Index | FAQ | Search | Memberlist | Usergroups | Profile | Log in to check your private messages | Log in | Register

Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

Jehar wrote:

Quote:
People like LordHavoc, Spike, div0 and others have redesigned the insides of the engines to get things more streamlined.

Don't misinterpret their intentions - most source ports are designed to remove bugs and improve upon existing features so as to make the core experience better - not change it into something else.

Yeah but I don't care about "most" source ports, only the most evolved ones.
There are at least 100 Quake engine variants, but only a small handful by long-term dedicated experts -- this is the group of engines I care about, the rest of the engines are mostly unused and forgotten.
DarkPlaces/FTEQW and Nexuiz (as modding community) certainly are not about removing bugs or improving existing features.

frag.machine wrote:
At id, they were always centered (and a bit obsessed after the departure of Romero, I must say) about the technology, and Carmack even told once that games are much like porn movies: it's okay if there's a story, but not essential. Well, I suspect that this could be true back in the 90's when Doom/Quake dominated the scene, but things have changed a lot. I believe that a game centered around an engine (like was Doom 3 back then and lately the Crysis series) will always lose to a game centered around a good story (and as consequence of that, the engine development working around the story too, and not the opposite).

^^ that

Back to top |

Jehar Joined: 22 Oct 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Califonia |

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |

Darkplaces is one of the main source-ports I was referring to. LH hasn't changed any of the behaviour of the AI, or the way the levels are built. Thus, it's still 100% compatible with the older levels. Instead, it pretties up the game to make it even more atmospheric. It fixed bugs and made some of the existing features more robust, but it's still Quake.
Half-Life. I don't like it, but that's for another conversation (ones that we've had several times over). The main contending point seems to be that it started the whole "story as we know it in games" thing.
I am going to suggest that this is not true. That HL had better marketing and pumped itself up as being "story-centric" is apparent - that's why so many people refer to it as the genesis game it wasn't. There are many, many examples to choose from, but I will submit for the sake of the argument only Jedi Knight, and it's expansion, Mysteries of the Sith. JK was released a full year before Half-Life, and MotS 9 months before, so there's a significant lead on release date.
Cutscenes (fmv in JK, in-engine in MotS)? Check.
Scripted ingame story advancements? Check.
Innocuous npc interaction? Check check (hey, get out of my bar.... you kind alwaaays cause trouble).
Multiple level-altering item-based puzzles? Check.
Destructible crates with items? Check.
You can like Half-Liife, and I won't hate you for it. But to say that it was the "first" fps to have an involving story that was integrated into the game is simply false. There are several other examples to choose from, and I'm sure you'll remember them if you dig back in your memory a bit.

Back to top |

scar3crow Inside3D Staff Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 837 Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: |

Valve's main strength is that in advertising and packaging. HL poised itself well with the ads of how its a thinking shooting game (ironically, due to the sharply linear levels, there is less thinking in it than in Unreal, Quake, Doom, Blood, Duke3d or even Blake Stone or Wolf3d), and TF2 is mostly memorable for the stylized promo videos (I certainly didn't take anything favorable from the gameplay, they really need mappers who understand what a 'choke point' does in a level), and also there tendency to revise history, such as Robin Walker referring to Hunted as an "original Team Fortress Classic map", when it was in fact a map supplied over a year earlier to Quake Team Fortress by a community member - not as pretty, but that was the original Hunted, with the exact design that they use now, and credit to themselves.
If storytelling is dependent upon technology, let me introduce you to this ancient rendering engine, which far pre-dates even Quake or Doom, which has told vastly better stories, that are infinitely more immersive than any game you've played, no matter your videocard, no matter the middleware licenses, no matter the advertising.
The human mouth.
It later got a middleware upgrade in the form of writing, and a distribution model via the printing press. I am yet to encounter a story in any game whatsoever that comes anywhere close to the stories I have heard from the mouths of people, and read on pages in my hands - and I never, ever, want to.
These stories are great because they were delivered by master craftsmen harnessing the inherent power of the form, to the fullest detail. Using the interactive medium of videogames to tell a story can be done, but you run the risk of either having the player craft the story, or having the player be relatively meaningless (the equivalent of the Play button in a movie, such as in the Half-Life and Call of Duty games). The problem with the player crafting the story is, if its too rigid in its structure, the player can easily break it into a bad story, the solution of which, is to give them looser constraints so that they have meaningful input, within the framework of the world (not necessarily the story, the world).
Games are active, they're interactive, they tell their story through these interactions, to take the passive methods of books and film into that, is to simply blunt the strength of both forms.
If you disagree with any or all of this, I shall back it down to simple opinion. I think Doom had a better storyline, and a more immersive experience, with better atmosphere, than Half-Life or HL2, or Call of Duty/2/4. The same goes for Duke Nukem3d, Blood, Quake, Unreal, and Blake Stone, that strange old game where you protect scientists from aliens invading...
_________________
...and all around me was the chaos of battle and the reek of running blood.... and for the first time in my life I knew true happiness.

