Geometry Wars Port?

[Monk]

tl;dr: no such thing as "Intellectual Property (Law)".

Did you just read the first few words of his post and stop?

It looks pretty much like it, doesn't it? Never let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned Internet Slapdown!

Microsoft seem to have had this kind of reputation for an AWFULLY long time - they seem to prefer to use muscle as a primary tool in most situations where any conflict of interest is involved. I appreciate the tune the choir is likely to sing around here, but it's still depressing how accurate a depiction of certain aspects of the world this tune gives Wouldn't it be nicer if peoples dislike of companies like MS were in fact unfounded? If the world were a NICER place than we tend to think it is?

Does anyone else remember "Stacker", for example? And the equivalent, "DoubleSpace", from Microsoft? I'd be a lot happier with companies that agressively protect IP if they were not themselves guilty of appropriating IP - even if the courts say they did so "by accident" (I'd quite like to accidentally come into possesion of a brand new Porche BTW, if the gods of accidental reallocation of goods is listening )

 

[Yoyobuae]

I think Microsoft is refering to the copyright theft of the design of the some of the elements (graphical most likely) of the game. The enemies have very similar color and shape as the original. Perhaps also some details about the gameplay also seem copied from the original.

The problem lies in that the game was made as a clone, rather than a new game with similar gameplay. Probably with some re-design those issues could be avoided.

As for patents, I have read that there are some limits as to what can be patented. For example software patents have proven to do more harm than good, and that's exactly the reason some things should remain un-patentable. Hypothetical case:

A child is using a swing in a public park. Instead of swinging backwards
and forwards she swings from side to side by pulling on one chain
first and then the other. A few days later her parents receive a letter from
the Intellectual Property Enforcement Agency, an arm of the police force.
The letter states that their daughter was caught by a surveillance camera
using a method of swinging that is the subject of a patent. The method has
been claimed in a patent belonging to PlayPay Inc. Her parents are given the
choice of paying a licence fee or facing prosecution for patent infringement.

Surely this kind of patent is ludicrous. At some point someone needs to draw the line. That's why patents need to be approved by the authorities first, to filter out the invalid ones and the ones that do more harm than good.

The thing is that companies can do several things to bend the laws to their favor, and they have been doing so for quite some time now. Luckily there are people that care about this subject and fight against the push for ever stronger "intelectual property" (ie. FSF).

Heh, sorry for adding to the off-topic, but this is certainly a topic of interest. I'm starting to read the book "Information Feudalism", I got most of these ideas and the quote from it (oh noes!!! I'm violating copyright :lol: ).

 

[Monk]

I think copyright itself is a little tighter in definition than you seem to, but if we gloss over that a little bit and move on to the patent "swing" analogy...

Surely this kind of patent is ludicrous. At some point someone needs to draw the line. That's why patents need to be approved by the authorities first, to filter out the invalid ones and the ones that do more harm than good.

In theory, yes - and things which are "obvious" (as in truly obvious, or easily replicated by accident) are supposed to be unpatentable. However, that does not stop companies from trying to patent them - and actualyl getting patents due to lack of knowledge/understanding/research time in patent offices. Many, MANY patents are in effect "untried" and could be repealed after a court case... but first everyone has to go trhough the courts, and that is often a serious trial (and if you're up against a welthy corporate, might be unwinnable in the real world as they throw hurdle after hurdle at you and basically drown you in lawyers).

Umm. We're wandering off point slightly. Am I the only one who thinks an ARM-capable version of BlitzBASIC (or similar) might be a neat idea for the Pandora? IIRC GBAX once did a bundle deal for some version of a BASIC compiler (DarkBASIC maybe? I don't recall) with GP2X orders. I must admit that some kind of "game creation system" like BASIC (or even more game oriented) might be a great thing to bundle with Pandoras (at extra cost, I imagine) and ideally something that could leverage an existing community of "casual game developers". This is not to ignore the many Open wonderful coding languages out there for Linux, just a thought based on the fact that a native compile of Grid Wars seems "only" to be lacking an ARM version of the compiler.

