Not The End Of The World: Wasteland Not Browser-Based

This logo, however, is browser-based. Disgusting, right?
Among many frightening visions of the future spawned by modern day paranoia – for instance, widespread environmental devastation, nuclear genocide, or roving herds of spindly, twitching spiders that evolve to reside exclusively in jars of Nutella – there’s the fear that all games will eventually bomb themselves back to the lo-fi, browser-compatible Stone Age. So when inXile head Brian Fargo announced that Wasteland 2 would be in the Unity engine‘s browser-calloused hands, knees jerked hard enough to create a small seismic event. Fargo, however, assured his panicked followers that his franchise revival has not, in fact, jumped the irradiated six-mouthed shark.

“Although we are using Unity this is not an in browser game but an executable file,” Fargo said on Twitter. “Fear not. Our game will look detailed and rich.” Linux support, meanwhile, is still very much in the cards, with Fargo noting that inXile has been “supplied the source code to Unity for the express purpose of making the Linux version.”

And despite any connotations a browser-friendly engine might have, Unity’s proven itself fairly capable in games like Battlestar Galactica Online. Lesser-known but perhaps more relevant to the discussion, meanwhile, is Drakesang Online, a top-down isometric hack ‘n’ slash RPG that’s gorgeous and detail-rich (and browser-based). Since Wasteland’s aiming to use a similar perspective, I’m actually pretty optimistic about its chances.

Really, though, the browser-based scene has made tremendous leaps and bounds in the past year or so, and a few of its standouts aren’t too far outside of eye-searing territory. In the same way free-to-play’s cleaning up its slimy reputation, I doubt browser-based games will imply an inferior experience after another year or two. They’ll just be, you know, games. Is that such a bad thing?


  1. Calneon says:

    When I first read this I was sceptical. Unity has a bad reputation at my university for being the engine people use if they want everything already done for them, and want to put in the least amount of effort possible. Invariably, whatever comes out at the other end is almost always complete trash.

    However, I think this is a good decision for Wasteland 2 because despite the massive amount of money they got from Kickstarter, it’s not going to be enough to make an original engine which would prolong development by at least a year. Unity is incredibly easy to use and in the hands of experts (rather than lazy students) I think they should be able to come out with something very nice. It also gives them more time to add features to the game rather than having to worry about the technical side of things.

    • dysphemism says:

      I’d be interested to hear specifics on how Unity got such a bad rap at your school. That is, which aspects/features people deride.

      • Trent Hawkins says:

        sounds like standard Dinosaur complaints.

        • Torn says:

          Agreed. Unity is easy to learn, sure, but when you’ve got the pro version you’re able to do a lot under the hood, writing your own shaders I believe other low-level stuff too. It’s a good environment and the devs will likely be more productive there than rolling their own engine or trying to adapt an existing RPG engine.

          There are gorgeous-looking unity games out there, whose graphics would be more than enough for a Wasteland 2 game. Take a look at their spring 2011 video, for starters: link to

          Note they’re not all 2D – jump to 2:25 for a good 3d example.

          Coding in Unity also increases the chances of future multi-platform (iPad?) stuff.

          • MadMinstrel says:

            Writing shaders is low level stuff now? Seriously? Writing some simple ones is one of the first things you have to do when you first sit down to program something with, say, webgl. I wouldn’t mind unity as much if the basic version let you do all the low level stuff and the pro version added some high level conveniences. But of course they know they wouldn’t sell very many licenses that way – nobody needs their stupid built in high level stuff, it’s akin to the crapware you get when you buy a new PC. And with the basic version you’re stuck with it with no hope of ever doing anything useful. Unity gets its bad rep quite rightly.

          • Brosepholis says:

            Dude… writing shaders is not low-level programming.

            Low-level programming is…

            -Writing your own deferred shading pipeline.
            -Writing your own software rasteriser.
            -Making a physics engine.

            None of which you can do in unity.

          • Torn says:

            nobody needs their stupid built in high level stuff, it’s akin to the crapware you get when you buy a new PC

            Haha, oh wow. Ok.