Back to top |

negke Joined: 16 Apr 2008 Posts: 56 |

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |

Ah, the good old Q vs. HL discussion...

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: |

Jehar wrote:
Darkplaces is one of the main source-ports I was referring to ... Thus, it's still 100% compatible with the older levels.

It is well known that DarkPlaces isn't fully compatible even with the older or original levels (health boxes floating in the air, monsters outside the map shooting at the player due to collision or traceline differences in Travail, issues with SOE: Indian Summer, lighting concealing some items that should be completely visible, etc).
DarkPlaces has compatbility issues with standard Quake mods far too numerous to mention.
If you think of DarkPlaces as a Quake engine, that's a problem but if you view it as a vehicle for the creation of total conversions, it is a non-issue.
DarkPlaces doesn't do that well at playing "standard Quake" mods for various reasons, but excels in the mod creation department.

Quote:
LH hasn't changed any of the behaviour of the AI

Game logic isn't part of the Quake engine. That's what the QuakeC compiler does, it compiles the game logic source code into bytecode for the engine to act upon.

Quote:
Instead, it pretties up the game to make it even more atmospheric. It fixed bugs and made some of the existing features more robust, but it's still Quake.

Most of DarkPlaces features are to support partial or total conversions. These aren't existing features.
DarkPlaces is closing in on a changelog 9 years long.
Last edited by Baker on Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Back to top |

SamUK Joined: 17 Dec 2008 Posts: 98 Location: United Kingdom |

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |

Urre wrote:
SamUK: Jehar was only pointing out that the HL story would have been possible to make in the Doom engine, in the very same manner even, had id wanted to. But they didn't want to. I also think your views on how story is told in games is rather narrow. To go all mainstream and stupid here, look at Portal. It has no cutscenes, nor does it force the player to wait for a door to open while listening to NPC's whine, or having to stop moving to concentrate in case the audio log mentions a number combination you need.

I am sorry if I said something to annoy you. What I am trying to say is that half-like was the first to pull it off, and the whole doom discussion I can not honestly give you an argument because I have never touched it (engine). We are talking about the fact that QUAKE can not tell a good story, even after 12-ish years out.
I admit that I have not tried to mod doom therefor i have no knowledge on what you can and can't do with the doom engine. I am talking on what I have seen done with doom.
_________________
Working on Solitude

Back to top |

goldenboy Joined: 05 Sep 2008 Posts: 310 Location: Kiel |

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

Quote:
1. A lot of maps are made for Quake. Most of them are glquake compatible. Which means 1996 era functionality, which is fine except this means that no true progress has been made.

True. And if they use a custom engine, there is no regard for compatibility or accessibility.

Quote:
Quake2 can do non-linear play from map to map, for example.

This hasn't caught on because it was, simply put, over most people's heads. There were also games who did this in a horrible way (Hexen II). You mean you have go somewhere and do something, instead of killkillkillfindexit?! This isn't an RPG you know?
Technically, a hub system is a great way to have gigantic levels, but chopped up into manageable pieces. 600 monsters in a level? No problem with the hub system.

Quote:
In Quake, monsters only know attacking and idling

Sadly, yeah.

Quote:
-- you can't have some monsters guarding something valuable

Oh boy, how I would like that.

Quote:
but that's ok because Quake can't do inventory either.

