Unlock 5500+ free animations for Unreal Engine 5 in this Easy Unreal tutorial! This pack includes retargeted Paragon combat animations and Infinity Blade VFX particles—all fully compatible with the UE5 mannequin and compressed into a lightweight 2 GB download. Originally released by Epic Games but no longer officially available, this bundle brings back powerful animation resources for game devs, prototyping, or cinematic work. Learn how to access, download, and use them in your own UE5 projects in just a few steps.
https://dev.epicgames.com/community/learning/tutorials/qB07/unreal-engine-5500-free-retargeted-animations-for-ue5-paragon-infinity-blade-effects-2gb-pack
I have a hard time supporting someone making an Unreal Learning article, that links to a video, that references the resources someone else makes. Literally pulling in traffic for simply pointing in a direction… This is yet another type of content here that I speak up about, that doesn’t fit the purpose of Learning community.
What did you teach us? What sort of engineering, resources, and time did you dedicate to educating people of the learning community?
If this content is simply to gain some traffic, I’m sorry, but I think it should be removed. It’s been a while but I regularly call out various pieces like this, in the hopes of slowing down the community becoming a sloppy heap of material that is not educational. We need to keep the content here relevant to teaching others about how to use the engine, the tools, programming, etc. This isn’t an advertising or funnelling platform to use as your playground to become internet famous and harvest followers.
Please respect the learning community, and stick to submitting tutorials, helpful reference, and so on here. If you want to make this sort of post, take that to the regular forums, Reddit, Discord, etc.
While this might seem like a matter of opinion, people need to introduce pure logic and mechanical thinking to the equation. I’ve gotten replies from others when I’ve called out similar types of posts, and it’s never a logical argument, but rather roundabout excuses that grasp at straws to try and categorize their funneling as an educational piece. That might work on someone very unintelligent or uncaring person, but for anyone with half a brain… they can see right through that sort of dishonest justification.
An easy way to look at it? The descriptions of the “Learn Unreal Engine” platform itself. The filters on the sidebar. The categories. Popular and trending articles. The content created by Epic are a great reference.
Of course people like free resources, and would be quick to defend this. I also like free resources. What I also like, is organization and integrity. For the 2+ decades that I’ve been in the Unreal/Epic universe, I’ve seen many iterations of platforms rise and fall, and the biggest culprits to failings is a lack of moderation and self-control from the community. It starts with you, and it starts with others pushing and poking to keep things civil and in line.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, my own free tutorial got rejected. I previously sent a report about the content you’re referring to, but that report was also turned down. I’m still trying to get a clear handle on the guidelines because it’s not really obvious to me what exactly gets approved. Just to be transparent, I’m not connected to Epic Games in any way, nor do I sell or promote any products. I’m simply passionate about sharing helpful educational content with the community. It’s a bit frustrating that my content was declined without a clear explanation, while the ones which don’t belong there do get accepted and defended very well, so I’m a little unsure about how to improve or make sure I meet the expectations.
Regarding the content mentioned earlier, I personally didn’t mind it being included at first. I was focused on creating my own stuff before complaining. But seeing that such content is defended while mine is rejected raises questions about consistency. I may very well be misunderstanding something here, and I’d really like to learn what that is.
My main questions are:
- Why is educational content being rejected without specific feedback? As educators, we’re not asking for anything in return. Just the opportunity to share and maybe receive constructive comments to improve. Wouldn’t that benefit the forum and its members?
- While I also appreciate free content, I agree with others that some of it doesn’t actually teach anything. Why is this still being defended as part of the “Learning” category?
I’d genuinely appreciate any clarification. My goal is simply to support the community through helpful, high-quality learning material.
This is a great example of why I started speaking up and commenting on the various submissions. What I theorize is, there is only so much moderation/review energy to go around. So some of it may be automated, or quickly viewed by humans. If there is a good amount of non-educational submissions, some of them will get through, some of them will get rejected… but either way they are sucking up the review energy. This means less time for tangible review and consideration of actual educational submissions.
In your case, it might not have met the standards of quality or otherwise set off flags for another reason, and your submission happened to be reviewed by a human that took content review seriously. Had it been the type of reviewer or automation that lets poor quality or non-educational things slip through, you may not have noticed.
Again, the content our comments are attached to is neat (even though it’s still riding on the coattails of another’s work, it’s nothing original or special), but just because I like it, doesn’t mean it belongs here. It can be neat somewhere else, where it categorically fits.
Your content not being accepted is frustrating, and not the first case I’ve seen. I hope Epic and the community can push back a bit harder to prevent the learning community from falling into a poor state, like so many of the communities before it…
I’d say it wouldn’t hurt to reach out to the right people to get clarification on the review process, and why your specific content didn’t meet their standards or what policy you clashed with. A second look might be all it takes for them to give it a pass, otherwise getting a clearer picture of what you can do in the future to pass review would good too - and educational in it’s own way!
Honestly, I’m left pretty confused. The feedback from the review I got wasn’t specific: just a general “no.” Meanwhile, I’ve seen other content get approved that isn’t even really a tutorial, sometimes just product ads.
If we’re serious about supporting quality educational content, there should be clear guidelines and at least some feedback when something’s not accepted. Without that, it’s hard to know what to fix or improve.
It feels like the review process might be automated or just stretched too thin. I totally get that, but even one sentence of specific feedback would go a long way. Otherwise, it can feel like the content wasn’t really reviewed at all.
I’m going to keep creating tutorials no matter what but I hope we can make the process more open and helpful for all creators. That would really raise the level of what ends up in the Learning space.