Why not all of the above? I love Story, Equipment Optimization, Puzzles, and full Parties. Well, for Single PC or Party I always prefer Party; can't have both Single PC and a Party.
Granted, that kind of thing is hard to do in a simple game. Since this is a simple game, I'd say don't focus much on Story. Out of Story, Equipment Optimization, and Puzzles, I prefer the idea of making puzzles to solve throughout the journey. Maybe Equipment Optimization, too.
This is also why, out of all RPG's, I tend to consider Lufia II my favorite RPG game of all time. Lufia II is a combination of puzzles, items, and story, but it has a huge focus on puzzle-solving. The entire game, every dungeon is a series of puzzles to solve, a lot of which revolve around the movement types of different monsters (which aren't random encounters like the first one).
Its also about item customization, too, due to the special IP system where different weapons and armor can release special attacks or powers. Other RPG's allow equipment to teach skills, on the other hand, such as Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (both games).
Its only an idea right now. I want to make games, and if I want to make games more often, I'd need to find some way of making at least a little money off of them. Of course they'd also have ads and the subscription would remove the ads, but the bigger idea I had of course is cloud save files.
Naturally I hate microtransactions and don't want users to be able to pay to win. Actual DLC would be a different story, but I still have concerns about that idea as well.
Lol ninja'd. I had written up a summarized explanation that was a couple paragraphs long.
I agree on both accounts. I don't think that anyone is trying to force other users to waive the anti-DRM clause, though. I think its just a suggestion as it would help users be able to release games on more platforms. iOS is not the biggest platform, but it is DEFINITELY one of the biggest out there and that's a huge market lost.
But really, its up to each individual user to decide. My alternative idea than to just release an app directly on iOS is to make it a web app instead. The only issue is it won't appear in the iPhone store, and that would only work for HTML5 games. Which is what I plan to make anyway.
I'm well aware of the fact, and I've found that a lot of artists on here have been noticing this fact and have been rethinking the idea to use CC-BY-SA because of it. Several other people have pointed out the flaw in the fact that the FAQ is heavily misleading in that regard, and the one concern I have is people releasing their assets under CC-BY-SA thinking that it forces developers to share the source code of any project they include the assets in.
And either way, neither CC-BY nor CC-BY-SA say you can't sell anything with the content in it. In fact, you could actually sell the assets directly if you wanted to, TECHNICALLY its legal, but the assets are already available online for free anyway so its really pointless. And that is the problem if the FAQ is correct; its kinda pointless trying to sell a game if the source code is freely available online.
I'm still trying to avoid some -SA assets, but for the most part I'm not really too worried about it anymore. Mainly because I REALLY want to use LPC sprites.
Granted, my idea for trying to make money off of my games is get my games on as many platforms as possible for free, then provide a subscription service for cloud save files. In other words, you can play for free, but for a monthly subscription you can just login and load your save file on any available platform instead of the save files being restricted to just one at a time. So you could jump from the PC to console if you wanted, or take it on your phone on the go.
I would be sharing part of my source code (namely the engine) as open source anyway, though the full game I wouldn't want to be open source.
Sharm, just wanted to add something else. I meant no disrespect or anything. I actually thought I commented earlier on this about how great of a job you did on the sprites and how useful it is having multiple styles of sprites for users to be able to choose from.
Then I saw a comment by Will where he made remarks about a way to improve it a bit and that's where I went and commented on how I enjoy the collaborative effort I keep seeing on OGA. Not everything is collaborative, but I have seen several things that are and the whole site itself could be considered a collaborative effort to provide assets for usage in games in general as well.
I later checked back, though, and noticed that I didn't actually post that first comment. I must've been thinking about a comment I made on another asset or perhaps I started writing a comment but forgot to. Sorry about that! You did a really great job on this and its appreciated. ^^
Some people make assets or a tileset of some sort. Other people add onto the tileset or help out a bit by providing pre-packaged assets for a specific program and keep on extending off on it. LPC is probably the best example (although that was designed to be collaborative), but I've seen other assets being extended or repackaged by other people.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that the sprites above were made by multiple people. I just meant the idea of other people helping improve existing assets. I saw the repacks that Will did and that was helpful, and comments by other people offering suggestions to improve a certain part of an asset; that's collaboration as well (even if they didn't necessarily work directly together on it).
