Games: The Boundary Of Open Development?

Clyde writes "Computer games represent an interesting frontier for Open Source development. Unlike other desktop applications, games tend to be hybrid organisms -- half software program, half artistic work. This discussion with Scott Draeker, president and CEO of Loki Entertainment Software and Jorrit Tyberghein, volunteer project leader for Crystal Space sheds some light."

Comments

Re:Unfortunately true

[Ian Wolf]

Art is important too. The problem with many games is that art (sub: eye-candy) is the basis of the game (Myst). Some games put a premium on their art, and usually pay the consequences. However, there are quite a few that draw from these qualities and make for a much richer experience. There are games out their that achieve a good balance between art and gameplay. Starcraft, European Air War, Rainbow 6, the Quakes, and most of the EASports games, as well as many more examples that I'm leaving out, do an excellent job of mixing good visuals and good gameplay.

BTW my favorite game of all time is the graphically spartan Civ2. I have to admit that sometimes you don't need flashy graphics to make a great game, but they can certainly make it better.

Re:Long-term benefits of open source code

[Dwindlehop]

I think that an open source environment for games has two potential benefits - firstly for allowing bugs to be quickly fixed, and secondly to allow the game to be enhanced and updated in reponse to user requests and ideas.

You don't need open source code for this.

As id has demonstrated time and again with the Quake series, it is possible to design a game so that users can enhance and modify it. Another good example is the Rules Description Language (and this link too) of Stars! Supernova. Using the RDL, the multiplayer Stars! community will be able to effect gameplay balancing changes without waiting for the developers to release a patch. They'll also be able to set up custom rules for creating themed games, like Star Trek, Star Wars, or Babylon 5. Stars! Supernova will also has some interesting ways of letting players supply custom artwork and sound for their races. For more on this game, see news://rec.games.computer.stars.

At any rate, the point is through the implementation of good game design, developers can ensure that users will be able to update and enhance a closed-source proprietary game. It'd be interesting to see if anyone else has examples of this sort of design besides the ones I've mentioned (*hint, hint*).

Jonathan David Pearce

Re:Unfortunately true

[Nezumi-chan]

How many of them had good (or even ANY) artwork? Of those that did have good artwork, for how many of them did the artwork contribute to the playability?

You seem to be confusing "art" with "artwork". That "art" of a game goes considerably beyond the pretty (or not so pretty) pictures that populate your screen. To define it as such means you're devaluing the writing and general design of the script as well.

Personally, I consider all creative aspects of a game to be the "art" component. A game need not have incredibly flashy visuals to be artistic. Look at GnomeHack, for instance. Very simple game, minimal graphics. But there has been undeniable creativity in the design of the game. The same applies for games such as Baldur's Gate, where I am not terribly fond of the visuals, but like the writing a great deal.

I know this from experience, as co-writer on an Open Source game, Adonthell. No one is going to confuse us with Final Fantasy VIII. But no one is going to accuse us of not being artistic wither. The fact is, Adonthell is the result of many creative people working together in an Open Source setting, and we are getting good results.

Of course, I do agree with Draeker and Tyberghein. The artistic portions of a game are difficult to Open Source, and there's no point fooling ourselves that they are of the same nature as the programming. Open Source allows for the script, for instance, to be changed every bit as much as it does the code. But would it be improved thereby? Possibly. But I'm willing to bet it wouldn't.

Re:The problem.

[Black Parrot]

> I have yet to see an open source project that is not a clone or a close relative of something that already exists in the world.

I have yet to see any software that is not a "close relative" of something that already exists in the world. Indeed, I wouldn't even limit that statement to software.

> Perhaps it's done better, but that's not the point.

For most OS software, that is exactly the point. Maybe less often for games, although I'm creating one for the sole reason that I want something better than the current commercial leader of the genre. (Well, also for the joy of doing some "joy programming".)

--

Re:Games?

[Blue Lang]

IMO Games are one area where the GNU/Open Source Model is unlikely to work.

Wrong.

Game engines


http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/

3D graphics


http://crystal.linuxgames.com/

http://www.mesa3d.org

etc are now a mature software area, and
with today's hardware we're almost at the point where brute forcing it will be a "good enough" programming strategy.

Wrong. Copying graphics to the screen one pixel at a time will _always_ suck.

And artists are, for the most part, a greedy and opportunistic breed....

... suddenly, i feel as though i'm being trolled.

well, reading it again, he wasn't saying that OSS can't produce the code to do the low level stuff, but, since i bothered to paste those links, i'm leaving them in. :P

--
blue

Re:Long-term benefits of open source code

[Black Parrot]

> Why do I need to change the source if I can change the .ini files anyways?

Ever tried changing Civ II to use a hex map rather than a faked oblique square grid? Tried changing it to let units cooperate like real armies? Tried making the AI smarter?

