FreeGameDev

Ill be constructive then, if you wait for everything to be fully planed bad things will happen, just the creature creation phase takes a lot of time, especially if its basically you and me arguing over them. Add the lack for the concepts for final creatures, then no models from concepts being made, this equals to no new content on the game. Can see where im going? you are very organizated, but thats actually no good at all, since all of those phases takes too much time we are again at step one: The game looks horrible, simply that.
If the game looks bad and bland noone will try it, noone will contribute to something they dont like.

You are being too strict for art when you basically have none. You need to take a different attitude, when you are learning to make a videogame the first thing you use are cubes and such as placeholders. So think about everything you have rigth now as placeholders, for example, someone makes a crappy zombie, better than having none!!!, in the future when you have attracted a dedicated fanbase someone will surely add a cool looking zombie. Understand what i mean?

Fill in everything, even if its bad, everything can be changed later. Bad is better than nothing. Nothing equals to loss of interest.
So, i advise and ask you to change your mindset, and consider everything to be a placeholder, a easily replaceable placeholder in the future. Another good example would be how small videogame companies search for sponsors for a new game, they make a demo that shows the basis and throw in there everything they have be it good or bad, consider OpenDungeons to be the small company and everyone on internet to be the sponsors. You are not appeling to the sponsors OD, you are not showing them something they like or looks promising so dont expect their money or support.

Gezzz, just look at WFTO, their game mechanics either sucks or dont exist, but they make people drool with each of their updates.

I'm trying to give you a positive nudge to loosen up, that's all. Don't force process and your own desires on the project - yet whilst at the same time you need to be encouraging good practice and shaping people's contributions.

For example you were quite demanding/critical with some of the concept art rather than letting it flow. It was counter intuitive to the whole concept art process, which is to come up with ideas, not realise the ideas of one person. You should be fostering contributors, not deflecting them.

Patience is a virtue, especially in FOSS development. I try to organize stuff, yes, even too much you say, but on the other hand you rush into getting more models into the game with no idea of what you actually want. That is like if I want to expand my house with a new room, and I want it now. But I have no idea about how the new room should look. Anyway I get some guys to make the expansion. The problem is that almost no matter what they make, I will disappointed, since I have not thought about what it is I really want in the new room.

So in short you cannot ask people to do an undefined task for you. That is why I wanted the concept art to be done first, and by going through that process we will have a much clearer picture of what we want in the game.

Whenever I have contributed some artwork for OD, be it the Logo, website skins, or concept art, I always post my stuff while I am creating it, and in that process I make heavy use of the input I receive. I want that process applied to the creature creation too.

charlie {l Wrote}:I'm trying to give you a positive nudge to loosen up, that's all. Don't force process and your own desires on the project - yet whilst at the same time you need to be encouraging good practice and shaping people's contributions.

I can only express my own true opinion, which is what I am doing.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Ill be constructive then, if you wait for everything to be fully planed bad things will happen, just the creature creation phase takes a lot of time, especially if its basically you and me arguing over them. Add the lack for the concepts for final creatures, then no models from concepts being made, this equals to no new content on the game. Can see where im going? you are very organizated, but thats actually no good at all, since all of those phases takes too much time we are again at step one: The game looks horrible, simply that. If the game looks bad and bland noone will try it, noone will contribute to something they dont like.

You are being too strict for art when you basically have none. You need to take a different attitude, when you are learning to make a videogame the first thing you use are cubes and such as placeholders. So think about everything you have rigth now as placeholders, for example, someone makes a crappy zombie, better than having none!!!, in the future when you have attracted a dedicated fanbase someone will surely add a cool looking zombie. Understand what i mean?

Fill in everything, even if its bad, everything can be changed later. Bad is better than nothing. Nothing equals to loss of interest. So, i advise and ask you to change your mindset, and consider everything to be a placeholder, a easily replaceable placeholder in the future. Another good example would be how small videogame companies search for sponsors for a new game, they make a demo that shows the basis and throw in there everything they have be it good or bad, consider OpenDungeons to be the small company and everyone on internet to be the sponsors. You are not appeling to the sponsors OD, you are not showing them something they like or looks promising so dont expect their money or support.

Gezzz, just look at WFTO, their game mechanics either sucks or dont exist, but they make people drool with each of their updates.

We currently have allot of models, if you do not like them or think that they are not suitable for the game, then you will also be disappointed over any new content that is created in the ways you suggest, as the current content have been made in an identical process, i.e. somebody makes something they think is cool and adds it to the game.

If you simply want more models and do not care about the quality, then we can just use models from OGA, but that will not change the fact that we have not decided on how the final models should look, since we have not talked about it. That is what I am try to make us do, i.e. talk/discuss how we want the creatures to look and be like.

charlie {l Wrote}: For example you were quite demanding/critical with some of the concept art rather than letting it flow. It was counter intuitive to the whole concept art process, which is to come up with ideas, not realise the ideas of one person. You should be fostering contributors, not deflecting them.

