferred their own homegrown engine from Cities in Motion 1; although since it is single threaded, it can bring even modern systems to their knees (at 1440+ resolutions) with mods, a map that maxes out the engine and freelook (especially if you do a horizon view of the city).
How does Cities in Motion 1 hold up against Cities Skylines 1?
Cities in Motion 1 is exclusively focused on public transport company management, CiM 2 allows construction of roads/buildings in a more expansive manner (it was clearly a prototype for Cities Skylines), but is still missing much of the gameplay you would expect from a city-builder.
I really liked CiM 1 because it wasn’t made in unity and the euro focus (Vienna, Helsinki, Berlin, but there is also DLC for New York and Tokyo).
CiM is also very hard and I would argue the data vizualization expansion mod is a must for QoL.
Very interesting. Thanks a lot for taking the time to tell me. Something to add to my to-play list for sure.
Two different scopes.
Skylines 1 is very much a traffic management game. Everything relates to solving traffic problems.
Skylines 2 is wider in scope in terms of city simulation and needs.