| commentid | objectid | typeid | userid | subject | comment | timestamp | parentid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12319 | Arkhart | games | 7360 | debian | Thanks for adding apt sources, makes updating *so* much easier :-) | 2003-06-26 05:55:56 | 0 |
| 12320 | noeGNUd | games | -1 | Re: ttyNoeGNUd? | The aalib driver would work with vanilla 2D SDL apps, but not OpenGL-based SDL apps like NoeGNUd. | 2003-06-26 08:14:31 | 12007 |
| 12321 | NuclearChess | games | -1 | segfault | same here, it builds fine, but segfaults when a capture is made. | 2003-06-26 08:47:02 | 0 |
| 12322 | BoyCott Advance/SDL | games | -1 | Re: BoyCott Advance/SDL | GODD GAMES | 2003-06-26 09:00:42 | 6128 |
| 12323 | 3815 | news | 7620 | Re: "*****craft-like?" ...be carefull!! | <p> Ugh grumbel....and here I was trying to give you credit for RoboVasion being original. I see you misunderstand the point of being inspired and being a copy cat. </p> <p> Yes, it's true that many commercial products are "inspired" by other products, but Blizzard didn't copy or have the intent to steal from any other product. Things would be different if the Freecraft project "modeled" their game after WarCraft, but that's not what they did. Granted, they made the effort to create their own graphics for the game and I commend them for that, but as a project plan, I think it would have been far more respectible to create a WarCraft like game (could even use the same theme), but only have a few buildings and units. As the game progressed, they could have added more. Maybe even use their own file format. It's just the cheeze ball factor of building an engine that uses the ripped graphics from another game....I just find that cheap. </p> <p> In regards to my complement for RoboVasion, I felt you did the right thing. Not that you based it off the Freecraft engine, but the project plan to incorporate everything it takes to make a game. You set much more realistic goals for your graphics and such. I'm sure your inspiration came from many sources, but you implimented them in your own way. The fact that you did leverage the Freecraft project is commendible as well. </p> <p> I think its fine to copy an idea or concept and do your own implementation. But I do have a hangup with trying to rise in fame on the lead from someone else. Being unique to me just means you're not trying to be like someone else. You can have a similar product, but it all depends on the intent. Using a deceptively similar name or content to promote a product...it's just cheezy...others may find it's ok tho. In the case of my ficticious game concept (forever in developement and personal fun), yes, heavy inspiration from many many sources, but I'm not out to copy or rip from any of those sources. And although my game concept may be implemented by several other projects out there, I've not seen an implementation with the same goals. </p> | 2003-06-26 09:12:49 | 12279 |
| 12324 | 3815 | news | 7620 | Re: "*****craft-like?" ...be carefull!! | <p> Oh...and since you liked to quote your sources for inspiration...Ease of gameplay and simple economy, Startcraft/WarCraft...Simple self generating resource model and generic robot theme, TA and DarkReign...Simple artwork via in-game construction of units, construction from MecWarrior and the rest of the concept born out of my lazyness to create massive amounts of artwork. Fog of war and other RTS game concept popular in most all RTS games, you pick the source. </p> <p> In regards to trying to create the most basic RTS game I can, believe it or not, inspired by checkers. So yeah, my RTS game idea won't be "original" by your definition either, but it'll be my implementation and not some rip....and as crappy as my graphics will probably be, they won't be ripped from some other source. That's the respect I have for your RoboVasion implementation. Hell, I know it's just another RTS game, but I'll assume that your units will have a different balance then the WarCraft units. I can see the graphics, tho inspired, are unique. Maybe "original" is the wrong word to use, but at least your're not trying to rip someone elses work. So good luck to you and don't be so sensitive to my spam I give the Freecraft project. I do commend them on the engine work. I think the concept of bringing a nice open-source RTS game into the Linux arena was great. It's just the play off WarCraft that I complain about. In all, even if they released a "solid" engine to play WarCraft on Linux....why would anyone want to play an outdated game? Even if they released a crippled WarCraft like game (ala RoboVasion), sure, it might not be as good as the commercial inspiration, but at least it would be new in regards to uniqueness. That's just my opinion.... I'm sure others see it differently. </p> | 2003-06-26 09:38:16 | 12323 |
| 12325 | Soccar | games | 7778 | Re: Bandwidth | The bandwith is only problematic for the server. With two players and 20 FPS the game could already be playable if the client uses an 56k modem. Work is already done to reduce the packet sizes by 60% or more. But honestly, this was intended as a LAN game, I just thought it could be fun to play over the internet. My goal is to make it so it might be playable for 4 players and 20 FPS if the computer running server has a 64k upload limit. | 2003-06-26 10:14:22 | 12317 |
| 12326 | Soccar | games | -1 | Re: Bandwidth | <i>"But honestly, this was intended as a LAN game, I just thought it could be fun to play over the internet."</i><p> Too late, Attis, we're like a pack of sharks that have smelled blood from a distance... ;) | 2003-06-26 11:33:03 | 12325 |
| 12327 | Arkhart | games | -1 | Re: Oh. | The G400 is honestly, truly getting on in years. It is understandable to be hesitant about upgrading hardware, especially considering the price tags for some of the more recent cards. However, the G400 does not support many of the features and extensions supported by newer cards. These features and extensions are rapidly becoming requirements in many cases, even among the open-source community. The vast majority of game developers do not use the G400, and it is often no longer supported at all. The G400 was a nice card when it was released, but that was several years ago. If gaming is high among your priorities, it is most likely time for an upgrade. | 2003-06-26 12:30:15 | 12299 |
| 12328 | Arkhart | games | -1 | Re: Oh. | None of the newer cards seem to have as much support (in terms of solid open-source drivers) as the G400, though. I'd like spiffier graphics, but personally I'd rather have a solid system (ie, one that doesn't lock up daily) and not give my money to companies that have a poor record of dealing with the free software community. As far as I know, the G400 is the best card I can get given that this is what I want. | 2003-06-26 13:50:49 | 12327 |