I was merely giving feedback to the art submitted. That is how we shape the submissions. If we just say thanks then we will never transform the content into what we want. As I said before design is a three step iterative process: 1) make some choices, 2) make the artifact desire, 3) get feedback on the created artifact, and reapeat at step 1). That is a time-consuming process but that is how great stuff is made.
It seems like you guys are not realizing that if we want good content then we have to spend time on helping creating the content by giving feedback about what is created.

I am sure that everybody involved in the project have their own idea about how the final game should be, and that is fine, but what we need is to actually exchange those ideas and make them into one idea, which is how the final game should be. But it is really hard to get anybody to state their mind about what they think the game should be like. Monobi found that weak stop very fast after discussion about how the Halfling should look, and he tried to give us hints about how we should proceed, in this thread. Like we have clear guide lines on how the code should be formatted, we also need clear guide lines on how the design of the content should look. But that is only a small part of what is missing. The most important thing is that we try to exchange our own ideas of how we imagine the game should be like. That is what I hoped would happen when we began to make the concept art for the creatures.

But enough talk, I will suggest that we proceed with the concept art process by doing the following:

• Take the submitted concept art we have and put it into the creature listings for the factions on the wiki and state what we like and what we would like to see changed or added to the concept art.
• Announce the results of the latest OGA art submission request/contest.
• Make another OGA art submission request/contest asking people to make models for the remaining creatures.
• Repeat this some times until we are satisfied, then we can begin to do the same thing with the models.

It has already proven to be quite effective to make the OGA art requests, so showing our appreciation about what we got and then doing the OGA art request again should be the best way forward.

Its useless...
Svend, a project of this kind takes years, we have agreed on that. Contributors grow along with the projects. Dont compare OD with a house, The code is the walls, the art is the furniture, you can always redecorate a room when you decide so or get new furniture.
Its impossible you are going to get kickass art out of nowhere. If we are talking about visions, everyone have theirs, but here, there is nothing to show yet.
I propose a new way of art creation, basically the same but more loose.

1 We get concepts from OGA or any other way.
2 A discussion of each received concept about what to change or add. This involves everyone here, when it gets a general approval it can move on.
3 Modelling based on concept. Since it was approved before only small changes could happen here. If everyone agrees, move on.
4 Last phase, Is it good enought to enter the game?, at this point it should be decent. When everyone agrees it will get added to game.

Phase 1 should always be open,
Phase 2 consider it a filter, the one in which art is made homogeneus so we keep a general style.
Late Phase 3 is just a quality control over modelled creature.
Phase 4 is more of a formality.

This metod involves a few things, all concepts will have to go through it as soon as received, no waiting till all creatures concepts are done, we take it as soon as it arrives and squeeze it througth all the phases as relatively fast as we can.
Everyone must colaborate, since Svend standarts are too high and nothing but proffesional work will ever be acepted by him. If everyone thinks its good enought, Svend you will have to accept it. Democracy at its best.

This metod is relaxed but output efficient, things will get done and quality is assured, what does everyone thinks?

I find it bizarre that what ever I proposed is claimed to be too strict and will never work, and whatever. But your own proposal is essentially the same that I am advocating.

Danimal {l Wrote}:1 We get concepts from OGA or any other way.
2 A discussion of each received concept about what to change or add. This involves everyone here, when it gets a general approval it can move on.
3 Modelling based on concept. Since it was approved before only small changes could happen here. If everyone agrees, move on.
4 Last phase, Is it good enought to enter the game?, at this point it should be decent. When everyone agrees it will get added to game.

How is this different from my proposal?

Danimal {l Wrote}:Everyone must colaborate, since Svend standarts are too high and nothing but proffesional work will ever be acepted by him. If everyone thinks its good enought, Svend you will have to accept it. Democracy at its best.

Where did this come from, I have never said that I do not accept nothing else than professional work? Why all the personal attacks? Please take the discussion back on track.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Democracy at its best

Also note that this is not a democrazy, but a meritocracy.

Things get done even if little by little, as opposed to finish all creature list first, then concept art, then models. Quality content is created and reachs a final stage independant to the state of all the before mentionated departments.

Everyone gives their input, noone has the last word, if everyone thinks something is good it pass.

You didnt say you want pro work, but you wont accept any model that doesnt fit your standart, which is too high, as for why the attacks to you, they are done because you are the gate that binds the programing and art sides of the project, you cant be too rigid or too loose, and you are pretty rigid rigth now.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Things get done even if little by little

So you agree that we should use iterative design (the article talks about interface design but the process is useful in all design processes) to flesh out exactly how the creatures should look and what abilities they should have?