Haha. Yeah. See above though, most ppl simply don't want this. There was a lot of "excitement" when I suggested having custom keys (and then logically an inventory) in that one gameplay discussion thread at func.
But tbh it would be OK if they could simply guard a door or something, instead of following the player across the entire map and getting slaughtered where the terrain disadvantages them. Heck, it would be cool if they knew basic combat rules at all, like "go for higher ground", "fight in a group" and "flee when you're weak".

Quote:
Or NPCs or events (well simple events are ok).

... see above.

Quote:
But there isn't anything about map editors that wouldn't support more immersive environments.

True. To be sure, a lot of what you list exists in several obscure mods, but simply wasn't used by mappers.
You can get a relatively good idea of what most Quake SP mappers want when you look at Quoth and maps that use it.
Games that have objectives, inventory, hub system etc. (Quake 2, Tomb Raider, Hexen II) do not really get honorable mentions, to put it lightly, from diehard FPS people. They're "gay". It's seemingly impossible to discuss only gameplay mechanic X without being hit over the head with the "image" of the game it's from. But that game sucked, man!
Even physics... Gyro has existed for years, but how many SP maps have used it?

Quote:
id Software for the most part didn't advance the concept of single player after Quake 2

Yup. There seems to be no agreement on how (or even if) to enhance it.

Quote:
I think I just tend to scoff at the notion of advancing 'plots and storyline elements', as this has led to nothing but pure consumption of the game, rather than playing a role in it.

That's also true, it's rare that game designers strike the perfect balance. However, it's not always true for non-FPS titles.
The best stories in games I have seen are in non-FPS titles. Baldur's Gate, Vagrant Story, Final Fantasy III. RPGs in other words (not necessarily AD&D based, though).
But I'll gladly take any story over none at all; "you wake up and Earth has been taken over by monsters" isn't enough for me. Even if you end up playing through the game as if you're on rails... I'll prefer that. The key is probably combining a good story with enough sandboxiness.
Interesting NPCs go a long way to making a game more satisfying. The more, the better. Any NPC should have its own subplot, even if the player has no real access to it. Finding a dead marine is one thing, finding a dying marine who tells you how he got there is better. This should be optional though (ie you should be able to shoot him and move on).
A big collection of different monsters and a big collection of NPCs (why no female soldiers, civilians etc?!) would be desirable. I don't think this would make an FPS any worse, unless interaction with them is forced on the player.
Games have a long way to go yet.

Quote:
Diablo

Quote:
Baldur's Gate

Quote:
The Quake based engines are certainly easier to create assets for

This is often said, but I wouldn't subscribe to that. Up to a point, probably, yeah. Making a room in Quake is easy. Printing a smilie on a texture is easy. Making a .mdl or animating? Voice acting (how if there's no story)?
Making maps for Starcraft is easier, btw.

Quote:
Quake 2 was slightly harder to work with than Quake

It depends, lighting a map is easier for example, plus you have stuff like hint brushes etc. and don't mention rotating entities. Quake 3? You can make better looking curves etc. Not everything got harder.

Quote:
the pretty deep stories are slowly revealed by overheard conversations, scraps of diaries etc.

That seems a good way to do it, especially if the player isn't really forced to listen to or read all of it. Another example is Baldur's Gate (not an FPS, ok), where in the beginning you have no idea why people are assassinating you, and why some people want you dead, and what all that has to do with the iron crisis. You don't have to follow the story much, i.e. you can travel and kill monsters and have bar fights absolutely fine, without ever worrying about the story, but it's there if you want it. It's quite masterfully done. Most assassins have a note on them that is often quite interesting. In every bookshelf you'll find some obscure book about the history of Faerun, which you COULD read (I normally don't).
In Quake, they had a theme going with the marines invading the monster's dimension, but it was cancelled too early and not consequently done. I could imagine computer logs from various people, found on laptops throughout abandoned camps, abandoned barricades with dead marines/monsters strewn about, stuff like that.
Quake 2 had drop pods crashed into the scenery, especially Reckoning, which was primitive but it made the game better. But that, too, wasn't done consequently. The pods could have had audio recordings of the attack, for example, or parts of weapons, or even stimpacks... It would have been so easy
A little effort would have gone a long way.

