Active Topics
-
Phone Camera Competition April 2021: "Funny & Foolish" (34)
to General by nonsuch - 3 hrs, 43 mins ago -
What's the best Handheld gnu/linux machine for 20XX? (78)
to Competitors by clort - 1 day, 2 hrs ago -
Unofficial Storage for camera phone competition... (62)
to General by catbus - 1 day, 11 hrs ago -
Maemo-Leste pre-alpha announcement (512)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by nonsuch - 2 days, 12 hrs ago -
The Intel RealSense Smartphone prototype (0)
to Competitors by n950 - 2 days, 14 hrs ago -
Maemo Leste Playground (57)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by clort - 3 days, 12 hrs ago -
A Palm OS thread ... and a thank you to the community (23)
to Alternatives by bradvesp - 4 days, 11 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2008-07-20
, 10:59
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#12
|
Let's keep this thread about "Open Source games which aren't clones or puzzles or unfinished or former commercial? "
We don't need another long discussion about why the PowerVR chip isn't used.
We don't need another long discussion about why the PowerVR chip isn't used.
 |
|
2008-07-20
, 11:04
|
|
Posts: 1,635 |
Thanked: 1,816 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ Manchester, England
|
#13
|
I agree Mutiny32 
I also don't understand being against finding and playing formerly commercial games. They have been developed with backing from someone and will often be more polished and feature complete.
For the tablet specifically I think we need some new original games to take advantage of the features of the tablet: numpty comes to mind most readily, but even that is not original (crayon physics).
I would like to see more touch based games using the touch interface to its fullest but will also keep us entertained.
Look at all the ways the Nintendo DS lite uses the touchscreen, especially something like mario&sonic at the olympic games; small short levels with completely different uses for the stylus.
Cloning a format or genre is not a problem and infact is a compliment to the original developer. If done right gives the users a nice game with the feel of the original.
Last edited by lcuk; 2008-07-20 at 11:04. Reason: typo
I also don't understand being against finding and playing formerly commercial games. They have been developed with backing from someone and will often be more polished and feature complete.
For the tablet specifically I think we need some new original games to take advantage of the features of the tablet: numpty comes to mind most readily, but even that is not original (crayon physics).
I would like to see more touch based games using the touch interface to its fullest but will also keep us entertained.
Look at all the ways the Nintendo DS lite uses the touchscreen, especially something like mario&sonic at the olympic games; small short levels with completely different uses for the stylus.
Cloning a format or genre is not a problem and infact is a compliment to the original developer. If done right gives the users a nice game with the feel of the original.
Last edited by lcuk; 2008-07-20 at 11:04. Reason: typo
 |
|
2008-07-20
, 11:35
|
|
Posts: 1,540 |
Thanked: 1,045 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#14
|
Originally Posted by lcuk
Well, let me explain why I started this thread.
I also don't understand being against finding and playing formerly commercial games.
-I've got nothing against OSS clones (my phone has Frozen Bubble on it).
-I've got nothing against former commercial games.
-I've got nothing against puzzle games.
BUT... as well as those kinds of games, I would also like to see open source produce original games which have no basis in commercial material. Commercial game developers can come up with mostly or totally original concepts, can open source do the same?
Puzzle games seem to be a strong field for this, but are there other genres where OSS can produce original titles?
Clones can play well, but they're ultimately derived from commercial ideas, and it implies that if the commercial game world disappeared then the OSS game world would too. That doesn't seem to be a healthy state of affairs, and it implies an almost parasitic relationship between the open source game world and commercial game world.
In short, I'd like to see whether the open source game world can stand on its own two feet.
As things stand, it seems that the open source world doesn't really provide many games itself but mostly takes existing commercial material and converts it into an open source form.
I genuinely hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the way things seem to be from the responses to the original post.
(former commercial games) have been developed with backing from someone and will often be more polished and feature complete.
Am I wrong? I hope I am but fear I'm not.
Originally Posted by RichS
Why do open source games have to compete with the commercial market?
The problem isn't that making games is too difficult or time consuming but that it is ridiculously difficult to make an engine that stands a chance of competing with the commercial market.
Last edited by krisse; 2008-07-20 at 11:45.
 |
|
2008-07-20
, 11:49
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by krisse
I think you're taking a very incorrect approach to this. Put yourself in an open source developer's shoes. You want to make a first-person shooter. You have two options, develop a completely new engine and netcode from the ground up, or start with the GPLed ioquake3 and spend lots more time making the coolest game you can.
As things stand, it seems that the open source world doesn't really provide many games itself but mostly takes existing commercial material and converts it into an open source form.
