Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Morrowind Version 0.16.0 Released
An anonymous reader writes "The OpenMW team recently released a new version of their open source engine. While the project is not fully playable yet, the goal is to preserve Morrowind, provide modders a better engine and tool kit for creating their works, and make it cross-platform. Like most open source projects, they are always seeking new contributors. So, what do you think; what's the state of FLOSS games that are not first-person shooters?"
FOSS games tend to be coded very well but they lack polished art and game assets. It's like building V8 engine and putting it in an ugly car. It runs great but scares people away.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
I am very curious about the rational for why OpenMW switched from D to C++.
The FAQ points to this page for an explanation, which, at 2012-07-03 8:16 PM Pacific Time, I, an outsider to the effort, do not have access to.
Best comment I've read in a while. I played a demo of arkham city the other day. I almost whipped out the credit card on the spot. Just the graphics alone made want to play it. Games like that cost 1000000x to produce versus what you can get out of some engine and a bunch of modders. It would take a dedicated small team years of hours putting together something on the level of what I played. Even linux owes a lot to significant corporate investment.
zosxavius photography
>So, what do you think; what's the state of FLOSS games that are not first-person shooters?
What, both of them? I looked them up; Frozen Bubble and Tux Racer are doing just fine.
Graphics wise, I'd express my doubts that even with years, a small team would even be able to produce something that is considered graphically amazing for the time of release. This is simply due to the fact that new hardware renders old techniques obsolete (pun intended). For a great example of how protracted development time and constant upgrading can actually make a game look _worse_ at release, take a look at DNF or daikatana.
This is true, but the art requirements for a game like arkham city are insane. Sure there are some really awesome indy games, but nothing quite like that. Fallout 3 also comes to mind. No way could a small team accomplish that. I'm not trying to diminish what people do with less, but more is always better.
zosxavius photography
see "wing commander saga: darkest dawn" and "freespace open". if no one makes the games you want the fans will ultimately find a way. FOSS's problem is they are saturated with projects for quake style scifi arena shoots if they tapped dead genres instead they would have polished games out the wazzoo
This is true, but the art requirements for a game like arkham city are insane. Sure there are some really awesome indy games, but nothing quite like that. Fallout 3 also comes to mind. No way could a small team accomplish that. I'm not trying to diminish what people do with less, but more is always better.
Depends on what you need. Neat graphics usually means heavy system requirements.
A lot of people may be fine with a game that isn't as beautiful, but can be run smoothly on their systems.
I think there's a market for both.
Slipping shoelaces ?
It is the old paradigm of time vs money. With enough money, it can be done in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, you will get a great work that take years/decades to develop, like http://ifhgame.ru/main/.
morcego
I definitely agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to imply that graphics should be the focal point of game creation. At the same time though, I'm not sure whether there would be "polished games out the wazoo". The thing is, the environment for fan made sequels/clones already exists. The tools already exist for FOSS game creation, and the communities/fanbases are there - apart from legal threats, there really isn't much stopping anyone skilled, with enough free time from making niche games that appeal to them.
Graphics wise, I'd express my doubts that even with years, a small team would even be able to produce something that is considered graphically amazing for the time of release.
Who said anything about a small team? And in what way is this not already amazing?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
It would take a dedicated small team years of hours putting together something on the level of what I played.
The parent of my post did.
Yes, what you posted does look amazing, but it is a pre-rendered movie, not a game. So it's really apples and oranges. I don't mean to demean anyone making FOSS games, I just meant to point out that making a game that looks as good as new AAA games generally takes a sizeable, professional team working full time to accomplish.
what you posted does look amazing, but it is a pre-rendered movie, not a game. So it's really apples and oranges.
No it isn't. One is the flip side of the other. The toolchains involved are nearly identical. So is the project organization, number and quality of artists involved, social structure, etc etc etc. It's actually easier to enumerate the differences. 1) A game needs a game engine. 2) eh... it's really hard to find a second difference.
Look, it is already proven that AAA content can be created by the open community. Delivered according to a plan and on a schedule even. You just saw it with your own eyes. The only remaining question is, to whom will go the glory of proving the point for an AAA first person sandbox game?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Pong death showdown anyone?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I definately agree with this, just look at Mechwarrior: Living Legends. Noone was making a modern Mechwarrior game so the fans made it. FOSS really needs to start targetting tools and dead genres. Linux already runs about 90% of the flight games out there, they just need to really polish/support force feedback/input configuration. I've been trialing things like thurstmaster HOTAS Cougar gear, and Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback sticks for years now and it's definately close to being a superior experience to Windows in these genres.
but more is always better.
What about more Nazis? Or more Godwins?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
This is great as I missed out on Morrowind the first time around, and recently bought it cheap - but I have a Mac and a Linux box. This solves trying to run the game in VirtualBox or on an underpowered netbook.
Shame the website is completely fuxxed up.
http://dear-esther.com/ ?
What about Hawken? (http://www.playhawken.com/)
Small team, indy game, graphics are mindblowingly fantastic, even for today, and its scheduled for release Q4 '12
The former worked for Wolfenstein 3D.
There are mobile/tablet games that the graphics are at least as good or better but the gameplay / AI sucks.
How much of the gameplay sucking can be attributed to not having a gamepad or any other physical keys available?
