i would like to work with the BGE and i really have planned to make a game with it.

but the bge is a bit buggy and "underdeveloped". But it is getting better.

for example:

blender 2.7.2 (in development) gets a better addon to publish your game

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Game_Engine/Publishing

another thing i want to do in the future is to make a site, where i list links to other sites with open source / free (cc0, cc by gpl) content like this.

some days ago i found a collection of 2900 cc-by textures

http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/textures/

i want to make it easier to find such open content

There are no FOSS games. There are attempts to play around with game design/graphics etc. To make a complete, playable, well-tested, interesting game you need a focused team of professionals from various fields. Not happening in FOSS. Never seen one worth playing. So we are not even in the 80's, we are out of the game altogether. My opinion, though. 

@yd: I can't completely agree. While there are certainly not many games, in terms of quantity, in the FOSS world, there are some: Wesnoth, for instance, is quite complete and playable; Frogatto is as well (and I guess it is not casual that it was made by the same developers). I think we could put Flare amongst those as well, although it is not complete yet, for it really looks like a game. These are the first coming to my mind, but I think we could find some more.

Still your point does make sense: since most FOSS game developers (and I use the term in its widest meaning of programmers, artists, designers and whatever related to game developing) are hobbyists, it's quite hard to find focused teams. This surely slows down FOSS game development and turns most of the projects into eternal WIPs.

That being said, now I really want to watch that documentary.

The reason you do not agree is that by "game" you mean something different. Your definition is a little bit broader so that you are even willing to put Flare into it.

It is customary to give Wesnoth as an example when talking about more or less complete game-like projects. I have played it, and played other games of the same genre and tend to view Wesnoth as nice, but not a solid experience. This "solidness" of experience is absent from each and every FOSS "game" I checked (inlcuding Freeciv, TuxRacer, Tremolous, OpenTTD, Freedroid, Wesnoth and almost every other runnable game). M.b. my expectations are too high, but they are formed by the commercial games. Those are, mostly, so well done that a game from '80 will surpass any FOSS game-like project made today. Sad but true.

I was left wondering where we are (FOSS games) if you look at from the video game historical perspective. Do you think we are in 1980's, the 1990's or 00's ?

That's hard to say. Open source games are all over the place when it comes to size and quality. The best efforts are every bit as large, polished and fun as their commercial models, but they only got that way after many years of work, so they're inevitably behind the curve. Doubly so as newer technologies are exponentially harder to use.

Think about it: most open source shooters are built on the Quake 3 engine; how much can they raise about that game in the way of looks? (Gameplay-wise is another story, I couldn't say.) SuperTuxKart -- one of my favorites -- is inspired by Mario Kart, a series firmly rooted in the 1990es. FreeCiv and FreeCol can only raise so much above the level of the originals. Battle for Wesnoth as far as I know is original -- but it's also firmly 2D in an age when even 2D games are actually 3D. Incidentally, I think that's a good thing, but there you have it.

Looking back over my examples, I'd say the answer to your question is the 1990es. That's no coincidence: it was the last decade when big, fun, gorgeous games could be made by relatively small teams on reasonable budgets. And frankly, maybe it's best to stay at that level and push the limits in terms of gameplay, story, design, art direction... you name it, rather than waste efforts trying to compete with the mainstream game industry on its terms.

@Yd: I partially agree with you--when I was trying to find FOSS characters to draw for Ultimate Smash Friends way back in the day I had a lot of trouble.  There aren't too many character-driven FOSS games out there, which is a shame.  Too many are either very simple or just use non-characters like Tux (something which has never appealed to me at all).

One game you left off your list is Super Hedge Wars.  It's essentially a clone of Worms II, but it's totally playable, polished and a lot of fun (complete with multiplayer, internet play, etc).  Easily as slick and professional as the game it copies, though I'll admit the worms have a lot more character than the hedgehogs.

"Those are, mostly, so well done that a game from '80 will surpass any FOSS game-like project made today. Sad but true."

Here's where I think you're off-base; the games you remember from the 80s and 90s do tend to be much better, but that's because they were the very best ones from that era (hence why you remember them).  There is an awful lot of garbage from those years as well, garbage which lots of FOSS projects easily surpass.

