Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

0 A.D. Goes Open Source

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the good-on-ya dept.

Programming 88

DoubleRing writes "Wildfire Games has announced that it will be moving its previously closed development process for 0 A.D. to open source. All code will be released under the GPL and all art under CC-BY-SA. 0 A.D. is a historically-based RTS, and while it's not yet complete, this trailer is purportedly actual gameplay footage. With a codebase of over 150k lines of C++ code plus 25k lines in development tools, this is looking like a fairly promising entrant into the open source RTS field. The screenshots are definitely pretty, to say the least."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is the problem! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28705697)

Waiting over 2000 years for the port is not a sign of success.

What a great thing for Open Source! (1)

isolovelinux (1598555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705733)

With this game Open Sourced, it's just one more great the the Community has at its disposal. Perhaps some algorithm in the code will enlighten someone's kernel performance decisions, or maybe just give Linus a break between patch audits :):) Go Open Source!

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705939)

I am curious to see how open sourcing the game will improve it.

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (4, Funny)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706105)

The first map hack patch will be out in 1 hour instead of 8 hours.

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706629)

Coders with enough time and skills will look at the code. If they will find things that can be improved they'll improve them, if they find things that can improve other games they will port them. Open sourcing stuff is like allowing people to communicate, before we have each person and his/her own idea, after we have each one evaluating others perspectives. That's how human knowledge progresses.

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (3, Insightful)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28712365)

That sort of approach is wonderful for science, since science has a target: the true state and function of the universe. But it's not so simple for something that amounts to a work of art like a game. There is not an absolute target; the target is arbitrary fiction. Without good central leadership the artistic expression risks becoming fragmented. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible for the open approach to work, but suggesting that it's equivalent to the progress of human knowledge is missing an important complication.

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (2, Interesting)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707237)

They'll be able to get more precious lines of code in.

I wonder how many lines of code slashbot editors feel is enough to make it a triple-A title.

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (1)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 5 years ago | (#28717203)

They'll be able to get more precious lines of code in.

I wonder how many lines of code slashbot editors feel is enough to make it a triple-A title.

Oh, for a spare mod point! :)

Re:What a great thing for Open Source! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706177)

Hahaha, excellent

wow (1)

spikeb (966663) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705763)

pretty fucking sweet :) thanks Wildfire!

Wow, quite impressive looking game (4, Interesting)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705775)

I'm very impressed by the graphics of a game that was never meant to be commercial. I haven't spent much time looking for open source games lately but from the screenshots this looks a lot better than free civ.

Re:Wow, quite impressive looking game (5, Funny)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705873)

That's a bit of an understatement. Most people would probably agree that Nethack looks a lot better than Freeciv.

Re:Wow, quite impressive looking game (3, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705915)

I don't know. My 80x24 serial terminal does not allow me to play Freeciv.

Re:Wow, quite impressive looking game (1)

spikeb (966663) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706157)

there's no text client?

Re:Wow, quite impressive looking game (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707047)

If they make the gameplay identical to Civ 2 it will be better than ANY civ!

Could it be Glest? (3, Insightful)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708931)

Glest is OpenSource, too...and if you change the textures on the people and the 'world' a little, you'd have a pretty nice start at a different game. Just another thing to love about OpenSource.

Re:Wow, quite impressive looking game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28711857)

It looks a lot like Rome: Total War to me (not that that's a bad thing). I wonder if they borrowed some textures or something.

What the devil? (2, Interesting)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705843)

There never was a 0 AD... it went from 1 BC to 1 AD... Did I wake up in an alternate universe? Am I in Star Trek?

Re:What the devil? (3, Informative)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705953)

mmm, the date on the calendat never was 1 BC. :)

Re:What the devil? (3, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708323)

mmm, the date on the calendar never was 1 BC. :)

Nor was it ever AD 1 in any sense other than retroactively. Wednesday, the 28th of August, Diocletian 247 was immediately followed by Thursday, the 1st of January, AD 532. (The Diocletian calendar started with August 29.)

Retroactively, 1 AD, the 1st of January was a Saturday, so the last day of BCE was a Friday. TGIF! (cal 1 1)

Determining what calendaring systems were observed contemporaneously with our CE 1/1/1 and the corresponding dates thereto is left as an exercise for archæochronologists.

