I think most seasoned game developers would be faster making a simple 3D game with Unity rather than just openGL + C ( mainly because with Unity you get soon much boilerplate-y stuff out of the box)
The language and the amazing properties of failure tolerance could be productivity multipliers ( think of the times you've had to deal with catastrophic failures of software)
Nah, language alone isn't a good enough reason. It can contribute, just like every choice of tool can contribute.
You example, unity, isn't a language, but instead an off the shelf engine and toolchain.
But just like the development on an individual game seem less impressive technologically the more they rely on existing tech [1], admitting "Yeah, we forked ejabberd and rigidly fight scope creep" doesn't have the same ring as hyping up features in the runtime of a hip yet obscure programming language.
[1] Fun side note: If you watch the games press interviews devs, pay attention to when they ask about what engine they use. The press don't and viewers often don't know anything about software projects, so the devs are reluctant to to admit how much they've relied on off the self components for their admittedly-huge undertaking. Fun to watch the paid hype men try to talk around that.
I think most seasoned game developers would be faster making a simple 3D game with Unity rather than just openGL + C ( mainly because with Unity you get soon much boilerplate-y stuff out of the box)
The language and the amazing properties of failure tolerance could be productivity multipliers ( think of the times you've had to deal with catastrophic failures of software)