 

[rabidpoobear]

Do these BASIC game creation languages actually compile, or do they have a specified EXE that sets up the rendering context and then interprets a BASIC script? and you just distribute your source with it? I don't have much experience with them (READ: none).

 

[Yoyobuae]

Do these BASIC game creation languages actually compile, or do they have a specified EXE that sets up the rendering context and then interprets a BASIC script? and you just distribute your source with it? I don't have much experience with them (READ: none).

I think it compiles. The Gridwars linux version comes with an executable and I don't see any sources around. The executable doesn't seem to have source embedded either (did a quick skim of hexdump).

 

[Monk]

Do these BASIC game creation languages actually compile, or do they have a specified EXE that sets up the rendering context and then interprets a BASIC script? and you just distribute your source with it? I don't have much experience with them (READ: none).

Sadly, neither do I - I think I looked at one called "Click" a couple of decades ago, but it probably never got out of the store and into my home. I have a sneaky suspicion that nowadays there are both options, depending on which one you get. for example, the version of BASIC used to create Grid Wars - while a language rather than a "game creator" as such - compiles to a standalone executable - and that's the only type that I would be interested in, myself. The end result has to be, to interest me, redistributable by itself - no other installation required on the target computer.

My son, on the other hand, has experimented briefly with "Scratch" - a kiddie's simple game production type thingy which doesn't compile to a standalone executable... and I think that's one of the reasons he didn't progress very far with it. Too fussy to get to play the resulting games.

 

[ldesnogu]

I think it compiles. The Gridwars linux version comes with an executable and I don't see any sources around. The executable doesn't seem to have source embedded either (did a quick skim of hexdump).

Given that the hexdump doesn't even show the ascii strings from the program, I guess it's encoded. So it might still be an interpreter rather than a compiler.

 

[zhasha]

Did you just read the first few words of his post and stop? Because he went on from there. He didn't say there was an IP law, he just used the term "IP laws" to refer to all the ways people protect their ideas:

I'm sorry your highness, I just assumed it was implicit from my post that "There is no such thing as Intellectual Property so don't use the term as it's misleading, whether intended or not."
Also the laws you all seem to group together have absolutely nothing to do with eachother.

 

[WizardStan]

Also the laws you all seem to group together have absolutely nothing to do with eachother.

Except that they are all laws which companies and individuals can use (and often abuse) to protect their ideas, in whatever form they take.

 

[El Jefe]

To get them to compile, you need the blitz IDE, its called MaxIDE, and it costs a bunch of money, so I only downloaded the trial for a few days, to see if it would work. and it did.

 

[Monk]

My initial response was too snippy, so I'll edit it lots:

you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry your highness

You're not being helpful in any way.

 

[zhasha]

You're not being helpful in any way.

Me being helpful

 

[Monk]

You're not being helpful in any way.

Me being helpful

Looks and sounds interesting, but given that [snip] I'm a bit distracted and easily irritated today. When the speaker started making incorrect statements about it being impossible (currently, here and now) to copy "hardware" (with "chairs" being a convenient example) within about 10 minutes I decided that however much I'd enjoy and agree with the thrust of his speech, I didn't have an hour and a quater to devote to it.

I don't live in his world. I live in the world as it is NOW, with all its BS and machinations, and I find it useful to use the same vocabulary as others generally use so that they can understand me. Take his opening description of "Free Software" as an example of what I'm talking about. It was intersting, concise, and yet took minutes to perform. I don't want the majority of each of my posts to be explaining the terms that I use - I feel I do quite enough of that as is. To go any further would make my posts unreadable IMHO, and so the use of a common language is much more convenient for me.

Thank you.

 

[torpor]

I'm a huge fan of Geometry Wars. Why don't we make a version just for the Pandora, all new graphics and strategies and so on?

I have a 3D engine already working for GLES1.1 on beagleboard and touchbook (and iphone) and thus soon enough: it'll work on Pandora too.

If you wanna make a Pandora GW-clone with style, start making models that look good and gimme some files, we can bang one together fast I think.

