Take the 2-minute tour ×
Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My colleague and me made an HTML 5 iPad game ( http://braille.gandzo.com/ ) and we would like to upgrade it, and our framweork is not enoguh, for what we want. Some of the things we would change are: graphics update, animations/"effects", multi-player, achievements and so on. The game would stay 2d. Now, as far as I understand, both Unity and Cocos would be good for this task, with Unity having the advantage of being multi-platform.

What I want to know is are there unknown qualites/"flaws" to these two programs which would influence my decision (maybe even by choosing something else). Examples that come to mind are "Unity is too complicated/has too much unneeded options/hoops because it's made with 3d in mind" or "Cocos is significantly more suited for 2d games".

share|improve this question
    
Just a note to everyone. This question isn't THAT subjective. You can make a pretty objective decision on this if you have experience in both platforms. Simply put, one tool is built for his task, the other isn't. The question could be reworded to seem less subjective, but it shouldn't be voted down as it's a pretty valid question IMO. –  brandon Feb 29 '12 at 14:38
    
Thanks, I'm thinking the same thing since you can see exactly what I'm building on and where I'm going. –  Andrija Feb 29 '12 at 14:42
    
    
Yes, you could make an objective decision if you are making the decision for yourself. There are too many variables at play to really make a good decision based on very superficial information given from these kinds of questions, which is why they're not on topic for the site. –  Tetrad Feb 29 '12 at 16:46
1  
Even though the title and wording of the question look like I'm asking a general question (as described in the post you linked), I don't see it that way. Basically what I'm asking is if using Unity 3 for making a 2d game is an overkill/will make me have unneeded overhead/something third. I don't see this as something that's ambiguous/vague, as seen by the answer below. The only reason I didn't just accept his answer is because he put in another framework for discussion, and I'd prefer to also see an answer from someone that used both Unity and Cocos. –  Andrija Feb 29 '12 at 18:26
show 2 more comments

closed as off topic by Tetrad Feb 29 '12 at 16:46

Questions on Game Development Stack Exchange are expected to relate to game development within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think your examples pretty much answer it.

I (being an experienced Unity user) would use Unity (this is not my advice to you). The people who prefer unity over corona for 2d are generally experienced unity users. Take that into consideration. Unity, as you have heard, is a platform designed for 3d. There are a lot of features specific to 3d, e.g. if you want physics for a 2d game you need to lock the x rotation axis and lock the z translation axis.

Unity fortunately has a ton of extensions that make it great for 2d, so us experienced unity users, or users who plan on using more than just the 2d aspects, should choose unity given a 2d game to develop.

To sum it up, if you don't plan on using the 3d aspects of unity, go with corona. It's built for the task and doesn't have an extra layer of complexity for features you don't need. If you do plan on doing 3d and don't mind a slightly larger learning curve so you only have to learn one environment, go with unity.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.