Re:What the devil? (4, Funny)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710939)

Really? So what about this "Authentic Roman Coin(tm)" I have that is clearly stamped "34 BC"?

(Apologies to Terry Pratchett for mangling his joke.)

Re:What the devil? (4, Insightful)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#28705975)

If you would read the FAQ [wildfiregames.com] :

Are you aware that the year 0 A.D. did not technically exist?
Indeed. Think of 0 A.D. as a hypothetical time period that never existed. It is a snapshot in time where major players of the classical ages were placed in an observatory. This is your chance to see them 'duke it out'. Your job as the player is to create the hypothetical and recreate the historical.

It's called suspension of disbelief, and there are times when it's a good thing. Situations may include books, movies, video games, and other works of fiction.

Re:What the devil? (0, Troll)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706627)

It's called suspension of disbelief, and there are times when it's a good thing.

If I, the player, have to actively suspend belief at the expense of my self esteem, the entertainment has failed.

Re:What the devil? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707343)

If utilising your imagination leads to automatic loss of all of your self esteem, perhaps you need more self esteem.

Re:What the devil? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707465)

If utilising your imagination leads to automatic loss of all of your self esteem, perhaps you need more self esteem.

My point is that if a work of entertainment requires me to imagine myself to be insultingly dumb without a good explanation then immersion simply fails.

I'm not saying you can't have a plot device to fill in the gaps or a universe that has fantastical things, but if we have a setting that requires me to forget the laws of universe without some crutch (either magic or sci-fi) then I'm not going to follow the story.

Which is why it is easier for me to follow Harry Potter than it is to say follow Speed or your average action flick.

Re:What the devil? (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707911)

Fine. They magically created the concept of "0 A.D." to illustrate that while attempting to be historically accurate, it is still essentially fiction and fantasy ultimately designed to be fun. How's that? Good enough for the ol' ego? Okay, wait, I've got a better one...

The only reason there wasn't a year "0 A.D." is because the people who created the calendars back then weren't as smart as you are and didn't fully understand the concept of zero-offsets, and this game gives you the chance to see what an ancient civilization -- including its calendar -- would have been like if they had been ruled by someone so amazingly intelligent that mentioning "0 A.D." in the context of the real history that was not ruled by their stunning intellect is, to them, insultingly dumb.

There ya go. That has to be at least as good as invisible entryways to magic universes, which I should point out is implicitly implying that you, a stupid muggle, are too dumb to see even when crowds of rambunctious children vanish into them.

Re:What the devil? (4, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708483)

The only reason there wasn't a year "0 A.D." is because the people who created the calendars back then weren't as smart as you are and didn't fully understand the concept of zero-offsets

Actually, retroactively re-dating the dates before AD 1 wasn't considered until the Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius, used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, finished in 731. In this same history he also used another Latin term, "ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era, thus establishing the standard of not using a year zero (i.e. ordinal, not cardinal numbers), even though his work did show that he did grasp the concept of zero.

Re:What the devil? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708545)

thus establishing the standard of not using a year zero (i.e. ordinal, not cardinal numbers), even though his work did show that he did grasp the concept of zero.

Well damnit, man! You have to help me out here. I'm trying to save an ego!

Re:What the devil? (1)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710495)

Harry Potter!! That's a kids' book. And the writing and the plot shows it! Whenever they're in a tough spot they just make up some new magic spell - which for whatever reason wasn't used previously. The number one offence in HP was that fundamentally flawed game (Quiddich or something) where the game is over and won by the team that catches the flying ball. How ridiculous. Speed 1 (but definitely not Speed 2) was much more realistic and believable that HP, with more realistic characters. Anyway, why are you stuck in the 90s with that example?

Re:What the devil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28714347)

So, changing an insignificant detail about history (like having a 0 A.D. instead of 1 A.D.) is enough to insult your intelligence?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:What the devil? (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707997)

Who ever said this was a historically accurate RTS game anyway? I can just see you frothing at the mouth as you play God of War, I'm sure.

Re:What the devil? (3, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708131)

Well, the game developers did actually:
"How historically accurate will 0 A.D. be?
As much as we can make it. Our dedicated historians oversee all of our content to ensure it's historically accurate. Ancient history is a rich resource to exploit, and we hope to promote greater interest in it. However, there are various factors we have to take into account that won't allow us pure realism and authenticity:"(insert obvious things related to this being a game).

