Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Game Development

Boudewijn Rempt writes "Amazon's recommendation system recommended me "Open Source Game Development: Qt Games for KDE, PDA's and Windows" when I was looking for an introduction to OpenGL. While it does contain two chapters on OpenGL, there's much, much more. It's not just an introduction to writing open source games, it's a complete introduction to participating in open source projects like KDE." Read the rest of Boudewijn's review. Open Source Game Development: Qt Games for KDE, PDAs and Windows author Martin Heni, Andreas Beckermann pages 554 publisher Charles River Media rating 8 reviewer Boudewijn Rempt ISBN 1-58450-406-4 summary Complete guide on writing small to medium games for Linux, Windows and PDA's using Qt.

As maintainer of Krita, the KOffice paint application, I need to know about graphics. Unfortunately, the four months of retraining from sinologist to Oracle Forms developer that launched me into a life of coding didn't include anything on graphics, and certainly not on OpenGL. Which is very much where Krita 2.0 is going.

So... I was looking for an easy introduction to OpenGL to kind of ease my way into the Red and Orange books. And Amazon's weird recommendations system recommended Open Source Game Development: Qt Games for KDE, PDAs, and Windows by Martin Heni and Andreas Beckermann to me. Intrigued, I ordered the volume forthwith. Turns out that that was a good move: this is an excellent book.

In the first place, the text is very clear and concise, but never dry. Forget about the ho-ho-I'm-funny chatty style that's prevalent in many technical books. This book comes to the point immediately. Then, the information is carefully ordered and the presentation very neat and clear. Those would be good points for any book.

But what makes Open Source Game Development: Qt Games for KDE, PDAs, and Windows even more interesting is that it's much more than its title indicates. It is squarely intended at the hobby coder who wants to work on what the book calls "desktop games" -- not the multi-million dollar multimedia productions that demand a new graphics card every half year, but the games that you play while thinking out a knotty problem or that have some educational value for your kids. The kind of project a single coder, or a small team can complete and maintain while still staying sane. And, of course, that kind of game, defender or zaxxon-type games, maze games or tetris-style games work are perfectly suited for pda's and mobile phones, too,

Actually, this book is the perfect introduction to joining a big Open Source project I've seen. Of course, the focus is on Qt and KDE, which means that if you always had this itch to join KDE development but didn't have the necessary skills, this book will help you get there in a very pleasant way.

One way this is done, is by always first giving a general introduction to a topic, and then more detailed discussion in the next chapter. So, first we've got a very good "Qt Primer", and three chapters "KDE Game Development", "Qt Game Development Using Microsoft Windows" and "Game Development and PDA's". And there's a chapter on "OpenGL" in general, and then a chapter on "OpenGL with Qt".

The first part of the book deals with this type of introductory material. The second part discusses "Artificial Intelligence", "Pathfinding" (this chapter was a revelation to me -- I never understood how that worked. If only I had this information while trying to write games for my ZX Spectrum!), "Particle Effects" and "Math and Physics in Desktop Games". The material in these chapters is foreshadowed by the very first chapter "Introduction to Desktop Gaming", which deals with game balancing, architecture and the ins and outs of developing free software. Armed with these chapters, you can add enough game play to your games to make them satisfying to play.

The next three chapters discussion the Qt network classes and how to use them in your games, the KGame library (free software, of course), that contains a lot of boring groundwork that's the same for most games -- players, input devices, network stuff. For me personally, the "XML" chapter wasn't that useful, but then, I'm a corporate cubby-hole programmer by day, and XML is my bread and butter. It's amazing how many billable hours XML can add to a business application project.

A very important chapter, "Open Source and Intellectual Property Rights" makes it very clear what's allowed and what not. The summary chapter, "A Practical Summary" is a novel idea -- at least, I hadn't come across something like this before -- and it works quite well, tying all strands together. There are plenty of references to earlier chapters, so if works like a kind of hands-on index. Not that the actual index isn't top-notch, too.

