Information Unigine CEO Offers Free Engine License for Wasteland 2

Click here and disable ads!

That looks like a proper Syndicate remake.

All of that stuff is meaningless. You could achieve those looks in almost any 3D engine today. If we are to go purely by "how it looks" stuff, all that matters with any engine is the assets. Put those trees, shaders, animations and everything into any engine and it will look great. Those videos are meaningless. Unity is good for other reasons.

Average Codexer's lack of grasp on game engines is appalling.

When AoD switched to Unity from 2D to Torque, Unity hadn't even yet hit version 2. It was a relatively new startup with a small community and limited third party knowledge or experience especially compared to Torque back then, and its future was very uncertain, so it makes every kind of sense that he went with Torque, being a more popular and a more tried-and-true proven-to-work example with a large community. I would be surprised if VD heard of Unity back then at all.

So now one fallacy turned to three fallacies.
1. Just because some people get something for free doesn't make it worthless. Just because John Doe can go to bed with his wife doesn't mean it would cost me zero to do the same. Just 'cause Bob Smith can pirate a game for free doesn't mean this game is worth nothing. This was the original one, now yours.
2. Who are those "people" who'd perceive Unigine as crap? One hundred and seventy two gamers from RPG Codex? That's be a major loss to whoever decides on the engine in company XYZ. Unless those people have any say in what's next for other developers, their perception is meaningless. And most likely their memory will be short.
3. With all due respect but world does not turn around the Wasteland universe. Unigine won't be remembered as "the one not picked for W2". It will be forgotten by fans. Technical folks who decide on the tech purchase won't care what wasn't released using Unigine. They'll be interested in what Unigine enables. Whether it's a lot or not is a completely different story.

What's unethical in "we like this KS campaign, we'll give our engine away if they want to"? Stealing is unethical. Killing is pretty much unethical (unless you live in Florida where it's self defense). "Take it or else" is imposing, "take it, why didn't you make up your mind yet?!" is rude. It was just an option for inXile to explore. If they turn down the offer, so be it. It's not the end of the world for anyone.

As for the "not in public" - really? Where did Fargo start "thinking" about W2 KS campaign? Where does he shout news? How does he communicate with people? Twitter, public medium. Let's assume for a moment that Den donated to this campaign. Is his "hey, you can use this engine" any more unacceptable than "hey, I wan't an awesome Scorpitron" or "my rangers better have red boots, I donated, god damn it!"? I don't think so.

What people make of accepting/declining offer is in fact relevant. That's why I wouldn't expect any comments from Fargo before campaign is done. People do complain a lot about random stuff and not taking this piece of middleware would be viewed as wasting money by some for sure. But those people trusted Fargo in the first place with their money. Why would they suddenly question his decision and doubt in genuine explanation as to why they went for, say, UE? If you trust the guy and then just turn on your heel 180 deg, than there's something wrong with you, not with the man you put your trust in, is it?

What? Really? I never knew they switched engines.

Mind slip. I meant to write "when they switched to Torque", from whatever 2D engine they were using.

This is so stupid. Downgrading ethics to foul crimes alone is not a good indicator of your reasoning. Or maybe you just have no idea what ethics mean.

C4 doesn't have Linux support. Unity doesn't have Linux support. Unigine does have Linux support. InXile won't have the time, most likely don't have the skillset to port either C4 or Unity to Linux and, again, most likely won't be able to convince the C4 guy or the Unity people to port either of these engines to Linux in time for the release of Wasteland 2. For these reasons alone, Unigine is the only logic option, especially now that Obsidian's Onyx is off the table. Unless Brian has a 3D engine option (because he already said multiple times the game is going to be 3D isometric) that he's playing very close to the vest, then he'll going to seriously consider the Unigine offer.

Yes. It's self evident. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not understand how game creation works.

I gotta ask at this point, what do people actually think "2D" and "2D engine" mean?

They want the source code to be scrubbed clean of any coordinates with a z axis.

Right. And it won't use one of those. Of course it won't, that'd be impractical in this day and age. I thought that was pretty bloody self-evident, but apparently I was over-estimating people.

I didn't and haven't said anything about how many 2D and 3D assets it will use and in what kind of mix, since I have no idea, nor did I claim to, other than the pretty obvious given that it will use 3D assets. I was just pointing out how weird it was to expect it to use an engine specialized in 2D, when most of inXile's programmers, designers and artists/modellers have no experience with that.

