Despite the impressive list of achievements of open source software, it can be argued that there have not been any world-class games created under the open source banner. Sure, several old games like Doom and Quake have been gifted to the open source community, but there are no comparable original creations in this area. One should not expect this situation to change anytime soon, because the open source development model does not make sense for game development.
The State of Game Development
On August 3, 2004, Doom 3 was officially released by iD software after four years of work by some of the most talented individuals in the gaming industry. Interviews with the development staff report that from early 2004 until the recent release, 80 hour work weeks were normal and Sunday was the only official day off in the iD offices.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed in the gaming industry over the last twenty years. Doom 3 had a four-year development cycle and an all-star development team. This may be slightly atypical, but two-year development cycles and teams of 50 or
more are commonplace these days. In 1984, the average Atari 2600 video game was created by one programmer in three months. A banner title might involve two or three programmers and an artist working over a six month period.
So why do games take so long to bring to market these days?
There are some obvious answers to this question. Games today are many times more complex than games were even a few years ago. Recreating every three-dimensional point of a
complex cave environment is going to take an artist several orders of magnitude more time than dropping a few rough dots on an Atari 2600’s 196×160 screen and calling it a cave environment. Similarly, producing a full 5.1 surround sound track for a modern game requires
sound engineers and advanced programming libraries. Triggering a few blips and bleeps is much easier.
But there are also some less obvious reasons for longer development cycles. In the old days, a programmer with a text editor and a few programs could create an entire game.
However, to create all the complex content and code required for a modern game, programmers and artists need powerful tools such as 3-d modelers and advanced debuggers. Unfortunately, programmers and artists often have to use general purpose tools that are not at all
well suited to game development. And when domain-specific tools do exist, such as in console game development, the tools are often unstable and immature due to the short life span of any particular console system. A multi-platform console world further
complicates development by multiplying all of the issues of developing for a single platform by the number of platforms on which you intend to deliver your game.
An excellent summary of these issues can be found in the article Game
Development: Harder Than You Think by Jonathan Blow.
But through all of this, one very important thing hasn’t changed much. In 2004, just like in 1984, most players buy a game, play it for a while, and then move on. With the exception of a few genres, the lifespan of a single title is very short. The number of hours required for a brand new player to finish “Super Mario Bros.” and “Metal Gear Solid 2” are about equal. But the amount of man hours that went into the creation of each is not even comparable.
Open Source is not an Advantage in Game Development
It is clear that building a top-quality game is harder than ever. The amazing amount of work required, the short schedules, and the need for experts in many domains all combine to make game development one of the most challenging areas of software development.
Will developing a game as open source make things easier?
Open source works best as a development model when the useful lifespan of an application is very long. It allows many users to benefit from the application and provides an
opportunity for users to become volunteer developers, thus furthering the project. The continued interest of the public drives the developers long after personal interest or utility has faded. This is the state of maximum efficiency for open source and provides two
huge advantages over closed development: Users give back to the project and developers can directly build top of all of the code that has gone before them. Unfortunately, neither of these advantages exist in a meaningful way for open source games.
Most games, by their very nature, have a relatively short lifespan. This is natural. A game provides the user with an experience, but ultimately the user moves on. Since a
single user is only interested in the game for a short period of time, it is unlikely that they will contribute much back to the open-source project.
In a modern game, the majority of work is involved in creating the art and story assets, not the programming. While there are plenty of open source game engines around, the bulk of a game must be created from scratch. Creating world class art and music is hard and you can not build on what has gone before you in the same way that you can with software.
You can take the code for an algorithm, improve it, and use it to solve a problem. You can’t directly take a musical score from an older game, change a few notes, and have a better score. You will just have an odd piece of music that sounds like a poor version of
the original.
Let’s use the real-world example of Doom 3. Could this be developed more efficiently as an open source project?
The artists at iD software put hours of work into creating and testing each and every room, pipe, box, or bloody corpse in Doom 3. This is comparable to the hours of work a developer would invest in creating and testing each and every function in a spreadsheet’s math library.
Now, just like testing each spreadsheet function, the artists must continually test each room in the game to make sure textures line up, the scripted actions trigger, the difficulty is appropriate, and so on.