Yes, lots of commercial games now come with customization features. But if you don't like some of the features of the actual design, there's no way to fix it yourself. With OSS you can. I have a .diff that I apply to every new version of Freeciv that I download, because I have a difference of opinion with the maintainers as to what makes good human engineering for the display.

ps - The Freeciv maintainers have now implemented most of the features of Civ I/II, and are increasingly talking about launching out on arbitrary extensions. I think that's the paradigm for OSS - rather than "embrace, extend, extinguish", it's "imitate, enhance, perfect". Admittedly, many are still in the "imitate" phase, but that's no reason to think OSS can only imitate.

--

Half open-source

[gavinhall]

Posted by 11223:

The ideal format of a game is to be half open-source. As the article said, a game is half a programming matter and half an artistic matter. So, the programming parts (the graphics engine) is open source and the artistic part (the game files, wad files, hog files, whatever your game calls them-files) is distributed as the game. It's the perfect compromise. That way, people have the opportunity to improve the state of their game (doesn't work quite right on XYZ 3D Blaster? Fix the game yourself!) while the artists/writers/programmers/modelers who put their time into developing their artistic work can still get the reward for the public appreciation.

The question is, why do some games suck as much as some art sucks?

Re:Half open-source

[gavinhall]

Posted by 11223:

Nope. What I described was a collaboration between artists and programmers as a game development team - the team produces the game, and then the programmers make the source libre for the good of the game itself. And there's more than art out there - level design, for instance, or level scripting are all places where the programmers can help in the assembly of the game files themselves. The engine should be open source, and the part that makes it the specific game that it is, the artistic components, stay the part that makes the money.

Open Source and 'Open Art' at work

[P_Simm]

Take a look at WorldForge, a fully open-source development project creating a massively multiplayer online gaming system. They already have a very large team of volunteer artists as well as volunteer coders and managers. While discussion has gone on within the project as to what license to use, they are implementing copyright licenses for artwork which allow both reusability, distribution, and editing.

It's been a while since I've had time to watch the development more closely, but it's still a superb example of the potential of open source game development. It's a very highly ambitious project which looks like it can pull off it's goals.

You know what to do with the HELLO.

Half Art, half software?

[DustyHodges]

Isn't coding itself an art form? I know that most people can't see it, but I truly think that a beautifully written piece of source can rival Shakespear... Just my opinion on the subject. Be careful when you make that distinction there Taco!

-Dusty Hodges

Re:To quote ESR

[Black Parrot]

> OS works because people want to "scratch the itch." The problem is the game development is actually a true manufacturing industry not a service industry.

I think that's a false dichotomy. I certainly want to "scratch the itch" on games. Indeed, one of the reasons I finally scratched Windows off my dual-boot system was that I was progressively losing interest in commercial games, as I almost always disliked some feature or another of any game I bought, and got aggravated at paying for flawed games that I could not fix.

> The other reason is of course the cheating issue.

I think for genre other than the live-action shoot-em-up, you can keep all the information a player isn't supposed to know on the server, and only dribble it out when appropriate. I admit that I don't have a solution for the LASEUs, but I wouldn't condemn OSS games in general due to the difficulties in producing cheat resistance in one specific genre.

--

Unfortunately true

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

"...games tend to be hybrid organisms -- half software program, half artistic work."

This is true--and unfortunate. Think of all the computer games you've played in your life. Rank them in order of "playability" (judged by how often you replayed). Now look at the top ten: How many of them had good (or even ANY) artwork? Of those that did have good artwork, for how many of them did the artwork contribute to the playability?

For me, the answer is 1 and 0. The only game I've liked enough to keep playing AND that had decent art was Civilization--and some would argue that the art sucked. In any case, the art itself had almost no contribution towards the playability.

Right now I'm hooked on xscorch . The art is pitiful. The game is addictive.

Clearly, YMMV--I'm not saying everyone is like me. But I exist (and I know I'm not the only one). Why is this market not being exploited? Make some good fun games that cost half as much (fire the art staff) as the art-filled wonders that crowd the shelves.
--

Re:Unfortunately true

[Erataikasu]

I think that the number of times you replayed is a poor gauge for game quality. I have only played my favourite game of all time (Grim Fandango) three times through, but that is a lot for an Adventure game.

Strategy games, where there are a lot of random elements, are inherently more replayable than Adventures, RPGs, or even First Person Shooters.

I remember Arena, and Daggerfall attempted to apply the random-factor to RPGs, and in my opinion, it didn't work. The world was filled not with interesting people, but cookie cutter characters giving you cookie-cutter quests in cookie-cutter towns.

But just because the best RPGs and Adventures are only replayable a few times, it does not mean they're inherently inferior to Strategy games which can be replayed effectively infinitely.

Re:Unfortunately true

[Cuthalion]

It was a new game, but not a new concept. Wolfenstein, Tetris, The Incredible Machine, Populous, Sim City, The Sims, Ultima Online, these were new gameplay.

Half-Life, Out Of This World, Full Throttle, Starcraft, are all examples of old gameplay, all fantastic games and exquisitely done.

Evolutionary/revolutionary, blah.

Re:Unfortunately true

[GregWebb]

If I was doing this, I'd make it modular.