I should make clear that this book is not just about coding for KDE. That's what most interesting to me, but if you want to code a game for Windows, for a Qtopia or Qt/Embedded environment, then this is the right book. After all, with the release of Qt4 under GPL for Windows (Qt was already released under GPL for X11 and OS X, as was Qtopia), Qt is a good choice for Windows hobby programmers. You get a high quality toolkit that really helps with the boring ground work, and excellent documentation. Coupled with the clear text in this book, there's nothing to hold you back.

Andreas Beckermann is the author of Boson, an OpenGL real-time strategy game based on Qt and KDE. His experience in working on Boson really is apparent in this book. Martin Heni has written a couple of games that that are in KDE's games pack, and has won a prize for his QTopia game Zauralign.

Oh, and the chapters on OpenGL and OpenGL with Qt were enough to make me understand the OpenGL Krita already has and did prepare me quite adequately for the big Red and Orange books. And I've got the itch to write a little game now..."

You can purchase Open Source Game Development: Qt Games for KDE, PDAs and Windows from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

15 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A large amount of Linux Game programmers make incompotent descions.

    Take Boson for example.

    There is no reason why Boson should be tied to KDE the way it is.

    Some game programs don't utilize automake or autoconf at all.

    Another problem is that some Linux game Programmers program are Windows programs who put in a minimum effort nessessary to build a Linux version.

    The fact is that we need people to work on better Linux games and Engine Source ports.

    1. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by s16le · · Score: 1, Insightful
      open-source is completely viable for the game industry - in fact if the industry is to survive in the future beyond one or two massive 'mega-publishers' (like EA owning criterion & renderware etc), the rest of the industry is going to HAVE to shift to open-source to defend themselves against these massive companies.

      much like how linux gained it's foot hold in the webserver & OS market. the game industry is just a bit further behind the curve.

      how much longer will 'indies' (ie small non-publisher-affiliated dev houses like id) be able to compete against the mega dev studios like rockstar or EA? it's coming to the point where the return on investment is becoming too high, most companies simply can't even enter the market because of the cost of entry.

      if you can suddenly shave off $250,000 + off of your startup costs (by using an open-source engine as opposed to licensing the tech), or more (as opposed to developing the tech from the ground up, which could cost millions), why wouldn't developers want to go the open-source route?

      the main issue at this point is publisher resistance. publishers are the 'old school' business-mindset like the RIAA and the MPAA - they refuse to acknowledge that open-source exists and that it might be useful to their businesses.

      in the game industry, it's all about the IP - if you own the IP then you can make money, whereas publishers look at open-source and are just scared away because of the simple words 'open source'. it implies to them that they don't control things...

      It all comes down to the licenses and misconceptions about the requirements of those licenses.

      GPL is the death of any game-related project for example. It is the kiss of death to a game library or toolset.

      publishers have to know that they can close the source of the product, even for a short period around the release date (that crucial 3-5 months after release) so that they can make their money back...then once the game is out and 'old news' then they are more open to releasing code into the open-source field again.

      Open source is slowly creeping into the industry, more from the toolset and libraries side of things, slowly sneaking in from the sidelines. Recent games like chrome used open-source physics engines (ODE), Id releases their old tech as open-source, but this doesn't really count because no one has ever used a gpl'd license and actually released a product with it afterwards.

    2. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will tell you the main problem in a word: CONTENT.

      For some strange reason, software developers enjoy giving away their work/time without expect anything in return, but please tell any decent designer, sound fx creator or graphics drawer to give away their time just "for fun" and you wont get really a lot.

      In that way, open source will NEVER compete against the big studios. The only "hope" is to make people look at less "graphic intensive" but more "fun" and innovative games. With a bit of luck, Nintendo will aim that way, but I do not have much hope

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by LocoMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it has some to do with the subjectivity in the artists side. Or at least that's how it seems to me (3D animator with basically no coding skills other than the ocassional script in maya).

      Coding is a very creative process, however, most of the times the results can be masured objectively. If you're making a 3D engine, you can measure how many polygons per second it moves. If someone makes a change, you can measure if it's faster and/or slower, and exactly by how much.

