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!

Penumbra: Overture Goes Open Source

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the seeing-the-code-won't-dry-your-pants dept.

Linux Business 74

As promised when the Humble Indie Bundle hit $1 million in donations the other day, indie developer Frictional Games has released Penumbra: Overture's source code. "The code for Penumbra: Overture is a continuation of the one used for the tech demo + some addition for the not so long lived Robo Hatch project. It also contains some code from Unbirth, giving it quite some history." The release also includes the HPL1 engine. "This is engine that has powered all of the Penumbra games and it even includes the stuff used to create the 2D platformer Energetic. The engine code was started in December 2004 and was actively developed until early 2008." The repositories are available at github.

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

Your mom is open source (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220560)

There, I said it.

Re:Your mom is open source (2, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220574)

Wouldn't that be YOU are open source since you're compiled from your parents?

Re:Your mom is open source (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220600)

No, he is the result of fscking open source!

Re:Your mom is open source (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220634)

Not if he's BSD

Re:Your mom is open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220616)

Well your face is open sores!

git (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220702)

People are gaga over git. You shouldn't be. Git is a decentralized vcs, which means it's easy for someone to download the source, make modifications, but keep those modifications private. FREE software shouldn't be like that. FREE sfotware is about giving back your changes to the community, to the centralized repository. Git is dangerous for free software.

I know Linus Torvaldes is your hero, but let's be honest. Before git, his rcs of choice was the non-FREE BitKeeper.

Fact: Git is bad. Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

Re:git (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220762)

FREE software shouldn't be like that. FREE sfotware is about giving back your changes to the community, to the centralized repository. Git is dangerous for free software.

Where is it defined that free software is about giving back your changes?

If you want truly free software, then you have to take the both worlds and accept that people aren't required to contribute back. Even less so if they just keep those modifications private and to themself, which even GPL allows. It isn't really any better than proprietary software if you also want to make restrictions and demands on how you can use free and/or open source software.

Re:git (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220786)

Git is a decentralized vcs... ...Git is dangerous for free software.

Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

Oh you...

Re:git (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220880)

I love people who rant about freedom as they try to tell other people what to do.

Where Freedom Is. (2, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220958)

There are different places for the Freedoms. The GPL squarely puts the Freedom with the end-user. That person will always be free to receive distributed updates to their software as long as interest and activity for it exists. Another place for Freedom is in contrast with a BSD'ish license putting the Freedom with the software itself. That software is free to use anywhere without guaranteeing the end-user receive free updates. A consequence of the software itself having the Freedom is that the end-user is not guaranteed improvements.

Re:Where Freedom Is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221074)

The end user isn't ever guaranteed improvements no matter the license. You seem to think that the GPL is some magical bind that forces people to contribute to projects licensed under it. You could write something, put it out under GPL and not a single person has to update or maintain it.

Re:Where Freedom Is. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222052)

That's absurd, everybody knows that the GPL only magically gets people laid.

Re:Where Freedom Is. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221144)

"That person will always be free to receive distributed updates to their software as long as interest and activity for it exists."

That is no more true for GPL'ed software than for software of any other license. As long as interest exists, it exists.

"That software is free to use anywhere without guaranteeing the end-user receive free updates."

No different than the GPL. Nowhere in the GPL is there any assurance of future GPL releases of anything.

"A consequence of the software itself having the Freedom is that the end-user is not guaranteed improvements."

The software itself having "the Freedom", eh? It appears no part of your comment makes sense.

Re:Where Freedom Is. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32250796)

The GPL squarely puts the Freedom with the end-user.

Well, and perhaps more poignantly, the GPL makes no distinction between the "end user" and the "developer." That is, the so-called end user might just as easily be a developer as well. In the Free Software world, there is no "priesthood" that develops software and no flock of users-as-supplicants. Everybody is just a person using a computer, and everyone has equal right to do with the software as they see fit -- just so long as they agree not to deny that right to anybody else.

Re:git (1, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221764)

People are egotistic, as always. You ask them if they're qualified to pick a president and they respond with what they're entitled to.

I guess it's a natural consequence of allowing everyone to think they're special.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32223810)

I love how open OSS communities are, they've always been so welcoming and patient when I've asked a noob question in a forum or IRC channel.