Create an abstract RPG engine which happens to fit your storyline nicely. GPL it.

Write your game as a set of datafiles for this engine. Release them as freeware.

That way, you have an engine which can be handled by the GPL and enhanced by the world as a whole, along with your game which the world as a whole can still use but which remains true to your vision as you retain copyright.

Re:Unfortunately true

[NaughtyEddie]

This is a geek answer to the question (not meaning the word in a derogative sense). Do you really imagine that geeks represent a large proportion of the people who buy video games?

Sure, if geeks want geek games, the way to do it is opensource (geeks writing their own games). But don't confuse the larger games industry with the tiny fragment which Slashdot sees.

To answer your question "Why is this market not being exploited" the answer is simple: the market is MINISCULE. Go ahead and exploit it yourself; you won't make any money - and (oddly) money is all the Sony's of this world care about.

I won't even take the suggestion seriously that we should fire half the games industry. That runs counter to my Marxist tendencies ;)

Of course, this doesn't alter the fact that 80% of video games are crap ... but 80% of ANYTHING is crap. It's a natural law.

Re:Unfortunately true

[Destrius]

Art doesn't mean just the graphics. It could mean the storyline. What license does the plot go under? If I create my own RPG based on a story I wrote myself, and then release it under the GPL, what happens to the storyline? Since the story and the characters are figments of my imagination, and maybe I feel emotionally attached to them, is there any way I can prevent people from warping the story into something I do not like?

artists and copyleft

[bytesex]

The artists that I know (I'm trained as one myself), are, generally speaking, the least, of all kinds of people that I know, positively inclined towards the idea of copylefting. Which,to me, seems a bit strange; it seems to me that any graphic designer should jump to occasion of having to rebuild the coca cola-logo and -image again every so many years, but hell no; instead they are afraid of the possiblity of anybody running off with their work. They provide no service, run no help-desk. Their work is like walking for ages up a gradual slope, only to drop it into the ravine on the other side. It begins hidden, secretively, closed-off from the outside world, until whatever presentation comes along. The work gets sold; the artist never sees it again. Then the nagging begins. What if I sold it too cheap ? What if I sold it to a reseller ? What if someone else runs off with the idea now ? Fear. No way to exercise control. No versions 1.1. No shrink-wrap licenses. No license-revoking. No court-cases (because no money). It won't be easy to sell these people copyleft; they live because they think that what they make is unique, and it's pure form as well; no function; there is no such thing as can't do without. We know how musicians, high and low, react to mp3; well, that basically sums it up.

Re:Open Source Game [Development]

[Azog]

Well, it's not that simple. You may recall a few months back, after Quake was GPL'ed, people started cheating by customizing clients. (Well, the problem was around before then, but after the source was opened it got really bad.)

Now those customized clients couldn't just get away with making the player twice as powerful, or twice as fast, or whatever. The server set the rules for that.

What the clients could do was:
- add aim-bots that gave players perfect (easily detected by the server) or just better aim. Some players just have really, really good aim, and it's not easy for the server to tell the difference between that and a subtle, well-written aim bot.
- Presumably, any other advantage that is possible within the game physics/rules - automatically dodging rockets, detecting (beeping?) whenever anyone has you in their crosshairs, or whatever.
- Plus, see through walls, see in the dark, make all the other players look like big red targets, and other visual hacks.

A solution was developed, however. I don't remember the details, but I believe it uses a small closed-source component which does cryptographic signing and checking of the open-source clients.

Depending on the type of game, cheating can be a major or minor problem. For quake-style games (client-server, with prediction on the client) it's in-between. Everyone has to follow the rules of the server, but hacked clients can allow cheating as described.

For on-line games like chess, checkers, and cards, cheating isn't an issue because the game is really just a communications medium.

For big role-playing games, it seems to me that an open source approach could work. Since the frame rate isn't so critical, some of the cheating problems of quake can be eliminated by making more things "synchronous". For example, even if clients are hacked to make it possible to see through walls, if the server only sends information to the clients that are supposed to see it, seeing through walls doesn't get you much. This isn't done in quake because it would cause either a loss in framerate, or things "popping" into view right in front of you when the server finally gets around to sending you that information.

Anyway...

I would really like to see an on-line role playing game as much like Tolkien's Middle Earth as possible.

I think the problem with on-line role playing games isn't so much the technology, (Free/OpenSource or not) but the sociology of it. How do you deal with all the losers who don't stay in character, and just run around swearing at people or killing them?


Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Re:Multiplayer is the biggest problem

[Graymalkin]

Thats pretty damn close to how both Quake 1 and 2 worked. The rendering wasn't server side but the positional information and the like was all done on the server with the clients just rendering and passing commands onto the server. This was one of the biggest lag problems because you needed a fat pipe to get all the frames in a timely fashion. You'll notice with Quake 3 you can have a high framerate with a horrible ping, this is because the networking dudes at id convinced John Carmack to forgo the dumb client system. Multiplayer is a big problem even when you have all the physics and mechanics handled by clients. It is really tough to battle orcs or frag bozos when they're hopping all over the place do to a 500ms ping.