            You think most people write their own 3D engines and content pipelines from scratch these days? You really think Wasteland 2 needs to be written in bare-bones C++ and OpenGL/DirectX and they should be doing everything from the ground up?

            They’ll be using a pro version of unity, it only costs a few thousand bucks. Yes, it is to sell more licences. The same could be said for licencing other game engines out there (Unreal, Source, Cryengine, yadda yadda). They are not free either outside of toy use.

            They are industry vets and chose Unity for a reason, I think they know a bit more than your first year intro to computer graphics module.

          • Torn says:

            -Writing your own deferred shading pipeline.
            -Writing your own software rasteriser.
            -Making a physics engine.

            So bearing in mind that Unity provides the physics via NVidia’s PhysX, and offers you GPU stuff like HLSL and already handles software rendering via opengl/directx, why would this not be fine for Wasteland 2? We’re not talking about building Crysis 3.0 here and pushing the envelope, are we?

            This isn’t really my area of expertise, so maybe I’m wrong about all this. It seems to me like there’s a bit of hate here, when I bet the game’s gonna come out just fine; it’ll play smoothly and look good.

            Would you prefer they take longer using your kickstarter money to reinvent the wheel?

          • Julhelm says:

            You can in fact bypass all the built-in stuff and basically just use Unity as a rendering engine. And I think it gets unfairly bad rep simply because of GIGO.

          • MadMinstrel says:

            I don’t really care what they use. I care that I don’t see how they can deliver a good modkit (which people like me upped their pledges to get at 3 million). Unity prebakes lots of stuff. So unless they roll 3/4 of the SDK into the modkit, including the fancy lightmappers and whatnot, modders won’t be able to build locations. Which would royally suck. Alternatively they could decide not to use all the stuff that makes Unity fast and beautiful. Which would also suck. It’s like they’ve dropped the modkit already.

          • Shooop says:

            Watching that makes me long for another game like Call Of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

          • mnxzicun says:

            I think that the puzzle game is also great! 3D Puzzle Big Ben Building the Model Card, Kit link to

          • Rugged Malone says:

            I’ve actually been shopping around for game engines and if you search you’ll find plenty of evidence of problems with unity’s performance when you try to achieve anything complex. For example, some of the later features they’ve added to the engine have severe frame rate issues (foliage being one example) whenever they’re used in any abundance.

            I personally think it’s a smart move for Wasteland 2 to use an existing engine, and I believe they can do a great game using any engine, including Unity…but I have to admit that as a supporter, I was a bit disappointed when I heard they were using Unity, simply because my own impression of it wasn’t entirely favorable.

    • JFS says:

      I’d rather have W2 with a so-so engine and loads of contents, choice and consequence than a nicer looking W2 with average filling.

    • sassy says:

      Unity is only as good as the coder and we’ve seen some excellent work done with unity in the past. It’s a mature engine which is easily ported to other platforms, easy to deal with (and sometimes used for prototyping for this reason) and best of all it is pretty cheap.

      For something like wasteland 2 it actually sounds like a sound decision. The games selling point isn’t its graphics, my impression is that they will be about that of a good looking indie game ( like VVVVVV :D ). So unity graphics engine should be more than sufficient, as is the audio engine though I seem to remember a peculiarity in it when I was using it but could be thinking of something else.

      Unity doesn’t really have a lot of functions tailored for rpg’s though so most of that will have to be built from the ground up but truthfully, any competent coder should be more than sufficient. The functions of an rpg aren’t what I would call difficult and isn’t where most the work should be going.

    • subshell001 says:

      trash in, trash out.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      Huh. My problem with Unity is that it claims to be easily usable, but in reality, I still have had to waste a lot of time on purely technical bullshit, working around bugs in their custom Mono implementation and the missing .NET 4.0 features, trying to pummel their APIs into a usable form (oh god the bloody GUI system), etc. They claim to focus on usability, but what they have currently doesn’t really deliver.

