Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Battle For Good Open-Source Game Graphics?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    @energyman the freespace license only restricts commercial distribution so yeah it obviously can be distributed otherwise you wouldn't be able to play it... also where is the source for Crysis? pretty sure it is closed source

    IMO as long as the license allow the game to be updated and worked on by new people (new blood if you will) and can be distributed freely there shouldn't be a problem discussing it here

    Homeworld has a similar license to freespace...

    these questions aren't new... but is a BSD license second class to GPL or the Freespace and Homeworld Lisences? the all allow the code to continue development isn't that what is important anyway? These lisences all have pros and cons ie BSD is awesome for proprietary companies to worth with it makes things easy for them with GPL being harder to deal with and the homewold/freespace licenses at the other end of the spectrum with no commercial possibility at all
    Yes, BSD is second class when compared to GPL, because GPL forces people to bring upgrades to community. Thankfully GPL makes companies to deal with it harder or impossible.

    That doesn't change the fact however that they are ALL Open source with varying degrees of freedom (ie GPL having a sort of reduced "protective freedom")
    It depends what Open Source mean for you. For me it's only FSF way. ie GPL having a sort of reduced "protective freedom"? Can you explain this? GPL is the best option to give code freedom.

    @ Duo Maxwell
    As for "console crap" I guess thats why those titles make it on to almost everyones top games of all time list? Have you played a game like Shadow Of The Colossus,
    I'm not interested in stupid 'game of all time list', because much percentage of players are children... Thanks, but I hate such games. Some people prefer more ambitious titles rather than console crap.

    @Deanjo

    Being opensource is a requirement for the GPL but the GPL is not a requirement for being opensource.
    Yes and not always. In my opinion license to be truly Open Source should allow you to modify code and pass it further. Not only look at it :> I'm talking about overall not FreeSpace or Homeworld license mentioned before. Btw. why Homeworld is still in terrible state on Linux? Isn't this, because license? One of the best games in my opinion and no one's interested in polishing it?!
    Last edited by kraftman; 04-28-2009, 08:52 AM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      GPL forces people to bring upgrades to community
      This is not true. In fact, the FSF has said that such a requirement shows a "disrespect for privacy". GPL does not force anyone to distribute their changes, nor does it force public distribution; you are perfectly within your privileges under the GPL to keep a modified version to yourself (in fact, this does not require adherence to the GPL at all, since it is not distribution), or to share it with a small circle of friends or associates, or to distribute it only to paying customers. Of course, they can then distribute your modified version to others, but they are similarly not forced to give it to anyone.

      Originally posted by kraftman
      I'm not interested in stupid 'game of all time list', because much percentage of players are children... Thanks, but I hate such games. Some people prefer more ambitious titles rather than console crap.
      As Duo said, go play Shadow of the Colossus (or Ico, or Eternal Darkness, or Killer 7, or No More Heroes...) and then come back and explain to us how much more ambitious PC games are.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
        This is not true. In fact, the FSF has said that such a requirement shows a "disrespect for privacy". GPL does not force anyone to distribute their changes, nor does it force public distribution; you are perfectly within your privileges under the GPL to keep a modified version to yourself (in fact, this does not require adherence to the GPL at all, since it is not distribution), or to share it with a small circle of friends or associates, or to distribute it only to paying customers. Of course, they can then distribute your modified version to others, but they are similarly not forced to give it to anyone.
        Of course. I meant if some company wants GPL code in their project they have to release its sources.