Re:git (1)

BillPalm (1621343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32262012)

First of all, do not Chanel Bags [purelife-bags.com] hurry when buying, Footwear is the matter of fashion and style. It is Prada bags [purelife-bags.com] advisable the online shop. You can even refer to magazines and fashion blogs to know what type of are in fashion. Gucci bags [purelife-bags.com] For instance, women choose strappy for summer Coach Bags [purelife-bags.com] and ankle for the winter. The price also play an Louis Vuitton Bags [purelife-bags.com] important role in shopping.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220886)

Git is open-source. If you don't like the way it works, take the source and fork it.

Not that I agree with your stupid misunderstanding of free software.

Stupid fucking git.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221300)

The problem isn't the git source code, it's the git philosophy of de-centralization. Decentralization encourages people to keep their modifications private. That is very bad, hackers, very bad.

Re:git (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221734)

Whats wrong with that? Even Richard Stallman's license allows this. Plus, no one is forcing you to use git for your code. If you have a problem with it, use a different vcs.

Re:git (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32223028)

This is complete and utter bullshit. Centralised VCS also encourages people to keep their modifications private, because most of them won't have commit privileges anyway.

Re:git (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221334)

People are gaga over git. You shouldn't be. Git is a decentralized vcs... Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

Let me translate: "Don't use git. Git is bad because it's a decentralized VCS. Use one of these other decentralized VCSs instead."

Troll.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253282)

People are gaga over git. You shouldn't be. Git is a decentralized vcs... Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

Let me translate: "Don't use git. Git is bad because it's a decentralized VCS. Use one of these other decentralized VCSs instead."

Troll.

what the hell is he thinking and what's the dig on FREE software supposed to be. The last time I looked Git was free, installed it with apt.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221436)

FREE software is about doing what I want with it, but thanks.

Re:git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221558)

Fact: Git is bad. Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

Retard. Both bzr and mercurial are distributed revision control systems.

-1 self-contradictory. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#32223200)

Git is a decentralized vcs, which means it's easy for someone to download the source, make modifications, but keep those modifications private.... Use bzr or mercury if you like FREE software.

What's mercury? (Maybe you meant mercurial?) And both bzr and mercurial are both just as decentralized.

I know Linus Torvaldes is your hero, but let's be honest. Before git, his rcs of choice was the non-FREE BitKeeper.

And before that, his rcs of choice was none at all, because that's how much of a difference a dvcs makes over non-distributed.

FREE sfotware is about giving back your changes to the community, to the centralized repository.

Free "sfotware" doesn't exist. Free software is about giving your changes back to the community however you want, including not at all if you so desire. If I want to fork and develop on my own, in private, it's going to be very hard to merge that stuff back if I use svn. If I use Git, such private branches might be contributed back one day, and much more easily.

Oh, and you're offtopic. Guess what: It's free software now, so if you're that terrified of Git, go fork it in svn. See if anyone cares enough to follow you...

Oh, that's right, you're a hypocrite -- you won't use svn, you'll use bzr or hg, which function exactly like git, only slower.

Useless summary (-1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220704)

I've never heard of this game and neither the summary nor TFA actually told me anything about it. According to Wikipedia, it's a first-person adventure game with a focus on Newtonian physics, improvised weapons, and no firearms. Is it really too much effort for the person writing the summary to bother saying that?

Re:Useless summary (2, Informative)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220750)

Penumbra Official Site [penumbragame.com]
Penumbra Wiki [wikipedia.org] Quote from wikipedia:

The game's main focus is on exploration and classic adventure game object interaction: examining and collecting objects and using them to solve puzzles.

Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32224912)

I now have to decide whether to waste my time searching and googling about this game because I don't know what it's main genre is. Source code is source code, but people have got to know for what kind of games. I don't want source code for a RTS if I'm developing an FPS. I did see "it even includes the stuff used to create the 2D platformer Energetic.", so that's a start. I've always wanted some 2D platformer code.

Re:Summary (2, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32225172)

It's an FPS, but not quite traditional. You get a little hand cursor that can be used to pick up an manipulate objects. The genre is horror, and Penumbra delivers. Freaky game. Worth the money.

Re:Summary (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32226550)

IOW it's an engine for character-driven 3D games.