At least they're being realistic

[ceswiedler]

They prompted an interesting idea... What if a software developer could publish an application with complete source code, but with the theoretically simple restriction that you have to buy a license to compile or run the program?

This would allow software publishers to make money, but allow the game to be improved by the standard "many-eyes" technique. Most of the criticisms of closed-source software come from the idea that we don't want programs which we can't modify or improve--not the pipe dream of getting programs for no money. To quote Heinlein, "TANSTAAFL."

Technically, I imagine that it would be very difficult to force people to buy a license to compile or run the code, if the source code itself is freely distributable. I'm sure that whatever protection scheme the distributor came up with, crackers would crack it. Then there's the problem that even if I can't run or compile Adobe Photoshop without a license, if the code is available, I can easily cut-and-paste large sections, thereby stealing Adobe's work.

But if we could indeed enforce this restriction, I think it would be wildly beneficial for the software community. All of the positive effects of Open Source software, without the huge drawback that it's horribly difficult to make money.

Anyone remember Star Fleet II?

[FreeUser]

One of the funnest games I ever played was Star Fleet II.

It was mostly text, with rudimentary CGI graphics for the planetary bombardment screen. It was buggy as hell, would often crash, etc.

But it had to be one of the funnest space conquest games ever. You attack starships (represented as little greek symbols on a text starscape), board and take prisoners, torture them for information ("The Prisoners will be tortured your Excellency, Hail Zagar!"). Upon successfully bombarding a planet into submission one would typically be given 50 slaves for the conquest. Particularly wanton acts of cruelty (slaying all of the prisoners after they surrendered for example) would be awarded with a medal for "wonton cruelty to the enemy" or some such.)

Sometimes it is just plain fun to be the bad guy *grin*. The game had:

Zero Artistic Merit.
Zero Social Merit.
A Minimal Storyline.
Mediocre Programming Quality (buggy as hell).

Despite this it wsa very playable, very addictive, unbelievably fun!

The problem.

[Matt2000]

The problem with open source initiatives seems to with creativity, and this hurts in game developement the most.

I have yet to see an open source project that is not a clone or a close relative of something that already exists in the world. Perhaps it's done better, but that's not the point.

Open source breeds innovation, not invention and in the world of game design this is death.

My current theory is that new ideas need alot of high-bandwidth discussions, i.e. face to face meetings, to hash out and transfer the idea from one brain to another. Open source projects rarely have this luxury and so perhaps are forced into pointing their efforts at a well understood problem.

Summary: I find it unlikely that an amazing open source game will emerge under the current community conditions.

Hotnutz.com - Funny

Re:The problem.

[Bryce]

The problem with open source initiatives seems to with creativity, and this hurts in game developement the most.

There are plenty of creative people on the net. There are plenty of good coders on the net. The only trick is getting them to talk to one another. There are plenty of people who are good at getting people to talk to one another. I do not see how this task is impossible. It just takes some work.

Summary: I find it unlikely that an amazing open source game will emerge under the current community conditions.

I find the principle difficulty in making open source games is the public perception that it cannot be done. I don't understand why the open source philosophers have to make this mealy allowance. A secondary difficulty is that the open source development community is not providing the open source media creation tools necessary to creating games.

I have yet to see an open source project that is not a clone or a close relative of something that already exists in the world. Perhaps it's done better, but that's not the point.

Look harder. Often we pay more attention to the familiar than the unfamiliar when it comes to amature works - a time travel game may pass you buy, but you'll take note of the clone of Myth, since you already know and like it.

And also accept that many commercial games are nothing more than clones of previous games. In fact, how many of the great games out there are basically the same gameplay style, but with different graphics or a different rendering technology?

Re:Games?

[Cuthalion]

And artists are, for the most part, a greedy and opportunistic breed.... no 'gift culture' for them, thank you very much.

I think this is the most rediculous statement I have heard on slashdot today. And I don't THINK it's meant as a troll even.

1. See how much art there is on the web, published SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE IT, not for page views or banner clicks or any of that shit.
2. Sonique skins, Enlightenment Themes - these all fit the model of a 'gift culture' perfectly.
   AND
   
3. There is plenty of money to be made coding. Therefore coders have the means to spend a large amount of time doing projects which they get no financial compensation for. It is NOT so easy to get "enough" money doing artwork, music, et cetera.

To quote ESR

[Life Blood]

The software industry is a service industry masquerading as a manufacturing industry. OS works because people want to "scratch the itch." The problem is the game development is actually a true manufacturing industry not a service industry. Thats one reason why OS games haven't really become popular.

The other reason is of course the cheating issue. A GPL'd game has the source code easily available, it has to by law. So anyone can take that code an recompile it an allow themselves to cheat. This is especially bad in multiplayer. See quake for an example. The GPL and code availability means that lots of good efficient designs have to be discarded because they lack the necessary security. For instance Worldforge has to use an untrusted client and server side AI. It doesn't have a choice, despite the fact that trusted clients and distributed client-side AI would be more efficient.