EDIT: Hmm, I thought I commented on this earlier. Sorry about that, I think that this tileset is great. I love all the variety I'm seeing on OGA. Nice work, Sharm!
Any of the LPC sprites are; they're all released under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
There's some confusion about the "SA" part about the license, but the license makes it pretty clear overall; if you make a derivative of an "SA" asset and want to release it online (or show it publicly) it must be released under the same SA license.
The confusion stems from what a derivative is, but I don't get why this is considered as such. I've read online a bunch and Will on here agrees with me; a derivative work only applies to directly extending or modifying the asset itself.
Putting an "SA" asset into a program, game, or any other kind of application does NOT make that game a derivative. You just need to specify that the assets are released under a different license as the source code.
And yes, the "BY" part of the CC forces you to attribute the original artist(s) in the way they specify. Oftentimes this also requires you to link back to a website; I think LPC requires you to link back to OpenGameArt.
If you use CC-BY assets in a commercial game and do not attribute them properly, it is illegal. If you use CC-SA assets in a commercial game and create derivative works of them but do not release them in the same license (if its CC-BY-SA for example, it must be released under CC-BY-SA), it is also illegal, regardless of whether its attributed or not.
I can provide an example of how attribution would look like if you want. Unfortunately, this whole dilemma has caused much confusion and has caused a ton of users not to use -SA assets at all. I originally got confused by this as well, but I'm not afraid of using -SA assets anymore.
Now, on the other hand, if the assets have things like -NC or -ND, that's a different story. I don't think OGA allows those types, though. -NC means non-commercial, so no commercial usage whatsoever. -ND means no derivatives. You can make a derivative if you want, but you can't release it publicly. Again, though, I don't think OGA has these licenses.
Why not all of the above? I love Story, Equipment Optimization, Puzzles, and full Parties. Well, for Single PC or Party I always prefer Party; can't have both Single PC and a Party.
Granted, that kind of thing is hard to do in a simple game. Since this is a simple game, I'd say don't focus much on Story. Out of Story, Equipment Optimization, and Puzzles, I prefer the idea of making puzzles to solve throughout the journey. Maybe Equipment Optimization, too.
This is also why, out of all RPG's, I tend to consider Lufia II my favorite RPG game of all time. Lufia II is a combination of puzzles, items, and story, but it has a huge focus on puzzle-solving. The entire game, every dungeon is a series of puzzles to solve, a lot of which revolve around the movement types of different monsters (which aren't random encounters like the first one).
Its also about item customization, too, due to the special IP system where different weapons and armor can release special attacks or powers. Other RPG's allow equipment to teach skills, on the other hand, such as Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (both games).
Its only an idea right now. I want to make games, and if I want to make games more often, I'd need to find some way of making at least a little money off of them. Of course they'd also have ads and the subscription would remove the ads, but the bigger idea I had of course is cloud save files.
Naturally I hate microtransactions and don't want users to be able to pay to win. Actual DLC would be a different story, but I still have concerns about that idea as well.
Lol ninja'd. I had written up a summarized explanation that was a couple paragraphs long.
I agree on both accounts. I don't think that anyone is trying to force other users to waive the anti-DRM clause, though. I think its just a suggestion as it would help users be able to release games on more platforms. iOS is not the biggest platform, but it is DEFINITELY one of the biggest out there and that's a huge market lost.
But really, its up to each individual user to decide. My alternative idea than to just release an app directly on iOS is to make it a web app instead. The only issue is it won't appear in the iPhone store, and that would only work for HTML5 games. Which is what I plan to make anyway.
I'm well aware of the fact, and I've found that a lot of artists on here have been noticing this fact and have been rethinking the idea to use CC-BY-SA because of it. Several other people have pointed out the flaw in the fact that the FAQ is heavily misleading in that regard, and the one concern I have is people releasing their assets under CC-BY-SA thinking that it forces developers to share the source code of any project they include the assets in.