      The same doesn't happen that often in the art side. Let's just say I create the animation of a character swinging a sword. Then someone else comes and changes the animation and makes it completely different. Suposedly both are within the parameters of the game (how long it is, the starting and ending poses), how do you define which is better?. Maybe for the other guy his animation is a lot better than mine, but for me maybe mine was better and his hurts my work (to put it in a way). Most of the times there's just not a real measurement of quality when it comes to the art side.

      This is one reason (IMHO) that the artists tend to be less of a group workers than coders. Usually in 3D animated series and movies, for example, you can have hundreds of animators working at the same time, but in most of the cases each scene is animated by a single animator, and if there are several, they don't overlap (one animator does one single character on the scene, or in the case where two animators work on the same character one will do the main animation and the other the secondary movement).

      In the coding side it just seems to be "ok, here's what I did, let's fix it, or try to fix it"... in the art side it seems to be more of a "ok, here's what I did, tell me what's wrong but DON'T fix it, I'll fix it myself".

      Or at least that's how it look from this side of the monitor.

    4. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by miyako · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have done both programming and 3D modeling/animation professionally. I still do 3D work and graphics design on the side, as well as contributing code to F/OSS applications. While I'm a decent programmer, I don't really have experience writing 3D engines or related code that would be useful to many open source games. Many times, if I come across a game that seems interesting and I would like to contribute, I offer to contribute artwork.
      What I have found, and it is really a strange thing to me, but many projects simply do not want to accept contributions from artists. There have been a few projects that I've stepped into the mailing lists or IRC channels for and asked "hey, great game. I'm interested in contributing some artwork to the game, anyone have any ideas of things that might be particularly useful?" or simply looked at what was needed and gotten back "we don't need any more artwork/artists". A lot of times the art in these games is either bad, or a mixed bag of decent stuff and terrible stuff (not that no open source games have good artwork, but more that if a game has enough good artwork then I'm more inclined to offer to contribute to a project that seems like they could really use the contributions).
      Another thing I've noticed is that one of the big goals of a lot of open source games is to be able to run on older hardware. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that it limits the quality of the artwork. Many commercial games are released when even a top-of-the-line gaming rig can barely get top performance, while many open source games tend to be written to run on any machine built in the last 5 or 6 years. I'm sure part of this is that not ever open source developer can afford a top of the line machine with two bleeding edge video cards (because buying one video card every 6 months for $500 wasn't draing PC gamers wallets enough apparently, they had to invent SLI) and a couple of gigs of ram.
      What would be nice is some sort of site like sourceforge but for creative commons licensed artwork that open source games could make use of.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    5. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ### What I have found, and it is really a strange thing to me, but many projects simply do not want to accept contributions from artists.

      I think the biggest problem isn't that they don't accept contributions from artists, but much more basic, most projects simply lack almost any kind of organisations. So nobody knows what needs to be done or when it should be done or even how. With engine coding that isn't to much of a problem, since everybody can just code a bit here and there and have his fun, maybe even producing something half usable in the end. But with games its pretty much catastrophic when nobody knows, not even the maintainer, what should be finished next and often not even what should be produced in the end, let alone things like style guides, specs about intended triangle count for and object, etc. So the thing isn't so much that they don't want to accept contributions, but simply that they can't, because they have no idea what to do with the contributions or which contributions are needed.

      At least thats experince with doing graphics for OpenSource games.

      ### What would be nice is some sort of site like sourceforge but for creative commons licensed artwork that open source games could make use of.

      Yes, such a thing could definitvly be usefull, while not necessary for direct in-game use, it can be quite helpfull to have some 3d models or drawings for inspiration or reference. I once started such a thing, but it never went very far:

      http://clanlib.org/~grumbel/mediarepo/show.cgi?new s

    6. Re:Linux Games (SDL, OpenGL) by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ### how do you define which is better?

      You look at them and if they both are good enough, you use them both in the game, more varity is a good thing after all. There are of course issues when an animation/model/texture doesn't fit the style of the game, but for such one simply needs a style-guide and or a lead artists doing most of the art for a project. This is really not so much different then with coding, especially with game coding, since there isn't any easy way to tell which thing is better either, especially when it comes to stuff that is gameplay relevant and not just polygon plotting. I might be able to messure the performance of a piece of code, but for most code speed is not really an issue, API elegance, easy to maintain it and such are often far more important and not really easy to messure either. Last not least most artwork and code will be something new, not an improvment to existing code, so you don't have anything to compare with to begin with.

