Solicit models/art from OGA

[charlie]

I would encourage a project member to discuss with OpenGameArt the potential for an OpenDungeon's art competition to get some character models and textures to improve the game.

http://www.opengameart.org

[svenskmand]

Good idea, but as I mentioned in this post, making models have allot of dependencies, namely concept art, which again depends on having decided on a creature list along with attacks and spells for the creatures.

When that is done a request/competition on OGA would be nice

[charlie]

I think you are attaching too much of a requirement to soliciting art for the game.

The project is struggling to produce concept art. That alone could be the subject of a competition on OGA. Think of practical ways to solve problems instead of putting them off.

[svenskmand]

Yes the concept art competition is also a good idea. But then we still need to make the lists of creatures and what attacks/spells they should have.

You cannot get around that you have to do things in the right order. And if we want to have a game with a consistent looking content then we cannot just mix and match stuff off free game art sites.

One of the key problems with open source games is a lack of consistent looks, which is often due to the arbitrary mix and match of content that often is happening in FOSS games.

[Danimal]

I also proposed that a bit ago but i didnt get much of an input so i just let it go.

[svenskmand]

It is a good idea. But it needs to be done at the right time, i.e. when we are ready for it. Right now we should focus on getting the creature lists made final. Then we can make a OGA competition for concept art.

[svenskmand]

I have made a ticket in the bugtracker specifying that we should complete the creature list. I think we should start to use the bugtracker to plan what to work on next, and get people to report new tasks that they discover and then put them in the bugtracker.

[charlie]

I just don't see where you are coming from svenskmand. Now you want the creature list to be complete. Aren't artists usually guys with imaginations? Isn't this a community driven project? Don't you want to get ideas? You can guide things, suggest what creatures are definitely required, but the rigorous approach you are pushing is anti-thesis of open source; strict definitions and procedures. How do you expect to breathe new life in to the project if you wish to stifle the very creativity that is the driving motivation behind a fantasy game like OpenDungeons?

Encourage creativity. Nurture new ideas. Contributions, even imperfect ones, are the life force of community and development. Make the atmosphere positive. Look how much contributed content STK gets - much of it started as rather ugly, amateur contributions from novice content creators, who have since grown. Now it is getting some amazing content from old and new contributors. They have instilled that energy in the project by welcoming all content creators, and by not limiting them. There was a time when there was very little new, quality content created for STK.

/0.02c

"Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend."

[svenskmand]

What exactly am I stiffing? I am merely saying that we need to do stuff in a certain order. It makes absolutely no sense to just make models without having concept art done first. And it makes no sense to make concept art without a creature list. The problem is that we do not know what exactly we want yet. So why let people waste their time making models for us if we end up not using them?

There is plenty of room for people to be creative. I am merely trying to get people to do stuff in the right order. Communication is the most important thing of good design. People need to come up with ideas, then get feedback, and based on the feedback come up with new ideas. That is what I am trying to push to people. And that implies that we first discuss and then agrees on a creature list. Then we can begin to make the concept art, again iteratively. Finally the models can be made based on the concept art, again in a iterative process.

It seems you just want to let people make whatever they like (without discussing it with others), and then just whatever they make in the game. That will make the game look terrible, so we should not do that.

[StefanP.MUC]

I think we should do both ways parallely.

Open source projects can only live if people contribute constantly. But since people are doing this in their free time they will only make what they like "here and now". So, if someone provides a model without doing a whole discuss-concept-finalize-circle, then we shouldn't reject it. If we reject it the contributor loses his interest and may not provide work after the concepts are done.
On the other side we need to finalize the "concept roadmap", of course. But this takes time. And this is the main reason reason here: time. Getting people to work on the project is not easy and takes times (they need to find the project, take interest in it, read the guidelines, do the work, submit it). If we start looking for people after the concept roadmaps are done we lose an enormous amount of time that could have been used by people to contribute and make the game popular here and now.

[svenskmand]

Open source projects can only live if people contribute constantly. But since people are doing this in their free time they will only make what they like "here and now".

That is also why having small and well-defined task just waiting to be done is essential to get people to help out.

Not so long ago there was also talk about having some of the easiest and smallest tasks shown on the new website (I think it was you that suggested it), so that interested people could say "hey that is easy, I can do that" and then get them to do it.

So, if someone provides a model without doing a whole discuss-concept-finalize-circle, then we shouldn't reject it. If we reject it the contributor loses his interest and may not provide work after the concepts are done.

Yes if we just reject peoples contribution there is a very small chance they will come back. But we should also not just accept stuff because we are afraid that they will not come back. That is why I think having well-defined and small tasks would be much better. Then people know what we need, and that if they make it we will use it. That is a win-win situation.

