In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Loduwijk wrote:
And your strange reasoning does not fit. Open source projects will spawn more games that use pre-existing code,

Y'know, I was being sarcastic when I said "Your attitude here seems to be that rips are created by open source projects, as if the released code packages themselves are creating the rips", but here you come right out and say it. Open-source projects do not automatically distribute clones of themselves, virus-like, throughout the hub; such clones are spawned by BYOND's user base, and in particular by newer programmers who are more eager to get something they can slap online (be it a full-featured open-source game, or just a two-line snippet for a chat verb) than they are to learn how to program. For sake of argument I will refer to these simply as "newbies", although it must be stressed that not all who are newbies in the conventional sense actually fall into this category. With that disclaimer, we can amend your statement to the much more accurate "Newbies will spawn more games that use pre-existing code".

My point was not that open source projects spontaneously generate clones of themselves, it is the degenerate people who lurk about that multiply them. Open source projects spawn more games, perhaps not directly but they do usher them in.

DarkView does raise a relevant point by suggesting that such newbies simply go through all available open-source projects one by one and spawn a knockoff of each, but I believe that he vastly overstates the impact of this effect. For one thing, each newbie has a limited amount of time to invest, and despite appearances these knock-off projects often do represent a fairly considerable amount of time investment. For another, I tend to be optomistic enough to believe that most people grow out of this phase in a pretty reasonable amount of time--and even if they don't, many of them will wander away from BYOND on their own. Rather than saying that the number of knock-off games is completely independent of the number of open-source projects, I suppose it would be more accurate for me to say that there's simply a saturation point beyond which open-source availability is no longer an issue--but this happens to be a very low point, especially since it's possible to observe newbies regurgitating multiple knock-offs of the same single open-source project in the absence of others to work off of.

Moreover, suppose that you managed to completely eliminate all open-source projects, thereby preventing any knock-offs at all from being produced. What do you gain? That's not going to stop the newbies--they're still going to slap together crappy games from whatever is available (the examples in the reference guide, if nothing else) and choke the hub with them. Encouraging open-source games provides a more constructive outlet for this impulse.

Why would you want to eliminate open source projects? Why would you want to prevent the knock-offs? Why would you want to stop newbies from making their own games? None of those things should be done. Instead, it might be beneficial if some measures were taken so that those all don't clog the main areas of the hub; and that is what we are talking about. There is no need to squash them, but it would be nice to brush some of them to the side.

The same principle applies to hub divisions, as well. Sure, you could shove open source projects into their own section--with largely the same result. If you swept all of the "ICON TRADER EXTREEEEMZ" and "DBZ OMFG ULTRA (NOT A ZETA RIP REALLY!!!!)" off of the main hub listings (which would either require complete cooperation from users, or a much heavier hub-monitoring workload), do you really think that the hub would get any better? Maybe for a day or two, until the authors of said games start working on "all-new original" projects to put up on the hub. Getting a newbie to stop making "rips" isn't going to magically make them any more able to produce unique, quality games.

Yes I do believe the hub would get better. If there was an Open Source section and some of the people were responsible enough to use it (Many people take credit for others work, but there are also many who are responsible and admit their games are based off of others' code) then that would reduce the number of spin offs in the main sections of the hub. The more people are responsible enough to use that section the better the section makes the main parts of the hub, and it would be beneficial if even only a third or a quarter of the total rips and/or spin-offs went there.

If there was a section for people to put these types of games, it might make more people more apt to admit what they have done as well, thus improving the situation even farther.

Now if you're looking at the prospect of an open source channel from a purely organizational standpoint (rather than the standpoint of trying to screen out shoddy projects), there would definitely be some merit to some sort of "open-source" or "based on" designation filled out on a semi-voluntary basis, but actually creating a seperate channel for it seems rather silly--what player is going to log onto the BYOND Games site and say to themselves "Gee, I want to play a game that's open-source!" They might be looking for a particular game which happens to be open-source, or a certain modded version of an open-sourced game, but having them go looking for it in an "Open Source" channel would be just as arbitrary as creating channels for "Games with the letter 'K' in their title", "Games that were created on a Tuesday", or any number of other silly categories. I'm all for the encouragement of (and even some potential enforcement of) hub channels or even completely independent websites for specific games and their open source "communities", but a blanket "Open Source" channel is just arbitrary and capricious.

