Unity has been used by quite a few games, most of them indie, but some of these indies are well known.

Yeah, so the Crytek was full of idiots for writing CryEngine! Or Valve for writing the Source Engine!

Also, I don't think Unity will provide what they need.

I said it too that i know it is sketches. But even it is, still very very ugly, makes me to worry about.

I get that English isn't your first language, but still.

I don't know of any other engine that does what CryEngine does. It went well beyond what was available at the time.

Given that you seem to know nothing about software development, on precisely what basis are you claiming that Unity can't handle the task?

You did say that you know it's sketches, but I don't think you know what sketches are if you're trying to gauge the final product based upon a few mock ups used to illustrate what the game might look like. If they knew what the game looked like already they probably wouldn't be needing our money.

If you're pushing the envelope, and in particular if you're planning to sell your engine, then it makes sense. But most companies don't write their own engine. Just take a look at the list of games using the Unreal engine. Do you think all these developers are idiots for buying that engine and concentrating on content, instead of developing their own engine?

Precisely, for most developers it makes far more sense to spend that time, energy and money on the other aspects of the game. Plus, when you buy an engine you usually have a fairly good idea as to what it can and can't do. Depending upon the specifics you might get source and you can spend time fixing the relevant bugs rather than reinventing the entire game.

And even if you don't get source, it's likely to be far more tested than anything you're likely to create in house.

Of course i know what it means, but at least it should be a little "tempting" and at least higher than "low-quality flash game". Look at the "Banner Saga" preview at the Kickstarter page you will understand.

No, i am a web developer, though maybe i am biased toward "Unity". From what i understand they are planning to make the other games too. If you are planning that far you should base your game on flexible and firm ground. If "Unity" provides this, than OK go with it. But i looked it's page and didn't see any big titles developed with it.
Of course i know Unreal Engine is widely used. And before many games were using Quake engine(Half-Life for example). And i never said it is foolishness to use other engine.

You will use it if it serves your purpose. There is no need to reinvent the wheel unless you need a "better wheel".

Adventure games don't require a very sophisticated engine. Big titles usually do, and would prefer to pay for a more expensive but more advanced engine.

I can't claim that Unity is the perfect engine for this game, but I think it can work well for it.

What you said was "Why they don't raise their lazy ass and write a new engine??" which kind of implied that.

Yes, because at first look it seemed like Unity is somewhat an amateurish engine(i still don't know if it is) and it created a disappointment at my side.

Well, I want to support Al Lowe, but I don't think this Kickstarter gets it right.

From reading the FAQ I can see that Replay basically managed to secure the rights and get Al Lowe (and Josh Mandel?) aboard (but not as in "part of the development team" kind of aboard) before they had any clue as how they would actually do this project.

I feel they are basically weaseling for fans support by putting Al Lowe on the frontline. It's not he can do anything about it either since they managed to get hold of the rights so I guess Al Lowe is stuck with them. It's either do their bidding or be silenced.

Sure, I want the guy to succeed but... why is this Replay thing standing between the gamers and Al Lowe? Why shouldn't the Kickstarter money go straight to mr Lowe?

Also I'm not digging the "support us now if you want a new Larry game in the future" angle. I don't think the fans have to prove anything, it's the commitment of Replay that I wonder about. They are not some hot-shot developer who brings some extraordinary talent to the table but a random small studio with some casual games releases under their belt.

BTW, the video introduction by Al Lowe was quite entertaining and I loved his sad wordless stroll through the Sierra OnLine room.

Because Al sadly doesn't have the rights to do the game the way he wants to?. Having said that we don't know what true level of contribution he has to the design etc.

Big titles have big money and quite frankly there's nothing about Unity which is likely to prevent them from creating an adventure game. Now if they were planning to do the next Fallout game with it I would probably be concerned, but the lack of big names is hardly something to worry about.

Most big name developers are going to pay for something like whatever the current iDTech engine or Unreal engine is at the moment and be happy enough with it. But, this is an adventure game and using that would be a bit like using a sledge hammer to open a walnut.

Comparing this particular set of mock ups with ones for other games ignores the fact that they can't do much work before securing rights and funding. This isn't an indie game where they can do whatever they like, they have to secure the rights otherwise they may find that they can't release it when they're finished. Wasteland 2 is in a similar state and they've just now begun working on the artwork for the game.

Which is a complete flip flop from your previous assertion that they were being lazy. I can't blame them for using a preexisting engine when there's no reason to create a new one.