 

[El Jefe]

So if you already have an engine working, does that mean all that is theoretically required is to set up enemy, player, generator classes?
The grid wars(not geometry wars, but very similar, arguably better) source already has these classes, which would be pretty simple to port I believe, I sorted started already.
I believe a proper engine would need scrolling, ie playing grid is bigger than the actual screen. In this way, icons wouldn't be miniscule.
the grid wars graphics really can't be beaten...
we should probably get a version working that is very similar to grid wars(ie, using the same classes), as it is tried and true, before making modifications like more powerups or enemies.

If your engine can handle scrolling, and can draw an image with a given rotation at a given x,y coordinate, then I believe it should work.
now we just need people who actually know what they are doing to port the classes. I am just fumbling my way around, as I basically have no experience with c++.
a lot of the grid wars experience is from the particle effects and the dynamic grid design in the background. So I believe theses are pretty necessary to any new version.

 

[torpor]

What I have for OGL ES 1.1 right now is a full-blown 3D engine, which means we can do a 3D gridwars. *NOT* 2D: 3D! The engine is set up right now as a racing game with the camera following the player, but it can easily be re-purposed to be an overhead-view of a general field, with scrolling and so on. Also, the engine works already, and has a simple racing game mechanic right now - but its very easy to repurpose this.

It has a "Player" class which moves around the field, an "Enemy" class which also has its own model and moves around, and "Targets" and "Obstacles". All of these can easily be re-purposed as needed to implement the GW game mechanics. Also, some basic particles stuff is available too.

So yes, theoretically, all I need to do is write a few classes that extend on these base classes already.

What I would like is if we got an artist who can render a whole 3D playing field with models for the player, different baddies, different goals and so on. If we can get that done, say in Blender or 3DSMax or something, we can really easily get a basic game engine done .. The big challenge would be getting the modelling and graphic design done by someone who knows what they're doing with a modeller, and can do a complete mockup, in 3D, of how they think it should look. I can take those models and start coding up some mechanics for how they behave, simply enough.

The engine is running on Beagle, iPhone, Zii Egg, and .. some time this week, hopefully, the AI Touchbook. So it would be very simple to get it running on Pandora once we all have one.


So, if you're a 3D modeller looking for a simple challenge, do some mockups from an overhead view of a 3D-based Geometry Wars. It might be a lot easier to create this game than you think!

(Also, I will open source the whole thing. I think it would be wonderful for us to have another community game for the Pandora out there, so lets do this properly!)

 

[Monk]

Hmmm.... I may be missing the point somewhat, but to me one of the major aspets tha tI like about Grid Wars and Echoes (which I probably prefer, to be honest) is the heavy accent on nostalgia. The 2D graphics, the drawn-as-outline-with-glow reminds me of the "free" glow that we used to get from the CRT displays used in arcade cabinets (and earlier home computers). There are many, many nods in such games to the "original" ancestors of the game which I don't feel a 3D rendered version would have.

True, some games updated to 3D really work, and work well - but they are usually (IMHO) effectively new games as they have their own gameplay, their own look and feel. I could probably contribute some renders of stuff if you really wanted, I'd have to think on it and try some samples out with you, but I'm not sure that I personally would really fancy playing it myself - I like the retro feel

And if you really DO mean 3D as in real 3D then.... I see the link to Grid Wars even less and don't see how the gameplay would work in true 3D with just a look-down perspective sorry

 

[bzar]

I think what torpor means is a gameplay-wise faithful clone, but with 3D graphics. I don't see any problem if the glow can be added to that too

 

[torpor]

Hmmm.... I may be missing the point somewhat, but to me one of the major aspets tha tI like about Grid Wars and Echoes (which I probably prefer, to be honest) is the heavy accent on nostalgia.

Oh, absolutely. There is no *requirement* that we use a 3D look, just that I have already an engine that works pretty well for 3D, and a top-down view of the 3D models can be made to look as low-tech and bitty as possible.

The 2D graphics, the drawn-as-outline-with-glow reminds me of the "free" glow that we used to get from the CRT displays used in arcade cabinets (and earlier home computers). There are many, many nods in such games to the "original" ancestors of the game which I don't feel a 3D rendered version would have.