It doesn't have anything to do with parasitic development processes or open source developer incompetence, it's simple an intelligent distribution of resources. There's no point duplicating a lot of work for zero benefit when there's perfectly good GPL code freely available for you to use.
Does being smart about your development time make your game any less original or fun to play?
|
|
2008-07-20
, 12:01
|
|
Posts: 1,540 |
Thanked: 1,045 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#16
|
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
...but that just leads to more and more FPSes because the commercial (or former commercial) engines already exist.
I think you're taking a very incorrect approach to this. Put yourself in an open source developer's shoes. You want to make a first-person shooter. You have two options, develop a completely new engine and netcode from the ground up, or start with the GPLed ioquake3 and spend lots more time making the coolest game you can.
The very first sentence is the problem: "You want to make a first-person shooter", it's already thinking along pre-made game lines.
What about all the other kinds of games that aren't FPSes?
Why hasn't something as original as, say, Nintendogs or Warioware or Viva Pinata been created in open source?
Surely the lack of commercial demands should be freeing open source game devs to explore a wider range of genres than the commercial companies?
Last edited by krisse; 2008-07-20 at 12:06.
|
|
2008-07-20
, 12:53
|
|
Posts: 1,635 |
Thanked: 1,816 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ Manchester, England
|
#17
|
Krisse, originality does come from open source and/or individual bedroom developers.
However REALLY original good fun stuff is worth genuinely large amounts of money.
You see the good stuff in commercial offerings mainly because the developer has a chance at a happy life without worrying about the bills.
Take a look at nerbacular drop for something totally different to usual and see what it became (one of the biggest games of last year).
It takes a particular kind of developer to bring an entire new genre from conception to fully completed, and long before it becomes completed it becomes marketable.
Open source or not, the lure of $$$ is large.
However REALLY original good fun stuff is worth genuinely large amounts of money.
You see the good stuff in commercial offerings mainly because the developer has a chance at a happy life without worrying about the bills.
Take a look at nerbacular drop for something totally different to usual and see what it became (one of the biggest games of last year).
It takes a particular kind of developer to bring an entire new genre from conception to fully completed, and long before it becomes completed it becomes marketable.
Open source or not, the lure of $$$ is large.
|
|
2008-07-20
, 13:24
|
|
Posts: 503 |
Thanked: 267 times |
Joined on Jul 2006
@ Helsinki
|
#18
|
Originally Posted by krisse
You can look at nethack and other roguelike games. That's the genre not properly covered by commercial companies.
What about all the other kinds of games that aren't FPSes?
Why hasn't something as original as, say, Nintendogs or Warioware or Viva Pinata been created in open source?
Surely the lack of commercial demands should be freeing open source game devs to explore a wider range of genres than the commercial companies?
|
|
2008-07-20
, 14:12
|
|
Posts: 503 |
Thanked: 267 times |
Joined on Jul 2006
@ Helsinki
|
#19
|
Originally Posted by krisse
If clones play well, what's the problem?
Well, let me explain why I started this thread.
-I've got nothing against OSS clones (my phone has Frozen Bubble on it).
-I've got nothing against former commercial games.
-I've got nothing against puzzle games.
BUT... as well as those kinds of games, I would also like to see open source produce original games which have no basis in commercial material. Commercial game developers can come up with mostly or totally original concepts, can open source do the same?
Puzzle games seem to be a strong field for this, but are there other genres where OSS can produce original titles?
Clones can play well, but they're ultimately derived from commercial ideas, and it implies that if the commercial game world disappeared then the OSS game world would too. That doesn't seem to be a healthy state of affairs, and it implies an almost parasitic relationship between the open source game world and commercial game world.
In short, I'd like to see whether the open source game world can stand on its own two feet.
BTW, the quality of commercial games is declining and I don't see much originality there (or I'm just too old for this stuff already). So maybe we are not far from the turnover point
Free software works best when people are not very satisfied with the commercial offers.
As things stand, it seems that the open source world doesn't really provide many games itself but mostly takes existing commercial material and converts it into an open source form.
I genuinely hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the way things seem to be from the responses to the original post.
That's exactly my point: a lot of people talk about the superiority of open source software, but when it comes to gaming it seems that commercial games (or OSS derived from commercial games) are far better than pure open source ones.
Am I wrong? I hope I am but fear I'm not.
Why do open source games have to compete with the commercial market?
|
|
2008-07-20
, 14:34
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by Serge
Sounds like you're getting old. There's still lots of great stuff out there.
BTW, the quality of commercial games is declining and I don't see much originality there (or I'm just too old for this stuff already). So maybe we are not far from the turnover point
I'm only a troublemaker on the Internet