Game News Wasteland 2 to use Unity

Click here and disable ads!

Different tool layout . . . uh . . . ? My infinitely shallow knowledge seems to believe they're rather similar. Will unleash my Prosper and monkey about once I get back from class.

On a more serious note: yep, C4 of course isn't some monkey doodie piece of software, but it doesn't project a lot of confidence either. Relating to the editor: asset handling is the main issue, collada isn't mature enough.
Unity handles anything and everything, you feed it PSD and it exports whatever you need. When you are comparing the two, you simply wonder: if it is so awesome, why are there only a handful of games made with C4?
On the other hand you have 1 person making a space opera within a year and an assortment of licensed games, games on steam, ps3, wii, iOS, android and 360. It's not only bursting with confidence, but with results also.

You would have to be more specific than that. Generally though it has no problem with 2d. There are some cool 3D toolkits on the asset store that can speed up your workflow immensely, but depending on what you want to make,
how much time you want to spend on it etc there might be other choices for 1-man-bands.

For example:
Something like the first Zelda games... there are tons of engines specifically for that type of game. With tile
engines, tile editors, pre-made tiles, so you might as well use one of those in that case. Less work on the framework
means more content.
You could make it in Unity, but you would need to make things like that, which are specific to the type of game and
are also main components. If you can find the main components ready, you go for that path.

koyima, Collada isn't mature enough? Seems that C4, CryEngine 2, Torque, Unreal, and Unity support it.

Lack of awareness for its existence;
Maintenance of status quo ("They told me to use Unity so I'll use Unity, damnit!");
Multitude of pretty alternatives (UDK, several others);
No need to pay for it, if you're just fucking around;
and other assorted reasonings completely unfounded.

Why you place such emphasis on its popularity? The real important thing is "how easily can Wasteland 2 be created within Unity?" None of these engines really seem to have an example of the holy grail, Fallout 1. (Aside from the Unity fan-thing up-stream.)

[citation needed]
Any other editor-related complains?
My mobile internet is having issues, some pauses in posting might occur, but i'm still here

Unreal also supports FBX, so does CryEngine and Unity. Support for Collada in major 3d software as well as the engines has proved problematic, FBX on the other hand is more stable, benefits of
coorporate quality control. I am talking from personal experience with the specific formats (fbx > dae).

Collada is open source, so it's not as easy to maintain as a standard. Autodesk on the other hand has bought
out everyone and has made it priority number one to have their programs "talk to each other with one click".

I am not giving emphasis on popularity. I am explaining a business decision to you, you obviously can't grasp the concept of: minimizing risk.
When a piece of software has been proven to work in multiple productions it's a safer choice, thus less things to worry about.
A game is a risk in itself, chosing a "not-so-proven" engine just adds to the riks. Do you understand?

It's the same reason companies chose Unreal over Unity or CryEngine.

First pre-alpha screenshot:

Akbar (aka Simpsons font) ? really ?

at least it's not comic sans

I have no complaints, I'm not using it.

You are the one trying to convince someone that Unity was the wrong choice, that C4 is a viable option, right?

I'm not trying to convince, it has already been chosen. I just "explained" why I think they chose Unity.

It's not my "job" to discredit C4 or any other engine for that matter, I just couldn't stand the rubbish being said about Unity, some people were just talking out of their ass.

C4 can be perfect for all I care, it obviously lacks in recognition and user base though, correct?

Ok so let's say that a comparison has been done and C4 is strong in some respects and Unity is strong in others. It is a tie, we have to chose C4 or Unity:

In this department the only valid metric is: titles completed.

This shows that so many games have been made with said engine, so it has enough production use to be considered a safe choice.
This is unbiased, the number of titles is not questioned, it's simply fact. When faced with this situation 99% of people will chose the safe choice.
Unless they are related to the C4 team or have some other bias.

By this simple metric, any engine that is similar to Unity (cheap, easy to use etc), loses. If the numbers were closer: like 150 Unity games 100 C4 games. Then it wouldn't really matter which engine was chosen, you could say there would be no wrong choice (with the hypothesis they are equally good in all other aspects).

Now as I explained:
I assume Unreal and CryEngine lost simply because of pricing, especially since Wasteland has already a theoretical profit, it would be like handing money to Epic or Crytek.

Torque nearly closed down last year. Unigine wasn't a game framework up until recently, Ogre3D is a graphics engine. Shiva has a smaller user base as well as weird pricing.
There are many other options that could have been considered. Though Unity is the one both Epic and Crytek look at as their rival (not my words - interview on gamasutra). It has simply gone into the big league, to deny that is to be blind to the facts.

All of the engines koyima laughs at can do it, its just a matter of time.