@Redshrike, true. Lots of garbage out there in all eras. Simply because the number of actually playable games, crappy or not, stunningly outweighs all FOSS game-like project. And the number of masterpieces still outweighs all FOSS "games". I admit you can find occasionally something like Super Hedge Wars (which I did play, btw), wich has everything but one or another thing missing. These "holes" present in all (even best) FOSS projects is what turns me off. No doubt, say Naev is much better than all crap commercial games, but this is still not a game in full sense of the word.

Having participated in game-creation for fun and money and having learned a bit about game design/production, I came to the definition of "game" which almost none of the FOSS projects satisfy (however many crappy commercial games do).

This is not to diminish the efforts of those who participate in FOSS projects, game-like or otherwise. But what they are doing just can not be full-fledged games.

Nice trolling to jump-start a discussion yd ;)

If you would have said story-driven single-player games I would have even agreed. Just like there are no full lenght open movies (AFAIK not even bad ones) we will probably never see FOSS games like that.

Competitive multiplayer games are a different story though... I even believe sooner or later all the big ones in that category will be FOSS.

@Julius, :)

Many years ago, when I became PC user my starting environment was Mandrake Linux (v8, if I am not mistaken). I got access to Win-based computer rather lately. And all those years, and still, I was and am a PC game fan. When I bought PC that ran windows, my game world has been expanded like the universe during the fisrt 3.5 minutes. My mind was blown away. Every attempt to compare FOSS games that I loved to commercial ones made me feel miserable. I do not to compare anymore.

Once I got involved in game creation I realized why there is such a huge gap, which, to my understanding, will never close. Except m.b. in some niche multiplayer frag'em "games". Can you recommend anything comparable to UT2004?

10 year old UT2004 isn't really a benchmark ;) But Xonotic and Warsow definitly surpass it these days. Multiplayer RTS are probably another niche for FOSS games, but both types are somewhat abandoned by the commercial sector, so take that with a grain of salt...

@Julius, I chose UT2004 not as a benchmark, but as smth I played and enjoyed. The game gives an idea of what

1) good level design is

2) weapon variety

3)bot AI level is

4) sound

5) music (yes, music IS a part of a game, smth many tend to forget). 

I remember trying Warsow, OpenArena, but that was long ago. I will give those games a run, thanks.

@yd: honestly, your definition doesn't seem terribly well-defined.  You also kind of side-stepped the question of Hedge Wars; on what basis would you say it's not a "game"?  I've also worked on a few small commercial indies as well as FOSS projects, and I don't really think the experience was that different between them.

And really, redefining the term (however vaguely) strikes me as a kind of silly gesture--useful for being provocative but little else.  It doesn't match up with anyone's usage, and if we're honest it's also unneccessarily offensive to devs.

@Redshrike, I did not mean to be offensive. If I was -- my apologies. I admit that defining what constitutes a game is not an easy task and making everyone agree on one particular is impossible. The work done by people in FOSS projects deserve praise, no doubt.

Having said that, here is where I usually find those holes that make the whole experience not engaging: no unified art (2D, 3D, sound and music), character design/voiceover, campaign/tutorial, UI, story (if any), level or map, AI, event scripting. When they are on the same level, tied to each other, they make a nice combination with game mechanics and the whole thing feels well-done.

And when all those resources are FOSS, that would be a really good game in my understanding. That is why my first post ends with "My opinion, though". You may have a different one, and you do.

At the same time what I see from most of players, they want their time well-spent. So they pay money for non-free, what I would call "solid" games. And I suspect their definition "does match up with anyone's usage", to paraphrase you.

Those things don't define what a game is, they define what a good game is.  Trying to say a game that isn't good isn't a game is just silly.  And that leaves the other problem with what you're saying--you are essentially claiming that no good foss game has ever been made.  This, too, I think is a bit silly; I've played and enjoyed a few myself.  The question your arguments really seem to be addressing is that of whether any great foss game has yet been made (and I think you and I would probably agree that the answer is 'not yet.' [though some great games have been made FOSS, notably The Ur-Quan Masters and Tyrian]).