Which still makes "0 A.D." a silly thing to find requiring an ego-destroying suspension of disbelief. I think it works perfectly to both establish the game's period in history, and to designate that it is still outside of that history and somewhat fantastical as a game requires. The name works by assuming you are aware that the date does not exist, rather than assuming ignorance.

Re:What the devil? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707729)

It's called suspension of disbelief, and there are times when it's a good thing. Situations may include books, movies, video games, and other works of fiction.

You forgot elections.

Re:What the devil? (2, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710101)

you forgot marriage.

Re:What the devil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706069)

Technically, there never was a "1 A.D." either. A.D. is Latin for Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord;" as such, it appears before the year like so: A.D. 2009 (in the year of our Lord 2009). Though, admittedly, incorrect usage for long enough has probably rendered "2009 A.D." acceptable by now, even though it doesn't make sense (literally, "2009 in the year of our Lord").

Re:What the devil? (1)

jtev (133871) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708221)

Latin gramar is based on suffixes, not position. 2009 AD translates to English as "in the year of our lord 2009" because in English grammar position does matter, and that perserves the gramatical meaning of the phrase.

Re:What the devil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28710783)

You're saying that "2009 in the year of our Lord" doesn't make sense, but "in the year of our Lord 2009" does? Who is your Lord 2009 and why does he own the year?

Re:What the devil? (1)

denttford (579202) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706401)

Actually, if we are in nitpicking mode, it *goes* from 1BC/BCE to 1 AD/CE: no one at the time was having epoch rollover parties.
The calendar is a scale that remains in use, present tense is called for.*

*To avoid the next nitpick, it would be fine to say that the date went from 4 Oct 1582 to 15 Oct 1582 in Catholic Europe, because that was an event that happened.

Re:What the devil? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708565)

no one at the time was having epoch rollover parties.

Well, it is implied at least one person was celebrating it: Mary.

Whether it was intended to commemorate birth or conception was not made clear when the calendar was established centuries after the fact, but most calculations compared to historical references have that it is wrong anyway, from either 6 years too early or 4 years too late.

Re:What the devil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707041)

There never was a 0 AD... it went from 1 BC to 1 AD... Did I wake up in an alternate universe? Am I in Star Trek?

You're absolutely right that there wasn't a 0 AD. It went straight from 753 AUC to 754 AUC.

Re:What the devil? (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707247)

Astronomers use a year zero. It's one of those little irregularities that doesn't make any practical difference, since they're dealing with error margins orders of magnitude larger.

Re:What the devil? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710071)

See if Scotty will beam you up. If he doesn't answer your still screwed.

Re:What the devil? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28713939)

ISO 8601:2004 [wikipedia.org] defines the year prior to 1 to be year 0.

Re:What the devil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28714915)

That's great but no one gives a shit about a corrupt standards organisation. Come back to me when you find someone that can't be bought.

Lines of code.... (3, Insightful)

RisingROI (1011409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706047)

Any project that has progress measured in lines of code scares me a bit.

Re:Lines of code.... (2, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707063)

I'm not sure if it's a progress metric, just an interesting factoid. I think about it as a developer releasing 175 thousand lines of possible solutions to coding problems that game developers may face.

Re:Lines of code.... (3, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708629)

It's a metric used to give you a fair idea of how big something is. Like libraries of congress, or Olympic swimming pools. Naturally, just how much actual useful code there is per line varies.

  • If you set a physicist to write a program, he will give you 15,000 lines of Fortran code that (probably) runs reasonably fast, but is completely useless for any other task, and contains copypasta from previous programs in which what little comments there are make no sense what so ever in this new context, and 80% of the code has nothing to do with the current problem at all.
  • A professional programmer does the same in 150 lines of C++ code. It runs reasonably fast, and it's easy to use it to solve similar problems.
  • A computer scientist writes a koan-like one-liner in Haskell. It runs 100 times faster than any of the above solutions, but unfortunately, since nobody knows what the hell the code is doing, it's not re-usable.

Re:Lines of code.... (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710269)

I agree. The best code I ever worked on reduced in size exponentially from its inception because the participants were good enough to turn multiple functions into single functions that did what was needed. Give me a programmer that looks at my code, and doesn't laugh until they barf, then churns out 14 lines that does what sending a variable through 2 of my functions once did.