As for a commentary of current projects. I like worldforge, but they seem to have lost sight of their goal of a MMPOG with all the effort they are putting into this pigs game they're making. However I think in the end they may at least move online roleplaying away from the godawful D&D model of RPGs.

Re:Games?

[meepzorb]

>>IMO Games are one area where the GNU/Open Source Model is unlikely to work.

>Wrong.

This remains to be seen. If I'm wrong, great! Free games to play. >}:) But the outlook now is that we're going to end up with great game concepts, and great games engines, with crappy artwork.

>>...now a mature software area, and with today's hardware we're almost at the point where brute

>>forcing it will be a "good enough" programming strategy.

>Wrong. Copying graphics to the screen one pixel at a time will _always_ suck.

You're absolutely right. Which is why, with today's hardware, you make calls to the hardware drivers to blit for you. AKA "Brute force".

I'm sorry if you feel trolled, my point wasnt that Open Source couldn't produce good games engines. The basic math for games engines and 3d graphics has not really changed in 10 years, and is unlikely to (barring quantuum computers). My point was that, culturally, the OSS model is unlikely to infect the community of games-oriented artists: It's a different culture, with a different mindset.

Go ask an ambitious and talented Graphic Arts type if you can take his/her work and give it away for free, allowing anyone to copy and re-use it as they see fit. Observe the scowl you are most likely to get in reply.

:Michael

Re:this is more of what we need

[Jon Peterson]

"In one area (PC) the best games are the ones left half, or completely, open"

REALLY??? Angband springs to mind as a game that benefited from OS development. Yes, there were some truly nice mods to Quake and Doom.
But,
Day of the Tentacle
Dungeon Keeper
Populous
Elite
X-com series
Civ series
billions of others

They were all very very very closed source. Games are imaginative. Committees don't have good imaginations. OS games generally suck unless they are simply feature-crammed implementations of tried and tested formulas.

Re:Open Art in Software and Independent Film

[Junks Jerzey]

If an open source game project were to collect a large enough following of programmers and artists, it could 'pull a linux' on the game industry. It will take time to build that sort of following, but I am beginning to see it happen with several projects

We are currently undergoing a renaissance in independent film making. I've seen some incredibly high quality films churned out by teams of talented volunteers.

Those high quality films are done by small, focused groups of people with a vision. Throwing lots of people at project isn't necessarily going to make it better. If anything, I would expect it to cause the project to lose focus. This is starting to become a real issue with big open source projects.

The vision issue is just as important. Right now, almost all Linux game projects are from coders who want to clone something, be it a current game or a relic. You would think that free tools, free libraries, and free documentation would open the door to creativity; "I have something 500x more powerful than an Apple II, so I can create whatever my mind desires, unlike those game designers who had to work within the limitations of an Apple II." But it isn't happening. We're not seeing anything creative. Browse through the Linux Game Tome if you want to be slapped in this face with this.

I hereby invoke the Roman Rule...

[Daniel]

FreeCiv, NiL, Pingus, XPilot, NetHack, Crystal Space, GFingerPoken, Koules, Liquid War, XConq, WorldForge, SpellCast. To name the tip of the iceberg; I don't have time to do this all day :)

Or, in other words: The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it.

Cheers,
Daniel

Re:I hereby invoke the Roman Rule...

[Daniel]

many of the links are game components, not actual games.

Maybe you're having trouble counting, but I wasn't aware that many==one :) Crystal Space was the only game "component" that I listed, and it includes several small games as well as being the foundation of several other free projects (which aren't far enough along to check on the progress of)

Many of the games are not really modern-commercial-style as discussed

This presumes that this is a bad thing..I don't mind attractive graphics (which most of those games (aside from NetHack, which is too cool to need them :) ) have, incidentally), but I don't see why lots of extraneous pictures and movie clips are necessary.

and probably the biggest challenge in making a game is not "doing it", but finishing it

Finishing it in what way? When is a program finished? Freeciv has been a perfectly respectable Civ clone for years, but has a VERY active development team and just recently released a major upgrade.

my point is limited to disagreement that they settle the question of whether OSS will produce commercial-style modern games

Oh, there will certainly be no "commercial-style" games, but they will certainly be modern. Nothing raises my hackles more than seeing these two equated, as though anything without a huge corporation behind it is the equivalent of living in an unpainted and unsanitary wooden shack.

Daniel

Even harder than games....

[tytso]

An even harder application area than games for Open Source to get into is tax software, such as TurboTax. That's because it's not so much about the software programming, as it is about having the legions of tax accountants and lawyers who need to keep up with the huge number of changes in the tax code every year. (Voted into law by our devoted public servants, who happen to be also lawyers...... :-)

So, there will always be a few areas where buying propietary software will make sense. I would much rather pay $19 for TurboTax than to spend several hours doing the taxes myself, or to pay several hundred dollars for a tax accountant to do it for me.

