@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.
Love the sprite, but the preview doesn't do it justice - when scaling pixelart up, it's best not to use a filter to preserve the crispness of the pixels and avoid blurring. It also helps to use a 100x100 image for the main preview, so OGA doesn't resize it (which also leads to weird image artifacts).
Have you had a look at the Xeon spritesheet by RedShrike? Sounds pretty well-suited to what you need - the style matches, it has most of the animations you've requested (plus several attacks), and the quality is fantastic.
@chaosesqueteam: Wow. I thought maybe you were paraphrasing Samual's reply, but that was his actual verbatim response on the Xonotic bug tracker.
What a dick.
Keep at it, and don't let one egomaniacal douchebag get to you - you've got most of the pieces here, and just need to figure out how to put them together. Nobody starts out as a prodigy, and I'd take a hard-working mid-level programmer with a good attitude over a 'genius' who drives away enthusiastic contributors any day of the week.
Even that is muddled by the How to Choose a License section of their own site, which also states very clearly that you CAN apply it to "graphics, font, and geographic data", so long as it "is copyrightable and has a clear preferred form for modification" (opening the can of worms I mentioned earlier). There is room for discussion, so long as GNU doesn't even have a clear consensus on their own site.
**Edit: For clarity, I absolutely agree with you that GPL'd code does not affect the licensing of other assets in the project. My quibble is only over whether art can/should be released under a GPL license on its own, which has long been a fuzzy topic.
**Moar edit: ..which you have addressed already. Disregard this entire comment, as I entirely missed your point (which I now see and agree with completely).
"But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?"
Who indeed?
Chris Webber's article on the CC Wiki does shed some light on the discussion, pretty much the same amount of light as it did when I linked to it last year (in the exact comment I linked to above). Yet, the debate rages on.
More to the point, by my estimation BartK himself has had several changes of opinion on CC-By-SA:
- When he wrote the original FAQ, he was convinced that CC-By-SA covers code/binaries.
- Sometime before this discussion, he became convinced once again that CC-By-SA DOES cover code/binaries.
- As of reading Webber's article, he is now again convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries.
I'm not faulting BartK for this - nobody here has put more thought into open asset licensing than he has, and he revises his stance when new facts come to light to ensure that his users have the most accurate information possible. Again, this points to the fact that CC as an organization desperately needs to clarify the meaning of their legal terms - not just in a post on their wiki, but as I stated above, IN THE LEGAL TEXT OF THE LICENSE.
Regarding GPL and its application to art, that's a whole other can of worms - prepare to endlessy argue about the meaning of "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". I won't debate it here, because any point I could make on the subject has been made by countless others before - Google will point you to a thousand debates on the subject.
But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?
Seriously, if Creative Commons would just officially clarify this stuff in the license text once and for all, we wouldn't need to endlessly speculate about it. Until then, I'm personally sticking with CC0 and CC-By.
@Varkalandar: I was being ironic - it already happened, but that was a completely different situation (it's a trademark on part of the name of their game, not copyright over simple terms in the game). You're absolutely right that these gemstone descriptions are far too common/broad to be copyrightable, and should be completely safe to use.
I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to point out that King.com is the devil. :)
@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.
Love the sprite, but the preview doesn't do it justice - when scaling pixelart up, it's best not to use a filter to preserve the crispness of the pixels and avoid blurring. It also helps to use a 100x100 image for the main preview, so OGA doesn't resize it (which also leads to weird image artifacts).
Have you had a look at the Xeon spritesheet by RedShrike? Sounds pretty well-suited to what you need - the style matches, it has most of the animations you've requested (plus several attacks), and the quality is fantastic.
Simple, yet effective - I especially like the horseman. Well done!
@chaosesqueteam: Wow. I thought maybe you were paraphrasing Samual's reply, but that was his actual verbatim response on the Xonotic bug tracker.
What a dick.
Keep at it, and don't let one egomaniacal douchebag get to you - you've got most of the pieces here, and just need to figure out how to put them together. Nobody starts out as a prodigy, and I'd take a hard-working mid-level programmer with a good attitude over a 'genius' who drives away enthusiastic contributors any day of the week.
@William.Thompsonj:
Even that is muddled by the How to Choose a License section of their own site, which also states very clearly that you CAN apply it to "graphics, font, and geographic data", so long as it "is copyrightable and has a clear preferred form for modification" (opening the can of worms I mentioned earlier). There is room for discussion, so long as GNU doesn't even have a clear consensus on their own site.
**Edit: For clarity, I absolutely agree with you that GPL'd code does not affect the licensing of other assets in the project. My quibble is only over whether art can/should be released under a GPL license on its own, which has long been a fuzzy topic.
**Moar edit: ..which you have addressed already. Disregard this entire comment, as I entirely missed your point (which I now see and agree with completely).
@Blender:
"But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?"
Who indeed?
Chris Webber's article on the CC Wiki does shed some light on the discussion, pretty much the same amount of light as it did when I linked to it last year (in the exact comment I linked to above). Yet, the debate rages on.
More to the point, by my estimation BartK himself has had several changes of opinion on CC-By-SA:
- When he wrote the original FAQ, he was convinced that CC-By-SA covers code/binaries.
- When he wrote this quite insightful piece on FreeGamer, he was convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries. See also this discussion on the debian-legal mailing list, where he also advocates for an art license which covers entire projects (because as he stated, there wasn't one yet which does).
- Sometime before this discussion, he became convinced once again that CC-By-SA DOES cover code/binaries.
- As of reading Webber's article, he is now again convinced that CC-By-SA does NOT cover code/binaries.
I'm not faulting BartK for this - nobody here has put more thought into open asset licensing than he has, and he revises his stance when new facts come to light to ensure that his users have the most accurate information possible. Again, this points to the fact that CC as an organization desperately needs to clarify the meaning of their legal terms - not just in a post on their wiki, but as I stated above, IN THE LEGAL TEXT OF THE LICENSE.
Regarding GPL and its application to art, that's a whole other can of worms - prepare to endlessy argue about the meaning of "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". I won't debate it here, because any point I could make on the subject has been made by countless others before - Google will point you to a thousand debates on the subject.
But who has time to keep up with all this discussion and documentation, right?
I love the annual CC-By-SA discussion. Same time next year, then?
Seriously, if Creative Commons would just officially clarify this stuff in the license text once and for all, we wouldn't need to endlessly speculate about it. Until then, I'm personally sticking with CC0 and CC-By.
@Varkalandar: I was being ironic - it already happened, but that was a completely different situation (it's a trademark on part of the name of their game, not copyright over simple terms in the game). You're absolutely right that these gemstone descriptions are far too common/broad to be copyrightable, and should be completely safe to use.
I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to point out that King.com is the devil. :)
Would 'rough' and 'polished' fit in the hierarchy anywhere?
Regarding copyright over those phrases, that'd be about as silly as someone being able to trademark the word 'candy'. :p
Pages