Unfortunately, “content-based” games are a one-time experience. A user can’t experience a game on an emotional level if she is playing through the same level hundreds of times to see minor improvements and new features.
A spreadsheet developer can release a new beta version to testers every week to get feedback on how well the new functions he has implemented perform for the users. The users appreciate the progress and and application becomes more valuable to them with each release.
A game instead becomes less relevant with each minor release. The user pool has experienced it and has already moved on. The developer gets very little benefit from users contributing back to the project because most users do not stay interested in the project for very long.
Doom 3 was quite playable half way through its development cycle. That means with two years of full-time development left, in an open source world, players would already be playing it. Two years is a long time in the gaming world. It would be very hard to keep any sort of public interest alive with weekly test releases where the only change might be that a weapon was tweaked, a room was added halfway through the game, the lighting was adjusted, or load time was slightly reduced. From the audience perspective, games don’t get better gradually. That would be like expecting the general public to sit through the same movie every week for two years as the editing was tuned and small scenes were gradually added. Not only would the
audience not enjoy it, they would also be likely to riot after about six months of showings.
The other main advantage of open source is the ability to build on existing code and art. Now imagine that the developers for our open source Doom 3 can take the art from Doom 2 to use as a base for Doom 3. But this isn’t very useful. The artist can’t load the art for an Imp monster circa 1993 into The GIMP, apply a filter, and suddenly have an amazing 3-d model with bump mapping. In fact, the only area of game development where reuse is a major advantage is the ability to use an existing game engine. But most closed source developers already do this.
Some might argue that the rise of the Creative Commons Share Alike license in the art community might create a pool of art and music that open source game developers can draw from. At a high level, that is true. But almost all games need music, sound effects, and art custom designed to fit the needs and overall feel of the game. Otherwise, the end result will be a game that looks and sounds like a
hundreds of sound clips and pictures put into a blender set on puree.
So does Open Source make sense for games?
World-class game development is hard and getting harder every day. Open source development has many advantages over closed development in many cases. However, these advantages become largely null when developing cutting-edge games. As a result, it is very difficult to finish such a large undertaking using the open source development
model.
Closed source development also has many advantages. Among those is the ability to attract high-caliber individuals and allow them to focus directly on a project for two or more years at a time, without worrying how they will pay their bills. The level of talent may be
very high in the open source community, but most individuals can not afford to spend two years without interruption on one project without compensation, especially one that has a very short useful lifespan when completed.
It is important to weigh the advantages of each model of development before choosing how to approach a particular project. In many cases, an open source approach may yield many gains, but high-end game development is generally not one of those cases.
Where does Open Source fit in gaming?
Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Open source might not be the best choice for developing the next so-called “AAA level” story-based shooter, but it works pretty well for games with unusually long lifespans. And that is exactly where projects like
this have succeeded wildly. Examples include BZFlag, FreeCiv, and FrozenBubble. You can also include the entire multi-player Game Modding community in this category. That is a great example of playing off of the strengths of open development, while avoiding many
of the pitfalls.
It is also possible that someone might come along and turn the open source development system on its head. One attempt that comes to mind is the HappyPenguin Game of the Month model. Each month, volunteers take an existing open source game and try to
flesh it out into a finished product as quickly as possible. While this is a new idea and success has been mixed, projects like this might eventually stumble on a development model that works.
About the Author:
Adam Geitgey is a professional Software Engineer and the author of the open source application SuperKaramba. Special thanks to Shane Rimmer for suggestions and proof reading.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Yes, but xrick, Jump ‘n Bump, Mtp Target, SuperTux and the Dragontech games are not in the same league as Doom 3. Therefore they are irrelevant to this discussion.
The article states, “…there are no comparable original creations [to Doom and Quake] in this area.”
Why on hell should OSS games developped by the community? Why some studios trust in OSS development while developping their game, like Nevrax in France (http://www.nevrax.com http://www.nevrax.org ) developping Ryzom (http://www.ryzom.com )?
This article mixes the development model and licensing terms of software. OSS is not always developped by the community while not always free of charge.