      ### "ok, here's what I did, tell me what's wrong but DON'T fix it, I'll fix it myself".

      This has not only something todo with artwork itself, but also with the fileformats in use, with code I can diff/patch, see the differences, compare and merge them. With an image/model I get two chunks of raw data, I can view them, but I can't merge them without lots of additional work, which makes collaboration a lot more difficult, since conflicts are much harder to resolve then with code.

  2. Re:Does it answer a really important question? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can make your game opensoure X years later where X years is when you stop making a profit. The reason some of the big dogs don't do this is that they want to resell the game X years in the future in a classics pack. Or rerelease atari 2600 for example. Making a game open source brings more fame to it as more people enjoy mods on your game and your good heart for allowing it to happen, which brings fame to your company. Company fame results in more units sold in the future when you make new games.

  3. Small is good by Excors · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is squarely intended at the hobby coder who wants to work on what the book calls "desktop games" -- not the multi-million dollar multimedia productions that demand a new graphics card every half year, but the games that you play while thinking out a knotty problem or that have some educational value for your kids. The kind of project a single coder, or a small team can complete and maintain while still staying sane.

    That seems like pretty sensible advice - the phrase "game development" immediately brings to mind the big successful commercial games, but that's not the area in which open source seems capable of competing, and it is much more productive to realise that simple games can be more worthwhile to make.

    As for why open source game development has problems when trying to emulate commercial game development, there was some discussion a while back; shamelessly reposting my comment from there:

    there are hundreds or thousands of GPL game projects on SourceForge, and most of them are dead

    Perhaps the open source idea of havings thousands of eyes, and encouraging anybody to jump in and out of the code making changes, is incompatible with the process of creating a game?

    I don't know of any open source applications that are "finished", or even try to be - their early releases are at least slightly useful, and they are always releasing new versions and adding new features. And there always are new features that can be added, each of which will improve the application, so people can work on their favourite features and the project will continue on its path of continual improvement.

    Traditional games don't work like that. They're barely recognisable as a game for a large part of their development time - during that time, there has to be a vision for the finished product, and everybody on the project has to work towards that distant vision. It'll be years before anybody can really see the results of their work. That's not very enticing for somebody who can only be certain of spare time for the next couple of months - they would rather work on something much smaller, like a mod or a tech demo, just to get visible results.

    And unlike most open source projects, people can't just add features they think are cool and useful - everything has to fit into the overall design of the game. You cannot simply add features without considering the consequences on the whole of the rest of the game - and you can't consider all the consequences unless you've already spent months working on the game and getting a feel for how everything interacts.

    For professional game development companies, they get people working towards the vision by simply paying them to do so. That won't work for community-based open source projects, so they need some other way of doing it.

    But I don't know what way that would be. I've been working on a "freeware, hobbyist" game instead (0 A.D.), which is a full 3D RTS with its own game engine, comparable in scope to commercial games (or at least to those of a few years ago) - it's making use of various open source libraries (SpiderMonkey, Vorbis, Xerces, etc), but is not itself open source. And I think that's a factor in how it has kept going for so long: 'membership' is still open to anyone who has the right abilities and dedication, but that means there is a strong concept of membership - we're part of a team and feel some responsibility towards making progress, following the design, and seeing the game through until it's finished. I don't think that feeling would be as strong if we were primarily a loose community of people who are just poking around the code with no commitment, which is how I perceive most open source projects.

    And programmers are only a small part of game

  4. Re:Does it answer a really important question? by vdboor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the review, I get the idea that the focus of the book is actually contributing to Open Source, scratching an itch as hobby.

    The money comes later when you apply for a job in the industry, and can point out some first-hand examples of what you can already do. Plus you'll have some experience already.

    With my own application for a job, I've actually used my own Open Source project and website as examples for the conversation, with great success. :-) Your milage may vary off course, and I must admit I've got lucky it's a small company with a technical-oriented atmosphere.

