unity-script-roles

To organize Unity scripts and avoid overusing MonoBehaviour, you can assign explicit class roles such as pure C# services, presenters, or installers during architecture planning. This prevents monolithic scripts and clarifies class responsibilities.

You should use ScriptableObject instead of MonoBehaviour when planning script roles for data containers or shared configurations. Evaluating script ownership during design time helps distinguish data-centric ScriptableObjects from scene-bound MonoBehaviours.

The best way to plan Unity script responsibilities during refactoring is to generate a structured role map. This map specifies each script's recommended role, main responsibility, dependencies, and justification to guide the implementation.

To determine if a Unity script should be a pure C# service or a presenter, analyze its dependencies and main responsibility. Architecture planning clarifies whether a script requires Unity lifecycle hooks or functions better as framework-agnostic logic.

Yes, you can use pure C# service classes for game logic instead of MonoBehaviour. By assigning explicit script roles during architecture planning, you can separate framework-agnostic logic from Unity's lifecycle components to improve maintainability.

No, Unity does not require MonoBehaviour for all gameplay scripts. You can assign roles like pure C# services, presenters, or installers to reduce role ambiguity and prevent monolithic class sprawl in your project architecture.