Re:Useless summary (4, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220790)

I've never heard of this game and neither the summary nor TFA actually told me anything about it. According to Wikipedia, it's a first-person adventure game with a focus on Newtonian physics, improvised weapons, and no firearms. Is it really too much effort for the person writing the summary to bother saying that?

The story isn't really about what kind of game Penumbra is... It's about the fact that the source code was opened up. With the source code now available, the content of the original game is somewhat irrelevant as people will (hopefully) use the code to develop their own games.

Additionally, this is not the first mention of Penumbra or the Indie Bundle here on Slashdot. One of the previous stories is mentioned (and linked-to) right in the summary.

I mean... Sure, they could have included a description of the game... And they could have provided a description of the Indie Bundle as well... And defined what Open Source means... And what github is... And maybe some of that stuff might have been useful... But at some point it just seems kind of excessive.

The story is about the code, and they provided a description of the code.

Re:Useless summary (1)

trytoguess (875793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222368)

That's true, but people do get curious, and like the GP mentioned adding the info is such a trivial thing. I mean to make an analogy, lets say (god forbid) Linus Torvalds died. I don't think anyone would say we shouldn't talk about his life anymore because as a corpse he's no longer relevant to the living.

Re:Useless summary (1)

siphbowl (1220872) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220808)

Agreed it's a useless summary - but the humble indie bundle has been widely hyped, penumbra is part of it, and it's linked right there in the summary. If anyone out there hasn't played it, I highly recommend giving penumbra a quick play through- it's genuinely one of the scariest games I've played since Dead Space, and worth throwing a few dollars to charity for. All of the other games in the bundle are due to be open sourced, too - I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the back ends of aquaria and world of goo.

Re:Useless summary (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220982)

To be fair the game has been on /. a few times before, but it is annoying when summaries do not give general details about what they are talking about.

Re:Useless summary (3, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222080)

This is Slashdot, not the AP. Editors should assume a familiarity with a wide swath of technological, scientific and gaming elements for the large majority of their readers. For the rest, seriously just read the article, ask a question or Google it. There is no reason to complain on a forum that the description of something is vague, you are on the frigging Internet.

Re:Useless summary (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221250)

Mods, please mod my post either offtopic or troll.

In honor of Penumbra (one of the creepiest and most atmospheric games ever created) being a part of the Humble Indie Bundle, I wrote up a review. [livingwithanerd.com] I highly suggest you play it, it's a fantastic series.

review counterpoint (mild spoilers) (3, Interesting)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32223516)

As a counterpoint, I'd just like to weigh in with my opinion that the second and third in the series are rather disappointing. I kept playing because the plot was, indeed, engrossing. There is no question there: they've absolutely nailed the video game "port" of a good Lovecraft story. There is no doubt that they are worth the price; however, I felt a bit cheated with the sequels. The plot begs you to continue, but the gameplay becomes a tedious challenge instead of a nerve-tingling joy. Overall, the series succeeds on the strength of its plot, despite gameplay; whereas the first entry masterfully combined them both.

Part two, Black Plague, replaces a menacing enemy with an outright frustrating one, and its puzzles begin to wear thin. The horror in the first part, Overture, comes from a series of uncannily well-executed escalations: at the moment you are finally exasperated from running from an enemy, circumstances turn in your favor. As you acclimate to this, another enemy is introduced requiring more adaptation. This staging was nothing less than a stroke of genius.

In contrast, for the entirety of Black Plague you are completely defenseless. This would be OK were it not for the scripting/AI of your sole enemy. Occasionally you may even need to engage and run away from an enemy since they are blocking a goal. Repeated ad nauseam, this is not scary; it's just annoying. These frustrations are also present in Overture, but as an exception. In Black Plague they have become the rule.

Likewise the stealth-orienteering of Overture has been mostly replaced by puzzles which are either insulting straightforward or require rather silly, contrived solutions in the spirit of Sierra games (although simpler). Certain sections require the use of a (filth-encrusted) gas mask which serves, gameplay-wise, only to make life more difficult by obscuring your vision. Again, this is neither challenging nor scary; it's just annoying. To add insult to injury, your character has in his inventory a bottle of alcohol and a rag which cannot be used to clean the damned thing; you see, they are for use in a puzzle later on. Further, as in most physics-puzzle games, the promise of "multiple solutions" reminds one of the hillbilly bar in Blues Brothers which played both kinds of music, country and western. Indeed, one may cross an obstacle using either a stack of crates or a stack of barrels.