And either way, neither CC-BY nor CC-BY-SA say you can't sell anything with the content in it. In fact, you could actually sell the assets directly if you wanted to, TECHNICALLY its legal, but the assets are already available online for free anyway so its really pointless. And that is the problem if the FAQ is correct; its kinda pointless trying to sell a game if the source code is freely available online.
I'm still trying to avoid some -SA assets, but for the most part I'm not really too worried about it anymore. Mainly because I REALLY want to use LPC sprites.
Granted, my idea for trying to make money off of my games is get my games on as many platforms as possible for free, then provide a subscription service for cloud save files. In other words, you can play for free, but for a monthly subscription you can just login and load your save file on any available platform instead of the save files being restricted to just one at a time. So you could jump from the PC to console if you wanted, or take it on your phone on the go.
I would be sharing part of my source code (namely the engine) as open source anyway, though the full game I wouldn't want to be open source.
This looks pretty cool. Don't know if I can use it for anything but it looks neat.
Sorry about that! I wasn't trying to imply that at all, that's why I went and added another reply to clarify. :P
Sharm, just wanted to add something else. I meant no disrespect or anything. I actually thought I commented earlier on this about how great of a job you did on the sprites and how useful it is having multiple styles of sprites for users to be able to choose from.
Then I saw a comment by Will where he made remarks about a way to improve it a bit and that's where I went and commented on how I enjoy the collaborative effort I keep seeing on OGA. Not everything is collaborative, but I have seen several things that are and the whole site itself could be considered a collaborative effort to provide assets for usage in games in general as well.
I later checked back, though, and noticed that I didn't actually post that first comment. I must've been thinking about a comment I made on another asset or perhaps I started writing a comment but forgot to. Sorry about that! You did a really great job on this and its appreciated. ^^
Some people make assets or a tileset of some sort. Other people add onto the tileset or help out a bit by providing pre-packaged assets for a specific program and keep on extending off on it. LPC is probably the best example (although that was designed to be collaborative), but I've seen other assets being extended or repackaged by other people.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that the sprites above were made by multiple people. I just meant the idea of other people helping improve existing assets. I saw the repacks that Will did and that was helpful, and comments by other people offering suggestions to improve a certain part of an asset; that's collaboration as well (even if they didn't necessarily work directly together on it).
EDIT: Hmm, I thought I commented on this earlier. Sorry about that, I think that this tileset is great. I love all the variety I'm seeing on OGA. Nice work, Sharm!
I love this collaborative effort; I want to do more stuff here on OGA! ^^
Any of the LPC sprites are; they're all released under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
There's some confusion about the "SA" part about the license, but the license makes it pretty clear overall; if you make a derivative of an "SA" asset and want to release it online (or show it publicly) it must be released under the same SA license.
The confusion stems from what a derivative is, but I don't get why this is considered as such. I've read online a bunch and Will on here agrees with me; a derivative work only applies to directly extending or modifying the asset itself.
Putting an "SA" asset into a program, game, or any other kind of application does NOT make that game a derivative. You just need to specify that the assets are released under a different license as the source code.
And yes, the "BY" part of the CC forces you to attribute the original artist(s) in the way they specify. Oftentimes this also requires you to link back to a website; I think LPC requires you to link back to OpenGameArt.
If you use CC-BY assets in a commercial game and do not attribute them properly, it is illegal. If you use CC-SA assets in a commercial game and create derivative works of them but do not release them in the same license (if its CC-BY-SA for example, it must be released under CC-BY-SA), it is also illegal, regardless of whether its attributed or not.
I can provide an example of how attribution would look like if you want. Unfortunately, this whole dilemma has caused much confusion and has caused a ton of users not to use -SA assets at all. I originally got confused by this as well, but I'm not afraid of using -SA assets anymore.
Now, on the other hand, if the assets have things like -NC or -ND, that's a different story. I don't think OGA allows those types, though. -NC means non-commercial, so no commercial usage whatsoever. -ND means no derivatives. You can make a derivative if you want, but you can't release it publicly. Again, though, I don't think OGA has these licenses.
Pages