I'll second Aetherna's comments about the depth of the water tiles being a bit odd. From the 2nd preview I like #1 the best. The added depth around the edges of 2 & 3 doesn't fit with the perspective somehow. Especially the shadow along the bottom edge of #3. On the other hand, just a solid line seems really thin. Maybe some kind of edge treatment, like patchy grass, or a turn to dark green around the entire border might be worth trying.
The trees and shrubs all look good, although the black outline feels a bit strong along the top of a few of them. Specifically, 15, 20 & 21. Could just be me over analyzing it, but a thinner outline might work better there.
Just my two cents, hope it's somewhat helpful. I'll say it's all hands down 1000x better than anything I've ever drawn so definitely take my comments with a grain of salt! :)
The list is formatted nicely and works well as a set of slides, so I see why Xom did it that way. The bummer is it makes it hard to view.
The list is 32 pages long so I see why exporting to PNGs might be impractical. Although, I suppose once you get through the initial pain, and all you're doing is /adding/ to the list then it'd be more manageable..
If I can add another lament here, it's still too many clicks to get to the list of ideas. Any chance you could add the list of ideas right in the main Game Jam page (at the end maybe?) or post them as a sticky post in the forums?
although the link appears to go directly to the zip file, when I click on it (Firefox browser on Win 10), it takes me to the OGA submission page. From there, I have to download the zip file, unzip it and then open the PDF to finally view the ideas list. I know that's just a handful of mouse clicks, but I think we'd get better participation if the list of ideas was displayed directly on the itch.io page for the Jam.
> Question: the rules say it is ok to reuse some code, but what about game concept?
Can't speak for Xom here, but as far as I'm concerned this would be perfectly fine. Most Jam entries (most games really) are derivative of something else, if not outright clones. If you want to revisit an old game concept, I see no reason why that shouldn't work for the jam, provided as you say, you don't 'borrow' too much from the original work.
@all:
Regarding logos, etc. I put an exemption for logos and theme music in the all-OGA jams for two reasons:
1) As MedicineStorm said, logos aren't especially useful on OGA. They aren't particularly re-usable unless you are literally out to re-make some one's game.
2) I was worried people would not want to contribute to the jam if they had to put there logos, themes, etc. up on OGA. I took this from my own thinking. After everything I've learned from art and artist on OGA, I'm more than happy to share back all the sprites and tiles for my games, but there's something about the logo that still feels personal to me. If someone takes the sprites I made for 'Word Dug' and uses them to make their own game that's awesome. They could even make another game about kids digging up letters underground, and that would be fine, cool even, the world needs more games like that! :) But if they took the logo and used that too, well then you have a game out there that's called 'Word Dug' and looks exactly like my creation but has someone else's name on it and as open minded as I try to be, I think that would still bother me. So I figured other developers might feel the same way and pass on the jam if I required them to submit their logos, etc. to OGA in order to participate.
@all:
one more comment, we should really just slap together template language for the jam rules. I know I got my rules by copying chasersgaming's original rule-set and then adding some 'ALL-OGA' language. I like the idea that whoever runs the jam can come up with their own rule set. It certainly encourages to try new and different things with the Jam rules. At the same time, it does seem a bit silly to be re-wording the same basic rules every jam.
That's an interesting point about the various engines 'packaging' up assets into obscure or otherwise inaccessible formats.
First, is the simple solution just to include the assets in their original form along with the rest of the game package? So, if you have a zip, it includes both the Unreal formatted asset and the original asset? Even if the game doesn't technically use the asset in it's original format, you are distributing it with your game and ensuring that end users can access it.
Second, it's interesting to note that GPL specifically side steps this issue. When you get into the fine print, GPL only requires that you make the original source available, not that you always distribute the source with every instance of the software. That's why you can distribute pre-built binaries of GPL'd software without any source code in there. GPL doesn't care if the source is included everywhere, as long as it is made available /somewhere/. Wish CC folks had thought along the same lines when they crafted their license. You could argue that allowing stuff to be distributed without full source creates space for malicious actors to cause trouble, but I think history shows it's worked out pretty well for GPL'd software.
@XomAdept: Otter Basketball! I love it! I also love that they are playing in a pool, because of course! :)
the grass edge treatment around the water tiles looks fantastic! much improved, great work!