    • innociv says:

      Really? I’ve tried many engines and Unity allows you to do the most things yourself, contrast to Unreal where all you can do is tweak already existing things.

  2. Wizardry says:

    I’d take a Wasteland 2 made in the Wasteland 1 engine, so I don’t quite understand the complaints about Unity with regards to this game that have popped up elsewhere.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Yeah, I wouldn’t be upset if they just updated that engine to work properly in Windows and made a pile of new content.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      I wouldn’t. I’d much rather they took the great design principles and applied it to a modern graphical engine and UI.

      • Davie says:

        Thank you for saying this. I get that people like the older mechanics, but I completely fail to grasp why, after waiting 20+ years, you’d want the game to look exactly the same despite the insane leaps in technology that have occurred in the meantime. When I can say with complete confidence I could create a better-looking game than something with a sizable budget back then, it’s time for a visual upgrade.

        • Wizardry says:

          Well, Wasteland and the old pre-VI Ultima games all had this weird style of tile-based graphics that represented everything as icons. There was no perspective in these games because every icon was drawn from different angles. You’d often get ground tiles that were top down, with characters that were side on. This worked really well, until the move to “fluid” movement and high resolution VGA graphics. In fact, it still works relatively well in graphical roguelikes.

          It also did wonders for your imagination.

    • Paul says:

      Hey, they should make it in ASCII and be done with it.

      • Wizardry says:

        No. Graphical CRPGs pre-date ASCII CRPGs by a good few years.

        • Jason Moyer says:

          dnd, Dungeon, and Rogue all predate graphical CRPG’s don’t they?

          • Wizardry says:

            Avatar, pedit5, dnd, Moria, Oubliette and other PLATO CRPGs are graphical. They have vector graphics. In other words, their graphics weren’t based on ASCII characters like Rogue was.

            And if we’re moving beyond the mainframe CRPGs, the Dunjonquest series started in 1979, and Akalabeth was apparently also released in 1979, which also pre-dates Rogue (though there could have been slightly earlier ASCII CRPGs).

          • phlebas says:

            Vector graphics? Do you mean the ANSI line drawing characters? I’m pretty sure I don’t remember Moria or DND using more than that.

          • Wizardry says:

            What? Just GIS any of these games. They all have vector graphics of some sort depicting the dungeon and the top down ones (pedit5, dnd) have little drawn characters and enemies.

            In fact, I found a Let’s Play of pedit5 over at the RPG Codex:
            link to

  3. LionsPhil says:

    Is that such a bad thing?

    Yes. Next question.

    Also, sort-of boo in that this probably means no open-source Wasteland, but that was only wistful dreaming to start with.

    • ffordesoon says:


      • TemplarLord says:

        It would be a seriously bad thing because it would have no mod capability. Unless I misunderstood, browser based means I can play it in Firefox so that would mean I would be playing on online servers and that would unfortunately mean I can not mod my game.

        So yes, a bad thing indeed.

  4. Jimbo says:

    His tweet doesn’t mention it being browser-based at all. How did that come into it?

    • Torn says:

      Unity has a web player, and I believe it started out as a browser plugin as a competitor to flash that provided a proper 3D environment. Or at least, that was where most of the early hype was with it.

      It now supports a lot of platforms – Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android…

      • Scandalon says:

        Started on Mac, cross-compiling to Windows, or at least that came soon after. Web player arrived not too long after that, I believe.

      • Jimbo says:

        Oh ok, just very out of date knee-jerking then. It seemed like a bit of a leap to interpret ‘We’re using Unity’ as ‘It’s gonna be browser-based’, considering.

        • Lemming says:

          Yeah the fact that Unity stuff can run from a webplayer in a browser has always been a sweet little addition (handy if you want to beta test or demo your game to the masses), but because it’s taken off such a storm I’m surprised some think that’s what Unity is for.

        • RobF says:

          Yeah, that it’s 2012 and anyone is even having this discussion is a bit embarrassing, really.

          Unity is *more* than fine, it’ll get the job done and then some. I don’t even understand where any of this is coming from, I really don’t.