Quote:
I believe the reason people make deathmatch maps or "remodel things that don't need remodeling" is otherwise they'd need to depend upon a team to accomplish something.

This is a main factor, if not the single most important. 99% of Quake mods and maps are solitary efforts, while the really good ones are often team efforts. Nehahra, Quoth, Travail, Zerstorer.

Quote:
It sounds reasonable on paper - the rewards seem greater than working in obscurity by yourself, but the reality is there's a lot of factors working against that kind of collaboration.

I think it can be narrowed down to a few factors.

Quote:
Typically, there's a game design war where no one can actually agree on what you are making.

Factor 1. Solution: Everybody takes two steps backwards and shuts up while the others are talking. This fails in 99% of cases though. It's probably human.
Basically, if you encounter someone who can do some things better than you, or is more level headed, then you should follow him instead of fight him. This will benefit you a lot more in the end.
This requires basic social skills and 10 wisdom points - ah, what am I saying, wisdom isn't even needed here. Intelligence is enough - you profit from finding a leader and following him. People have known this for centuries, but today it has become a lost art. Everybody can't be the boss. Get used to saying "You're right" and shutting up about it, unless you are very sure that you have a point. I mean really, really sure, after thinking long and hard about it.
It doesn't matter if you get paid - this will ALWAYS benefit you. Find a master or a leader and join him. Even if he/she (you don't have problems with females, right?) is only a tad more experienced than you. Step back and support them, and the team will work.
Leadership however is another matter - a good chief knows that he can't prosper without his warriors. He knows that they have CHOSEN to follow him, and that he must show himself worthy. Treat your team badly, and you'll be challenged to the holm, as every good little Viking knows.
Basically, no one in the team should overestimate his own importance. Accept that others might do some things better than you. It's OK, there are also things that you do well, otherwise you wouldn't be in the team.
Collaborating, even talking to people, seems to be a huge problem for many.

Quote:
As selfish beings, we usually evaluate teams as a potential chain around our neck

Beg to differ. Those 10 wisdom points will tell you otherwise. I used to think like that, but have been proven wrong by failing. It's like the difference between klampfing away in your bedroom and playing in a band. O_o
Playing in a band is much more difficult, because you'll have to deal with people. Oops. But once you did it for 6 months, you'll see you made more progress in that short time than during all the years of solitary doodling!
Perhaps I was just lucky to find a very good band full of determined people... but today I wouldn't think twice about joining the nearest team instead of locking myself away in the bedroom.
Working in a team (I'm not talking about a paycheck type of team here necessarily) is the most rewarding experience you can have, but maybe you'll only ever notice it if you drop out.
A working team is like coming into a warm kitchen from the cold, not like a chain around your neck. Like heroin

Quote:
at best, restrict us from what we want to make (our ideas)

No. At best, your ideas become part of the hive mind. Sure, 99% of them will be dropped, but again in the best case, you'll understand why and agree with it, and have learned something from it. If Project Lead regularly drops your ideas without explanation, you crack their skull open and become Project Lead yourself, simple. Watched The 13th Warrior? Gotta love open source. It's called a fork and happens regularly. Not satisfied with how the mod came out? Why, release an addon pak so people have the option to play your version. No reason to go ballistic.

Quote:
at worst can drag us to the bottom (completely fail, losing all the hard work we put into the project).

You can also fail if you go solitary, it's actually more likely. As for the work, you can usually salvage it (unless you signed some sort of NDA) or recreate it. You'll also learn from failure.

Quote:
For a singleplayer project you'll also encounter the time budget problem - people only have a set number of hours of available time to devote to projects - large projects such as a single player projects have needs disproportionate to the time and talent available to the team making it.

Yes. Then it will take years. How is that bad? You can always knock up something at the sideline and release it, if you want the recognition.
But that's the best part: When working in a team, you get recognition _permanently_ from the team members.
In the Open Source community, it is also standard to have a "rolling release" practice. Everything is open, and everything is in constant development. This means that people constantly use beta versions, if you will, and you have a trail of tiny updates instead of "work three years, then BAMM! Release it and forget it".
The same is possible with Quake mods and even maps. Nothing prohibits a map from growing and becoming more interesting or functional. There is zero problem with people playing "beta" maps, which are in progress, and just downloading an update when the mapper releases one, and which may allow them to see a new area. There is nothing "cheap" or "wrong" about this.
Honestly, I don't see the problem. Thousands of projects work this way.