With the final entry of the series, the developers seem to have finally accepted defeat in the combat/stealth genre; it's a pure first-person puzzle-platformer which, to put it mildly, deviates somewhat radically from the spirit of the first two and borrows quite a bit from the spirit of Portal (to which there is a bit of an homage in the second level), as a somewhat deranged alien intelligence guides the character through a sequence of tests. At least it's passable gameplay, but the gameplay and the plot have at long last become totally orthogonal.

Re:review counterpoint (mild spoilers) (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32223694)

Great points, all. Thank you for your insight, as I've not yet had a chance to play the third one yet. From what you have said, I haven't really missed much :/

Re:review counterpoint (mild spoilers) (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32224042)

Yes, it just reiterates the plot of the first two with some variation. Although of course the series cleverly uses deja vu as a motif, so repetition is not only excusable but fundamental to the story. I'll have to remember that trick if I ever write a game. ;-)

I played it mostly because I hoped it would get better; and, hey, it was at least a semi-decent linux game. Save it for a rainy day.

Re:Useless summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221908)

fixing moderation slipup, sorry

Damn, wanted to mod you underrated... you didn't deserve the heaping overrated

Re:Useless summary (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32225166)

Buy the trilogy pack for $20. Now. It's worth every penny and runs on Windows, OS X, and Linux. I didn't care much for the third one, but the first was creepy and the second was even more so. I usually pirate games when I can, but not these. I'm going to preorder their Amnesia game as well. Cross-platform indie developer actually making good games? They get my money.

Not the whole game (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220812)

First of all it's great that they have done this, any contribution to open source is a nice thing to have.

With that said I question their motives it seems to me like they're using this release as an excuse to not have to provide support for their old games. Also it's not even the whole game code that is open source..

AI for the infected, GUI elements, etc are all missing, but all needed to implement them is present in the engine code (in case anybody is up for the challenge).

That seems to me like a big chunk of the game is missing, no AI, no GUI.. pretty much most of the "game" part.

With that said the OALWrapper does sound interesting, I may have to look into that in more detail.

Either way thanks for the code frictional games and also for making your games work on Linux. I can't wait to see what kind of games I will be able to buy from you in the future... because no one else makes linux games :(

Re:Not the whole game (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220862)

Nice job selectively quoting to be misleading. Here is the entirety of that quote:

"It is also important to note that Penumbra: Oveture source will not run Black Plague or Requiem. AI for the infected, GUI elements, etc are all missing, but all needed to implement them is present in the engine code (in case anybody is up for the challenge)."

In other words, this is the entirety of the source code for Penumbra: Oveture. AI, GUI, etc are all present. What it isn't is the sourcecode for the next two games in the series, Black Plague and Requiem.

*Note that the art resources have not been open sourced. You should still purchase the game if you want to play it, but now you can build your own binary. This is basically what iD has done in the past with their old Quake engines.

Re:Not the whole game (1)

evJeremy (1721378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220944)

The physics engine (Newton) is also missing since it's non-free software. One of the devs says that implementing bullet shouldn't be too hard, though.

Re:Not the whole game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221090)

Newton is free as in beer but not free as in speech

Re:Not the whole game (2, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221364)

I didn't selectively quote. It states three facts.

It won't run on their later games and the AI for infected plus GUI elements are missing.

You're failing to see the full stop at the end of the sentence.

Either way I checked the source code..

GameEnemy_Worm.h
GameEnemy_Spider.h
GameEnemy_Dog.h

No AI for the human infected.

Thinking about it the author could mean that Human AI and GUI elements that are attached to mesh objects aren't included because they were specific to the later games, but then I can't really remember the features of all three games.

Nice job selectively quoting to be misleading.

Yes, of course, I did it all on purpose. What a fucking asshole..

Re:Not the whole game (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221568)

Penumbra:Overture had no human infected. It only had dogs, spiders and worms. Humans come in during Black Plague.