But I agree that we cannot develop games like an opensource spreadsheet software, as explained in the article. It is just that terms used are not the right ones…
OK, enough antagonism. Why I think OSS doesn’t work for games…
Lack of vision. What projects need is one charismatic designer who has vision and focus and the drive to see it through. And the co-ordination to keep other people committed. The obvious example is John Carmack. However, most OSS projects don’t really have this (they don’t need it either! except for games).
You need to keep your developers interested… if they’ve played your game out in 40 hours, they won’t stay interested and will leave. Developers can stay interested in a kernel or RDBMS or web browser for years, but games have a short life-span.
The modding community is a nice comparison to the OSS games scene; another is the MUD community. You still need vision and focus from the high-up people, but the barrier to coding is much lower. And there’s a ton of replayability, because it’s not just a game, it’s a real-life interacting community.
In fact, what’s in common with the modding community and MUD coders is exactly that: the games are networked, and therefore becomes a community, keeping them interested. Someone pointed out that most “successful” OSS game projects are in the strategy genre, but I don’t think it’s that… it’s because they’re networked. Games such as BZFlag.
I wouldn’t call it lack of vision but rather lack of motivation as time moves on. This is the one critical thing that will kill a freely developed game off.
frozen bubble = puzzle bobble/bust a move
flightgear = MS flight simulator (can barely be considered a game anyhow)
solitair = MS solitaire (its an shitty included system game ffs)
notice a trend? all these games are shitty remakes of old 90’s (earlier even?) close source games. do you honestly think that someone on windows would be happy just playing puzzle bobble, MS flight sim and solitare all day long when there are hundreds of newer, more exciting games about? heck, could you even consider yourself a gamer? these are the sort of “games” my mother plays, the hardcore linux-gamer she must be!
even if there are only 3 original games coming out on windows each year that are actually lasting fun, its three more than linux gets. get a grip and admit to yourself, linux sucks for games. it doesnt make you any less of a man to admit it. some of you need a good beating with a cluebat
Chess is the most popular strategy game in history. Two mighty armies marching against each other! Feel the excitement of the battle! Test your wits against the opponent! But be warned, Chess is VERY addictive. Now available also in OSS.
Well developping games IS difficult and needs lots of inter-disciplinary effort. In my point of view the only solution can come in either one of two flavours.
1- John Carmack sees how advanced Linux/KDE/GnuApps have become, he decides to open http://www.opencarmack.net & actually teaches people how to write games, becomes a center for artwork & music. Here we are using Carmack’s experience & love for open source. Of course the same would go for other companies like epic & the like, but they are not known to support OSS that much
2- Some linux centered organisation (read KDE?) Decides to orient some of its developper/artist army to kreating games (www.kames.com) ??
Here we’re building upon the shear number & enthusiasm of the KDE guys (whom I love & respect). Of course, other organisations are also valid (Gnome, Vendors … RedHat/Suse/..)
Sure…
1) that this kind of work worth?
They were many very amusing games made with few bits and blips and they still are here amusing us (with mame or other emulators) because they are amusing and inventive.
It makes no sense making a huge hypertecnological game with billions of man/hours IF it’s not amusing and inventive, and closed-source system force the market to buy the last boring game with more polygons simply keeping the good (old or less old) games captive under rojalties and non disclosure agreement.
2) that open source couldn’t help?
How many of men/hours are spent reinventing the weel each time a 3d engine is made? Would we see in Doom3 shaming polygons instead of true circles if an example of an engine making true circles was an open knowledge?
pfff, that’s a pile of bullshit,
there’s a lots of real gems in FOSS/linux world, about gaming…
first, look at http://happypenguin.org/ you blind writer of broken articles for osnews..
there’s tons of excellents projects, just open your eyes…
and, wine isn’t listed on LGT, but wine enable you too play even latest PC/windows titles such as doom3.
So you can play a lot, in linux world, either with very nice genuine FOSS games, or with wine, or some emu.
Any other OS isn’t requiered. Even zindoz..
the penguin will get you all! o_O
Open Source is not an Advantage in Game Development
“Open source in game development” is not the game alone. It includes underlying architecture such as SDL, OpenGL, OpenAL and others. This is an advantage for portability. You do the maths.