@Redshrike, you are absolutely right, and m.b. I should have made more clear what I mean when say game (although it is not hard to see from my posts that it is not what you may call a game, not point in arguing here).

See, shirish posed a question: where is FOSS in the context of history of video games industry. My answer was "it simply does no  belong there". Why? Because (in my view, remind you, and in the context of video game industry) game is an experience. Balanced, polished, well-designed (sometimes not so well), complete, finished, consumed by many as an act of entertainment.

Implementation of game mechanics with art WIP is NOT a game. It is an attempt in making a game. No shame in doing that.

Making abacus is sort of working in "computing hardware" field, but not totally.

I think the point is that we'll never get a AAA quality game out of the FOSS community. That's likely true -- AAA games will always be several steps ahead of the FOSS ones. For merely "professional" games those lines are starting to blur. For example, 0 A.D.

Also, I'd venture to say Wesnoth is one of the most polished, balanced games out there, AAA games included. It easily has 60+ hours of singleplayer content and an active, worldwide multiplayer community. And just because it has 2D art doesn't mean it isn't professional.

@pennomi, true about AAA.

But having played e.g. "Machinarium" or "Unepic" I personally do not  think game has to be made by Blizzard to deserve your time. The amount of love and effort put into those two is rarely found.

Dude, that's just not a reasonable or useful definition of 'game', and I'll reiterate that it's not one that anyone uses either.  You'll find plenty of commercial games on shelves today which are unbalanced, unpolished, poorly-concieved and even occasionally nearly (or completely) unplayable, and certainly entertaining only in the context of mocking LPs.  And not always just cheap shovelware (we're looking at you, Sonic 2006).  But nobody says they aren't games, just that they're bad games.  Games can totally be bad--it's a thing.

And it seems unneccessarily rude, even condescending to suggest that all FOSS games are really just failed attempts at making games.  Yeah, there are a lot of bad FOSS games, and a lot (a lot) of unfinished FOSS games, but not every FOSS game ever is bad and unfinished.

As to their place in video game history, I think at the moment FOSS development would pretty much constitute a curious side-note.  There's no question that it's not a major player in the field, but one can always be hopeful for a larger role in the future.

And just because it has 2D art doesn't mean it isn't professional.

Of course not. In fact I'm a vocal critic of the modern tendency to use 3D for everything. But to a lot of kiddies, a good game means something that draws millions of polygons per frame, with full voice-overs and lip-sync. The mega-shooter they used to praise last year? Now it's utter crap, simply because the explosions aren't quite as pretty as in the latest release...

No wonder FOSS games aren't even considered games in comparison. That's like comparing a hardcover of a Rob Liefeld comic, in glorious full color on glossy paper, to a pulp magazine from 1935 containing a Conan the Barbarian story by Robert E. Howard.

Take those opinions accordingly.

Man, I have not suggested that attempts failed. So many of them are still being made. You keep missing the point, but somehow reiterated what I have said, only in, what seems to you, less "condescending" tone.

@claudeb I think that's the current stigma, actually. Perhaps in the near future, great games from the indie scene will start to debunk that sentiment.

@yd: to quote you:

"I enjoyed playing it, rqe. Nice game!"

I'd like my goat back, please.

@Redshrike, surely you may have one :

(_(
/_/'_____/)
" | |
|""""""|

I will also attach a CC0 python-"game" I created.
#import random
#import math
secretNum = int(math.floor(10*random.random()))
guessed = False
while not guessed:
guess = int(raw_input("Enter your guess: "))
if guess == secretNum:
guessed = True
print "You guessed correctly."
break
else:
print "Wrong, try again\n"

Having read books on game design, I am kind of familiar with the definition of a game.
So this code qualifies (e.g. rules are there, goal is there).From a creator's side this is
a game. Yep, FOSS has lots of them. In this context I do agree. In the context of the
quote, I did agree with the guy (w/o condescending ) that what he calls a game is a
nice one, it is surprisingly complete.