I think its quite possible to make a model in 3D that delivers the look and feel that you're after ..

True, some games updated to 3D really work, and work well - but they are usually (IMHO) effectively new games as they have their own gameplay, their own look and feel.

I agree with you. My engine is 3D only because I wish to use acceleration as much as possible - we don't have to deliver a fully 3D experience. It can be a top-down view of the playing field, rendered using the 3D capabilities of the device, but still with a 2D/retro feeling ..

I could probably contribute some renders of stuff if you really wanted, I'd have to think on it and try some samples out with you, but I'm not sure that I personally would really fancy playing it myself - I like the retro feel

Well lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here .. the playability of such a game can't really be ascertained until .. you know .. you've played it. A retro feel is up to the artist - all I'm saying is that from a programming perspective, I have a 3D playing field that can be quite easily re-purposed to deliver a Grid-wars style experience.

And if you really DO mean 3D as in real 3D then.... I see the link to Grid Wars even less and don't see how the gameplay would work in true 3D with just a look-down perspective sorry

I dunno, I think there is some potential here that maybe you're overlooking. The 2D nature of the game is very plain (pun intended) and easy to implement. The fact that we would be rendering it with 3D isn't so relevant as the look and feel created by the artist would be.

Think like this: Starcraft: 2D engine. Starcraft2: 3D engine. Still, same basic gameplay ..

And if we get even trickier, it would be nice to be able to swap out models and so on dynamically, so we could have the GW engine with multiple different skins. Sort of like glTron ..

 

[Monk]

I think what torpor means is a gameplay-wise faithful clone, but with 3D graphics. I don't see any problem if the glow can be added to that too

Hmmm...interesting...

I think its quite possible to make a model in 3D that delivers the look and feel that you're after ..

Well, I probably sholdn't be the ONLY one to comment on look and feel... LOL.

BTW sorry if I'm coming across as agressive. I don't mean to - it's a combination of the pain I'm in and the fact that I want to boil down as quickly as possible to the nitty-gritty as there's a potential I might try to help out, and if I do I want to be helping out in "the right way" rather than going off half-cocked and putting in effort that nobody wants

I agree with you. My engine is 3D only because I wish to use acceleration as much as possible - we don't have to deliver a fully 3D experience. It can be a top-down view of the playing field, rendered using the 3D capabilities of the device, but still with a 2D/retro feeling ..

Cool

I could probably contribute some renders of stuff if you really wanted, I'd have to think on it and try some samples out with you, but I'm not sure that I personally would really fancy playing it myself - I like the retro feel

Well lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here .. the playability of such a game can't really be ascertained until .. you know .. you've played it. A retro feel is up to the artist - all I'm saying is that from a programming perspective, I have a 3D playing field that can be quite easily re-purposed to deliver a Grid-wars style experience.

No worries - if we're talking about a playing field which is, in effect, a 2D "slice" of the engine's 3D capability, then that'd give the 2D playing field and the general control of the craft (gameplay) would/could be much the same then...

And if you really DO mean 3D as in real 3D then.... I see the link to Grid Wars even less and don't see how the gameplay would work in true 3D with just a look-down perspective sorry

I dunno, I think there is some potential here that maybe you're overlooking. The 2D nature of the game is very plain (pun intended) and easy to implement. The fact that we would be rendering it with 3D isn't so relevant as the look and feel created by the artist would be.

Oh, I don't mean to suggest that even a proper 3D Asteroids-on-drugs game would be pointless - just that it wouldn't, to me, be a port of GridWars - it'd be it's own thing, to me.

Think like this: Starcraft: 2D engine. Starcraft2: 3D engine. Still, same basic gameplay ..

This may sadden you - but it'd be more meaningful to me, I suspect, if I'd ever played either of those games

LOL!

And if we get even trickier, it would be nice to be able to swap out models and so on dynamically, so we could have the GW engine with multiple different skins. Sort of like glTron ..

So I think the thing I would like to know most is if you're looking for rendered sprites (I get the impression not) or for 3D UV-mapped models with textures (I'm getting the impression yes).