  5. rustybroomhandle says:

    Hey, people freak out when they hear a mention of Flash too, and yet that has yielded some legendary games.

    • JFS says:

      Still don’t understand why Isaac runs so sloooowly sometimes.

      • rustybroomhandle says:

        Because he’s unhappy. Snark aside, my point still stands.

      • lordfrikk says:

        No hardware acceleration (old Flash version).

      • LionsPhil says:

        Because Macromedia/Adobe lost the developers who wrote the original product that they bought and rebranded as Shockwave Flash, and don’t seem to have really ever spent any properly smart attention to it since because they’ve been too busy pissing about with video embedding and “application” features. (That said, it’s one of the original devs who brought the video stuff in.)

        I get the distinct impression that to this day it still works on a model of repainting the bounding rectangle of any changes on-screen, which was fine in 1997 when memory was scarce (ish), target resolutions were lower, and you couldn’t do multiple layers of fancy alpha-blending and filtering like blurs and glows in it, but doesn’t really seem to scale any more. Even bloody X11 has decided that it was time to shift from repaints to compositing all that jazz. (Apparently you can manually set individual shapes to cache as bitmaps these days, but only for a single scale/orientation/frame, Flash then dutifully throwing it away if it changes. Because what you want from a high-level tool is to have to care about micro-optimization decisions.)

    • Phasma Felis says:

      No, they’re right to groan over Flash, because Flash requires at least 10 times the reasonable processing power to run anything. That’s fine if you’ve already got a super high-powered machine, but the rest of us are left wondering why visually simple games like Binding of Isaac and 1000 Amps run like molasses on a two-year-old machine. Flash sucks.

      • LionsPhil says:

        “Moore’s Law doesn’t apply to batteries.” — Douglas Crockford

        Or, to put it another way, there’s no excuse for a 2D game to make your laptop warm even if it is running it smoothly.

    • Shooop says:

      Yes but it’s still a horrible thing to use because Adobe can’t be arsed to optimize it.

      It devours CPU cycles and RAM like Photoshop.

      • Aaarrrggghhh says:

        And that’s just windows. Don’t get me started on Flash performance on Linux. That’s barely something I would call “performance”…

    • lamontagne says:

      And some legendary reviews also. If you haven’t seen ,”DOT DOT DOT”, I thoroughly recommend checking it out. link to

  6. RedViv says:

    Endless Space. End of the discussion?

  7. Matzerath says:

    Unity is fine — the crazy statement is that Fargo’s team is going to take on the responsibility for porting Unity to Linux?! That’s a bigger task by far than making the actual game!

  8. Brosepholis says:

    And now we see the downside of crowd-funding your game – Whether you have explicitly promised it or not, your backers will expect creative control over their investment. So good luck dealing with the endless knee-jerking of the gaming community.

    • zeekthegeek says:

      I don’t think this problem relates just to crowdsourcing though, gaming communities have knee jerk reactions to literally every game ever made.

    • Premium User Badge

      FhnuZoag says:

      Yeah. Well, more precisely, this shows the problem with kickstarter – it encourages a vague pitch to attract lots of people, but soon as the vague skin gets filled in during actual development, it will begin to stop looking like what many people paid for. Especially when different people wanted different things out of the project.

  9. Navagon says:

    I think that the main concern regarding browser support would have been possible lack of fullscreen support. Unity is a powerful engine. Anything we could realistically have expected from Wasteland 2 could theoretically be done in a browser.

    Other than that the only other concern would be that it wouldn’t have felt like a ‘proper’ game had it required a browser to run.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Also, y’know, needlessly interjecting another performance, UI*, and reliability-sapping layer between “operating system” and “binary blob” for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

      * For example, your usual menu key is occupied doing “get me the heck out of here”.

    • Wurstwaffel says:

      It’s not gonna be a browser based game and it’s going to have fullscreen support.
      Also the esc key will work just fine.

