Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Real Time Strategy (Games) Open Source PC Games (Games) Games

FOSS RTS Game Glest Gets Revival — Enter Mega-Glest 103

Posted by Soulskill
from the strategic-fork dept.
Softhaus writes "Many readers here are likely familiar with the popular, open source RTS game Glest, which comes packaged with nearly every Linux distro. Unfortunately, all development ceased on the original game back in 2008, disappointing many around the world. During the past year, a new fork (called Mega-Glest) has endeavored to take this great game and bring it to the masses. This new fork can provide hours of fun at your next LAN party, as it supports up to eight players in real-time (with or without CPU AI players), and the newly released v3.3.5 offers Internet play via a master server lobby. Cross-platform network play is now a reality, which could help bridge the gap between Linux and Windows users in a cohesive manner. One of the best features of Mega-Glest (and indeed Glest itself) is the ease with which new 'factions' and mods may be produced via a Map editor, model viewer, Blender plugins, XML files describing your unit traits, particles, weapons, and LUA scripting for scenarios and AI. Full installers for Windows, Linux 32-bit and 64-bit are available on SourceForge, promising hours of fun. But one warning: the game can become highly addictive. You can provide feedback for the game through the official forums."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FOSS RTS Game Glest Gets Revival — Enter Mega-Glest

Comments Filter:
  • Resolution error (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tacarat (696339) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @04:56AM (#33225976) Journal
    Win7, 64bit C:\Program Files (x86)\Glest_3.2.2\Glest.ini There's a "Windowed=0" setting. Changed it to a one and ran ok. I'm feeling a bit too lazy RTFforums to see if there's a fix or to switch the regular resolution settings for full screen >.>
  • by richlv (778496) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @06:49AM (#33226376)

    maybe because ms/windows ignored 64bit for many years, while other operating systems supported that. so maybe people associated "windows=32bit" or something.

  • Re:Just in time! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by delinear (991444) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @07:51AM (#33226660)
    I hadn't planned on playing SC2 but having read the above (relating to battlenet and multiplayer in general as well as the authentication DRM nonsense) I'm starting to worry about what they'll do to Diablo 3...
  • Re:Just in time! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dskzero (960168) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:02AM (#33227118) Homepage
    I'm really surprised at the ammount of hate SC2 has received and the lack of people defending it. It might be something with people liking it a lot, though, and all the points you raise are generally very subjective. I do agree with the lack of region inter-play and the lack of LAN support, the rest aren't really all that important to me.
  • Re:Just in time! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rewind (138843) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:20AM (#33227826) Homepage

    your progress on your account and on guest are separate so you'd have to start campaign from scratch

    This isn't true. You can go in there and copy saves over just like you can on SC1. They are in a folder in Documents by default. It contains a Save subfolder.

    - only 1 account (no separate stats or single player progress for different people using it, in fact that $60 is not per game copy, but per account, you are not allowed to share)

    The stats part is true, however the single player progress bit is not. You can have more than one. Just hit new campaign.

    - pathetic ways of communication (no easy to use and very social at their core chat channels, instead you get poor man's instant messenger which makes it total pita to run a clan or organize anything bigger that 2v2)

    Social chat channels? They were just bots spamming for clans or (if some D1 or D2 was involved) item selling sites... The more private channels were useful for sure, but they have a party system for that now. Also how is a 3v a pita? Works just fine for me... Now a clan you might be spot on about, I wouldn't know.

    - creators of custom maps pretty much hand the rights to blizzard and map distribution is solely through battle.net, pretty much no option to have custom maps on disk and play them offline, not to mention ridiculous restrictions (max 5 maps, total 20MB)

    This also isn't true. You can put maps in a map folder and play them just like in SC. And you can load them for single player use or fire up the editor and launch them from there.

    - hard to understand, intransparent ladder with leagues and thousands of divisions that doesn't show anything even remotely resembling global ranks so players can feel good about themselves

    Eh hopefully they add this for you. I think it is a valid request even if I am not interested in it personally. However I doubt the vast majority of players need "global ranks" to "feel good about themselves" so it probably wasn't given priority over making leagues that work well for prompt and equal matchmaking.

    maps are sorted by popularity and filled automatically - obscure maps are never played and players have no control over the rules and players joining

    Huh? You can invite who you want and pick the map you want and change rule options.

    Watered down story means you need to pay 3times to get similar amount of action (story-wise) you got from sc1 vanilla alone.

    This one is just kind of ridiculous. What POSSIBLE measurement do you use to get that figure? Did it take you 30 minutes to read the little quick story panels in SC1 or something? Might want to take off those rose-tinted glasses and actually go review the Story presented in vanilla StarCraft. It is fine that you don't like SC2. You made some good points (no real LAN play is sad, though you can still play over LAN provided you have internet to auth there. and the logging in every time can be annoying. can't sell the game etc) but some of that was distorted to say the least. Personally I rather enjoyed SC2. If I had to guess I would say a good number of people ragging on StarCraft II never played it. Hence comments that just aren't true or are exaggerated like some of the stuff you had or "graphics overhaul is all it is".

  • Re:Just in time! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:55AM (#33228228) Journal

    And if they changed much at all lots of people would had complained.

    Doubt they have made bnet worse either but then I haven't played it.

    People ARE complaining - look at this thread you started!

    Their DRM structure is about as Draconian as Ubisoft's new titles. I had purchased it while my desktop was at my parents house, I installed it and started the campaign on it. Now I moved into my new place last week - and I won't get any internet installed until tomorrow. When I try to play offline - under my account or guest mode - it says I need to authenticate my client and have 1 character created on my account.

    Well - I did some searching around - What does it mean by "Authenticate my client?" Enter my CD key into my Bnet account. I did that. I created a character, thats how I started the campaign. Through some shitty DRM scheme, it is designed to delete the offline info of your account every 30 days so you'll need a need a net connection every once in a while to keep playing. (I've seen A TON of soldiers complaining about this. They bought the game to play overseas, but its not going to work for them). Also - until the most recent patch they released, the DRM bugged out and deleted that offline info prior to the 30 days, in fact, almost instantly. If you have a connection, you wouldn't notice, but pretty much everyone who activated it online, then went to try it offline - had issues starting, even in guest mode.

    Honestly - the little bits that I've seen have suggested that its a little bit of a let down. They have stripped away some of the things that made the first SC so appealing, from pretty much every aspect of the game. In the storyline - you aren't actually yourself, you pretty much take control of Jim Raynor. I prefered being Magistrate, or Cerebrate, or Executor from the first one, it made me feel like being above the battlefield and issuing orders was an actual position one could be bestowed. But now you basically take on Jim, who was never a character I liked much anyways.

    In terms of gameplay - everyone is complaining that Zerg are underpowered, though I think its really just that they have a steeper learning curve than the other races. Battle.net Matchmaking is still in some VERY infant stages - it rarely gets it right until you've had about 100 games under your belt.

    Honestly, I'm not sure its worth the $60. It seems a decent enough game - but the struggles people have had with it are really putting me off of it, I would not urge anyone I know to go and buy it. There was even an issue on the technical forums where MULTIPLE people reported that the game borked their video card. (Though I think that was mostly an issue with people trying to overclock them or something and it caused issues on certain cards)

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...