Re:Not the whole game (3, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221984)

It won't run on their later games because the AI for infected plus GUI elements are missing.

there, fixed.

It lacks GUI elements added in later games. It also adds AI for creatures found in later games - all three enemies found in Overture are included. (one of the humans in the Overture is never seen, the other is strictly scripted, no AI)

Re:Not the whole game (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32223388)

Why don't you go download and build the source? Works just fine for me.

Re:Not the whole game (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221780)

Note: you only have to pay 1 cent for a bundleof games including Overture.

Re:Not the whole game (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221782)

AI, GUI, etc are all present.

What part of

AI for the infected, GUI elements, etc are all missing,

don’t you understand?

It being possible to implement them, does not mean they are present. The interface that the AI needs to control the infected, plus the inner functions that the UI triggers, are there. But the whole UI layer itself and the actual AI scripts that use the interfaces are missing.

Re:Not the whole game (2, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222210)

From the article, as a paragraph all to itself:

It is also important to note that Penumbra: Oveture source will not run Black Plague or Requiem. AI for the infected, GUI elements, etc are all missing, but all needed to implement them is present in the engine code (in case anybody is up for the challenge).

These two sentences comprise the entire paragraph. Thus, logically, hey are related. If you were not previously familar with the games, then you should understand that there are 3 separate games, Overture is only one of them, and it is the only one of them for which sourcecode is claimed to have been released. As explained by other posters, Oveture never had AI for infected humans in the first place.

Don't make me have to jump into a deeper explanation of the meaning of these sentences, I am not your 2nd grade english teacher.

Re:Not the whole game (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220974)

First of all it's great that they have done this, any contribution to open source is a nice thing to have.

With that said I question their motives it seems to me like they're using this release as an excuse to not have to provide support for their old games. Also it's not even the whole game code that is open source..

AI for the infected, GUI elements, etc are all missing, but all needed to implement them is present in the engine code (in case anybody is up for the challenge).

That seems to me like a big chunk of the game is missing, no AI, no GUI.. pretty much most of the "game" part.

That is grossly unfair to say. They released the engine, which would constitute a great deal of the game logic. I'd say that's pretty significant. Especially given how unique their games are.
Given an example, if let's say Windows kernel was opened without the Windowing system, GUI elements, etc. Would you consider that without most of the "OS" part?
Other examples: Unreal engine, Quake engine, FreeCiv, ScummVM
And it's not just one, but for 4 games, with possibly more planned. http://www.wolfire.com/humble

And besides, this way of opening the code is very much in the "heart of the GPL". Producing software that is open, and selling your own content on top of it.

And then there are the other factors, like the for charity part, and etc.
All in all, I don't see where you get off detracting from their contribution like that. Even if it's just a little.

Re:Not the whole game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221382)

It's a small team, and this isn't Counter-Strike. It's a single-player mystery game in three parts, and AFAIK people aren't really modding it. So what do you mean by "support?"

If there was any misdirection it's this: they were probably going to release their code eventually, but they made it contingent on HIB raising a million dollars in order to support charity. What horrible people, right?

They are working on a game called Amnesia that looks to be every bit as good as Penumbra: http://www.amnesiagame.com/

Re:Not the whole game (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32224762)

I never criticized them for releasing the game as open source. In fact I did the opposite. I praised them.

Re:Not the whole game (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221954)

With that said I question their motives it seems to me like they're using this release as an excuse to not have to provide support for their old games.

sounds like a fair trade to me. They get to stop supporting it, we get the source. Everyone wins. Who cares if we don't get game assets, or the engine to the new games? Maybe if those games run their course, we'll get the new code, and the best parts of it can be merged in, or the best mods can be merged to the new tree.

Re:Not the whole game (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222124)

I thought the point of this was that now other developers have a new toy to play with. Perhaps create their own games using the engine or mod and extend it into something that's hardly recognizable at all. By any measure what they've provided is indeed very generous.

Re:Not the whole game (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32231502)

With that said I question their motives it seems to me like they're using this release as an excuse to not have to provide support for their old games.

I think their motive is to increase their businesses revenues (which is just fine of course, they are a business after all, and that's what businesses are supposed to do). Cheap (not free, because open sourcing requires a bit of extra work, which isn't free) PR is probably the main motive.