      • LionsPhil says:

        I know. Them using Unity is fine if it works for them as developers (as a player, Rochard seemed to run just fine). I am specifically replying to the browser-games angle.

  10. Janto says:

    Hell, I’d take it in HTML5 if they could make it work.

  11. Bobtree says:

    AI War was ported to Unity for the 4.0 release. It is still going strong.

  12. JackDandy says:

    I really don’t care about what graphics engine they pick- this gives them more money to make the actual game better.

  13. Treymoney says:

    The new Aaaaaa! runs in Unity and I thought it looked lovely.

  14. stahlwerk says:

    I demand them to program it in ASM, or else!

    Straight to VRAM or NO RAM AT ALL!

    • Scandalon says:

      I’ve seen a lot of crappy stuff written in C and C++, so I boycott programs written in all languages except straight brain to machine code interface. (Which is why it is taking me 2 hours to input this post.)

  15. Unfettered says:

    I just don’t get the reaction to Unity on the internet. It’s a great engine, very easy to use and develop in, stable and supports a multitude of platforms. What, because some lazy kids have used it to put out a couple of shitty iphone games the engine isn’t worth using for professional developers? Please….

    I have a feeling many of the people commenting on Unity’s capabilities and strength as a development platform don’t know the first thing about actually trying to produce a commercial title with any of these engines. They’re just basing their opinions of the strength of a engine’s flagship product and Unity being developed by an engine team and not game developers doesn’t have one.

    Great choice inXile

    • Dache says:

      This is absolutely true. Unity is versatile and very capable in the right hands, and can be extended quite easily. C# is available for the able and Javascript is good for designers for scripting gameplay or mechanics. Unity’s also really good for making tools quickly, which should hopefully get them running sooner.

      The fact it’s got native iOS and Android exporting should come in very, very handy later on down the line too. And, fuck it, if browser based becomes an option eventually, why not?

      • Rapzid says:

        Unity Script, not Javascript. But yeah… If you can’t hack it with Unity, you probably just can’t hack it. Best bang for your buck out there IMO. Awesome and getting more awesome all the time.

  16. Nenad says:


    Sorry for the caps, but seriously. Why not make the game available via browsers so you can play on any computer (without taking your saves on USBs) or play it on portable devices?

  17. pilouuuu says:

    Wait, so this isn’t a Facebook game where you need to ask your friends to help you build items and you have limited energy so you don’t play too much thus preventing you from becoming addicted to the game? What a shame!

  18. ffordesoon says:

    Unity is an incredible engine that powers some fine-looking games and ports to damn near anything. The real question is why more devs [i]don’t[/i] use it. I suppose it’s snobbery over browser games, but that’s just stupid.

  19. Collected says:

    Actually Drakensang is Java-based and not Unity-based, and is quite ugly when played in high resolutions.

    Unity is notoriously known for lack of Linux support, with the only response from the company being “Linux is supported through Chrome’s Native Client, rejoice!”

    What comes of Wasteland will hopefully be different.

    • MrTambourineMan says:

      “Unity is notoriously known for lack of Linux support”
      Wot? I seriously don’t know what’s all the fuzz about Linux support, what percent of PC gamers do you really think run Linux only machines ?My guess would be less than 10% (and please don’t bring in HIB because it’s first and foremost charitable sale of games that support Linux as well). What about Source ? It doesn’t support Linux (besides server), neither does Unreal Engine – are they notorious too?

      • rustybroomhandle says:

        I think you are confused about the way “notoriously” is used in that context.

        As for your less than 10% … even if it were 2%, that’s still thousands of users. And if your company is one of very few that support that 2%, it might well be a fairly lucrative 2%. Please don’t scoff at the numbers.

        And HiB is valid, despite it being charitable. It’s usually Linux at 25% of income… and the charity part applies to all the platforms, so they are all pitching in money on equal footing.