Oblig. "-2000 lines" quote (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28733569)

Back in 1982, Bill Atkinson also found it hard to measure progress by lines of code: "-2000 lines of code [folklore.org] "

Finally... (4, Funny)

rtilghman (736281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706063)

Access to the often overlooked and underappreciated "Make Dude" command. And on the lord created The Dude, and it was good.

http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/album_image.php?pic_id=10984 [wildfiregames.com]

-rt

Re:Finally... (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706293)

And on the lord created The Dude, and it was good.

http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/album_image.php?pic_id=10984 [wildfiregames.com]

-rt

Shut the fuck up, Donny.

Re:Finally... (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710303)

+1 uncontrollable laughter.

only 150k lines of code? (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706121)

The video is impressive, but I'm wondering if that's a typo. 150k lines of code would handle just the graphics engine- barely. Then there's the AI, the character objects, etc. Pretty dense coding..

Seth

Re:only 150k lines of code? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706241)

Apparently, there is no AI. It's not clear what else is missing, either.

Re:only 150k lines of code? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706599)

It's possible that the 150K are lines they wrote or something like that, and they used an existing engine?

(I'm just talking out of my ass here)

Re:only 150k lines of code? (1)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707837)

TFA says they didn't

There's roughly 150K lines of C++ for the game engine, and another 25K for editing tools. Gameplay scripting uses JavaScript. We build on top of low-level libraries (OpenGL, OpenAL, ENet, ...), not an existing game engine (like OGRE).

Re:only 150k lines of code? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708441)

150K lines of code for that is too much. There's probably all kinds of stuff that could be simplified.

Re:only 150k lines of code? (1)

Andor666 (659649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28779837)

Probably that 150k lines are... very long :P

Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (3, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706143)

RTS like this are my addiction - I've gotten more fun out of Civilization:Call to Power (under Linux) than just about any other game I have, and was saddened when no more Civ games came out for Linux. I have Civ for the PS3, but it's not quite the same: too video-gamey, not enough strategy.

This looks very interesting, and I plan on sending some money these guy's way when I get home tonight.

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706245)

I thought Civ: Call to Power was turn-based not RTS.

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706377)

True, but I was trying to simplify my post a bit - any strategy game, RTS or TBS, are like crack for me. There aren't many of either for Linux....

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706501)

Ah gotcha. I wish there were more strategy games across all platforms. About the only type of game made these days is FPS. I have all three major consoles and the only one that offers something different is the Wii, and it has possibly the best interface for an FPS game. That's strange. PC games once had more variety however. They seemed to be more "thinking" games while console games were more action-only. I wish the "quest" games would come back. My favorite RTS so far has been Empire Earth I and II. I wasn't a big fan of III.

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

kisak (524062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707817)

Check out Sacred [linuxgamepublishing.com] for a nice commercial RTS game for linux. Another excellent port from Linux Game Publishing [linuxgamepublishing.com] . Buy the game at Tux Games [tuxgames.com] .

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

Elshar (232380) | more than 5 years ago | (#28713635)

You know, I'd actually buy games from them, but after browsing their store, you start to almost feel like they're trying to rip you off. Like, Majesty Gold for $40? Really? I just got it off Impulse for $10 and I'm sure I could get it to run in wine if I wanted to. Poking around, none of the games have seem to have dropped in price.. Knights and Merchants (1998) $38?! Kohan (2001) $46? Oh, and Robin Hood: The Legend of Sherwood (2002, $40), and I got it from Stardock years ago in a bundle with Disciples 2 (2002, $45), and a host of other stuff for less than the combinination of the two.

I'd like to support Linux gaming, but if they want to compete, they need to work a little on the price side. I'm not going to pay 4-5 times the price just because they ported it to linux. I almost get the feeling they just buy some of these games (Like NWN, is that even a linux native binary?) off eBay/Amazon and throw them up there for more than retail price. You'd think they'd realize geeks can actually search the web for better deals.

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706381)

that's what you get for buying it on a console. You think console "gamers" have the attention span to play real Civ?

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706493)

I have Civ for the PS3, but it's not quite the same: too video-gamey

I had seen people complain about tabletop roleplaying games becoming "too videogamy" ...but complaining about a videogame being "too videogamy"? This just went meta

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28706643)

The question is: Where is the donate button?