Applications as art

[JCMay]

I take offense when people say that games are different from "normal" applications in that games are half program, half art. Perhaps this is my Engineer showing, but I think that "normal" or "productivity" applications should be considered art as well.

First, I am sure that everyone here knows how much work goes into usability and interface design, as most people here have some modicum of programming experience. One of my favorite web pages, AskTog, goes into great detail on the ins and outs of computer user interface design.

I know that many people would use the building/ architecture analogy-- mere building is not art, while architecture is. "Normal" applications, they say, are mere building, while games would be considered "architecture" due to their beauty.

Poppycock! Architecture is art not because it is beautiful, although one goal of the architect is indeed visual appeal. He goes about attaining that beauty, however through the use of some language-- a visual vocabulary-- to make some statement or invoke something in the imagination of the viewer. An example: Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye is a private residence, but its visual elements combine to evoke a steam ship cruising across the lot. That is what makes it art. Art is communication, not pretty colors or "photorealistic backgrounds." Art tells you something that the artist wanted you to hear.

It is my opinion that the true art lies in making complex operations decipherable by even the simplest users. A good GUI is a work of art. Reducing complex-looking physical phenomena to a few mathematical equations, such as Ohm's Law or Maxell's Equations, is art. Pretty pictures are just that. And nothing more. They convey no extra message to the viewer; they are merely eye candy.

Don't get me wrong; these new games are beautiful. The intense graphics do enhance play by making it easier to submerge yourself in the play-world presented. But there's more to art than pretty pictures.

Long-term benefits of open source code

[Jon Erikson]

I think that an open source environment for games has two potential benefits - firstly for allowing bugs to be quickly fixed, and secondly to allow the game to be enhanced and updated in reponse to user requests and ideas.

The first point has already been covered many times here on /. but it is the second that interests me the most. Whereas some games aren't in particular need of new features or concepts, others can hugely benefit - think strategy games like Civilisation or role playing games like Worldforge as mentioned by another poster.

The transition from Civ to Civ II was not one of a radical change in the core concept of the game - instead it was a tweaking of rules, adding new features and expanding player options. Having the source code for the game would mean that these additions could me made as and when people wanted them, making the game improve over time.

So for this sort of game, open source would offer both of these advantages and could allow a program to outlast the platform it was written on :)

---
Jon E. Erikson

Art vs craftsmanship

[P_Simm]

I think this is a case of mistaking fine craftsmanship for art. Art strives to express something through it's medium. Good craftsmanship can be beautiful, but it does not strive to express anything - it strives to elegantly achieve its needed functionality.

These lines have blurred mainly through the use of the term architecture IMO. True architecture (the design of buildings) has a tone of art to it, because it can incorporate visual ideas and concepts into its functionality. While people talk of computer architecture and software architecture, the same sense of art really can't apply there. There's no way to express an idea through software code, other than through direct I/O implementing true visual, textual, or audio artwork.

You know what to do with the HELLO.

Re:Open Source Game [Development]

[Daniel]

Actually, chess can run into the same problem: people patching computer algorithms into their client. In fact, it can be worse: the player can run an analyzer at the same time as the client and ask for hints without even bothering to modify the client!

I think the only real way to deal with losers is to not play with them. Technological solutions to the problem (including hidden source) are bandaid solutions.

Daniel

Hmmmm

[Daniel]

Counting "different" as more important than "better" flatly contradicts the whole point of how bazaar mode software development works, and that's why we haven't yet seen any spectacular games coming from the Internet.

The author has clearly not played Koules or Liquid Wars. Now, I'm not sure that there are "better", but they're certainly "different" -- in fact, I don't think I've seen games like them anywhere else. Both these games are free software. I believe this is a simple counterexample to the above assertion.

Daniel

Games?

[meepzorb]

IMO Games are one area where the GNU/Open Source Model is unlikely to work. Game engines, 3D graphics, etc are now a mature software area, and with today's hardware we're almost at the point where brute forcing it will be a "good enough" programming strategy. So games dont really belong to the programmers like they did in the 70s and 80s. This has been true for some time.

Today's games are largely about the graphical arts, soundtrack, 'look & feel' and (sometimes) storyline. Games are now about art. And artists are, for the most part, a greedy and opportunistic breed.... no 'gift culture' for them, thank you very much.

I can imagine an Open Source games culture where artsy young wannbes would use a Free Software game as a springboard for their professional career... or do little one-shots to impress their friends (I'm thinking of the amiga demo culture of the 80s & 90s here). I could also imagine a world in which a number of cheap-but-decent Shareware games were produced for Linux (this model worked well on the Mac in the 90s actually).

But I cant see Open Source games going much further than that.

:Michael

Re:Games?

[molog]

Did you read his post? He mearly stated the same thing that games are now more about art, so the engine should be opensourced while the files that make up the art and story of the game would be the sellable product.
Molog

So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

I've been hoping for something like this

[Bad_CRC]

for a long while.

it seems like it would be a great fit. Open source engines companies could modify to fit their game, and share the source when the game comes out. Plenty of time to get your sales in before your competition could absorb your tech.