This is not the point, though. There is the other side -- a player. She does care about
formalities. Somehow when a person, who played say Anno 1404, decides to play similar
genre FOSS game (not pointing fingers), she will feel that what she is looking at is not
exactly a game. Symphony one tenth written is not exactly a symphony.

So when you consider the history of video games and would like to find a place for FOSS
there try this:
1. Rank the games both FOSS and non-free.
2. Cross first, say 20, from each column.
3. Find a random gamer who would like to spend his spare time playing any of the remaining games.
Guess what they will choose?
So my point, again: FOSS, imho, is not doing what commercial industry is doing. It does something
different, not necessaraly futile or bad, just not games yet. Nothing to compare here.

@yd: "M.b. my expectations are too high, but they are formed by the commercial games. Those are, mostly, so well done that a game from '80 will surpass any FOSS game-like project made today. Sad but true."

Something about this quote tells me you haven't actually played any games from 1980.

Sorry, but any definition of 'game' which doesn't include roguelikes like POWDER or Dwarf Fortress is complete and utter horseshit.  The strategy and depth of gameplay in those 'non-games' blows away that of most any AAA title, by a long shot.  You kids today just have no imagination, gotta have every last thing spoon-fed to you in order to enjoy it..

*Edit: Also, to me your goat looks like a man in a grass skirt brandishing a big knife, which is pretty badass.  Kudos.

"*Edit: Also, to me your goat looks like a man in a grass skirt brandishing a big knife, which is pretty badass.  Kudos."

Remind me to add that to my RPG enemy set.

@claudeb I think that's the current stigma, actually. Perhaps in the near future, great games from the indie scene will start to debunk that sentiment.

They already have, for most of the public: older gamers, women gamers... AAA titles only cater to kiddies who judge a game by how flashy it is. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'll point out though that indie games, as opposed to F/OSS games, are commercial/have budgets, and therefore can afford to be a lot more polished, with art and sound made by pros. Take Frogatto, which has been mentioned in this thread and looks fantastic... until you realize it's not really an open source project, they just release the code from time to time like Id Software. Their assets remain proprietary and the entire thing sells for money. A hobbyist like me just can't compete.

I haven't read through this whole discussion but it looks really interesting. Leaving a comment so I see the updates.

From a technical point of view, the cutting edge of commercial games is certainly ahead of Open Source. But then, that's not really surprising or unreasonable, commercial games and game engines cost millions to develop, with teams of developers working full time for months or years. It's not that Open Source game developers lack the expertise (they may well work as commercial developers too), but it's a question of time/money.

So I'd say the biggest limitation is simply time (or money to pay someone to do it).

But there are still plenty of commercial games with lower levels of tech - especially on mobile, just look at the massively-advertised games that have cartoony style graphics shown in the advert - and then you realise you're not looking at the actual game graphics anyway... Many of these games seem more like 1990-level "16-bit" era, and this isn't a limitation of mobile hardware.

If we mean from a "worth playing" point of view, as I think yd seems to be getting at, then this seems more subjective - by yd's definition, then to me a vast number of closed source games aren't actually games, because either it's not fun to play, it's not interesting to me, or it's riddled with bugs (in some cases show-stoppers - the original Medieval Total War was hopeless on every machine I tried; and most commercial games have some bugs here and there - I love that Morrowind has a console that you can use to change game parameters to get around otherwise show-stopper bugs like getting stuck somewhere or a vital NPC gone missing). Unfortunately software development is hard to get right, even if you think you've tested lots of situations on lots of hardware; having a dedicated team of employed professionals doesn't stop this.

I guess one question is why hasn't Open Source gaming had the successes of Linux or Firefox; it's not like those things are easy to write. One answer is that you can probably attract a far greater number of developers, it's clear that having an Open Source operating system, web browser (as well as office tools, etc) are a good thing, and it's easier to get developers to work on the existing projects. Whilst games are important, it's not just a case of writing one game - there are an unlimited different kinds of games people may want to write, or play. Another point is that non-game software is something that companies can make use of, and hence promote or provide funding (e.g., Linux's success of being used for various operating systems, most notably Android).