Re: Anyone on this list?

[adam moss <adam@gimp.org>]

Xarvh Admin wrote:
> Please take a look at the site.
> http://freeweb.lombardiacom.it/xarvh/

Looks like it'll be fun.  I'm glad you're not going
to give up.

[..]
> Of course, but only 'cause i'm not going to trust anyone....

Erm. :)

> i must be able
> to complete the entire project by myself: code, port, GFX, SFX, Music, site,
> documentation, rules, testing.

That's good, so any help you get would just be a bonus?  I really
don't suggest that anyone assume sole responsibility for testing a
program they've made themselves though!

> This won't fail.
> Shall I work on it for 20 years, *this* won't fail.

Wow. :)

> > Games *are* personal visions.  I can't tell you the number of times I've
> > seen wildly enthusiastic people with ideas for games who seem to think that
> > I'll just *obviously* want to jump in and help them.  Well, I'm sorry but I
> > have some great ideas of my own.
> Yes, i know, i've lots of good ideas none likes... =)

It's generally not a problem of people not /liking/ another person's
game idea.  It's just that game ideas are, as I think Steve said,
so much cheaper than the originator of such an idea would ever like
to think, compared with the rest of the work involved.

> > It follows that people will not join your project just because it's a good
> > idea. They *may* join if they see a great code-base emerging - but to
> > REALLY attract developers, they need to see the whole thing basically
> > working - playable, etc.
> So, they'll join when all work's over...

It's a symptom of everyone having their own great game idea,
I think, that people are so reluctant to work on other peoples'
games.  It's like admitting failure in your own vision, never
mind that the other person has actually written a slew of code.

> > HOWEVER, there is a lot to be gained by writing SUPPORT TOOLS for games
> > writers in a community setting.  I put as much of the code from my solo
> > game projects into my shared library code project (PLIB) - so that the
> > ratio of game-specific code to shared-library-code is as small as possible.
> I can't understand this.
> There is an *overwhelming* amount of libraries and tools for games, and no
> games.

Libraries, yes.  I am very pleased with the state of Linux's free
development libraries, generally.

Tools -- no, there are sadly big gaps on the 'free' side of things.
Someone (I think Steve, again) mentioned that 3d modelling/animation
is not covered satisfactorily in the free software domain, and that's
a hell of a big missing piece in putting together a modern game (we'd
hear more vocal whinging about that if this list had a more fair
representation of the set of skills that are required to turn out a
game, not just the coders).  Blender could have been a contender... it
may yet be so, if the new development efforts steer it back away from
'Blender As The Game Engine' to 'Blender As The Modeller'.  And of
course
sanitize that user interface...

> Lots of words are spent about the `technologies` to use, but linux games have
> still the appeal of  commodore64 games...

Cruel but often true.  :D  Still that's not necessarily bad.  Lots of
casual Linux gamers (amongst whom I am not) are quite happy with the
sort of game that you can fire up for 15 minutes and enjoy the raw
fun gameplay mechanics of eighties-style games, rather than the depth,
length and variety that's promised (and sometimes even delivered ;))
by modern commercial games.

--Adam
-- 
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   adam@gimp.org   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
"You could make a mince pie mountain and
carve yourself a lair inside to live in."