If the tool actually worked that would be perfectly acceptable wouldn’t it?
9 out of 10 the problem is that the engine is a “tool” (disparaging connotation of negative intelligence)
The front page analogy is exactly the same.
BP allows you to move stuff around and connect “things”:
You don’t really know what these are (unless you look at the kismet cpp code) or what they do precisely. You have an idea driven by an often times horribly written description that doesn’t describe much.
It produces an end result that looks acceptable.
Front page was much the same:
Under the hood it added a TON of bad code, bloating, Javascript, odd things that I wouldn’t even know what to call.
But the end result looked acceptable, so… m$ made big bucks and Netscape was a thing.
Thankfully, the engine BP stuff isn’t so bad that it needs to be trashed like Internet Explorer…
I’d even go on record saying that for what it is, it’s pretty “on point”.
The problem becomes that you have people making games - in a market where we really don’t need more games - with 0 knowledge of how things should be. Or why something works a certain way.
This extends twofold to animation blueprints.
It’s like the team making them forgot their own specifications for the animation system.
“It works so whatever” is pretty much what you get in 99% of animation related engine examples / content.
Take Foot IK for instance.
Implementing it right in c++ from 0 with 0 knowledge takes what? A week or 2 of trial and error?
How much does the content example contribute to what you need to learn??? -1 WEEK.
Because you have to forget everything it showed you before you can do it right 