Fortunately, nothing about Venn's game concept could be considered unlawful, misleading, malicious, discriminatory, bullying, intimidating, harrassing, defaming, or threatening. I agree pointless violence isn't good, but that section of itch.io's rules is about being directed at a real person, not fictional game characters. Horror theme is none of those things. :)
With a disclaimer about content, no reasonable person would be driven away from the community due to offense unless they chose to expose themselves to content they know offends them. Do people who hate horror movies ever accidentally watch The Exorcist? I understand your rant, but I feel like Dark Souls lines up better with the above screenshot establishing a feeling of horror than as an example of not-pointless violence. The desensitization to violence you describe is what you want?
If you're ever unclear on how an artist wants their art used or distributed (or not), it's always a good idea to ask. Even if the license doesn't requrie it. The important part is "unclear". Sometimes artists share their work not fully understanding the implications of the license, as Clint hinted at. Legally, you have no obligation to ask them anything. Ethically, it's a good idea to preserve good will with artists by being sure you (and they) understand their desires for the art. If artists are sharing work with unusual stipulations or something that hints at not really understanding what the license means, maybe asking some clarifying questions is a good idea.
"Use this for whatever, I don't care! Just don't sell it or repackage it" stipulations that conflict with the chosen license = ask anyway. Another good time to ask anyway is unusual situations that can be interpreted multiple ways. CC-BY-SA for example says you have to share derivatives under the same license. Is the game a derivative? Legally, no. But a lot of artists assume it is and they selected the CC-BY-SA license because they intend any project that uses their art be opensource. Best to double-check if it looks like they're making this assumption.
On the other hand, I don't want to be bugged every time someone uses my art. That's the whole point of the license, as drummyfish indicated. You don't need to ask me. I already said yes. Stop annoying me. I uploaded it to OGA so you'd all know the answer to that question and use it without having to ask every time. If the artist doesn't seem confused about licenses and clearly indicated a FOSS license... use the art, credit the artist, and move on. :)
Notice I've indicated a separaton of what is LEGALLY ok and what is ETHICALLY ok. It is always legally ok to sell CC assets. It is often ethically ok to sell them, too. My general response is "I don't know why someone would buy this asset from you when they can get it here for free, but you're still allowed to sell it." Sometimes, it's just legal, but not ethical. Scraping all the CC0 art on OGA, putting it in a .zip file, and selling it as a "royalty free mega asset pack! $49.95" is weird. The artists intend for it to be enjoyed for free. By selling it without adding any value to it is taking away that part of the artists intent.
Lets say the EPA gives out free water bottles after an earthquake to help the disaster victims. I come up, tell them I need 400 bottles. They give it to me for free. I put a rubber band around every 2 bottles and move closer to the epicenter and set up a shop selling "duluxe water 2-packs! $80.00 each!" Is it legal? Sure. The bottles are legally my property. The EPA gave them to me to do with what I want. But it sure seems rotten to take advantage of desperate people that don't know there's free water just a few more meters up the road.
Adding value, on the other hand, is fine. Great, even! If you take free art, modify it, polish it, really round out the missing pieces to make it a cohesive set and format it so it is easy to consume by game engines, then sell it? No problem. Legal + Ethical. You're profiting from the work you put into it to make it better! You've enriched it. (this assumes the free art being enriched has no questions about how the artist intended to share it.)
It's not about how much work it took you to repackage it, though. Its about how much work you saved someone else. If it takes you 13 hours to repackage and organize free art, but doesn't save the customer any work compared to the original free version... then the new package isn't worthy of a pricetag.
I don't recall the exact time the announcement indicated "Accepting Submissions" but I've always had the cutoff for past challenges right at midnight UTC-11 (the last timezone of the day with any landmasses in it) so your submission was at least 4 hours before the deadline. :)
One of WithTheLove's submissions was actually submitted before the opening, though. That doesn't mean it's disqualified, but I have to exclude all votes that occured before the start-of-challenge point on that submission. :/
@MNDV: I... had no idea that was there. I think that's a functionality used by the old LPC style contests. I'm going by tags to determine who has entered. You're all good. :)
Let's see the code you use to determine the attack direction.
@Saliv:
Fortunately, nothing about Venn's game concept could be considered unlawful, misleading, malicious, discriminatory, bullying, intimidating, harrassing, defaming, or threatening. I agree pointless violence isn't good, but that section of itch.io's rules is about being directed at a real person, not fictional game characters. Horror theme is none of those things. :)
With a disclaimer about content, no reasonable person would be driven away from the community due to offense unless they chose to expose themselves to content they know offends them. Do people who hate horror movies ever accidentally watch The Exorcist? I understand your rant, but I feel like Dark Souls lines up better with the above screenshot establishing a feeling of horror than as an example of not-pointless violence. The desensitization to violence you describe is what you want?
