Honestly GDscript is really easy to learn if you’ve got a programming background. The concepts are mostly the same so you can head over to the GDScript reference and learn to use it in less than a day. As soon as you get used to the syntax you basically know it already.

C# works fine, lots of Godot projects are using it.

That said, consider learning GD Script? Even if it’s only used by Godot, it’s simple, well integrated with the editor and is awesome for quickly building out your game.

Besides, it’s very Python-esque. Whether you know Python or not, it’s syntax is very straightforward and easy to work with.

GDScript is very similar to Python; if you know Python, learning GDScript takes about an hour.

• declaring a function uses the func keyword instead of def
• there’s an actual concept of variables and constants, in python you’d just say number = 3 but in GDScript you do var number = 3 or const number = 3.
• the constants “true” and “false” aren’t capitalized like in Python
• “match” is switch…case but slightly more terse.
• No lists, just arrays. There are also enums. There are also several built-in data types like vector2 or vector3 which are handy for storing position and velocity data in 2D or 3D space.
• There isn’t a module/library system; some things like random number generation, timing, math etc. are provided by the base language because they’re ubiquitous in game making, others, such as functions for audio playback, are provided by the node that your script extends. Right about here we get into territory where it’s more about how Godot works and less about how GDScript works, and concepts such as onready, signals etc. would be required learning no matter what language you use with Godot.

The C# version of the project is separate from the main one. It is possible to entirely code a game in c++ though in the main one (you can use both c++ and gdscript in it in one game interchangeably). Gdscript is a really easy language to learn though and is similar to other scripting languages (the only things you really need to learn is some keywords godot added to make coding in it easier when using things in the engine. Stuff like node names etc you would have to learn regardless of the language you’re using)

I’ve been working in Godot for about 3 years now, and have never touched GDScript. I personally haven’t felt like a second class citizen, and have rarely run into C# specific bugs, or found the documentation was missing for C#, other than when I was using the GD4 betas.

That being said, I’m not currently targeting web or mobile with my hobby projects, and I know those are open issues with the C# support.

My 2c.

C# works fine with Godot and with the changes in Godot 4.x its better than ever with Godot.

Here’s a pretty good blog post comparing the two:

• gdscript vs csharp

Personally I dislike using scripting languages as the primary language for any bigger project. The lack of proper static typing commonly causes issues with linting, code-completion, error highlighting and refactoring tools. Lack of namespaces can lead to name clashes with type names and such especially ones you start adding bunch of 3rd party plugins.

Also using having to include/preload any script files using string references like this: const Rifle = preload("res://player/weapons/rifle.gd") is not just plain bad in my books. Its just plain dirty compared to Namespaces in C# or Packages in Java.

I do like Python and I use it quite a bit at work to automate things as you can install and import bunch of ready made libraries for almost anything and just write script that is like sub 500 lines and does whatever. But the moment I need to make anything that contains multiple files and some object oriented practices things will get increasingly more annoying very fast.

Having interfaces is quite nice as well as it allows me to keep my code more loosely coupled. I try to keep my code as portable as possible by keeping much of my code in a separate project that has no dependencies to Godot. This way I can use nUnit in another separate project to do unit tests for the code and just write wrappers and whatever in Godot project. If Godot API changes I generally only need to fix the code in the wrapper classes.

It’s definitely a big point for me too, using Git with Unity is a big pain. Even using the right gitignore I often have to upload large Unity-generated files to my github which might’ve pushed me to using Git LFS. Having something that just works is liberating.

Removed by mod

Weird, you may be an outlier. The issue for Mac web exports not working is one of the most upvoted on their Github: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/70691

According to that, you have to manually set the renderer to Metal* or it might freeze/crash your browser (or take minutes to load). I’ve personally had many mac users tell me that my web projects aren’t loading for them, I’m pretty sure the issue is still not resolved.

Godot has console support now. I think it has for a couple of years, actually.

As far as I know Unreal’s source code is available but the licensing isn’t, so the company still owns it and can still charge you for using it.

Unreal is “source available”, not Open Source. There’s a big difference. With any Open Source project you can legally fork the project, distribute your custom version of the code, create a community around your variant… “source available” has none of that. The Unreal EULA is more permissive than most game engine licenses (with the obvious exception of Godot) but it still comes with plenty of restrictions. For example:

You are permitted to post snippets of Engine Code, up to 30 lines of code in length, online in public forums for the sole purpose of discussing the content of the snippet or Distribute such snippets in connection with supporting patches and plug-ins for the Licensed Technology, so long as it is not for the purpose of enabling third parties without a license to the Engine Code to use or modify any Engine Code or to aggregate, recombine, or reconstruct any larger portion of the Engine Code.

Which pretty clearly does not satisfy the Open Source Definition.