Caves of Qud dev says he ported to Godot in 14 hours:

Got a link to that please?

It is a Twitter... sorry... X.... post from Brian Bucklew - https://twitter.com/unormal/status/1703586087245869519

edit - but really, Caves of Qud was not originally developed on Unity and only use Unity for the UI. They can easily switch to any C# engine. - https://steamcommunity.com/app/333640/discussions/0/3877092028678184314/#c3877092028678601852

Cheers muchly!

In a way, it could be like the CRPG I'm developing. The plan is to do the game logic in Python (which I've already started) but use Godot for the UI, using JSON-RPC over sockets to communicate.

Yes, clearly porting 500K lines of code in 14 hours is only possible if the vast majority of that is not making use of specific engine APIs. As a game it's an edge case as far as porting, but it does go to show the mindset of some developers where they're willing to immediately spend time porting to another engine.

There's this:

https://github.com/touilleMan/godot-python

though it doesn't seem to be actually usable currently.

And Hob, X-Morph: Defense, Battlezone 98 Redux (which was an impressive upgrade to the original game) and Rebel Galaxy, to name a few.

Why though? This isn't a dev forum.

And the stuff the OP is talking about is a dev problem, not an end user problem. So there is not much, if any, point for end users to discuss such things among themselves.

With sockets, I have a more clear separation between the interface and the implementation.

Of note, Godot is heavily object-oriented (even the most basic of scripts inherit from some Godot class), while my game logic is definitely not.

If I were to get rid of the networking and put everything in one process, I'd probably just replace the StreamPeer TCP with StreamPeerExtension, even though the latter isn't well documented.

By the way, best timing in the world :)

https://www.humblebundle.com/software/everything-you-need-to-know-about-godot-4-encore-software

Some gamers have an interest in game development too, plus I'm sure there are a few devs around.

And in a lot of cases, the choice of engine does have some impact on users (performance, bloat, reverse-engineerability & patchability & moddability, portability, etcetra). And dev problems sometimes turn into user problems.. (plus most devs leave problems for users to fix).

- a car enthusiat should not care about how cars are made or car mechincs
- a film buff should not care about how films are made, or the history of the films
- somone who fish for a hobby should not care about how the bait is made or how the fishing gear is made, or how the rivers he fish in is getting polluted
- someone who like to listen to music should not care abouot the instruments used, how it is recorded, what medium it is recorded on

and so on and so on

How's CryEngine trudging along these days? That's still free ain't it?

Clearly the GOG General Discussion forums aren't a place to discuss anything.

Sometimes I don't know if you're being serious or just trolling.

A lot of the games we play/enjoy are using unity, and the dumb decisions that Unity's C-Suit makes could have ripples such as delistings, content pipe changes, or complete remakes. Plus, there are no small number of developers here (look for orange text) who I imagine are less than pleased at watching a middleware engine company implode, given what happened to Flash.
Last release was 16 months ago. But there's plenty of free/open source engines; the issue with CryEngine is probably one of an ancient stack.