I think it's fine so long as you have a small disclaimer about the imagry on your downloads page. :)
What kind of game object? A banana is an object in some games. Does that work?
Sounds like a fun project, but I think you may want quite a bit more specificity in this request. There isn't enough information here for artists to determine if they're even interested or not. See also https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request
Here are lots of backgrounds that could work in a skate game.
Here is a skater boy in (approximately) those dimensions: https://opengameart.org/content/stickman-skateboarder
They may not be exactly what you're looking for, but they may work as stand-in graphics so you can get an example demo working in the meantime. :)
No problem... You might want to toggle off that capslock, though. Hahah!
@ShannonGames: all the art on the whole site is available for commercial use. You don't have to ask every time. :) https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
If you're ever unclear on how an artist wants their art used or distributed (or not), it's always a good idea to ask. Even if the license doesn't requrie it. The important part is "unclear". Sometimes artists share their work not fully understanding the implications of the license, as Clint hinted at. Legally, you have no obligation to ask them anything. Ethically, it's a good idea to preserve good will with artists by being sure you (and they) understand their desires for the art. If artists are sharing work with unusual stipulations or something that hints at not really understanding what the license means, maybe asking some clarifying questions is a good idea.
"Use this for whatever, I don't care! Just don't sell it or repackage it" stipulations that conflict with the chosen license = ask anyway. Another good time to ask anyway is unusual situations that can be interpreted multiple ways. CC-BY-SA for example says you have to share derivatives under the same license. Is the game a derivative? Legally, no. But a lot of artists assume it is and they selected the CC-BY-SA license because they intend any project that uses their art be opensource. Best to double-check if it looks like they're making this assumption.
On the other hand, I don't want to be bugged every time someone uses my art. That's the whole point of the license, as drummyfish indicated. You don't need to ask me. I already said yes. Stop annoying me. I uploaded it to OGA so you'd all know the answer to that question and use it without having to ask every time. If the artist doesn't seem confused about licenses and clearly indicated a FOSS license... use the art, credit the artist, and move on. :)
Notice I've indicated a separaton of what is LEGALLY ok and what is ETHICALLY ok. It is always legally ok to sell CC assets. It is often ethically ok to sell them, too. My general response is "I don't know why someone would buy this asset from you when they can get it here for free, but you're still allowed to sell it." Sometimes, it's just legal, but not ethical. Scraping all the CC0 art on OGA, putting it in a .zip file, and selling it as a "royalty free mega asset pack! $49.95" is weird. The artists intend for it to be enjoyed for free. By selling it without adding any value to it is taking away that part of the artists intent.
Lets say the EPA gives out free water bottles after an earthquake to help the disaster victims. I come up, tell them I need 400 bottles. They give it to me for free. I put a rubber band around every 2 bottles and move closer to the epicenter and set up a shop selling "duluxe water 2-packs! $80.00 each!" Is it legal? Sure. The bottles are legally my property. The EPA gave them to me to do with what I want. But it sure seems rotten to take advantage of desperate people that don't know there's free water just a few more meters up the road.
Adding value, on the other hand, is fine. Great, even! If you take free art, modify it, polish it, really round out the missing pieces to make it a cohesive set and format it so it is easy to consume by game engines, then sell it? No problem. Legal + Ethical. You're profiting from the work you put into it to make it better! You've enriched it. (this assumes the free art being enriched has no questions about how the artist intended to share it.)
It's not about how much work it took you to repackage it, though. Its about how much work you saved someone else. If it takes you 13 hours to repackage and organize free art, but doesn't save the customer any work compared to the original free version... then the new package isn't worthy of a pricetag.
...IMHO. :)
Those spell icons look like 7Soul's work: https://opengameart.org/content/496-pixel-art-icons-for-medievalfantasy-rpg
I don't recall the exact time the announcement indicated "Accepting Submissions" but I've always had the cutoff for past challenges right at midnight UTC-11 (the last timezone of the day with any landmasses in it) so your submission was at least 4 hours before the deadline. :)
One of WithTheLove's submissions was actually submitted before the opening, though. That doesn't mean it's disqualified, but I have to exclude all votes that occured before the start-of-challenge point on that submission. :/
@MNDV: I... had no idea that was there. I think that's a functionality used by the old LPC style contests. I'm going by tags to determine who has entered. You're all good. :)
Pages