And there is nothing in Unity that makes it any easier, to write the turn based rule system, for an RPG and script that game.

Koyima is a marketing guy and clearly hasn't a clue what goes into creating a hardcore RPG. It really shows in his repetitive, BIG is better, comments.

What Unity has over the other engines, is the idiot proof art importer and its 1 million (how many paying?) users. And the iimporter is what Brian Fargo asked for, so no argument from me, he got what he paid for.

Look at the nude guy in the shot above. Plonk, plonk, is all it takes. Anyone here could have done that in Unity. Coding the game is where the real work begins, as it would be in every other engine.

If all engines can do it, then why say Unity is the wrong choice?

I never said that Unity will make it easier to develop, I only refuted comments that said it would hinder development.

I talked about money and proven track record.

All you have is trying to mock me as a marketing guy (same thing from your first post).
You say BIG, I say undeniable proven track record.
You say BIG, I say minimizing risk.
You compared game engines to game companies.... that's how much you understand the topic.

We are in a different league.

koyima, I see you haven't addressed my complaint about difficulty of using 3rd party version control systems with Unity.

Another thing that bothers me with Unity is something that is actually being put forward as its strength - the Asset Store. There is a ton of stuff there, a lot of it may be very useful. If you need to do something you will most likely see first if someone already did it in a nice way and put it into the store. This will, of course, cost money and some of that money will go to Unity folks. That's a valid business model, but it stinks too much of DLCs.

No, your pseudo-argument made me respond.

What if one engine was released and become popular earlier than the other one? What if its popularity is a result of powerful and not always fair advertising? Number of projects really means nothing, there is no difference if one has 10 released projects and the other 20. Which number is a sign of the safe choice, 19 or 21?
Now, why did Fargo choose Unity? I don't know, but boy oh boy do i hope that he knows what he's doing.

Dude you seem to not understand the most simple things like the advantage of native over managed code, or see the difference in image quality between let's say Ogre3D and Unity, what would be the point in discussing with such a moran?

This is not to say Drocon is right, but he has definitely a point about the technical side of engines. Just seems way too much on a mission to prove that you cannot create good games with Unity (or anything else but C4). Which is of course not really true either, you can make very good games with it, they just have some weaknesses.

Davaris videos some page ago is actually the most informative piece of information in this terrible thread. In showing what to expect and where the (little) problems are. I think Unity has some advantages but it is certainly one of the least powerful engines they could select.

You can use 3rd party version control with Unity. Complaints have been made for it's built-in solution, of course those complaints are also difficult cases (eg half-way around the world, huge files)
http://unity3d.com/support/documentation/Manual/ExternalVersionControlSystemSupport

The Asset Store is aimed at Game Developers, not Gamers, so the DLC argument is invalid.
In the asset store you will find code and assets. Let's say you are making a game in the forest, don't have enough cash for SpeedTree, you can find trees there, made by other artists at reasonable prices.
You might need rocks, people, animals, road blocks etc. Instead of looking for an artist and paying him to make them, you can find assets someone has already made. It's other artist that make these assets, not Unity staff.

Now you might need code, let's say you need an AI framework. Instead of writing your own, there is a guy who has a PhD on AI and has written a robust system available in the asset store, for 100$, what
do you do? Do you code the system yourself or do you rely on an expert for what is peanuts to game development? You still might want to create your system and that's fine, but some things can be created
once and used over and over without a problem.

DLC is game content you gain access to after the game has been released. The Asset Store is like any other store, you bou art supplies from, instead of buying brushes you are buying zombies.
People in film, television and games have used ready made assets for years. Next time you watch a police procedural (CSI, SVU etc) notice the sirens or the phones ringing. You will notice they
are alike... that is what asset libraries are.. the show is different, but they won't record new phones everytime, nor will they go out and film Miami in a helicopter for every episode.
Sorry if this breaks the illusion for you.

Again Ogre3D is a graphics engine. You can't make a full game with just Ogre3D. So why compare it?

You obviously don't understand at what level you are working when in Unity. You are not coding the renderer, you are not coding the physics, you are not coding anything
that is intensive enough to warrant native code. You are basically coding gameplay. All engines use scripting for that. To do otherwise would make your engine a hacked-up mess of poo.

Not one of the videos on C4 show a decent game.

I have already explained this. If the actual decision was so close it wouldn't matter. It is the vast difference in the amount of titles that tilts the scales. Assuming they are indeed equal.
Unfair advertising you say.. really? Is it also a conspiracy theory? Should they bow down because they became popular faster/earlier/whatever?
Do you live in lala land?

No.

Oh, so they work for Unity now.
Master will be pleased.

I assume he means the Linux version of W2 not the Linux version of Unity.