As for the toolchain? No - an interactive game requires far more tools, and more specialists to create. While animators and texture artists alone can create movies, you need high skill programmers in order to create a game. It is not as simple as just "putting an engine in". An engine is simply the backend classes, interfaces and methods to handle the resources, game logic and input in a structured way. You still need to craft the game itself around that, which requires, at the very least, competent programmers.
You also need competent designers. Not just for gameplay, but for stuff like HUDs, menus and other interfaces. Tool programmers, level designers, network specialists... You'll find that the amount of specialists required for interactive media is much greater then that of others.
Also, how are you going to convince a large enough group of people that your idea is the one? Unlike other projects, games don't serve a direct or obvious purpose apart from entertainment, so direction is something that is not as obvious. What sort of game would everyone want to see? Can the director get everyone to agree on an art/gameplay direction?
Sintel had paid artists, so in their case it was money. And don't expect a government grant enough to keep a much larger, more complex project going.
I don't even see why the open source community needs to compete with AAA games. More often then not, it is smaller budget games that actually innovate. Hell, most of the surprise hits of recent years have been from the indie community.
If all you are interested into is just running the game, it runs fine in Wine. On my machine even Skyrim runs fine in Wine, just marginally slower than when booting in Window XP, and my hardware isn't too recent either.
Definitely an example of what a small team can do, and I personally think the graphics are more then enough to not detract from the experience - dare I say nice enough to enhance it - but it is no Arkham Asylum, Crysis 5 or Modern Warfare 10. Which in a way, isn't a bad thing at all.
Also, nitpicking, but not open source ;)
What happened to "Less is more."?
Recursive Godwin is recursive.
cat
One thing I've always wondered: FOSS games don't have to be community developed at least by the definition, but that seems to be the norm in discussion. Why is that?
seems like any game that was developed under normal time lines/conditions could be FOSS as long as the code came with it....in which case it could be community maintained at that point, but was developed behind closed doors.
Most games (and a lot of software, but not all) have to have a definite goal and have to come out under a specific time-frame to "catch" and become useful and/or popular. That's hard to do under a community model in a lot of cases. Pieces of games can work that way, like the framework, game engine, etc. but the final piece (artwork, plot, characters, etc.) seem to have trouble using a community model to hit the right target at the right time...
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
And what of the Mazda RX-8, Lotus Elise, or any of the various hot hatches available right now?
None of them are American, which is what I was talking about; I could have been more explicit about that.
It sounds like you want a Lotus, though, or a Miata.
I'm 6'7" so I cannot drive a Lotus or a Miata. I used to have a 1989 240SX with a 3" drop, which was an awesome car and I could run rings around motherfuckers on the twisties even though I had nothing in the engine, had done nothing for performance in fact but intake and exhaust. I got rid of it because I now live in Lake County, California, and the roads will not sustain driving a car like that. My 300SD has some of the same attributes; excellent weight distribution being a key one, gutlessness in comparison to other vehicles being another. However, it seats four adults in comfort (or two adults and three children) and has a massive trunk, and gets the same kind of mileage as the fetishistically-aerodynamic 240SX fastback since it's got a turbo diesel engine. It does have a slush box, but it's a pretty good one. You can push it sideways around corners if you like, and it behaves admirably. Indeed, it has vastly better handling than did my Camaro, or than does a Rustang, assuming stock suspension — which is reasonable, because my suspension is stock. Indeed, I kept it stock even though I had to replace the rear springs due to age, because I like being able to float over potholes.
If I had endless money for whatever and maintenance costs weren't an issue I would probably buy a Lincoln LS, which is really a Jag. What I really want is the turbo diesel model they got in the UK, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
True, but you still need content. I tend to play single-player games. What makes those interesting are mainly:
1. World content, story, complexity.
2. Half-decent engine including AI.
3. Graphics
If your world is interesting but you're the only thing moving in it, then that isn't useful. If the enemies are interesting but the extent of gameplay is to circle each other in the middle of a desert, that isn't interesting.
I want places to go, people to talk to, things to accomplish. All of that requires artwork, scripting, writing, and so on. Even if the graphics are simple you still need to create all the story and mechanics. That takes time/money.
Look at something like Wesnoth. It has great gameplay and decent graphics. However, it only has two campaigns which makes it of limited value - they aren't playable for that long. You don't need that as much for multiplayer, but I like complex games and complex multiplayer involves way to much commitment for somebody with a family...
Neat graphics usually means heavy system requirements.
A lot of people may be fine with a game that isn't as beautiful, but can be run smoothly on their systems.
I am not sure I agree.
Think of the Flash based game Mechanarium.
The hardware requirements were trivial --- the art design and execution extraordinary:
It won the Excellence in Visual Art award at the 12th Annual Independent Games Festivaland the Best Soundtrack award from PC Gamer in 2009. It was nominated for an Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction award by the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences and a Milthon award in the 'Best Indie Game' category at the Paris Game Festival.
[wikipedia]
I love Morrowind, and am actually playing it now in a bid to put off buying Skyrim till it drops a bit (plus run quests I've never actually found before, because 'Why not'), but . . . I just don't see the need for this project.
The brilliance in Morrowind was in the writing and the plot. The engine is 'stable enough' and runs fine, they're neither improving nor planning to improve the graphics . . . I'm just not seeing the return on this.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media