        • MrTambourineMan says:

          Go read this interview for example: link to “The revenue situation on Linux is grim. I don’t want to name numbers and percentages, but it’s a couple of orders of magnitude behind how much money we make on Windows. From a purely commercial standpoint, if not for the fact that our Linux support allowed us to release on the Humble Introversion Bundle, we would have lost money on our Linux port.” It doesn’t seem “fairly lucrative”, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with Linux, I’m not a hater by any stretch of imagination, but facts are facts.

          • rustybroomhandle says:

            There are more factors at play than purely market size. Since Linux is usually not a day 1 release platform, I wager that many who would otherwise spring for the Linux version will just buy the Windows copy since gamers tend to keep Windows around for gaming. Was a tough thing to wait 3 months for Trine 2 on Linux I tell ya. Windows games get a lot of press too. “If you build it, they will come.” is not a great strategy on Linux, being that Linux press in general are not much about gaming. If you say “Unity” to most Linux users they will probably think you are referring to Ubuntu’s desktop environment.

          • LionsPhil says:

            I’m surprised there hasn’t been a scuffle about that yet, given that Canonical even refer to “proper” Unity vs “cut down for machines which are only ridiculously powerful, not ludicrously powerful throbbing game-boxes” as Unity2D vs Unity, whereas Unity3D is the game development platform. That’s cutting it fine, to say the least; wouldn’t be surprised if trademark law took a dim view of it, what with both being in the software sector, Canonical being commercial, and both (eventually) being available for the same platform.

          • rustybroomhandle says:

            Even worse, before Canonical’s Unity there was a distro called Unity. link to They were a little miffed at Canonical, and methinks at least Mark Spaceshuttle could have done the courteous thing here and pick a different name.

  20. MrEvilGuy says:

    “So when inXile head Brian Fargo announced that Wasteland 2 would be in the Unity engine‘s browser-calloused hands, knees jerked hard enough to create a small seismic event.”

    Out of curiosity, where on the internet did this small seismic event happen? The “panicked followers” seem to be hiding from my view.

  21. Lemming says:

    Unity can be as shallow or as deep as you want it to be. I’m surprised at the outrage it caused. Not everyone uses it to make shitty little web games. I suppose flash is ‘just for web advertising’ now as well? a 3D isometric turn-based combat RPG is well within Unity’s sphere of abilities. Not only that, but it makes things a ton easier for the developers porting it to other systems. I believe a Mac version was promised? Using Unity will make that job a hell of alot simpler.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Don’t be silly! Flash is for YouTube too! But now it’s 100% totally obsolete because HTML5 does video.


  22. Dana says:

    Rochard was made on unity. It looks quite slick.

  23. jellydonut says:

    Interstellar Marines looks great in Unity. It’s capable of running great games, if someone just gives it a chance.

  24. MadTinkerer says:

    Soooooo… Has anyone who is criticizing Unity Pro actually used it to make a 2D turn-based RPG themselves?

    Shut up then, snobs.

    • D3xter says:

      Who said it’s going to be 2D?

      • MadTinkerer says:

        The backers said it’s going to be 2D. You can get, say, Minecraft-style 3D for under a million dollars if you’ve got a very tiny team of young Indies who are willing and able to work for ramen and pizza. As soon as you involve former professionals, you’re not going to get a 3D game for only $900,000 or even $2,933,252.

        If the backers were willing to overfund it to the tune of, say, maybe five million at the minimum, then maybe we’re talking 3D. It’d be 1999 3D, and someone’s eating ramen for two years, but it might be possible.

        • Unfettered says:

          Source please?

          The backers? What backers? Kickstarter backers? What would they know about the development plans?

          I don’t know where this 2d rumor ever came from. People mis-understanding Fargo’s very liberal use of the words “top-down” in the initial interview I guess.

          I’ll eat one of my socks if it turns out to be 2D game. You talk about costs like 2d is cheaper than 3d, not so much. 3d is much cheaper than 2d to develop. You’d need an army of artists to produce a quality 2d game these days.

          Also, why would they pick Unity, a 3d engine, if they planned to make a 2d game?

          Wasteland 2 will be a 3D game.

  25. jrodman says:

    I specifically upped my funding for the Linux version.

