"If I put together an itch.io page for it can someone add the top left sidebar and sticky forum links for it on OGA?"
Can do. Just let me know when you're ready and what it should say including any images and links (and which forum topic to sticky... even if it's this one)
@withthelove, @kuranyem: ah, ok. Yes I see. I think WithTheLove's metric for determining if you should submit is a pretty good one. However, I do think your 8x8 Sara is pretty great, despite not actually being used in a game... yet. >:]
I agree with Spring. Despite what I was just saying about proprietary assets, I think an OGA-asset-exclusive jam sounds pretty fun.
"maybe one day we could actually only have assets from OGA, but at the moment i would say its ok as it is. :)"
Ok, I'm happy to hear that, because I agree with Kuranyem saying "I don't know aobut the 'OGA assets only' requirement", but not for the same reasons.
If I am creating derivatives of existing OGA assets, the licenses allow (and often require) that I share them alike, obviously. Even creating my own assets, I have the freedom to release them onto OGA, and I would hope everyone is willing to share their custom jam assets like this.
However, my entry into last year's jam used a supermajority of OGA assets (~95%), but the last 5% of the assets were not pre-existing OGA assets nor subsequently submitted to OGA because they were under a proprietary license. I had no legal right to submit them to OGA. It would be a shame to disallow any entries with even a single proprietary asset despite excellent application of other openly-licensed assets as well as the addition of new and improved derivatives.
"This is why I usually avoid to frankenstein anything, it's usually worse and ends up bringing down the value of the original file. I'd hardly call that beneficial for the original artist and I think that most people think that way, or at least devs."
This is the kind of thinking I would like to end. If the original file is already shared on OGA, it is not possible to bring down the value of the original file by sharing additional derivatives of it. Even if the subsequent changes were entirely less usable than the original (highly unlikely) it still wouldn't remove the original file, so it doesn't make anything worse than it already is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're talking about taking existing art, modifying it to work better for your needs, but you don't feel it is of high enough quality to share those modifications?
I find it strange you saw a clear need to contribute to an existing set of art, yet in the very next breath say your own contribution won't be needed by anyone. You're talking about the need to improve upon existing-but-incomplete works. The way to accomplish that is to share what you have improved! :D
It may not be the original artist that appreciates it most, but someone will, and someone may even take the improvements you've made and improve them further. The ad hoc images you posted on this thread look pretty useful. Unless they aren't licensed to be shared openly, I have no earthly idea why you wouldn't want to share them officially. Out of curiosity, what were those tilesets based on originally?
@WithTheLove:
"I can think of at least one artist who is sensitive to this sort of thing and would be a /huge/ loss to the community if they left."
Good point. I would hope all artists welcome feedback, but on the other hand, they are being very generous by giving away their art in the first place. It's hard to ask for more without sounding ungrateful. Ultimately, I'd rather have access to that incomplete art than not have the art at all.
re: art challenges - I agree we can make some improvements with how these are handled. Someone mentioned the way the challenge theme's are selected is not ideal. Any suggestions on a better model? I don't know if we should start out doing 2 a month just yet, but I think more than one every other month is certainly in order. What do you guys think about 1 a month, consistent schedule to start and see where that goes?
re: OGA jam requiring OGA assets - I know you guys said all this, but I feel that requring some OGA assets in an OGA game jam is obvious. I've never seen a game jam without a theme. Make a roguelike in 7 days, make a game about rabbits, make a game about viruses and diseases, make a game based on one of the episodes of Extra Credits. There is no game jam that just says "make a game. Tabletop game, video game, mind game, whatever. make it about anything". The OGA Game Jam's theme isopen game art.
I also found the requirement to use at least 6 assets from OGA trivially easy. I ended up using over 40 from OGA. I only had 2 assets that were under a proprietary license in my entry. Even if you looked through the OGA archive and found nothing that would work for your game... just make the assets specifically for your game, then share them on OGA. Now all (most?) of your game's assets are on OGA. That isn't cheating, that's what OGA is all about! :) Sharing game art.
I don't know about requring all assets be from an art challenge, but I don't see a problem with giving bonus points for any assets that are from an art challenge.
re: OGA lacking complete art - I get what you're saying, but I think this has more to do with that you have to wade through a lot of incomplete/incompatible art before you find some things that are complete and perfect. There are a lot of incomplete sets or art that isn't coehsive enough to make the entire game, but there are also a lot of art sets that are complete here. The Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup set I submitted, for example. It is literally every graphic used in the very much complete and playable game Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup.
The issue of giving feedback vs. sounding ungrateful is something I don't know how to solve. I generally let the artist know I found their art useful (how else would I have discovered things it's lacking?) then mention what might make it even better. Most artists welcome feedback like that (both positive and critical), and if not, well, just know you meant it in the best way and if they're still so offended they never come back, then that's probably not the kind of artist that's going to be a big loss for this community.
