![]() At that point i had no idea what open source, or the GPL was. I contributed precisely because some of the art was so bad, that i knew i could do something 10x better with little effort. Spell wrote:That you shouldn't release an version of an game before you have made some decent graphics otherwise it will scare all the peoples away.įor me it worked exactly the opposite. More people = Even more people after some months = Bigger chance that someone finds it worthy to work on it. You shouldn't expect that every good idea has this chance. I think the story about Wesnoth's graphics were more big luck than anything else. To have success you have to attract the people and without some decent graphics this will be really really hard. You add some new content to the game and release it as an new version.īut the important point which I wanted to show is that it isn't working that flawless (anymore). If the game you are working on you may even get some people who make some graphics or stuff, or even some additional main developers which frequently put some effort into the project.Ĥ. You get feedback, and fiddle around a bit with the main stuff of the game, fix bugs etc. ![]() You make some first prepacked version and annouce it somewhere where people can find it. You start with a small team (maybe even an 1-person-team) of developers and start developing the base for everything, in the case of an game the most of the engine and give it some fun factor by adding a little content.Ģ. I dunno really how far my idea goes away from how it really works but here is my view point how FOSS works:ġ. This is specially true since graphics/sounds/music provide better marketting tools than fun factor. That's one thing I fear and dislike about there being so much emphasis on graphics/technology/etc, frequently "fun" is left out. I'm sure everyone has experience games which have good graphics/etc but provide little to no fun. Only then the game should progress in the graphics/interface/etc departments until it feels "complete". That's the only way to really test it's "fun" factor. What it does need is to be played by many people very early in development stages. And work from there.Ī "fun" game need not depend on good graphics/fancy interface/etc. Preferable get the "expert" oppinion of another player. So the only real way to make a fun game is just making it and then playing it. It's somewhat of an artform, "fun" is very subjective. I believe that games are fun because of the characteristics inherent to their rules/gameplay. But I guess that even the worst art skills can produce something at least tolerable. I'm guessing there might be a lower bound to this, that there could be potentially be graphics so repulsive and hurtful to the eyes that all potential players would be quickly driven away. So even with very bad graphics some people might still play the game. The question is: Would potential contributors be among those people? I think that contributors would be the kind of people that will see the opportunity for improvement, rather than complain about the existing graphics.Įveryone has different levels of tolerance for bad graphics. True, bad graphics can "scare some people away". I'm quite guilty myself too - my villages are a lot less pixelarty than those of Pekka. Fully pixelarty games can have that neat contrast between the colours of terrains and units, we can't. ![]() The most jarring of these inconsistencies is the one between sprites and terrains. ![]() There's no simple solution - other than hiring actual full-time artists. And there is no cohesion between story arts at all, since each campaign uses its own - and little consistency between the portraits of different campaigns. Wesnoth's graphics second largest problem after the UI panels is imo the incohesiveness of all the art - portraits are in style A, attack icons in style B, sprites in style C, terrains/scenery in style D (and that group's not completely cohesive within itself either) - and I'm pretty sure that problem will never be repaired, because of the amount of content in each group already. Thespaceinvader wrote:But you don't get the kind of cohesive look that we're developing for BfW.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |