IDE = limited Engine
I don't know why some people are thinking this way because how much you can or can not access via an engine has nothing to do if there is an IDE or not involved. It only depends on the specific engine and what the developers want to expose. It might be that via the IDE not everything is available in a drag&drop way but you can still access everything which is exposed via scripting.
2D games
Are possible although as already said before you first have to take some hurdles to get the 3D properly into the 2D space but then depending on what you would like to do it can be easier with Unity. Little 2.5D jump&run tryout with physics is provided in the link i posted in the beginning of this thread (behind the "8bit.alt.t=0" entry).
Reactor
Well, yes you say so and your entiteled to your opinion but i still think that you don't know what you're talking about.
Assets still have to be produced outside Unity which means you can't draw textures in Unity, you can't compose sounds in Unity, you can't model 3d objects in Unity. All this asset work has to be done outside Unity as you're maybe used to from other tools already.
What you can do inside Unity is arranging things in a easy way (translations, prefabs) which otherwise you would have done in the modeler outside. Beeing able to do this inside gives you an advantage in flexibility and for fine tuning/testing purposes.
The only thing you can build inside Unity is the terrain (geometry, uv mapping (painting it), baked lightning) whilst you're still able to import and export heightmaps if you wish to and prefabs but you still have to build the base for those outside unity. So if you think that it's a downside that you do have out of the box support for a fast octree based LOD terrain engine like in FarCry, well that's your opinion. I think it's a clear advantage because i afterwards might have a chance selecting a game i enjoy between a couple of less jerking games. I don't know how old you are but if you have experienced the c64/amiga days then beside of obvious pearls and rubbish you often could witness the following situation with games:
a) Technically almost perfect games which weren't fun.
b) Technically bad games but with a great idea (actually you could take the whole pack of Cinemaware games on the Amiga).
Now if due to it's simplicity (not because you can create assets inside Unity) and the featurelist Unity can help that a b) type of game benefits from a) then this is an advancement.
We recapitulate, you primary do not create assets in Unity beside of the terrain, prefabs and arranging objects.
It's no secret that things are getting more and not less complex so if this helps saving time or getting better results in the same time, i think this is welcome! If an easy tool also is able to aggravate people (maybe with a more artistic mindset) who otherwise would have stayed away from making a game then i also see this as a plus. Of course you'll also see bad games beeing made but well as far as i know you're not forced playing them, so who cares. Even Sony stepped away from their snobby argumentation that they'll get good games because the PS3 is harder to code and only the best developers can handle it. This was marketing because their tools were not ready and as easy to use as those for the Xbox360, nothing more.
I agree that there are way to many games out there and that most of them are uninteresting but that's not the fault of tools which make it easier to develop as you can also see a lot of crap games coming from developers which write their own engines or licence some technology from others, a.o. this is a problem of a rising market. Is Flash bad because there are plenty of Flash games out there? Whilst a lot of them aren't good (also often due to financial reasons) there are also still some very good ones around which you otherwise wouldn't have seen. Things like Blitz3D have been praised for beeing effective and yet simple. Compared to Blitz3D, Unity is so much more powerful and if people would get such a tool from BRL here they surely would be more than happy.
I don't know but like with MrTAToad (and i'm still waiting for that list of those more competitive products) i haven't seen convincing stuff on your sites which gives me the impression that you would be limited in a way with the tool. What you say comes more along as some groundless turning down. Things as stating that there are no good developers using such tools is just so plain wrong as well as that they shoot for the assets instead of the game instead.
Anyway that was only about games and we haven't even talked about non games related work like serious 3D client work for instance were such simple rules exist like time=money.
I don't have problems with if people don't like something, regarding Unity i myself would prefer if some things would work different or if they could implement certain things better sooner than later but no matter if you like or dislike something there should be some substance behind the argumentation then.
I don't know why some people are thinking this way because how much you can or can not access via an engine has nothing to do if there is an IDE or not involved. It only depends on the specific engine and what the developers want to expose. It might be that via the IDE not everything is available in a drag&drop way but you can still access everything which is exposed via scripting.
2D games
Are possible although as already said before you first have to take some hurdles to get the 3D properly into the 2D space but then depending on what you would like to do it can be easier with Unity. Little 2.5D jump&run tryout with physics is provided in the link i posted in the beginning of this thread (behind the "8bit.alt.t=0" entry).
Reactor
Well, yes you say so and your entiteled to your opinion but i still think that you don't know what you're talking about.
Assets still have to be produced outside Unity which means you can't draw textures in Unity, you can't compose sounds in Unity, you can't model 3d objects in Unity. All this asset work has to be done outside Unity as you're maybe used to from other tools already.
What you can do inside Unity is arranging things in a easy way (translations, prefabs) which otherwise you would have done in the modeler outside. Beeing able to do this inside gives you an advantage in flexibility and for fine tuning/testing purposes.
The only thing you can build inside Unity is the terrain (geometry, uv mapping (painting it), baked lightning) whilst you're still able to import and export heightmaps if you wish to and prefabs but you still have to build the base for those outside unity. So if you think that it's a downside that you do have out of the box support for a fast octree based LOD terrain engine like in FarCry, well that's your opinion. I think it's a clear advantage because i afterwards might have a chance selecting a game i enjoy between a couple of less jerking games. I don't know how old you are but if you have experienced the c64/amiga days then beside of obvious pearls and rubbish you often could witness the following situation with games:
a) Technically almost perfect games which weren't fun.
b) Technically bad games but with a great idea (actually you could take the whole pack of Cinemaware games on the Amiga).
Now if due to it's simplicity (not because you can create assets inside Unity) and the featurelist Unity can help that a b) type of game benefits from a) then this is an advancement.
We recapitulate, you primary do not create assets in Unity beside of the terrain, prefabs and arranging objects.
It's no secret that things are getting more and not less complex so if this helps saving time or getting better results in the same time, i think this is welcome! If an easy tool also is able to aggravate people (maybe with a more artistic mindset) who otherwise would have stayed away from making a game then i also see this as a plus. Of course you'll also see bad games beeing made but well as far as i know you're not forced playing them, so who cares. Even Sony stepped away from their snobby argumentation that they'll get good games because the PS3 is harder to code and only the best developers can handle it. This was marketing because their tools were not ready and as easy to use as those for the Xbox360, nothing more.
I agree that there are way to many games out there and that most of them are uninteresting but that's not the fault of tools which make it easier to develop as you can also see a lot of crap games coming from developers which write their own engines or licence some technology from others, a.o. this is a problem of a rising market. Is Flash bad because there are plenty of Flash games out there? Whilst a lot of them aren't good (also often due to financial reasons) there are also still some very good ones around which you otherwise wouldn't have seen. Things like Blitz3D have been praised for beeing effective and yet simple. Compared to Blitz3D, Unity is so much more powerful and if people would get such a tool from BRL here they surely would be more than happy.
I don't know but like with MrTAToad (and i'm still waiting for that list of those more competitive products) i haven't seen convincing stuff on your sites which gives me the impression that you would be limited in a way with the tool. What you say comes more along as some groundless turning down. Things as stating that there are no good developers using such tools is just so plain wrong as well as that they shoot for the assets instead of the game instead.
Anyway that was only about games and we haven't even talked about non games related work like serious 3D client work for instance were such simple rules exist like time=money.
I don't have problems with if people don't like something, regarding Unity i myself would prefer if some things would work different or if they could implement certain things better sooner than later but no matter if you like or dislike something there should be some substance behind the argumentation then.