@Kuranyem: Wait, are you saying you found art that you feel was incomplete, so you added to it to make it more complete and useful to you, but you didn't share it because you felt like it wasn't complete and useful enough still? Isn't it still more useful than the original? Why wouldn't you share that? It may not be up to your own standards, but it's closer than what is currently available. It's going to be helpful to somebody. :)
Interesting. I think you're right about making sure Pedro is ok with us posting his tutorials first
Lightning:
Be sure to check out his twitter if you're interested: https://twitter.com/Sadface_RL
Can do. Just let me know when you're ready and what it should say including any images and links (and which forum topic to sticky... even if it's this one)
Fishing mini game stuff! Pixelart bobbers, lures, hooks, bait, splashes, sound effects too! :)
@withthelove, @kuranyem: ah, ok. Yes I see. I think WithTheLove's metric for determining if you should submit is a pretty good one. However, I do think your 8x8 Sara is pretty great, despite not actually being used in a game... yet. >:]
I agree with Spring. Despite what I was just saying about proprietary assets, I think an OGA-asset-exclusive jam sounds pretty fun.
Ok, I'm happy to hear that, because I agree with Kuranyem saying "I don't know aobut the 'OGA assets only' requirement", but not for the same reasons.
If I am creating derivatives of existing OGA assets, the licenses allow (and often require) that I share them alike, obviously. Even creating my own assets, I have the freedom to release them onto OGA, and I would hope everyone is willing to share their custom jam assets like this.
However, my entry into last year's jam used a supermajority of OGA assets (~95%), but the last 5% of the assets were not pre-existing OGA assets nor subsequently submitted to OGA because they were under a proprietary license. I had no legal right to submit them to OGA. It would be a shame to disallow any entries with even a single proprietary asset despite excellent application of other openly-licensed assets as well as the addition of new and improved derivatives.
@Kuranyem:
This is the kind of thinking I would like to end. If the original file is already shared on OGA, it is not possible to bring down the value of the original file by sharing additional derivatives of it. Even if the subsequent changes were entirely less usable than the original (highly unlikely) it still wouldn't remove the original file, so it doesn't make anything worse than it already is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're talking about taking existing art, modifying it to work better for your needs, but you don't feel it is of high enough quality to share those modifications?
I find it strange you saw a clear need to contribute to an existing set of art, yet in the very next breath say your own contribution won't be needed by anyone. You're talking about the need to improve upon existing-but-incomplete works. The way to accomplish that is to share what you have improved! :D
It may not be the original artist that appreciates it most, but someone will, and someone may even take the improvements you've made and improve them further. The ad hoc images you posted on this thread look pretty useful. Unless they aren't licensed to be shared openly, I have no earthly idea why you wouldn't want to share them officially. Out of curiosity, what were those tilesets based on originally?
@WithTheLove:
Good point. I would hope all artists welcome feedback, but on the other hand, they are being very generous by giving away their art in the first place. It's hard to ask for more without sounding ungrateful. Ultimately, I'd rather have access to that incomplete art than not have the art at all.
Wow, looks like you're making some great progress! The version I played was already fun and this looks like it has a lot of new features added since.
re: art challenges - I agree we can make some improvements with how these are handled. Someone mentioned the way the challenge theme's are selected is not ideal. Any suggestions on a better model? I don't know if we should start out doing 2 a month just yet, but I think more than one every other month is certainly in order. What do you guys think about 1 a month, consistent schedule to start and see where that goes?
re: OGA jam requiring OGA assets - I know you guys said all this, but I feel that requring some OGA assets in an OGA game jam is obvious. I've never seen a game jam without a theme. Make a roguelike in 7 days, make a game about rabbits, make a game about viruses and diseases, make a game based on one of the episodes of Extra Credits. There is no game jam that just says "make a game. Tabletop game, video game, mind game, whatever. make it about anything". The OGA Game Jam's theme is open game art.
I also found the requirement to use at least 6 assets from OGA trivially easy. I ended up using over 40 from OGA. I only had 2 assets that were under a proprietary license in my entry. Even if you looked through the OGA archive and found nothing that would work for your game... just make the assets specifically for your game, then share them on OGA. Now all (most?) of your game's assets are on OGA. That isn't cheating, that's what OGA is all about! :) Sharing game art.
I don't know about requring all assets be from an art challenge, but I don't see a problem with giving bonus points for any assets that are from an art challenge.
re: OGA lacking complete art - I get what you're saying, but I think this has more to do with that you have to wade through a lot of incomplete/incompatible art before you find some things that are complete and perfect. There are a lot of incomplete sets or art that isn't coehsive enough to make the entire game, but there are also a lot of art sets that are complete here. The Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup set I submitted, for example. It is literally every graphic used in the very much complete and playable game Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup.
The issue of giving feedback vs. sounding ungrateful is something I don't know how to solve. I generally let the artist know I found their art useful (how else would I have discovered things it's lacking?) then mention what might make it even better. Most artists welcome feedback like that (both positive and critical), and if not, well, just know you meant it in the best way and if they're still so offended they never come back, then that's probably not the kind of artist that's going to be a big loss for this community.
@Kuranyem: Wait, are you saying you found art that you feel was incomplete, so you added to it to make it more complete and useful to you, but you didn't share it because you felt like it wasn't complete and useful enough still? Isn't it still more useful than the original? Why wouldn't you share that? It may not be up to your own standards, but it's closer than what is currently available. It's going to be helpful to somebody. :)
Ask Mr Medeiros if he'd be willing to share his work here as well.
Sidescroller tilesets (1 of 4):
Sidescroller tilesets (2 of 4):
Sidescroller tilesets (3 of 4):
Sidescroller tilesets (4 of 4):
^+1
Pages