That's why this discussion started, Unity doesn't have a similar game done. So even though it's a good engine it means that a lot of new features will have to be added. Which means it act just like a new engine less the parts that are done and tested.
From the games made for Unity we can assume that something was done and tested and something other things must be created and will face the same issue as a new engine.
I would argue against Unity as I don't believe they have tested their engine that much as they are always adding things in instead of trying to mature what they already have. Because it's a "casual engine" trying to reach as many as possible. They must act like that to survive, it doesn't mean they are wrong, it just mean that I don't like this kind of engine.
EDIT: So instead of just counting the number of games done I would also consider how the engine updates/adds new features/test their software.
It's a fair point and I would have to agree. There are plenty of other considerations involved when choosing what engine to use. And naturally, if you're making, say, an fps your first choice of engine wouldn't be one used flawlessly for hundreds of 2d puzzle-games, you're going to look for something that can output the same type of games as the one you're trying to make. From what I've seen of Unity it's a platform for churning out shitty browser-based mmo's, so I guess that hardly bodes well, but whatever.
The claim that the number of games made with an engine is irrelevant when choosing an engine is still pretty short-sighted though.
As tiagocc0 says, it depends on who those developers are though. You might have an engine that's brand spanking new versus an engine that's been around for a while but - as you acknowledge - who built it, who's used it and who's done what with it - and what can that engine really do? Unity is still fairly new because, as I said earlier, it's been around for a good decade now but who's really used it? Mostly a bunch of amateur projects.
Not sure if W2 is setting out to push the limit of what Unity can do, but I'll give you half a point. No, there hasn't been any serious AAA title on Unity (well, if you say there hasn't, I'm not checking facts here) but I'm also getting the vibe that Unity didn't start out as the intended engine of a X3A game like Unreal or Cry. If it had, the kids would probably be bashing each other over whether "Unity 2: Broken Dreams" runs better on Xbox or Ps3 right about now.
A big bunch of amateur projects is still a good track record in my book, as groups of diehard professionals are potentially able to make Super Mario run on a pile of dog shit, which tells us precious little about the dog shit. Though, I guess that's a strawman.
In fact, I could probably argue that maybe there's a reason why an engine that's been around for so long still hasn't been used by a AAA developer yet (for anything other than mobile or online web-based games).
What about W2? In any case, I wouldn't make that argument if I were you. There's probably plenty of reasons
outside of the engine's capabilities and performance that keep it from hitting the X3A jackpot. Like I insinuated before, if there was a successful title involved with the engine from the get-go, it wouldn't matter if the engine was complete shit, there would probably be games using it just for the prestige-sales.
But, given most games are built with an in-house engine (at least in the RPG industry, obviously FPS-fags will beg to differ), then a good team with source code access should be able to make almost anything work. But we shouldn't be under any delusions that it's going to work right out of the box and that they aren't going to run into problems (As they would with any engine).
Most definitely.