They would still have full copyright on all the models, sounds, maps, artwork... everything else.

It would seem to be a great benefit to the game companies, and everyone in general.

Imagine all the talent currently going into mods, instead going to a bunch of individual games, many probably free. I worked on a few mods people seemed to like, just because it was fun.

but, since I'm not a game developer, I don't know. Maybe it would just encourage more really crappy games. Maybe the open source model would discourage innovation since people could pump out a game without adding much to the engine code if they didn't want to.

Who can tell. But with the release of the sourcecode to golgotha, Quake, and now the Duke Nukem 3d Build engine, It's suprising noone has taken any of these projects to the next step.

________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"

More on this topic...

[Denor]

While we're talking about open source and games, here is a piece by Shawn Hargreaves (maker of the allegro gaming library) on open source and gaming. It's an interesting read, even if you don't quite agree with what he has to say.

Re:Games? Artists greedy?

[-Harlequin-]

>And artists are, for the most part, a greedy and opportunistic breed....
>no 'gift culture' for them, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I completely disagree, but I would be interested to know why you believe this.

As for a 'gift culture', exactly how many new, free levels and wads were there for Doom again? Half-life?
The man-hours that have gone into the "gift culture" of art quite possibly dwarf that of the entire open source movement. Perhaps you think that these people are different from the people who work commercially? I'll think you'll find a huge proportion of those commercial artists have poured hundreds, even thousands of hours into works they have distributed freely on the internet.

You should also note that there are a few fundamental differences in how (non-code) artistic works are created. I suspect that you have misinterpreted some of the repercussions of these in forming your opinion. For example, open source code often results in something better. Open source art usually results in worthless crap. I could explain why, but it would take a while and this is just an example. Consider that things done differently != things done for inferior motives.

(NB, for the record, I consider fine coding to be an art, however I have maintained a distinction between code and art in this post to avoid confusion).

Freedom software innovations still to be completed

[Sludge]

I have two ideas, but no the time to implement them, for a while yet.

First, we need an impulsive way for artists to contribute graphics to a project. To say artists won't release their work for free is folly; I've been following a number of Quake texture sites around, looking for stuff that could be used in the version of my game that is cost-free and comes with the level editor.

I propose that something like CVS for artists is created. This would have a very simple web interface (because we want a large audience), and it would have the ability to let artists upload images. These images would go into a queue which would be checked by people in the project, and would either be put into the rejected folder (with a reason attached, hopefully), or accepted into the game project.

This would be useful to track ownership of art back to the person. Perhaps in a larger system, something like the slashdot system could be implemented.

My second innovation is game-evolution. It would be possible to have a client/server type system for an RPG where the storyline unfolds based on data sent from the server, whether it be in-game scripting or dialog. This dialog would be rewritten from time to time by the programmers, and the storyline would change- perhaps on player's input, or be added to. People would use the open source client to connect to this server, which could charge on a per-service basis.

I don't like the idea of converting something that works fine into something client/server so you can charge for it on a per-use basis, but it does deem interesting to me to have value added options.

Best Gameplay

[drenehtsral]

I'd have to say that Scorched Earth and clones are up there, along with DigDug, PlatMan (amiga) Mr. Do, Frenzy, MegaMan (nes), Galga, Sonic (sega), and a couple others i can't think of now... Quake3 is okay, but it doesn't have that timeless draw of those simpler scrollers and platform games.

Open Art in Software and Independent Film

[Izaak]

The article seems critical of the idea of volunteer provided 'open art'... but my experience is that there are many talented musicians and artists who are willing to get involved, if you just approach them about it. At least that is what I am finding with my own video game SDK project www.gridslammer.org and with my independent film project. Here is what I had to say in the Linux Today forum about this article:

From the article:
It's difficult to imagine how Open Source developers could match the speed, quality and quantity that the commercial gaming industry gives us each year. It would be like trying to film Star Wars with your friends on weekends.

Difficult, but not impossible. If an open source game project were to collect a large enough following of programmers and artists, it could 'pull a linux' on the game industry. It will take time to build that sort of following, but I am beginning to see it happen with several projects.

As for 'open art', I can see one big reason that a musician or graphic artist might donate their efforts to an open game project: exposure. Art is a competitive field. Getting your name out there by showcasing your art on a popular game could really advance one's career. The same could be said about the 'weekend Star Wars' comment. We are currently undergoing a renaissance in independent film making. I've seen some incredibly high quality films churned out by teams of talented volunteers. The lower cost of newer digital video technologies even allows for some amazingly good special effects. If the game industry falls into the pattern of Hollywood and begins churning out the same old big budget crap, look forward to the independent, volunteer game developers to pick up the flag.

Lets face it, video games are a type of art, and art is something that comes from individuals (sometimes working with other individuals), not faceless corporations. I see no reason why a properly motivated team of volunteer artists and programmers cannot produce a 'professional' level game. Time will tell I guess.