Didnt even know that existed, but it is the same thing. Just to note something, im saying to apply this to art, stats or whatever can be done in a different way, since they are barely implemented and we are playing with common arquetipes creatures (knigth gotta be strong, hard and slow, archer fast and weak...). The main adventage is that you get something with very little manpower as opposed to a very structured step by step heavy load of work that requires lots of persons which we dont have.

I think the difference between Danimal's suggestion and yours, svensk, was that it was targeted at a model-by-model basis whereas you were calling for all concept art to be done before modelling work starts.

I think (and meritocracy, so this is my opinion only) that you should encourage concept art, but also encourage 3D art (which in itself can be considered concept art) and also encourage artists to use some of their own ideas and not just those of the people already invested in OD. True concept art is not just the refining of a single idea. It will start out with several suggestions for a particular unit, then refine a few of them before arriving at a decision as to which is most preferred. Obviously the project does not have the number of artists to produce such a volume of concept art, but you should definitely encourage any contributors to produce both a concept of their own intepretation as well as one that incorporates the critiques.

Just encourage contributions.

Look at Wesnoth. The artwork was initially child like. Their standards have been arrived at over 7-8 years. They did not set out a certain standard then require everybody met it. As popularity grew and the base of contributors grew, so did the standard of the artwork in the game. Try and be a bit more organic like that, svensk, that's what I'm trying to massage into your mindset.

svenskmand {l Wrote}:So you agree that we should use iterative design (the article talks about interface design but the process is useful in all design processes) to flesh out exactly how the creatures should look and what abilities they should have?

I definitely am.

I think there is room for concept art as a part of iterative design. Just try things out and see what works best and contributors find easiest to work with. The important thing is to get artists to stick around. Having 5 mediocre artists contributing regularly (and remember, people improve, so their contributions will steadily get better) beats the hell out of a couple of amazing artists who contribute occasionally (and leave the project with an inconsistent, incomplete set of models).

The 'people improve' aspect is really important. I've seen some projects end up with incredible contributions because they didn't heap criticism on artists who arrived with weak skills. Vega Strike and Fendorin and Oblivion spring to mind.

It is important to learn to criticize people in a positive way. Phrases such as, "That's a good start!" Or "You have some good ideas." Or, "Good effort so far." Starting a critical post with such a phrase can really help the enthusiasm with which criticism is received. Even if something looks crap, don't say that. Don't lie, but don't be harsh, because that will drive people away. Everybody is learning, so give a contributor space and time to learn by being positive about their work but at the same time giving them the guidance they need to bring it to a level at which it may be useful to the project. Each successive contribution will be better than the last. The best contributors are not those who contribute one good thing, but those who contribute over and over again, because eventually their work will be good and at the same time they bring energy and assets to the project, even if those assets are not final or even not used.

charlie {l Wrote}:

svenskmand {l Wrote}:So you agree that we should use iterative design (the article talks about interface design but the process is useful in all design processes) to flesh out exactly how the creatures should look and what abilities they should have?

I definitely am.

Good to hear

charlie {l Wrote}:It is important to learn to criticize people in a positive way. Phrases such as, "That's a good start!" Or "You have some good ideas." Or, "Good effort so far." Starting a critical post with such a phrase can really help the enthusiasm with which criticism is received. Even if something looks crap, don't say that. Don't lie, but don't be harsh, because that will drive people away. Everybody is learning, so give a contributor space and time to learn by being positive about their work but at the same time giving them the guidance they need to bring it to a level at which it may be useful to the project. Each successive contribution will be better than the last. The best contributors are not those who contribute one good thing, but those who contribute over and over again, because eventually their work will be good and at the same time they bring energy and assets to the project, even if those assets are not final or even not used.

That is exactly what I have tried to do. I always start out by saying that I really appreciate their contribution, and the parts that I like about it. Then I mention the parts I think can be better, and then I end by again giving thanks for the contribution. And that is what you and Danimal say is overly critical from my side. I you do not agree then please give me examples where you think that I have not followed that line of giving feedback to the artist.

But people should also be able to handle criticism, else and iterative design process will never work.

charlie {l Wrote}:The 'people improve' aspect is really important. I've seen some projects end up with incredible contributions because they didn't heap criticism on artists who arrived with weak skills. Vega Strike and Fendorin and Oblivion spring to mind.

I think you have linked to the wrong sites? They both point to a forum of Vega Strike.

charlie {l Wrote}:I think there is room for concept art as a part of iterative design. Just try things out and see what works best and contributors find easiest to work with. The important thing is to get artists to stick around. Having 5 mediocre artists contributing regularly (and remember, people improve, so their contributions will steadily get better) beats the hell out of a couple of amazing artists who contribute occasionally (and leave the project with an inconsistent, incomplete set of models).