    --
    The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2 ;-)
  5. Re:Does it answer a really important question? by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my uninformed opinion there really is no reason for paid-account MMORPGs to be closed source. They might say that it's to prevent cheating, but I say that open sourcing would kill cheating dead.
    --


    The problem here is what happened to blizzard and bnetd, but, with an Open Source client it would be trivial to create servers and you wont be doing andy "reverse engineering" thus not breaking the law.

    What is needed in these cases is the company to create a "community" with some value in order to persuade people to join. (Certified servers, fast servers, some kind of updates, etc)

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  6. If you're considering writing an OSS game by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...then please please PLEASE first take a look at the hundreds of other OSS games out there and consider building on (read: contributing to) one of those.

    It's sad looking at the large number of games that have shown promise but for one reason or another have been abandoned or development has slowed or forked. We really don't need another nethack clone, MMORPG or 3D engine. We have all of those in abundance. What we need now is to build on these, both with shader code and good content. It's often easy to tell the OSS games from the commercial ones from a single screenshot because the commercial studios have good artists and the OSS devs don't (I am being overly broad here and there are exceptions such as Frozen Bubble, but these are rare).

    One not-quite example: I am a fan of the excellent OSS flight simulator FlightGear. The latest version 0.9.10 has some nice ground textures and real-world data that makes for a truly beautiful view when flying at 30,000 feet. But the planes themselves look like crap. The model detail and decals are average but what really lets it down is the way the plane interacts with light. The engine is badly need of work to take advantage of OpenGL shaders. And the sky looks completely wrong. As you ascend beyond 50,000 feet you should see the sky darken to a very deep blue with some stars becoming visible but the engine doesn't allow for this (you're basically inside a big solid-blue sphere). Not vital properties for learning to fly a 747 I know, but still important polish for a realistic flying experience.

    If you have a truly original idea then by all means start from scratch if nothing existing fits the bill, but don't just fire up a text editor and start another MMORPG from scratch. The OSS gaming community don't need it.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  7. Stop Making Engines, Start Making Content by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know what you're going to say, you're a programmer, you can't make content. Lies! No, I'm not seriously suggesting you break out Blender or even 3d Studio. What I'm suggesting is that you, as a programmer, develop new and exciting tools for content creations. For example, how many open source tree generators are there available that are suitable for use with open source graphics engines? Zilch. Another example, can you write an algorithm that can turn a description of an animal's skeleton and how much weight there is on various points of that skeleton into a walking animation? How about a running animation? How about fighting animations? Can you write an algorithm that turns that same input into a fleshed out 3d model? You can? Great, we're half way to making all the content we could ever want.

    "Programmer art" should not be a derogatory term for content whipped up by non-professionals.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Stop Making Engines, Start Making Content by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ACK, or even if people do work on engines, don't just concentrate on the engine itself, but also on the tools surrounding the engine, nothing sucks more to have a shiny open source engine, but then no exporter available to export some Blender model into the engine.

  8. Re:Does it answer a really important question? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that you'd still be investing millions of dollars/man-hours to create this engine, and giving it away for free to your competitors. Sure, everyone can then create their own art/story/content, but why give should my competitors get to use an engine that I spent much dollars/man-hours creating, free of charge?

    I really think Epic has a better understanding of this industry than random slashdotters or RMS. Epic spend years creating their Unreal 3.0 engine, and guess what, the *license* it to others for a *fee* (and the license may even include the source, but not for redistribution to others). I'm sorry, but open source is not amenable to creating things like Halo, Half-Life, World of Warcraft, etc. Stick with Tux Racer trivialities.

    A sidenote:
    I've worked on software for years, and the "art" (icons, pictures, sounds, etc) is considered part of the "source". So why do you separate the "art" from the "source code"? You say that devs can GPL the engine but keep the "art" 'closed'. Why not "GPL" the art as well? Seems that the true OSS advocate would advocate "open sourcing" the art/story/content, letting the "community" improve it, and reaping the benefits of the community's effort. That you concede that the art should remain 'closed', tacitly admits a flaw in the GPL model (as far as money-making is concerned).

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000