I'll second Aetherna's comments about the depth of the water tiles being a bit odd. From the 2nd preview I like #1 the best. The added depth around the edges of 2 & 3 doesn't fit with the perspective somehow. Especially the shadow along the bottom edge of #3. On the other hand, just a solid line seems really thin. Maybe some kind of edge treatment, like patchy grass, or a turn to dark green around the entire border might be worth trying.
The trees and shrubs all look good, although the black outline feels a bit strong along the top of a few of them. Specifically, 15, 20 & 21. Could just be me over analyzing it, but a thinner outline might work better there.
Just my two cents, hope it's somewhat helpful. I'll say it's all hands down 1000x better than anything I've ever drawn so definitely take my comments with a grain of salt! :)
The list is formatted nicely and works well as a set of slides, so I see why Xom did it that way. The bummer is it makes it hard to view.
The list is 32 pages long so I see why exporting to PNGs might be impractical. Although, I suppose once you get through the initial pain, and all you're doing is /adding/ to the list then it'd be more manageable..
If I can add another lament here, it's still too many clicks to get to the list of ideas. Any chance you could add the list of ideas right in the main Game Jam page (at the end maybe?) or post them as a sticky post in the forums?
although the link appears to go directly to the zip file, when I click on it (Firefox browser on Win 10), it takes me to the OGA submission page. From there, I have to download the zip file, unzip it and then open the PDF to finally view the ideas list. I know that's just a handful of mouse clicks, but I think we'd get better participation if the list of ideas was displayed directly on the itch.io page for the Jam.
@MedicineStorm:
> Question: the rules say it is ok to reuse some code, but what about game concept?
Can't speak for Xom here, but as far as I'm concerned this would be perfectly fine. Most Jam entries (most games really) are derivative of something else, if not outright clones. If you want to revisit an old game concept, I see no reason why that shouldn't work for the jam, provided as you say, you don't 'borrow' too much from the original work.
@all:
Regarding logos, etc. I put an exemption for logos and theme music in the all-OGA jams for two reasons:
1) As MedicineStorm said, logos aren't especially useful on OGA. They aren't particularly re-usable unless you are literally out to re-make some one's game.
2) I was worried people would not want to contribute to the jam if they had to put there logos, themes, etc. up on OGA. I took this from my own thinking. After everything I've learned from art and artist on OGA, I'm more than happy to share back all the sprites and tiles for my games, but there's something about the logo that still feels personal to me. If someone takes the sprites I made for 'Word Dug' and uses them to make their own game that's awesome. They could even make another game about kids digging up letters underground, and that would be fine, cool even, the world needs more games like that! :) But if they took the logo and used that too, well then you have a game out there that's called 'Word Dug' and looks exactly like my creation but has someone else's name on it and as open minded as I try to be, I think that would still bother me. So I figured other developers might feel the same way and pass on the jam if I required them to submit their logos, etc. to OGA in order to participate.
@all:
one more comment, we should really just slap together template language for the jam rules. I know I got my rules by copying chasersgaming's original rule-set and then adding some 'ALL-OGA' language. I like the idea that whoever runs the jam can come up with their own rule set. It certainly encourages to try new and different things with the Jam rules. At the same time, it does seem a bit silly to be re-wording the same basic rules every jam.
Looks great! Very dramatic death animation, I like it!
That's an interesting point about the various engines 'packaging' up assets into obscure or otherwise inaccessible formats.
First, is the simple solution just to include the assets in their original form along with the rest of the game package? So, if you have a zip, it includes both the Unreal formatted asset and the original asset? Even if the game doesn't technically use the asset in it's original format, you are distributing it with your game and ensuring that end users can access it.
Second, it's interesting to note that GPL specifically side steps this issue. When you get into the fine print, GPL only requires that you make the original source available, not that you always distribute the source with every instance of the software. That's why you can distribute pre-built binaries of GPL'd software without any source code in there. GPL doesn't care if the source is included everywhere, as long as it is made available /somewhere/. Wish CC folks had thought along the same lines when they crafted their license. You could argue that allowing stuff to be distributed without full source creates space for malicious actors to cause trouble, but I think history shows it's worked out pretty well for GPL'd software.
oops, forgot to add those tags, thanks for the catch! :)
Did you forget to attach them to your post?
Pages