        As Duo said, go play Shadow of the Colossus (or Ico, or Eternal Darkness, or Killer 7, or No More Heroes...) and then come back and explain to us how much more ambitious PC games are.
        As I mentioned before I don't like such crap. There's youtube and game portals. Go and play Fallout, Homeworld, Battle Isle 4, Heroes of Might and Magic 3&5, Neverwinter Nights 2, Dangerous Waters or read about them and explanations will be unnecessary. More ambitious means !=arcade for me.
        Last edited by kraftman; 04-28-2009, 09:47 AM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by mirv View Post
          What would be nice is if games used advances in graphics to advance the gameplay. I haven't seen many games really do that, but some examples that come to mind are Raven Shield (you could see an enemie's breath from cold air, which helped locate them sometimes), Doom3 (though perhaps a bit overkill, it did use the shadows to add to the atmosphere), geo-morphing from red faction, that sort of thing.
          I'd like to see something like dynamically modified megatextures where you can follow footprints around, stuff like that (I'm working on it as a hobby).
          Graphics improvements are nice, but interest me mostly when it adds to gameplay, rather than just eye candy.
          MT is overkill. Resolution is bad and memory footprint is horrible if you need more than one active camera. Foot steps is anyways a job for decals. You could update an MT at runtime but you can't do any map of decent size with it and constantly frobbing memory while still looking pixelated doesn't really help in the end. It's nice for learning purpose but hardly a solution for the future of game design.

          And yeah... graphics advance in FOSS games. They better would advance on the game design part and editing tools since if people want graphics they take an AAA engine ( if they can pony up the money ). Those engines can only boast with graphics but game design wise it's nothing particular and the pipeline is crap to begin with.

          Comment


          • #55
            Forget about using commercial engines. People making FOSS games are generally doing this as a hobbby, and aren't going to spend half a million dollars(or even 5000 dollars) to use a AAA, AA, or A engine.

            As I said before, FOSS game creation is most often a hobby, and a labor of love. If I had half a million to blow on licensing the UT3 engine, I wouldn't do it. Where would the fun for ME be in that?

            Comment


            • #56
              Having a badly designed game engine is not funny at all. This is what keeps Linux games back right now since those who could do something great are blocked by the existing engines right now. Linux gaming won't pick off using one-shot FPS-aligned engines as we have right now. It simply can't because FPS games are just a tiny part of all possible games. And with inflexible engines everybody has to reinvent the wheel and as a hobby most of the capable people don't have the time for that.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
                Having a badly designed game engine is not funny at all. This is what keeps Linux games back right now since those who could do something great are blocked by the existing engines right now. Linux gaming won't pick off using one-shot FPS-aligned engines as we have right now. It simply can't because FPS games are just a tiny part of all possible games. And with inflexible engines everybody has to reinvent the wheel and as a hobby most of the capable people don't have the time for that.
                I'm not sure if you understood me. I didn't say "funny" as in humorous, I said "fun" as in it gives me pleasure to work on it. I would also request that you cease with the insulting dialog(as in referring to something as being "badly designed"). I won't continue any discussion here if the insults continue, and I think it's in the best interest of the non-developers to show a little courtesy when they are requesting of the developers.

                These engines are not nearly as inflexible as you think. I've seen a variety of game types created from them that are not FPS.

                Comment


                • #58
                  FOSS games need artists, but they would need them less if these projects were using free license for their artworks, not only for their engine.
                  There are a few repositories with open assets : some are public domain, some others BSD, GPL, ... and Creative Commons by & by-sa.
                  Keeping in mind the more your license is restrictive, the less it will be compatible with existing projects, this is why some Creative Commons clauses (the ones which make it non-free) can be annoying.
                  If artists are planning to help FOSS gaming community, they should seriously consider adopting a very free license, see no license at all (i.e: public domain). Or eventually release work under several licenses.

                  Freegamedev already did some quite good job for that : http://wiki.freegamedev.net/index.ph...udio_resources

                  My 2 cents.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Actually Homeworld is being ported to the Pandora at the moment ... so developemt is hardly halted and you aren't stopped from fixing proglems with it

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by 0.1. View Post
                      FOSS games need artists, but they would need them less if these projects were using free license for their artworks, not only for their engine.
                      We will always need artists. Using free assets isnt a choice, first because each game design is almost unique, perhaps I handle switching items/clothes in a different way that Scourge, for example. Second, all open source games would look the same. A free assests repo sometimes not even covers the models required for testing in the initial game phase. I dont even have a decent looking trees because the ones available doesnt export properly to Ogre. I just have 2 animated models, both from Ogre demos, because no humanoids properly textured and animated are available for free.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X