I think so. In fact, I'm a little confused by how some people talk about "oldschool". Wasteland 2 is old school, it's NOT retro. It won't do things like they were done 10-20 years ago just because that's how they were down 10-20 years ago. Its goal is to resuscitate functional party-based, pen-and-paper-inspired, turn-based, choice and consequence filled gameplay. Old school principles. Its goal is not to present a game that feels like it was made 20 years ago. Fargo already talked quite a bit how he the UI in particular will include the flexibility and usability that has grown over the past decades. Being 2D just because Wasteland was 2D makes little sense. It's not turn-based because Wasteland turn-based either, it's turn-based because that's the superior combat system for stat-based, pen-and-paper inspired tactical combat.

BN, every non-techy guy obviously considers a game that looks/plays like FO, JA, Wasteland, IE games, etc to have a "2D" engine, while NWN or Wiz8 would be 3D engines.
Why should it have been clear from the start that the game wouldn't look/play like those 2D ("isometric") games?
Before Fargo started talking about "zooming" I was also expecting a "2D" game. I don't see what's supposed to be so stupid about that...

EDIT: And to make it clear: Seeing something as a possibility != asking for it to be made that way.
I'll judge the game on how it looks and plays, not on whether it's 2/3D.

Blame the fact that people never seems to think gameplay being included in game IP's.

I'm sure someone who's labeling what I've said stupid w/o providing any counterargument is not going to teach me what "ethical" means. Especially if he/she does not understand the concept if example. What Den did what at worst neither good nor bad: nobody's losing anything, no harm is done, nothing immoral happens - regardless of whether Fargo takes Unigine or not. Saying it was unethical is ludicrous. Taking a tidbit of what I've said and stating that the entire thing is balls is fallacy. And you're judging my reasoning skills? Good one.

Pretty much every engine today is 3D. That's the most obvious way to get your draws accelerated by the hardware. If you take a look at another KS game - Fist Puncher - it's pixel-painted 2D brawler. But underneath it's 3D objects pushed by the Unity3D. That's how things are done these days.

Whoah, hey now, I never said it wouldn't. I was replying to the assertion of Davaris (an ex-indie developer, I think) that he was surprised the game was not on a 2D engine, but on a 3D one like Unigine.

If we're talking about a game built with 3D assets (like Fallout) but with an inflexible camera, say "faux-2D", then sure. My memory may be hazy on what Fargo's said publicly but I'm pretty sure he talked about limited camera movement, though. I certainly think a goal is to recreate the visual strengths of games like Fallout and Infinity Engine games, but not by limiting yourself to 2D when more practical options are available.

Haha. I love it. It's like you people have two modes. "I love it" and "it does one thing I don't like BURN IT BURN IT ALL".

He talked about the in the Kickstarter #10 update video, where he mentions applying lessons learned on UI design, and particularly how he likes the flexibility of WoW's UI. In fact, I don't recall him every indicating this game is a retro title, and he has been very candid about things changing because they work better for his goals (like isometric camera rather than Wasteland's top down, I mean, you knew it was doing that, right?)

Plus, 3D simply means faster development and better flexibility across platforms. If you're going to go the prerendered 3D route, it will mean far more prerendering work for iterations and then again to fit each individual platform.

You're thinking design philosophy. Tech-wise, things have become easier and more flexible. Nowadays you can simply slap in a flash interface that will accurately scale with all resolutions while keeping the same layout, for instance. Whether you give players the options to customise stuff or not is another matter. Given a sensible design philosophy, we can do things far better than anyone could in 90s.

I think even Codex needs some good old home-schooling on some of the fundamental aspects to game development. At the simplest level, people still ascribe ridiculous feats and qualities to game engines simply based on the style of a few games made in it and how some game assets quickly thrown together can look good so therefore the engine must also be good.

Lesson #1: what is an RPG

2D or 3D?

Yes, he said no camera rotating I believe.

I don't see how losing interest is "BURN IT ALL".

For example, I lost interest in Fallout 3 the moment I heard it's a FPS (awful of me, I assume) then, when the game turned out to be much much more than that, it went to "BURN IT ALL".

Yeah, totally a reasonable comparison!

I think, perhaps, not "freely rotating"? He doesn't want the mess that 3D isometric games with fully rotating cameras turned in to. To be honest though, I haven't had an update myself on this subject in weeks so I don't know exactly what they're thinking either. A fixed isometric camera where you can't even switch angles has some gameplay disadvantages, though.