    A unity linux version is not going to work reasonably. This is disapppointing.

    • D3xter says:

      They’ll make it work, as the article said apparently they have the Source for Unity and might write the bits themselves so it compiles for Linux. Which would add the possibility of past and future Unity projects also making use of that feature.

      • jrodman says:

        Having the bits means it is possible.

        Knowing the real layout of the linux landscape and how a not-finished port will look means I know it is going to be disappointing.

        They simply don’t have the scope to implement this with that.

        Targetting for example openGL via some portability wrappers that are mature on each platform is pretty viable. Trying to build out the quirks of a toolkit while also trying to build a game is a huge timesink.

        • rustybroomhandle says:

          It’s not a fresh port of the player. A lot of the work has been done already, and it’s in beta-ish quality at this point. Also, Unity can already export to nativeclient which runs perfectly fine on Linux under Chrome. So just relax. :)

        • snv says:

          So this leads to work beeing done, which might lead to unity supporting linux directly. Sounds great to me.

  26. xGryfter says:

    The guys that created Unity actually offered the full version to Brian for free before the Kickstarter project ended. Brian spent the last couple weeks looking at other engines just to make sure there wasn’t something that fit Wasteland 2 better, even if he had to pay for it but in the end it seems Brian decided Unity was the best fit. So not only will Wasteland 2 be using a solid engine but they also have more money to put towards other aspects og the game. Sounds like a win/win to me.

    When Brian first told the Wasteland 2 forums about the Unity offer it was hilarious how many people started bitching about how Wasteland 2 was now going to be an FPS just because they heard Unity is a 3D engine. If the knee jerk reactions were from the official site it’s no surprise, they have some of the most technologically ignorant people I have ever come across on that site. Which in and of itself isn’t a big deal but instead of asking question they start whining, crying and throwing tantrums about things they know nothing about and issues that don’t even exists.

    • D3xter says:

      That was Unigine, not Unity.

      • xGryfter says:

        Oh damn, sorry… Guess I’ll take my walk of shame over to the tech ignorant camp… At least they both start with U so it’s kind of an understandable mistake.

        *walks away feeling stupid.

        • D3xter says:

          It’s not THAT much more complicated to build things in 3D, especially if they already have an engine that seems perfectly fit for that task, also they already made Hunted: The Demon’s Forge in the Unreal Engine and will likely be more familiar with 3D modelling tools etc.
          In some ways of making and putting in assets it might even be less complicated than a full 2D game.
          Also see Age of Decadence or Dead State etc…

          Personally I would prefer a Fallout2-like aesthetic but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  27. Armante says:

    Personally I’m not interested in the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, but I’ve encountered some fine Unity-powered games, that are not browser/web based at all.

    Case in point, Lunar Flight.
    Written/coded by one man, using Unity. It’s 3D, it’s beautiful, and plays like a dream. Nuf said
    link to

  28. wodin says:

    The internet is clogged full of moaning\whinging\whining\foul mouthed\tantrum throwing nobs. I’ve been guilty myself at times, though try and check it as much as possible. I also apologise when I realise I was out of order, though that can backfire in a big way.

  29. Jackablade says:

    Ah, the deadly Nutella spider. We get those in Australia.

  30. vodka and cookies says:

    I cant believe this was actually a thing in the first place, guess that’s the kind of lunacy fanbase surrounding the game.

  31. Spliter says:

    The problem with unity is that it gives very floaty physics/imprecise character movement (simply bad kinaesthetics) out of the box, and that’s why there’s a lot of games that work like crap. Another problem is that because the entry barier to making games in unity is so low, there are a lot of crap games made by people who don’t really dedicate their lives to making them, which in turn produces a lot of crap.

    However in hands of people who know what they’re doing and who know their stuff (such as inExile) it’s got really great potential.

    Though in the end a Quake 2 engine game will always feel like quake 2, Source engine will always feel like a Source engine game, and Unreal games will always feel like Unreal games, which is why I’m still not completely in the clear with their choice to Unity.