On the other side we need to finalize the "concept roadmap", of course. But this takes time. And this is the main reason reason here: time. Getting people to work on the project is not easy and takes times (they need to find the project, take interest in it, read the guidelines, do the work, submit it). If we start looking for people after the concept roadmaps are done we lose an enormous amount of time that could have been used by people to contribute and make the game popular here and now.

Yes time is a factor, but since we are all working on this in our spare time and want to have fun with it, there should not be any hard deadlines for anything.

The suggestion by Danimal to make a OGA competition to get some art was good. Only problem is that the competition should not be about models. Since we still do not have a clear picture of which units we need. We are currently working on finishing the creature lists. We already have two factions finished, the Undead and the Humans, so concept work can start for them.

So I would suggest that we use Danimals idea to get people to make concept art for one of these factions. I would suggest that we make the competition in 3 phases, a suggestion for the wording could be like this (there should also be an introduction of course):
Pick any number of creatures that you find interesting from the list below. You can pick as many as you like, and you can participate in any of the 3 phases. The 3 phases have these rules:

1. Make a rough sketch of how you imagine the creatures that you have selected. You should not spend too much time on the sketch. We (OD community) will then evaluate you sketch and give them points 1-5 and give a short comment of what we liked and what we did not like. Some of the sketches with the highest score will proceed to phase 2.
2. Based on the sketches that have been selected by the OD community in phase 1, make a sketch where you try to incorporate the suggested changes from phase 1. The sketch should have more details than in phase 1, but it should still just be simple (no fancy coloring or huge amounts of details). We (OD community) will then evaluate you sketch and give them points 1-5 and give a short comment of what we liked and what we did not like. Some of the sketches with the highest score will proceed to phase 2.
3. Based on the sketches that have been selected by the OD community in phase 2, make the final concept art where you try to incorporate the suggested changes from phase 2. The concept art should have sufficient details so that 3d models for the game can be based on it. We (OD community) will then evaluate you concept art and give them points 1-5 and give a short comment of what we liked and what we did not like. Some of the concept art with the highest score will be considered the final concept art for the creatures in OD.

So that was a quick draft of how we could make the OGA contest, any comments, suggestions or corrections?

[charlie]

Why do you need to score then 1-5? Just select a few favourites, offer constructive criticism on the rest. It's not a school test, nor should it discourage people which low ratings will do.

I think it is just too rigid. The competition should be for concept art. Just like that. Don't do it in 3 phases. Just do it as a competition. See what people come up with. Don't order like a menu. Suggest some creature ideas, link to existing concept art and lore, but don't place a limit on it. Encourage as many entries as possible. The process you mentioned is so controlling. The art submitted does not have to define OD, so don't approach it defensively.

I don't like terms like, "Considered final." Projects are constantly in development. How can something be considered final when the project is in perpetual development and evolution? Considered official... that's better.

Your 3 steps (minus the scoring) are potentially a decent guide on how to do concept art for the project. Sketch, re-sketch after feedback, produce final art (with acceptance at each stage).

[charlie]

It seems you just want to let people make whatever they like (without discussing it with others), and then just whatever they make in the game. That will make the game look terrible, so we should not do that.

No, that's not what I said / am saying. Re-read carefully.

I'm saying that you should encourage creativity. That's healthy for the project. I'm not saying you should just blindly accept all contributions.

I will say that ugly content is better than no content. Before Wesnoth was beautiful, it looked pretty raw.

[Danimal]

Im doing it

[Danimal]

http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/conce ... n-dungeons

[oln]

Nice work. Let's see what we get.

[svenskmand]

Yes it will be interesting

[Danimal]

Maybe OGA was not the best choice? If we dont get any result ill try blend swap

[charlie]

Try both anyway.

[charlie]

Bart (OGA lead) said he thought it was a good idea but he hadn't had the time to look at it yet. Patience is a virtue.

[Danimal]

We have got some concepts already, now we need them modelled so we can appeal to more people submiting concepts. I know thats the best way since they will feel their work wasnt for nothing. We should try to recruit Nubix somehow to do more of them since they are damn good. Also please, stop being so demanding on Monobi (he/she?), decide on something not too complex, everything can be modified later since its just texture work(clothes and such). And his work is great as well, we need quantity, quality goes second here as long as we can define a shape for the creature.

[oln]

We should try to recruit Nubix somehow to do more of them since they are damn good. Also please, stop being so demanding on Monobi (he/she?), decide on something not too complex, everything can be modified later since its just texture work(clothes and such). And his work is great as well, we need quantity, quality goes second here as long as we can define a shape for the creature.