Thad

I see no reason to make a game open-source

[Chiasmus_]

The open source movement's principles don't really apply to games the same way they apply to software which is actually useful.

Sure, there are some sections of games which might--and this is a big might--have applications in "real" software. For example, someone who designes a new 3D engines or AI module might have legitimate cause to let people review it. But let's face it--how much can anyone really learn from Heroes of Might and Magic III--and how important is it to submit it to endless peer review to get the bugs out? The worst thing a bug is generally going to do is destroy your saved game, and even though it might feel like it, that isn't the end of the world.

There are three main reasons that people write code: 1) To make money; 2) To show off or impress or entertain people; and 3) To make the world a better place. Writing an operating system, or a tool, can include all three, hence open-sourcing. But those who write games are not generally concerned about making the world a better place. They want to look cool and make money.

In conclusion, if Microsoft opened Windows 2000, but left Minesweeper in binary form, I would have no complaints.

Research

[Tom7]

A lot of academic research in computer science is open source (and if it's not open source, it's almost always Open Research Paper). I'd say this is a pretty high source of creativity; you might just be looking in the wrong places.

Most academics aren't making games, though. And meetings certainly do help! So you're partially on the right track, IMO.

Open Arts & Crafts Highly Unlikely

[werdna]

At the outset, count me in as a huge Open Source fan. I use and contribute OSS regularly, and am a true believer in the fruits of the movement (or at least one or more definitions of the "movement").

Further, let me say at the outset that OSS provides and has provided a large set of tools of enormous value to game developers. The technical side of game design is far easier today than once it was. The publication by leading lights of their technical works (which happened only under the covers in the old days) has helped to improve the state of the art greatly.

However, that being said, let me make this remark: a great game is not a pretty game; a pretty game is not a great game. A highly technical game need not be pretty or great; and vice vice versa. What is more, it is naive to believe that there is any clear division between the "art" of game design and the "pure tech" of game execution. (let alone the "art" and "pure tech" of the art).

A great game, unlike many great things, is not something that lends itself well to specification; and is particularly not something that lends itself well to production by independent actors. There is often a time when you know you are "just hacking," and you know you are "just making shit up to be fun," but it is not a readily engineerable task. The subtlest change can make a useless game great and a great game useless -- and it may have nothing or everything to do with design -- and it may have nothing or everything to do with hackery.

In short, game design, like movies, theatre and most purely artistic efforts, can be the result of collaborating artists and technicians, but to be great requires a central focused vision articulated and enforced by one or a very small community of brilliant folks. Like a director for a theatrical production, there will be much reliance on the purely artistic contributions of others and the purely technical contributions of others -- but the greatness comes from the gestalt.

The Masterplay occurs as the result of technical excellence, so perfectly and cunningly crafted as to transcend to an art. Such excellence does not happen by accident, or by consensus; at least in my experience.

Open Source Gamery may well be possible, but like Harvard Berkman Center's "Open Law" efforts, is really a different paradigm sucking up a popular term.

Yes, we will have Open Source games as we understand them, but they are unlikely to be truly great. In time, there will be collaborative game design environments, perhaps that call themselves Open Source -- but that doesn't mean anything really.

Great games will not come from consensus. Killer shoot-em-ups certainly can -- and some may be truly pretty and truly beautiful. But me-too is me-too. What will stun us is the truly surprising. the different. the great.

That will come from a small, focused group, IMHO; and not by consensus.

Day of the tentacle

[sela]

I used to be an adventure-game fan, and one of my all-time favorite is Day of the Tentacle. This is one of the best example that prove art does make the game - both visual art and the story.

For all this time since DOTT came till now, with all the neat 3D engines and all, I never saw any game (yet alone, adventure game) that reached the same level of enjoyability.

This is the ultimate proof for me that art does make the game.

Open Source Game [Development]

[Captain Derivative]

IMHO, I don't think we're going to see very many, if any at all, large-scale open-source games. The obvious problem in this case is cheating. Consider an open-source first-person shooter game that lets people play each other over a network. There's nothing to stop anyone from "tweaking" the code to give himself an unfair advantage (e.g., maybe doubling his characters defensive power). Of course the blatant cheaters will be kicked out or ignored soon enough, but someone smarter will make his changes subtle enough not to be readily noticable but still give him an advantage. Instead, however, I do see a future for open-source game development tools. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who has a few good ideas for games but doesn't have the free time to build all the necessary engines and stuff. Open-source dev tools would help eliminate this problem, letting the designer jump more directly into the artistic/creative stuff. And of course this should be open-source: there's always going to be something you want to change on the game engine, giving it more features you want. Closed-source wouldn't let you do that kind of stuff, reducing the development to nothing more than, say, making new levels for Quake or something. So don't expect any big open-source games to be released, soon or ever. But there would be, I think, a market for open-source game dev tools. Yes, a *market*, as in selling it. All you'd have to do is add features like support/assistance for the code, or something else that goes beyond just the source code and binaries.