next »

[moi]

http://www.mrphilgames.com/what-unity-games-are-on-steam/

I'm almost sure that "a valley without wind" is made with XNA, for one.

[Gal.h]

I wonder if there is any game on Steam that was made with Unity free, does anyone know?

PS I hope this isn't to much off-topic, this discussion made me wonder.

[Akari]

Construct 2 is a fantastic piece of software and I can wholeheartedly recommend it, but I can confirm that mobile performance is pretty terrible. Reliable 60fps on most mobile devices (in other words everything that isn't the highest of the high-end smartphones and tablets) is mostly a pipe dream. As a replacement for Flash it's awesome, though. In comparison to Game Maker, it actually has a modern UI whereas GM's UI is basically a relic from the past with a lot of design decisions made when common screen resolutions were 640x480 and so.

Unity is all in all pretty nice, though I haven't used it for 2D development myself. You will need to do actual coding with Unity to actually get anything real done, though. And if you do end up picking Unity, heed my words: Stick to C# and don't even touch the other two. Unity's "JavaScript" is a total joke, it basically has none of the things that makes JavaScript good and it ends up being basically just a watered-down version of C#. I haven't used Boo myself, but neither has most other Unity users.

Not to mention that doing things with Unity is a lot about learning how things are done "the Unity way", which quite often can feel like either "total black magic" or "extreme duct tape". Of course you'll generally need to deal with some quirks no matter what platform/engine you pick for your project, but in my experience these kinds of weird quirks rear their ugly head way more often when working with Unity compared to Construct 2 for example.

All in all, if you want to do a 2D game project and don't have much of a programming background, I'd very much recommend Construct 2. While mobile HTML5 performance isn't really there yet, it can only improve as time goes on, and anything else that could potentially give you better mobile performance would most likely be much, much harder to learn and live with.

[Tumetsu]

Not to mention that doing things with Unity is a lot about learning how things are done "the Unity way", which quite often can feel like either "total black magic" or "extreme duct tape". Of course you'll generally need to deal with some quirks no matter what platform/engine you pick for your project, but in my experience these kinds of weird quirks rear their ugly head way more often when working with Unity compared to Construct 2 for example.

I have to agree with this. I worked on a project this Spring where we used Unity for 2d game (without toolkit). I have rather strong programming background and still had lots of frustrating learning to learn some of the Unity quirks. There is definitely more those in Unity than any other engine I have tried my hand with. However, they are still learnable but don't expect to pick it up by just applying your earlier programming experience.

[Nektonico]

Have you considered Stencyl ?
Ive used it, its fairly good. It can export to Flash and Windows desktop / Mac Desktop (free version) or to mobile (Ios) (paid version, 70 dollars a year).

It has a bit of a steep learning curve, but its much more serious than construct 2, in the sense that it allows you to code if you so wish to, in a visual environment similar to the Scratch programming environment. Its more code oriented than Construct from what ive seen, Construct 2 seems more designer oriented.

It uses Flixel and Box2d as game dev / physics frameworks, and builds on top of that foundation.

And version 3.0, slated for release in a few months (in closed beta right now), will add HTML5 and Android export support.

I looked into all the alternatives (Gamemaker / Multimedia Fusion 2 / Gamedevelop / Construct Classic / Construct 2 / Gamesalad / etc) a while back, and i settled for Stencyl.

Its rather powerful, though as all such software feels a bit constrained if you try to make something beyond its intended capabilities. But for 2D games in general its good enough, though i would keep the projects small in my opinion (in all senses).

The achilles heel i think is the relative scarcity of good free tutorials.

Its nice if you want to ride the wave of the transition from Flash to HTML5. 

[s0]

the problem with stencyl is that (imo) the graphical programming stuff is pretty bad. its based on scratch which was originally intended to teach kids the basics of programming and it shows, because doing anything complex with those tetris blocks is a headache.

yeah you can write code in it and etc but at that point i'd rather just use a normal actionscript IDE.

[Jondog]

Sounds like I should start again in Construct 2 if I hit any big roadblocks with the current game I'm making in Stencyl.

The problems I've had with stencyl is that the community is kind of lacking (loads of forum posts left unanswered/unresolved), the 3.0 release has been teased for years (which resulted in the current version being left behind) and some of the guides are incomplete.

I'm doing alright with it so far but the lack of answers and resources for working with the behaviours and events gets really annoying.

[Mittens]

I can't be bothered arguing why or why not, i just want to chime in and say Construct is better

[Lobotomist]

After long contemplation, research and reading forums, and in light of new developments (Unity 2d) i have came to conclusion that only two ways are relevant and have future (at the moment):

First is Construct 2 because it enables you to make games in no time and without any programing knowledge. Just like it says on the box. Its perfect for prototyping and quick production of simpler games. Its only limitation is HTML5 performance limit.

Second is Unity 3d because in surprising turn of the events company behind it decided to add superior 2D workflow. Unity is allready professional choice. And you can do anything with it. Now it will become profesional choice for 2d as well. (its also free for indie studios)

Last, Game maker studio is big looser. its very
powerful tool, but since its middle ground (and very expensive too) it really doesn't serve any purpose to its fullest. They should either make it simple and visual like Construct 2 or step up the game to be more professional viable like Unity 2

[jddg5wa]

Is Unity with a 2D toolkit really easier to use than the gamemaker script? I was looking at the programming language for unity and it seems complex compared.

How well does something like playmaker work in unity compared to what you can do with the gamemaker scripting?

I mean I've started a project in gamemaker, got down some key elements of the game, but I'm tempted to switch to Unity before I get to far in. Problem is that I don't know much advanced programming. I understand a good amount but not enough to make a game that is super heavy on the programming.

[Lobotomist]

Is Unity with a 2D toolkit really easier to use than the gamemaker script? I was looking at the programming language for unity and it seems complex compared.

How well does something like playmaker work in unity compared to what you can do with the gamemaker scripting?

I mean I've started a project in gamemaker, got down some key elements of the game, but I'm tempted to switch to Unity before I get to far in. Problem is that I don't know much advanced programming. I understand a good amount but not enough to make a game that is super heavy on the programming.

I would really like to get answer to this question from anyone on this forum with relevant experience in game maker and unity.

Here is just snippet I found on unity forums:

I originally bought Unity because I'm not a real programmer so I wanted something that was dealing with all the crazy xcode programming and focusing more con the art and gameplay of the game, unity scripting is fairly easy if you wanna do simple things, but know I don't even need to do that anymore with PlayMaker.

I did this game :
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tooth...368884249?mt=8

it's nice and is not overly complicated to script, but it was my first app so I took time to learn unity scripting to do everything, I'm sure I can redo the entire game with playmaker in a way less time it took me the first time.
Actually I've done an update to that game (not released yet) and I made it with Playmaker because it was easier and faster in that way

....
I myself purchased Playmaker, and will now start learning unity. See how long it takes me to make a game.

Just for comparison I made Frogger clone in Construct 2 without barely reading any tutorial. In just couple of days. I will try same in unity, and it will be a way to measure it for me..

[jddg5wa]

Well, if you share it, I'd be willing to hear your experience. As I said before Unity looks like it would substantially more versatile but it has to have some learning curve, every program does. I've already put a couple of weeks into my current game and might switch to Unity if it isn't too hard to learn. Mostly trying to figure out if it is worth my time if I already know a good amount of game maker script.

Also do you have Playmaker with the free version of Unity or the full version?

[Lobotomist]

Free version. I bought Playmaker when it was on daily deal for only 18$ :D