<mode=bullshit detector>”People who play games, don’t want to study a whole encyclopedia before they start playing a game.”
1) Your husband plays games (proposition = true; you stated it yourself).
..hence..
2) One who plays Nethack has to study a whole encyclopedia before they start playing (proposition = true; according to you. I think its slightly less than that. You just have to learn some standard commands before you can play. In the meanwhile you can learn during playing; subtle difference).
3) People who play games, don’t want to study a whole encyclopedia before they start playing a game (propisition = false; because 1 and 2 are true. Or is your husband not human? :^).
Its a generalisation, really. If nobody were to play these games then why do these exist? Why do people here recommend them? Sure, perhaps Nethack is niche, but OTOH if it were only popular games we would get these “clone” and “doesn’t innovate” arguments again.
Also, you’ll always have to learn some things before you can play a game. In fact, part of a game is learning by trial and error else it’d be too simple, right? Now, Nethack is one of the games where the player has to learn some basics before starting to learn by trial and error although there is a X11 version with a simple click ‘n play GUI where commands are not necessary.
</mode>
The OSS model can be successful. Counter-Strike (the original) was written by hobbyists. Of course, they had a game engine already, but so do the OSS world! I’m not sure why there haven’t been any major OSS FPS’s already(I think it might have something to do with the lack of 3D modellers for Linux), but it is possible, as games like Counter-Strike show.
I usually place games in one of two categories: “Fun” and “Buy more hardware”. The last category is games that play just like an older game, except it’s prettier and requires us to go out and spend much more money than the game itself cost on some graphics card that will be obsolete with the next game anyway.
The “fun” category is games that don’t require buying new hardware, but is much more fun to play. Sure it may look like something from 1993, but who cares? Are we here to have FUN or watch pretty pictures?
It seems that most posts talk only about the “buy new hardware” category, and I will agree that OSS is not good at developing stuff for the purpose of selling hardware. OSS programmers don’t get anything out of requiring some way expensive graphics card, not even a free card. So, it would actually cost an opensource programmer money to help e.g. Nvidia sell more graphics cards. But OSS programmers don’t do “buy new hardware” operating-systems either. You need Windows XP for that.
But when it comes to the “fun” category, I see more OSS games than closed. Why? It seems that closed game developers are only interested in making pretty games that require more hardware.
In case anyone is in doubt:
Frozen Bubble is in the “fun” category.
Doom 3 is in the “buy new hardware” category.
Ey guys, just take ANY OSS Game and compare it to an real expensive CS-Game of the same Genre.
What you get?
The CS-Game, has better Soundtracks, better Graphics, almost ever better Story (excluding some oss games where story is build over years now … but i prefer not playing on console …), finer events, more action, more ppl playing that game online (it it is an Online Game), …
you can fullfil the list by your own .. just compare and stop talking that the OSS-Games right now can compare.
And ppl think netgame is much better then some new MMORPG … sorry, if you are into console this may be. But if i want to play a Game i want to see my enemies most near to in-life-graphic. You cannot call yourself a real gamer then. ( ok, i am not gaming that often the last 2 years, but im not that crazy to try comparing this games :> )
I also prefer administration on console, but for games, it should be as near as possible to RL-Graphics.
And Doom 3, for being an EGO-Shooter, if your into EGO-Shooters it is one of the greatest games ever.
Don`t tell other that D3 is a f****ng game only because u do not like egoshooters… D3 has the most advanced AI in EGO-Shooters i´ve been messing with. (the only manko is, its running like a diashow on my pc …)
anyway, OSS will never be for Brandnew “AAA-Level” Games.
Since if you create the OSS-Enging, and AFTER that, someone thinks, oh i could create desings, and AFTER taht the story … uc, by that time a better engine is out by a CS-group, which can invest some million dollars. Money rules the world .. it war, it is, it will be …
with that, so long u guys .. cu and hf
by micro
PS: nice article !!
nethack*
(if it is…
sry for the spelling mistakes *G*
What’s more, CS went through a dozen beta phases, each one adding more and more to the game. If it had stayed the same, or the changes were minor, it wouldn’t have ballooned as much as it has – players would have stopped playing around beta 3 or 4, and it’s popularity would have declined instead of increase. Even now, Valve still add new things to it to keep it alive.
