Primary tabs

Comments by User

Wednesday, November 5, 2014 - 10:21

In that case, I guess I should explain.  Progress Quest is a deconstruction of the so-called RPG genre, distilled down to a generic introduction and then repeated grind that is so monotonous that it literally plays itself -- whatever character you play as, equipment you have, or spells you learn, it's all the same grind.  AVGM is a "game" where you click on a light switch over and over to get rewards, which are just props that you can move around, as a deconstruction of those "click on the thing a bunch of times to get a fictitious prize" Facebook games like FarmVille.  This game you've made is basically a fusion of those two concepts: click to grind until you die, then repeat until boredom or carpal tunnel syndrome kicks in.  It's everything that is wrong with so-called RPGs.  On the positive side, if this is just a project you've done to learn how to code, or a fun little proof-of-concept experiment, then congrats on learning a new skill.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014 - 17:20

So it's Progress Quest meets A.V.G.M., I see.

Sunday, October 26, 2014 - 20:27

It seems to me that grid-based movement would make exploration a bit too mechanical, for lack of a better term.  The aforementioned Legend of Grimrock has this limitation.  If a room is a square, you just have to step in each space and look at the wall to find the switch.  It becomes a routine.  Contrast this with the Amnesia games and you see a big difference.  There you have to search every nook, alcove, and corner to find what you need.  You're free to explore, and indeed you have to.  You have to look up, look down, and look around, and consider what things you might be able to interact with.  If anything, I'd say grid-based movement was a technological limitation of the early dungeon crawls (much like the text-based interface), not a feature, and games that include it nowadays are mostly doing it for retro nostalgia.

Obviously I haven't contributed anything to this, so feel free to shut me up or ignore me if you'd like. :)

If you need random scary dungeon stuff, I could probably get these game-ready without too much effort:

Friday, September 5, 2014 - 19:20

The yellow one looks really flat to me, and I don't quite know what to make of the texture.  It reminds me more of an old couch than a spacecraft.  The smaller vessel looks pretty good to me already, but an edge split might help.

Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 17:15

It bothers the heck out of me that every fictional eagle sounds like a red-tailed hawk for some reason, so thank you for uploading these!

Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 10:11

I'm sure the mechanical hand needn't have so many faces, but if necessary I suppose a user could just mirror his organic hand to bring the poly count down considerably.  I like that he's a sci-fi character that looks like he's ready for combat without looking like a hard-boiled space marine pumped up on super steroids.  Instead, he's proportioned like a generally in-shape guy, which is pretty appropriate for a soldier or cop.

Sunday, April 20, 2014 - 13:20

To me, the name should accomplish the following things, in order of importance:

  1. The intent of the license must be clear
  2. The connection/similarity to CC-By should be clear
  3. It should communicate the spirit of the license, OGA, and its community
  4. It would be nice to have some association to OGA

NT-BY is not intuitive to me.  I'm assuming that "non-technical" refers to not having restrictions against technical DRM measures, but that has got to be way down on the list of all the potential meanings of "technical".  There's no way that someone unfamiliar with the license is going to guess what it's for based on that name.  Someone might guess that it has some relationship to CC-BY, but wouldn't really know what it's about or what it's for or why it exists.  Thus, it fails on #1 and #3.

I don't think that the "site-specific" name of OGA-BY would be a problem necessarily, as licenses like zlib and BSD aren't just used for zlib or BSD, and it would give a clear connection to the site (#4) while also standing more generically for "open game art", which is the main purpose of the license.  However, it is less intuitive for anyone not already familiar with OGA, so it's not very strong on #1 or #3.  I can see why one would want it to be more generic than that, though, since presumably it should also be a good license for other copyrightable works outside of games, in which case Open-BY would be the best so far.

Free-BY misses all of the points except #2, primarily because of the ambiguity between libre and gratis in the English definition of "free".  Many people seeing the name would assume it's a noncommercial license like CC-By-NC.

PD-BY misses all of the points except #2 and is also factually incorrect (assuming by PD you mean Public Domain, which this license is not).

Mod-CC-By kinda works on #1 and #2 just with having CC-By in the name.  However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody here represents Creative Commons or has the authority to use their name in a license.  Plus, there are already like a dozen licenses containing "CC-By" in the name, so there's no need to add one more to the glut.

Open-BY passes the first three with flying colors and somewhat touches on #4.  In my opinion, Open-BY is the strongest contender listed thus far.

Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 18:25

OGA-BY sounds fine to me.  For someone who hasn't heard of it, it should be immediately obvious that it's an attribution license.  If they have any familiarity with OGA then they'll know that it's a libre license that allows both commercial and non-commercial sharing and modification.  It's intuitive with little room for confusion.

Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 13:33

That's terrifying.  Well done.  I can imagine this being in something like the Amnesia games.

Friday, March 21, 2014 - 23:14

The way I see it, if you care about how your art is used or licensed, you would be using a share-alike license.  If a developer isn't willing to pay it forward, then I say to Hell with them.  They can make or commission their own assets.  That's why I don't use a plain attribution license.  If I were to use CC-By, I'd intend for everyone to use it however they want so long as I receive credit for it, which is how the license is normally explained.  In my opinion, including an anti-DRM clause in CC-By is a mistake that undermines the purpose of that particular license (to be very permissive and to only require attribution).