That is completely rediculous. Organizing games into an Open Source channel is nothing like organising games into a "Contains the letter K" channel. It makes complete sense to have an open source channel for people to browse through if they have looked through most of the original games of their favored genre. In fact, it makes more sense than having an unpublished section for games live, I would much rather play a modified game than a bugged up, half finished game.
In response to Crispy
Crispy wrote:
You're entirely missing the point. Rippers will always create rips. If there's only Zeta for them to rip, then you end up with a hundred Zeta rips. This is obviously bad, especially as Zeta sucks so much (both in gameplay, and programming-wise). However, if there are fifty different open-source projects, there will still be around a hundred rips, because there are no more people to work on them than there were before; and there will be, on average, only two rips of each game. Which is vastly, VASTLY preferable to the current situation.

You may think that more open-source games leads to more rips, but it ain't necessarily so. I've seen people's hub listings filled with ten Zeta rips at a time. They wouldn't have ten Zeta rips AND ten OpenRPG rips AND ten Bob the Hack'n'Slasher rips all at once. They'd be more likely to have three or four of each.

No, Leftley is entirely missing the point. I see the point just fine. Yes, rippers will always create rips. What does that have to do with anything? I never suggested squashing open source games like Leftley seems to think I am suggesting, all I am doing is commenting on having an open source channel that responsible people (or ones that at least admit what they are doing) can put their spin-offs and rips in. If that idea was implemented and used correctly, it would improve the hub by brushing at least some of the games in question to the side, though not getting rid of them since I never suggested that.

I have gone into quite a few games that were obviously using the code, icons and sometimes even the same map file as some other game. Sometimes they admit to what they are doing and sometimes they do not, and the ones that admit to it would most likely be responsible enough to click on the check-box (Having a check box to click when you host or publish a game is one way to go about it) labeled "Open Source Spin-Off".
In response to DarkView
DarkView wrote:
[snip]
I'm torn on the issue, but I think the pro side is jumping to a lot of conclusions that if wrong could blow up in their face.

Where's the explosion? Choosing the coolest one, nothing would change. If the choosing cycles, it would almost be the same except that different games would show up live at different times. That's still a change for the better. Both of those events assume some sort of unanimous vote when variation is more likely.

Somehow, I don't think variations of 2 or 3 lines of text in the unpublished section of the live list are going to lead to the downfall of BYOND. (Heh, now watch some server bug misread something or a continuous onslaught of trolls. ;) )
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
That is completely rediculous. Organizing games into an Open Source channel is nothing like organising games into a "Contains the letter K" channel. It makes complete sense to have an open source channel for people to browse through if they have looked through most of the original games of their favored genre.

Well now, this all depends. If we were talking about a channel where open-source games would be cross-listed in addition to their regular listings in main channels, sure. But putting them exclusively in a blanket "Open Source" channel implies that being based on open source code is the most fundamental part of a game. Suppose there were two open source codebases available, one for a generic RPG and one for a sidescrolling space shoot-em-up. Lumping them together as "open source" games implies that the generic RPG has more in common with the shmup than it does with other RPGs. From a standpoint of live listings, it makes a little more sense, but still not much--again, open source games don't necessarily have anything in common with each other, except within specific groups of games that share a common source. It would make vastly more sense to create a seperate channel for each specific open-source "family" of games, then have each of those channels show up as entries in regular channels--in effect, compressing each group of games into a single entry in the main listings (of course there would be some spillover, since not everyone would voluntarily put their spin-offs in the right channels, but that's nothing that wouldn't happen with the blanket "Open Source" category).

In fact, it makes more sense than having an unpublished section for games live, I would much rather play a modified game than a bugged up, half finished game.