The article should have pointed out that for single-player FPS games like Doom 3, evolutionary OSS development wouldn’t work (I don’t want to play a mission again just because it has a whole new monster)… but for a multiplayer game, it adds a whole new dimension (partly because no two multiplayer games are ever the same and you have control over the direction it goes).
My point: some games types grow well with an evolving development cycle, and that is where OSS games should place themselves if they want to be successful (but it’s no replacement for a decent game).
there is also the problem that OSS games are made from many people… they all need to share the same or similar central vision and deep understanding of the game dynamics in order to create a good game.
That’s the important part: making a GOOD game.
is that Linux would probably be an excellent target platform for experimental games, since those people will be more open to new things… remember they left the ‘old’ thing because they got tired about certain ‘issues’ in the system (OS and games). As a game company working on an experimental project, you could cut your costs by asking for cooperation from the Linux community AND you have the source code for everything you are programming to. If there is a bug, you *will* find it, while I am not sure this is always the case for a closed source game developed for windows, if the problem is with the windows source code (which you cannot get to see, at least I think you cannot).
So you can have free labor (and the enthousiastic people won’t really mind when they’re volunteering anyway) AND a good test market for such a ‘daring’ project…
let’s face it: (trying to) develop original games in these days is *dangerous* for commercial companies/developers. So little original is developed at all. You could almost call this the “recycling age of gaming”…
> But when you compare them with their commercial counterparts
> for consoles or Windows, these OSS games are so mid-nineties
> that it isn’t funny anymore.
It is, but you are a consumer who has been convinced that it’s not funny anymore. You are easily impressed by minor features which do not bring anything fun, just flashy things for consumers like you (you are more consumer than player). Of course, people who enjoy games and write open source games are not consumers, they’re interested in fun games, and that’s what they write. They don’t write games for consumers. You just have to grow up.
its kinda funny how some people think OSS game dev is viable, yet cite remakes and retro makes of existing stuff.
CSS games are created, sold and left. you would be lucky to get a bugfix patch as the company is on to the next project, and by that time most people have finished the game so the patch is moot.
console games dont even get that. they hit a deadline and ship after a load of QA. once its pressed thats the end of it.
gamedevelopment moves VERY FAST. OSS development moves VERY VERY SLOW.
CSS games are developed by a team of people whose sole job is that project. OSS games are by 1 or 2 people for a couple of hours a week.
gamers want the best. OSS game development cant provide this.
look at happypenguin, linuxgames.com etc. 99% of all those games are remakes.
what would be nice, is for CSS gam dev houses to make official ports to linux and macosx.
two genres that existed before the CSS game development have long been eclipsed and are no longer made by CSS. roguelikes and interactive fiction. both are the domain of the hobbyist and are fully controled by OSS developers.
frozen bubble, is it an awesome OSS game? no. its a crap port of an licensed tittle, puzzle bobble. it has ZERO originality. take away remakes, take away emulations. what have you got in the OSS game dev world?? nothing.
bzflag? wow its totally original here. battle zone and CTF. WOW! my mind is blown away.
eye of the falcon. awesome! a new tileset on nethack, the 20+ year old game. whats more, they are still fixing bugs. (personally when they went to v3 they should have started from scratch since the class system is hacky).
CSS games are developed to make money, so they have to offer modern graphics and features. OSS games are made for the fun of it, or for the experience, so they can offer whatever the heck they want. No-one has to buy the majority of OSS software (Ryzom is OSS, but commercial), so it doesn’t matter that they look 10 years out of date. As an earlier poster said, DOOM 3 (to him/her) got stale pretty quickly. So what did the flashy modern graphics give them? Not much. I still prefer to play Day of Defeat because for me, gameplay is key. This article didn’t really give me anything.
Just want to mention that last year a really great open-source game vas released. It’s “Babylon-5: I’ve Found Her”, a 3D space simulator based on the Babylon 5 movie.
http://ifh.firstones.com/
“As an earlier poster said, DOOM 3 (to him/her) got stale pretty quickly. So what did the flashy modern graphics give them? Not much. I still prefer to play Day of Defeat because for me, gameplay is key. This article didn’t really give me anything.”