Exactly and that is why I think we should begin on the design process by ourself by coming up with concept art, discuss, improve them and then repeat. We can also become good artists. If we do that then we will also experience first hand how the critique is to receive and learn how to give it in a prober manner. I was working on a mind map for the construct faction yesterday and I will begin to make some very rough concept sketches to today then we can all discuss them.

So in short lets not sit around waiting for artists, lets grab then pencil and begin to become concept artists ourself. That will also motivate newcomers more if they see that the process is already running.

I agree totally on that with you Svend, but lets just dont limit ourselves to the current forum users, lets try to pull more people here. I dont really know how to do that, but having a graphical refit on the next version and a map that reminds of good old DK along with a bit of advertising on open source pages is the rigth way. I know i would fall for that. Please think of it for the current roadmap.

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

charlie {l Wrote}:The 'people improve' aspect is really important. I've seen some projects end up with incredible contributions because they didn't heap criticism on artists who arrived with weak skills. Vega Strike and Fendorin and Oblivion spring to mind.

I think you have linked to the wrong sites? They both point to a forum of Vega Strike.

They are past prolific VS contributors. (You seem to lack the ability to reason sometimes, do you know that? You take things so literally, perhaps why I interpret your reactions as so rigid... I mean, given the context of me describing improving contributors for a project, those links were pretty obviously meant to be VS contributors...)

charlie {l Wrote}:

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

charlie {l Wrote}:The 'people improve' aspect is really important. I've seen some projects end up with incredible contributions because they didn't heap criticism on artists who arrived with weak skills. Vega Strike and Fendorin and Oblivion spring to mind.

I think you have linked to the wrong sites? They both point to a forum of Vega Strike.

They are past prolific VS contributors. (You seem to lack the ability to reason sometimes, do you know that? You take things so literally, perhaps why I interpret your reactions as so rigid... I mean, given the context of me describing improving contributors for a project, those links were pretty obviously meant to be VS contributors...)

I have no idea what you just said. What do you mean by "They are past prolific VS contributors"?

Vega Strike is a game and I assume that Fendorin and Oblivion are games too? If so then I do not understand why those two words links to the Vega Strike forum.

i think he means Fendorin and oblivion are 2 artist from that project, not actual games. But thats taking it too far, im happy we decided on a more flexible developing model, now we need to relaunch the concept post in OGA, and i think a 3d model of any of those concepts is the best way. Bolem golem seems the easier, someone up to the task?

it seems the OGA competition is not going well at all, does someone have any idea of the next step? Maybe we could recruit some modellers in blender forums?
Also, how is the new release coming along? were the new models and walls included? will you make a play-test map intead of the showcase one we have now?

The problem is that we don't have anyone that is able to do much development currently. I am struggling with Lateral epicondylitis, so I can't sit in front of a computer for very long at a time. It could easily take half a year before I can start doing any significant work again. Svenskmand and stefan seems busy. We could use another programmer really. (and there is a crash bug in the latest git version at the moment)

You can change/test creature models in the game by editing the level file. We should make a new map, someone just has to do it :P (there is a map editor in the game.)

We did have a guy post about making models here recently, so hopefully he will stick around. There was a guy on IRC working on a halfling model, but he seems to have disappeared. BartK said he might wanted to make some music.

Yeah, I'm busy currently (and in the few time I can work on OD I still can't find this stupid crasher bug, this stops me from getting the real programming done...)

Not sure what's the best way of recuiting new programmers. I think all we can do is asking for it here and on our blog and hope that someone is willing to help out, but this isn't working very well/fast as it seems... How did other projects recruit their big numbers (~5 to 10 or more) of active programmers?

Release early, release often.

I am currently focusing on the website, the wiki, the backstory (factions) and making concept art (probably in the reverse order ). I now have a set of design rules for how the Constructs should look, and I am working on a few sketches that illustrate them. So I will probably make 2-5 Constructs once I get the ball rolling. Then next up are the Corpars which I have a general idea for, but not any design rules yet.

I would like to work on the code at some point but I need to learn the C++ syntax, as I only code Java, so for that I plan to solve some problems on SPOJ, but that is longer in the future.

Regarding the map editor it would be nice if there where some documentation for it. Also how far are we with the AS implementation, can we script anything?

Regarding the scripting: Until now I only registered everything that was needed to convert the commands to AS that are converted now. I planned to extend the scripting after 1) the crasher bug is gone... and 2) the biggest parts of the refactoring is done (don't want to re-register everything) and 3) after I replaced the new console with a CEGUI version (should be really fast, only some lines of code).

The lack of activity in this forum is worrying, anyways, the reason why i stopped making the bone golem is that i got a temporal work, which is now finished so ill keep working at and post a pic when possible.

People also got lives I think I will go home and work on my Construct concepts