Whoops, silly me. I've always foolishly assumed that the reason you always denounce open source releases and campaign for open-source games to be limited is because you didn't like them. How blind of me to not have seen that the real reason you vocally oppose open-source games is, of course, that you honestly prefer them to other games. It makes perfect sense that you would want to see open source games segregated from the rest of the hub, so that they won't "clog" the hub and crowd out crappy built-from-scratch games which you consider less desireable than the open source ones. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Whoops, silly me. I've always foolishly assumed that the reason you always denounce open source releases and campaign for open-source games to be limited is because you didn't like them. How blind of me to not have seen that the real reason you vocally oppose open-source games is, of course, that you honestly prefer them to other games. It makes perfect sense that you would want to see open source games segregated from the rest of the hub, so that they won't "clog" the hub and crowd out crappy built-from-scratch games which you consider less desireable than the open source ones. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

For the last time, I did not say that open source projects are bad. I simply said their spin-offs would be better off swept to the side. Also, it appears that you seem to think that I meant open source games should go into this channel; so I suppose I did not state my oppinion well enough. The open source game should not be swept to the side, only the spin-offs and/or rips that people create using such things.

As for the sarcastic "and crowd out crappy built-from-scratch games which you consider less desirable", I never said that. I specifically stated (Or if I didn't, then I meant to) that I would rather play a modified game than a bugged up, half finished game (which is what most in unpublished are). The games that are not accepted to an official channel are not accepted for a reason.
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
Also, it appears that you seem to think that I meant open source games should go into this channel; so I suppose I did not state my oppinion well enough. The open source game should not be swept to the side, only the spin-offs and/or rips that people create using such things.

So long as we're clarifying our respective points, note that I've been using "open source" to refer to both the originals and the spin-offs. I will reiterate my position that it makes little sense to segregate spin-offs in a group full of completely unrelated games. Suppose that there is an open source game package available called "Mega RPG 2000" or what have you. If you go play on someone's server of the original Mega RPG 2000 and decide that you want to play more, which would make more sense: following some link that is somehow attached or connected to the Mega RPG 2000 entry that would go to a channel (presumably a user-made one maintained by the Mega RPG creator themselves) full of Mega RPG variants, or going to an "Open Source" channel to see what variants are available of completely different games?
Maybe a subchannel of libraries is in order.
Instead of making full games to modify, we make a bunch of standard systems in library form all written according to a certiant format so they work together.
That way the begginer developers stand to learn a lot more (since they wont just have a full game in their hands, they'll have to tie it all together), and the hub isn't full of the same games. I think it'd also be a lot more fun for the "mod-class" devs because they have a lot more options with where the game goes.
In response to DarkView
DarkView wrote:
Maybe a subchannel of libraries is in order.
Instead of making full games to modify, we make a bunch of standard systems in library form all written according to a certiant format so they work together.
That way the begginer developers stand to learn a lot more (since they wont just have a full game in their hands, they'll have to tie it all together), and the hub isn't full of the same games. I think it'd also be a lot more fun for the "mod-class" devs because they have a lot more options with where the game goes.

Well, pretty much anything accepted to the official Libraries channel should more or less work well with one another.
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
If you go play on someone's server of the original Mega RPG 2000 and decide that you want to play more, which would make more sense: following some link that is somehow attached or connected to the Mega RPG 2000 entry that would go to a channel (presumably a user-made one maintained by the Mega RPG creator themselves) full of Mega RPG variants, or going to an "Open Source" channel to see what variants are available of completely different games?

The latter, but with the original game having links to entries for its variants (If the creator of the original does not mind variants being made, he should also not mind having links to those variants.) Also, with my idea that people have a check box labeled "Open Source Variant" to be checked, that could tell the Hub to include a keyword in the entry that would allow it to be easily searched for. Doing a hub search for "Variant:[original game name here]" would then find the game having a tag on it pointing to the original. That would be simple and effective.
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
The latter

How do you figure that?! If I like strawberry icecream and want to see a list of icecream flavours that are similar to strawberry, it makes much more sense to have a link directly from the former to the latter rather than going to some other category entirely labelled "Icecream flavours that are similar to other icecream flavours". (Badly mixed metaphor, I know. =P )
In response to Crispy
To be honest, I said that to make a point. His question was only barely legitamate. A decent analogy would be like being in a debate concerning the creation of laws and having "We need laws against public nudety." on one hand with "It is my artform." on the other and having the supporter of the latter saying "Would you rather be free or live in a place that tells you not to express yourself?"