Indeed… anybody remember Commander Keen? Does anyone truly think this would be more fun in 3D? That would just be wishful thinking and being trap in the notion that ‘3D==Good Game’
Engine and content.
What the author completely misunderstands, is that Open Source is just that. Source code. A game is much more than source code – graphic, levels, content.
So a game could have an GPL engine and make a lot of really good content protected by copyright.
Se Nevrax for an example.
John Carmack could easily make Doom3 Open Source, and make a living. The problem is that John Carmack is gready, and also want to make money on the engine for other games.
Doom3 is already the best selling game – so it is simply greed that keeps the source from being avaible.
If other companies decide that they will consolidate their programmer efforts, and make a Open Source engine, it would get the best of both worlds.
Money for the content, better engine through coorporation.
_This_ model I think will be very popular in a few years, when game engine becomes so advanced that a lot of people can get involved in writing shaders and porting.
Ufo alien invasion is based on the Quake engine. If not for quake 2, no alien invasion.
The best place for free software development right now is in MODDING existing games. I don’t think you’ll EVER see any FOSS cutting edge game engines– but you don’t need to be cutting edge to be fun.
Of all the FPS games i’ve played, I like NONE OF THEM out of the box– the MODS ARE WHAT MAKE THEM FUN. THe mods are what make the games worth buying/playing. Ever play BF1942? It’s ok for a month or so–then try it with the 50 mods that are out there, each mod is worth 3 months of your time!
Halflife is the BEST example of this–and older 3D engine with new/updated (and fun to play) mods still being released today.
FOSS absolutely rules when applied to existing GAME ENGINES. If there were generic game engines for the most common types of game platforms:
Turn based Isometric games
Real time Isometric games
FPS games
The first two i mentioned are simliar enough, but all three of these cover everything from Panzer General to Diablo to Red Alert to X-com to BF1942. Games of this type all fall into one of these 3 categories (and games that are rip offs of these.)
Some engines were given away free like Quake and wonderful things were done with it (even flight simlulators were made.)
Boson itself is a copy of Total Annihilation–a good copy I might add.
Want to see an amazing Free Windows game: GLEST–A warcraft 3 knock off.
–Dave
FOSS works best for mods of existing game engines.
nethack is a great example of a good open-source game. But it has a pair of unique details:
-most of the levels are random-generated (between 80 and 90% if I remember correctly), so it has a fairly high replay value, and new versions that only have small differences are still appealing.
-the value of the game is in its logic, not in its art. the depth of the game is almost unsurpassed. because of that, it is actually more appropriate to have such a game as ever-evolving open-source (what’s gonna be next? the ability to chat with monsters and actually get useful information? the ability to build one’s own weapons and/or to repair them?)
but doom3 sucks…
i mean, honestly. its dark, its slow, it eats hardware like a teenager eats crackers, the monsters go at you always from behind… and the basic idea is not much different from, say, unreal2 of 2 years ago…
So why on earth should i shell out 50 bucks for the game, and 500 for new hardware? Or, to stay on topic, why should i believe that a bunch of OSS coders couldnt do better than that? the only problem would be that high quality graphics do cost money, and manpower. and no OSS coder would want to slave away at hand-painting textures in gimp for whole days, over a period of several months…
Engine and content.
What the author completely misunderstands, is that Open Source is just that. Source code. A game is much more than source code – graphic, levels, content.
So a game could have an GPL engine and make a lot of really good content protected by copyright.
My whole thesis is that content is just as hard to create as an engine, but vital to the game. Content has to be “debugged”, tested, and improved just like code. But unlike code, content has a limited appeal to the user so you can’t find good volunteers to help test and improve content like you can if you were writing spreadsheet code. Since content is a huge part of an open source game and the OSS model does not work very well when creating it, the OSS model breaks down for content and thus games as a whole.
Saying that open source game projects should only be expected to produce the “source” part and not the “content” part is basically agreeing with my point – Open source does not work very well for producing modern games. The article was not “Where are all the good Open Source game engines?”. We have plenty of those.