+1

We also need to get the concepts and art from the forums onto the corresponding wiki pages, right now there are bits and parts everywhere.

[svenskmand]

We have got some concepts already, now we need them modelled so we can appeal to more people submiting concepts. I know thats the best way since they will feel their work wasnt for nothing. We should try to recruit Nubix somehow to do more of them since they are damn good. Also please, stop being so demanding on Monobi (he/she?), decide on something not too complex, everything can be modified later since its just texture work(clothes and such). And his work is great as well, we need quantity, quality goes second here as long as we can define a shape for the creature.

I think it is a bit too early to being modelling the creatures. The problem is if we get some of them modeled, and then later find out that they should be changed so much that the model cannot be re-used but have to be re-done from scratch. As we want each factions creatures to look consistent we need to at least have the rough concept art done for each faction before we begin modelling them. When modelling starts we "commit" to the concepts they are based, if not the artists might think we are wasting their time, as we talked about earlier. So I think we should at least have a rough sketch of how all creatures should look within a faction before the creatures in that faction is modeled. We now have rough sketches for the following creatures (I have not listed the Maiden and the Knight as having concept art done for them as you seemed not to like them too much?):
Humans

• +Wisp
• +Halfling
• -War-Dog
• +Cleric
• -Maiden
• -Knight
• -Barbarian
• -Wizzard
• -Fairy
• -Crossbowman
• -Longbowman
• -Blacksmith
• -Dwarf
• -Angle
• -King

Undead

• -Flying skull
• -Skeleton
• -Zombie
• Plague acolite
• -Death Knight
• +Bone golem
• -Ghoul
• +Necromancer
• -Liche
• -Wraith Knight
• -Skeleton Archer
• -Enslaved Human
• -Revenant
• -Atrocity
• -Abomination

We also need to get the concepts and art from the forums onto the corresponding wiki pages, right now there are bits and parts everywhere.

I will write that on my ToDo list. When this is done the concepts are now officially how the creatures currently look, and as such the artists can see that we want to use their work, which should hopefully motivate them to done more stuff

[charlie]

I think it is a bit too early to being modelling the creatures. The problem is if we get some of them modeled, and then later find out that they should be changed so much that the model cannot be re-used but have to be re-done from scratch.

You're so rigid. You don't seem to understand that this is a labour of love, and not a commercial game entity.

Let people be creative. Get people modelling. If it isn't going to be final, so what? They do it for fun. Let them create.

This is an open source game with a development timeline of years, not months. It is highly unlikely that ANYTHING will be final, as long as there is activity. You need to get something going though. You won't be able to create all the concepts, then start the 3D work, and all the work be final. It's not that kind of process. You don't have that kind of dedicated manpower.

Encourage contributions - including models. Don't constrain things. If somebody comes along with a kick ass model and/or a kick ass idea now, and it doesn't immediately fit in with your current script, you're surely not going to just tell them to buzz off. Relax the regulations a little svensk! (Saying that, the detail you provide is great and a good help, but I want to see you stop being so strict about process etc.) Or, in this case, if somebody wants to start modelling, let them.

[svenskmand]

You're so rigid. You don't seem to understand that this is a labour of love, and not a commercial game entity.

Being structured does not contradict the FOSS value set. And there can be plenty of love for the labour even though it is well defined and structured.

Let people be creative.

Well that is also my goal.

Get people modelling.

I think it is too early for that, for my above mentioned reasons. That is my opinion, you do not have to agree with that.

This is an open source game with a development timeline of years, not months. It is highly unlikely that ANYTHING will be final, as long as there is activity. You need to get something going though. You won't be able to create all the concepts, then start the 3D work, and all the work be final. It's not that kind of process. You don't have that kind of dedicated manpower.

Man power is not a problem in my proposed plan, as it does not include deadlines.

Encourage contributions

I my suggested plan for making the creatures I do encourage contributions. The process involes 3 small steps: 1) make choices, 2) try them out (Notice this is the step where people are being creative), 3) give feedback that is encouraging and constructive.

Don't constrain things. If somebody comes along with a kick ass model and/or a kick ass idea now, and it doesn't immediately fit in with your current script, you're surely not going to just tell them to buzz off. Relax the regulations a little svensk! (Saying that, the detail you provide is great and a good help, but I want to see you stop being so strict about process etc.) Or, in this case, if somebody wants to start modelling, let them.

I am not telling anybody what they should do or not, I am merely proposing a way to get the content for the game done as efficiently as possible, given the nature of FOSS projects.

If you do not like my suggestions, then give alternatives, and reasons why they should be better. But do not just criticize other peoples ideas without being constructive. Non-constructive criticism is demoralizing and useless to the project.