In his post, out of the two I would rather have the latter; however, it is not the best approach. A better approach would be a combination of the two.
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
To be honest, I said that to make a point. His question was only barely legitamate. A decent analogy would be like being in a debate concerning the creation of laws and having "We need laws against public nudety." on one hand with "It is my artform." on the other and having the supporter of the latter saying "Would you rather be free or live in a place that tells you not to express yourself?"

Er... no. I disagree entirely. You're trying to skirt around the issue by dragging in completely irrelevant analogies. Your analogy just doesn't compare to anything Leftley said. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't.

In his post, out of the two I would rather have the latter; however, it is not the best approach. A better approach would be a combination of the two.

Then say WHY you'd prefer the latter, don't just throw random analogies into the thread and shout "compromise!" to cover yourself.

Sorry to sound harsh, but nothing you are saying makes sense.
In response to Crispy
Wow, this one slipped by me. I suppose I have to reply, I can't let something like this go unanswered.

Crispy wrote:
Er... no. I disagree entirely. You're trying to skirt around the issue by dragging in completely irrelevant analogies. Your analogy just doesn't compare to anything Leftley said. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't.

I am not trying to skirt anything, I allready made my point earlier and that reply was simply in response to his latest nonsense, he is not doing any better. And yes, my analogy does compare to what he said perfectly, it explains why his question deserved my halfassed reply. He was being like a politition, bringing forth facts in a twisted way and ignoring everything I say; that is apparent in the fact that he constantly put words in my mouth and I had to keep repeating "I never said that and that is not what I want." His defense is to try and make me look stupid by stating what oppinions he thinks I have when I have said no such things to warrent the statements and the statements are false.

Then say WHY you'd prefer the latter, don't just throw random analogies into the thread and shout "compromise!" to cover yourself.

It was not a random analogy, as I stated above. His question was a random question which could only be answered bluntly or else it would have gone on in that manner.

Sorry to sound harsh, but nothing you are saying makes sense.

On the contrary, nothing he said makes sense. In fact, his sarcasm was worse than mine and was given in a rude and false manner. However, I will admit that the last few posts were getting a bit redundant and going off track; but that was only because I did not want to sit idly by while he played polition and tried to degrade me with twisted truths, untruths, questions which don't get to the point and other such nonsense.

The fact is that an Open Source channel would be beneficial. Divide it further into subcategories if you wish, link to it from the entries for the main game it was modeled after... do what you will there, I don't care since those are all beneficial as well; but an Open Source channel would be beneficial for organization, and it would also be nice for those of us who get bored and want to browse through a pile of modified versions of games though that would be a secondary concern.
In response to Loduwijk
Loduwijk wrote:
And yes, my analogy does compare to what he said perfectly, it explains why his question deserved my halfassed reply. [snip]

Ah, okay. Reading over the thread again, I see now that we were talking about completely different things. From the context of your post, it sounded like your analogy was referring to Leftley's "Mega RPG 2000" example.

Then say WHY you'd prefer the latter, don't just throw random analogies into the thread and shout "compromise!" to cover yourself.

It was not a random analogy, as I stated above. His question was a random question which could only be answered bluntly or else it would have gone on in that manner.

So in other words, you were blatantly lying in an attempt to kill off that argument. =P

On the contrary, nothing he said makes sense. In fact, his sarcasm was worse than mine and was given in a rude and false manner. However, I will admit that the last few posts were getting a bit redundant and going off track; but that was only because I did not want to sit idly by while he played polition and tried to degrade me with twisted truths, untruths, questions which don't get to the point and other such nonsense.

A lot of his points did lead logically from what you were saying. Of course, debates like this almost always go slightly off-track.

The fact is that an Open Source channel would be beneficial. Divide it further into subcategories if you wish, link to it from the entries for the main game it was modeled after... do what you will there, I don't care since those are all beneficial as well; but an Open Source channel would be beneficial for organization, and it would also be nice for those of us who get bored and want to browse through a pile of modified versions of games though that would be a secondary concern.

I don't really see the point, to be honest, except as a list for programmers who want to make a game from a pre-existing base. Players don't care if it's open source or not, they just want to play the game. Developers might, though.
What kills me is why people even rip and publish when they see 2000 more rips, and they aren't getting any players.
<font color = red>OMFGWTFLOLBBQPPL!!!!!!COMMON CENTS!!</font>
Page: 1 2