Quote:
I would like to live in a world where people can make some mindblowing games easily (no I don't mean graphics and effects although that too, I mean the realization of a story or a concept).

Some efforts like that are underway, although they are (still) genre-specific. You could call these things meta-engines. Two examples from the Open Source community:
1. Spring; an RTS engine that allows for creation of vastly different games (many exist already).
http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/About
2. GemRB; reimplementation of the Infinity Engine, aimed at running and creating AD&D based games like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment. Emphasis placed on moddability, you're meant to create your own game with this eventually. Still alpha.
http://linux.prinas.si/gemrb/doku.php
I suppose 20 years from now, we could reach the next level, where meta-engines would no longer be genre specific and you could do both an RTS and an FPS with the same engine.
20 more years, and we'll maybe have the holodeck which can run all sorts of games...
Interesting discussion.

Quote:
when I select singleplayer I want a story, I want to feel sorry if somebody on myside dies. I want to feel happy when I do something right in the story.

I share this opinion.

Quote:
The human mouth. It later got a middleware upgrade in the form of writing, and a distribution model via the printing press.

Very clever. Put books in the game then. They're just a distribution model. You should like Baldur's Gate then. It's a model of storytelling

Back to top |

MauveBib Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 602 |

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:17 am Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

goldenboy wrote:
I suppose 20 years from now, we could reach the next level, where meta-engines would no longer be genre specific and you could do both an RTS and an FPS with the same engine.

Ahem.
_________________
Apathy Now!

Back to top |

leileilol Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 1321 |

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

MauveBib wrote:

goldenboy wrote:
I suppose 20 years from now, we could reach the next level, where meta-engines would no longer be genre specific and you could do both an RTS and an FPS with the same engine.

Ahem.

Yeah what about that (critically acclaimed, but predictably overshadowed by Half-Life) Battlezone game and that Iron Grip hack?

Back to top |

Irritant Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 115 Location: Maryland |

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |

What is this thread even about? I thought it was a mainly lamenting the messiness of engine code, and how it becomes increasingly difficult to create games? Now it's about story lines and how Quake isn't good for "telling a story", or how DP isn't or is compatible with Quake?
Maybe if the questions were posed in a more cohesive manner it would make more sense to me.
If the question is about using Darkplaces or other engines for good single player games, I think it's quite possible to do so, and has been done. Hub systems, NPC, inventory, these have all been done in modified Quake engines in the past. It also depends on what you consider good single player experience. Some people prefer the more simple type like Doom was, others prefer more of an RPG/RTS type experience.
_________________
http://red.planetarena.org - Alien Arena

Back to top |

xaGe Joined: 01 Mar 2006 Posts: 329 Location: Upstate, New York |

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

The future is now?! heh..

MauveBib wrote:

goldenboy wrote:
I suppose 20 years from now, we could reach the next level, where meta-engines would no longer be genre specific and you could do both an RTS and an FPS with the same engine.

Ahem.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:25 am Post subject: |

Irritant wrote:
What is this thread even about?

I was hoping it would be about ideas to make things easier, little known features that already exist, engines for other games that do certain things very well.
FrikaC summed up my hidden emphasis on development speed being everything with this:

FrikaC wrote:
In the end, even if you make it through all the hurdles people will eventually get tired with the idea and would rather work on something that has a quicker turnaround. Something they can spend a mere weekend on and release it. Or they may see the project 'stagnating' and abandon it like last week's bread.

I rank speed and the ease-of-use of modding (plus lowering the amount of experience and understanding required to do things) as imperative.
All the little things I pointed out that people do:
1. Quake 1 single player maps
2. Deathmatch maps for any game
3. Retexturing of maps/models
... happen to be easy to figure things that can be done in a shorter period of time often by someone brand new.
I want to see unique and creative full single player games with reasonable goals completed by very small teams.
A large body of work exists to support this -- but really it needs assembled and developed into a new baseline framework.
The hardest engine coding work in many cases has already been done at least once; many times someone has the supporting QuakeC code but it's all so scattered and with hard to find or non-existent documentation.
Unlike most other communities, the Quake modding community as a whole has incredible set of already road-tested features lying around under rocks everywhere.