Re:Oh dear.... (/me wipes drool) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28706869)

I can't believe how much digging I needed to do. The donation page is on their main developer page: wildfire games [wildfiregames.com]

Looks spectacular for an OSS game... (3, Interesting)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707157)

It looks like there's a fairly large amount of artwork involved in this game -- and it looks good; this isn't just programmer art! My only suggestion (if any of the authors read Slashdot) would be that in general the contrast and saturation of the various graphics could be increased. It'd make the graphics "pop" out a little more, and go a long way.

Re:Looks spectacular for an OSS game... (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28719921)

One thing I'm curious about, have they released the artwork, models, animations etc for this game? I am not sure if there is a large library of nicely developed/organized stuff like this out there to say use in your own game. I have myself finally started trying to write my own game in XNA, and while XNA really helps a newbie with the game logic, the "art" that i'm putting on the screen is just plain terrible.

Artwork has kinda been what's stopped me from figuring out game programming. While I know for me all the programming hurdles were something I could overcome and understand, I just can't train my hand to move in a straight line and look at the world correctly to flatten it and make it on paper. I can make your typical 'programmer art', ie use computer drawing prorgrams to their full extent, but nothing makes up for the artist's eye for color, composition and plain ol drawing experience.

I like how this game looks, and would be phenomenal to have a library of RTS models with their own animations and UV maps.

Re:Looks spectacular for an OSS game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28720391)

Yes (for the two civs that are relatively complete), licensed as CC-BY-SA. Textures are plain DDS. Meshes and animations are mostly in a simple custom binary format (documented on the wiki), and newer ones are COLLADA.

Game looks TERRIBLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707365)

Better off investing in Civ 4, and, if necessary, a COMPUTER THAN CAN RUN IT.

Any leftover money can be spent on snacks, beer, drugs, and expansion packs.

TITCR

Business model? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707487)

Don't get me wrong, I love that this is happening.

But how, exactly, are they planning to make money?

Re:Business model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707719)

By using it as a resume to get hired by a big game studio?

Re:Business model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28707953)

mod parent up.

I'm very intrigued about this as well.

Re:Business model? (1)

f0dder (570496) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708043)

Hopefully they're gonna use the Ubuntu business model.

Re:Business model? (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28711061)

They don't really address that, I can see it as:
1) Great advertising for the companies other games!
2) Get OSS development kickstarted on their engine, once they have a kickass engine they can release 100 A.D with proprietary game-data.
3) Package and see this in shops, the uninformed masses will probably buy it anyway, many of the informed will anyway just to support the company.

The don't really lose much either, so even if the gains are marginal the loss is just the cost of some bandwidth.

Only 150KLOC? Is that a typo? (1)

rhyre417 (919946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28707955)

Nice.
If it's 150kLoc, then you could base an operating system on it.

150k is excessive (1)

Well-Fed Troll (1267230) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708267)

After all, God wrote the universe in just 1 line of APL.

Re:150k is excessive (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#28717155)

10 HELLO WORLD

A history-based game in A.D. 0, huh? (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28708437)

Is that like a game based on historical ancient Japan involving battles with a giant enemy crab?

Actual game? (2, Interesting)

Taulin (569009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28710301)

How close is it to being an actual game? Just having an engine that runs simulation code (fighting, harvesting, etc) is actually just one of the many pieces. There still needs to be all the setup menus and tools for networking, map designs, and everything in between.

That's a lot of code (1)

sharp3 (1195261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28712171)

175,000+ lines of codes. Conservatively, there is 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code.[ref] [blogspot.com] Thus, there are at least 175 bugs in the game.

Re:That's a lot of code (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28719547)

175,000+ lines of codes. Conservatively, there is 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code.[ref] Thus, there are at least 175 bugs in the game.

There seems to be a bug in your math.

175,000+ loc * (10 bugs / 1,000 loc) = 1,750+ bugs

Re:That's a lot of code (1)

sharp3 (1195261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28720437)

doh

missing in the trailer: anything resembling sense (1)

whitroth (9367) | more than 5 years ago | (#28717257)

Lessee, a laundry list:
      1) nobody cuts down perfectly nice trees on the edge of their village
      2) the stone towers are completely at odds with the village
      3) THERE WOULDN'T BE A SINGLE ABLE-BODIED PERSON IN THE VILLAGE DOING *ANYTHING*
                other than either fighting, or running away from the battle.

    mark "nice graphics, though"

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?