You are claiming I completely misunderstood a point I was actually making.
John Carmack could easily make Doom3 Open Source, and make a living. The problem is that John Carmack is gready, and also want to make money on the engine for other games.
Doom3 is already the best selling game – so it is simply greed that keeps the source from being avaible.
That is the stupidest statement I’ve ever heard. It’s not greed. It is their business model. Yes, John Carmack could make D3 open source and make some sort of living. But in the business world, people are not expected to work 80 hours a week for four years to create an unmatched product and then only earn the bare minimum from it to feed themselves. It is not greed to produce something and then try to sell it in such a way to maximize profits. That is our economic system, not greed.
Should Nabisco only change 40 cents for a box of crackers because they can manage on 10 cents profit and asking more is evil greed aimed at starving the homeless? Of course not.
…when people remember what games are for, why people play them, and how they come to be.
The 20th and 19th centuries were the “I-Me-Mine” age. Everyone owned his or her ideas, to the exclusion of everyone whi didn’t pay. Before that, games were often developed over years and centuries, through consensus, experimentation, simple play, and tradition. People didn’t brand them, they just played them because that’s what they were for.
I’m no graphic artist, and I have far less time to do any coding than I would like, even at my job. However, there have to be an awful lot of kids, students, and retirees who have the time and the skill to develop (and play) new games, or come up with interesting variations on old ones.
Go to any big computer superstore, and you will see lots and lots of “bargain bin” software, often discarded or unwanted (or even orphaned) “commercial” computer games. I think that’s because people buy them, get around the challenges, and then put them away in a closet.
I think there are ceartain games that last for thousands of years, for various reasons, and that people will play and play for generation on generation. I will suggest to you that these are most likely the ones where nobody has to be paranoid that some publisher’s cop will come beat down their door over, among other things.
Have people had to pay royalties if they had a baseball game and charged money for attendance, or paid the ballplayers? If so, then here’s the exception that proves the rule.
but doom3 sucks…
i mean, honestly. its dark, its slow, it eats hardware like a teenager eats crackers, the monsters go at you always from behind… and the basic idea is not much different from, say, unreal2 of 2 years ago…
Yeah… When I wrote this, Doom 3 was just being released and served as a topical example, but maybe not the best example. Since there was a delay of a few weeks before OSNews had an opening to post the story, the example is a little less timely and perhaps a little less effective. But just do a mental search and replace with “Half-Life 2” where you see “Doom 3”. Suddenly it will seem topical again
Eugenia, you could use better arguments than “so 90-ties”, considering that lots of your screenshots include a music player playing Boney M.
You see, it’s all about subjective preferences. I admit that Doom 3 has great graphics, but first person shooters simply don’t appeal to me. So for me, Doom 3 is not a good game. On the other hand, I really enjoy Fish Fillets NG. This is now an Open Source game, released by the original authors of the commercial and windows-only version. Sure it looks worse than Doom 3 (2D sprite graphics vs. newest 3D engine).
However, for some of us, gameplay and fun are much more important than the looks and sounds. No 3D does not imply a bad game, in general.
Also, how many games can you run on OS X, *BSD or the Be-clones? I expect that the majority of readers would agree, that an Open Source game would be easier to port than a closed-source one.
its kinda funny how some people think OSS game dev is viable, yet cite remakes and retro makes of existing stuff.
I don’t think that is true about all the games mentioned. Some, yes, but than again many CSS games are remakes…most, probably, in one way or another. Doom3, as far as I’m concerned was a remake of a remake of a remake of Castle Wolfenstein.
The poster who mentioned the difference between Indie and Hollywod movies was right on, potentially. As more devs start working on OSS games, they will be offering an alternative to the CSS experience. For example: nethack is a great game, probably impossible in the CSS world. Not a competitor to CSS games, not worse, but definitely an alternative.
And, in keeping with the Hollywood vs. Indie theme: Hollywood video games will always be more popular than Indie, by definition.
Just want to mention that last year a really great open-source game vas released. It’s “Babylon-5: I’ve Found Her”, a 3D space simulator based on the Babylon 5 movie.