Back to top |

Urre Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 1073 Location: Sweden |

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: |

The funny thing about gathering a team of Quake mappers to make a singleplayer campaign would be the fact that they probably won't do it because they want to show off their stuff to eachother, and being as few as they are, there would be no one left to show it off to if they teamed up.
Joking aside, Nehahra would probably be the closest attempt at this, for exactly the reasons explained before, because Nehahra was so close to what Quake already is, just more of it.
The reason people don't team up and make massive efforts in Quake anymore is probably because it's no longer cutting edge, or atleast not considered to be, no matter how many DP features you show off, it's still Quake based. What I mean by this is that most community effort comes from the thought that the work spent on a project can lead to something more than the end product. Many modders like to show off their projects for game dev companies, hoping to get employed. There's no way in hell anyone's going to employ you if you show stuff you did for Quake these days, unless it uses DP to it's fullest potential, or perhaps if you coded DP (congrats LH). Most people know this, so they won't bother. This is the sad truth. Most Quake modders and mappers left are enthusiasts and nostalgia whores, and they don't want to feel like their go-to place for relaxation (mm... good ol' trusty worldcraft 1.6) is a place for work. Anyone who takes a moment to remember the olden days, will realise that the really big and cool Quake mods (some of them commercial) were made by people who weren't love-bound to Quake, but rather thought it was cool, were inspired, made something cool with people who shared their mindset, and moved on.
_________________
Look out for Twigboy

Back to top |

FrikaC Site Admin Joined: 08 Oct 2004 Posts: 947 |

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Game Engine = non-linear media player; too hard |

goldenboy wrote:
In the Open Source community, it is also standard to have a "rolling release" practice. Everything is open, and everything is in constant development. This means that people constantly use beta versions, if you will, and you have a trail of tiny updates instead of "work three years, then BAMM! Release it and forget it".
The same is possible with Quake mods and even maps. Nothing prohibits a map from growing and becoming more interesting or functional. There is zero problem with people playing "beta" maps, which are in progress, and just downloading an update when the mapper releases one, and which may allow them to see a new area. There is nothing "cheap" or "wrong" about this.
Honestly, I don't see the problem. Thousands of projects work this way.

I should've prefaced what I've said with these are the situations of failure, based on observation, I've seen in the Quake community (mine and other people's projects) this past 12 years or so. Ideally we'd be more like the general Open Source communities. Also, obviously not all projects fail.
My response was more meant as a general response to all these "why don't we all work together" threads. Willingness to work in a team is very admirable, goldenboy, but I suspect there's more than a few people more like I described - wanting the project to proceed 'their' way. I've dealt with a few and I think I may be one of them.

FrikaC wrote:
at best, restrict us from what we want to make (our ideas) and at worst can drag us to the bottom

goldenboy wrote:
No. At best, your ideas become part of the hive mind. Sure, 99% of them will be dropped, but again in the best case, you'll understand why and agree with it, and have learned something from it.

In context, I'm saying that at best you're going to get your (at least one of) ideas thrown out on the team. Playing the odds (since 99% get thrown out), you're sure to have at least one idea lost. It's an incentive to working on your own project, this is why we had/have a thousand people each with their own project.
It would be great if there was a person who had enough leadership cred to get everyone to fall in line and not feel rejected when their ideas are stomped on, but unfortunately Obama doesn't make Quake mods.

Back to top |

Baker Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1538 |

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |

The strongest benefit of open source is that it tends to reduce fighting in a team. If a resource isn't exclusive, the direction that it takes isn't an "end of the world" situation to most of the participants who don't get everything they want.
The strongest benefit of closed source (or stagnated but stable development) is that it gives people time to get to used to something before it changes and really develop a rapport with it. Standards.

Back to top |

Display posts from previous:

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion | All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2004 phpBB Group