Only the engine was released (1)

ArcRiley (737114) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221348)

These games from the Humble Indy Bundle have not been released under a free license, nor does it appear they will be. All that is being released are their engines. There are already dozens of free software game engines available with no free software games which use them.

While this is a nice gesture, and does raise some awareness for software freedom, its important to point out that the games themselves are still very much proprietary.

Re:Only the engine was released (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221554)

Boy, nothing is ever good enough for you fucking people is it? I think if they hand delivered it to you, source, docs, and all, and said, "we give it to you, your highness, free and clear. do whatever you will with it", you would STILL find something to bitch about. "Oh, great. Yeah it's free and all, but they wrote it in a language my feeble brain can't understand. Why didn't they write it in Java, the official language of dudes and dorks?"

Re:Only the engine was released (2, Insightful)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221748)

That's the point. Now go do something with the engine. If they released everything, including art assets, then they lose their entire money stream. You download the engine for your own projects, but you still buy the game to play their game. You're just as bad as pirates who expect games to be completely free.

Re:Only the engine was released (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32225904)

You're just as bad as pirates who expect games to be completely free.

I think you'll find that their expectations are generally met.

Re:Only the engine was released (4, Insightful)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221898)

These games from the Humble Indy Bundle have not been released under a free license, nor does it appear they will be. All that is being released are their engines.

Following the ID tradition.

There are already dozens of free software game engines available with no free software games which use them.

And because of Engine only releases Open Source developers have been able to produce a host of new games. From the Quake engines alone we have Tremulous, Warsow, Alien Arena just to name a few. [associatedcontent.com]

Having a proven Engine under your Project allows developers to focus on Assets and Level Design and tweaking the gameplay to a much larger degree than is possible if developing the engine as well.

There is another benefit to the original developers and users in that their games survive onto the next era of computing and gaming devices.(iPhones, Androids and insert your favorite tablet device here)

Re:Only the engine was released (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222208)

Exactly! I would also like to point out that like the iD engines the Penumbra engine is already multi-platform and runs on osx/linux/win.

I don't know how anyone can see this release as anything other than a good thing. /shrug

Re:Only the engine was released (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32223100)

There are already dozens of free software game engines available with no free software games which use them.

Yes. That's because there's a tangible benefit to having the code be open source (it can be tailored to individual distros or ported to new platforms), whereas the main effect of making the game itself open source would be that freeloaders would get to play.

Re:Only the engine was released (2, Informative)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32224618)

iD set the standard for this and it's worked very well for us all. They released the code base for doom minus the lousy proprietary sound system and I can now play doom or freedoom with several engines. They're release the quake series of engines as open source and there are several very good games made with them.

this FP foR GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221616)

,learn what mistakes the accounting to the original I type this. [tux.org]? Are you

;D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32222346)

;D
~
http://www.vesq.net/

Depth-of-field method? (1)

Prune (557140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222826)

Has anyone looked at the source to figure out what algorithm they use to get the depth-of-field effect?

Re:Depth-of-field method? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32224120)

Check this [youtube.com] vid, it's explained here:

Re:Depth-of-field method? (1)

Prune (557140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32225412)

They're just gaussian blurring in the distance though; that doesn't give realistic DOF which quite different from a blur and creates bokeh effect. The video also doesn't describe how they deal with artifacts due to pixel bleeding and depth discontinuities that are the pitfalls of blurring.

Re:Depth-of-field method? (1)

soppsa (1797376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32237570)

That is from the furry weirdos over at Wolfire games, who make some very very ugly games. (At least in the 90s, 3d games had some artistic flare...) I'd be much more curious to see how the Frictional guys do it...

Humble Indy Bundle (1)

elfazerino (1791654) | more than 4 years ago | (#32225058)

Got my Humble Indy Bundle just the other day... it was off my radar for some reason, but a fellow game developer pointed it out to me. I was impressed with not just the collection of games, but the pay-what-you-want system that allows you to split your contribution between the developers and a couple of charities in whatever ratio you wish. On top of that, the games are pretty fun. I am really enjoying World of Goo! Glad to see that the developers are open-sourcing their code, and hopefully inspiring some other young developers to take a look at the code and try their hand at the fun and rewarding world of game development.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?