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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I was almost ready to buy Starcraft 2, but now I see this amazing game!

    • Re:Just in time! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MachDelta (704883) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @04:35AM (#33225918)

      Good idea. I was actually kind of disappointed with SC2. They basically took 10 years to do a graphics overhaul and... well that's about it. Oh and they also managed to ruin Bnet, remove LAN play, and make it so you can never ever sell the game. Otherwise it's pretty much the same game from 1998.

      My only saving grace is that I traded in 3 old games and got it for 'free'. Meh.

      • by aliquis (678370)

        Sure about the selling part? I doubt it.

        Also I assume eventually the extensions to the single player game will bring more to multiplayer game to? Even though one can play all three races now. Or?

        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. I can understand if it matches players poorly atm.

        • by SkunkPussy (85271)

          "I haven't played it" so guess what you don't know!

          they have dropped various features from bnet like chat rooms etc, and people complain about the maphosting problems.

          it matches players fairly well.

        • Re:Just in time! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Vaphell (1489021) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @05:28AM (#33226084)

          as a former blizzard fanboy who loved every single game they released in last 15 years (maybe except wow) let me say this:
          sc2 is bad - everything but core multiplayer pretty much sucks
          - you are 'encouraged' to be always online, you have to deal with authorizations to even dream about playing offline on some shitty guest account (your progress on your account and on guest are separate so you'd have to start campaign from scratch)
          - no LAN
          - regions with no possibility to play across borders (unless you drop another $60 for the other region's version)
          - 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)
          - 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)
          - no clan/tournament support
          - 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)
          - 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
          - horrible custom maps - maps are sorted by popularity and filled automatically - obscure maps are never played and players have no control over the rules and players joining
          - for sc1 lore nerds - poor story, an awful lot of retcons, completely redesigned personalities of core characters, large amounts of meaningless filler and everything you know and love going down the shitter. Only technical side to the campaign and missions themselves are good, everything else is incoherent, self-contradictory and cringeworthy. Watered down story means you need to pay 3times to get similar amount of action (story-wise) you got from sc1 vanilla alone.

          doesn't sound like blizzard of old, eh?

          read this rather blizzard-centric blog devoted to games for in depth analysis of the current state of affairs in blizzard
          http://www.the-ghetto.org/ [the-ghetto.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by delinear (991444)
            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...
            • by PitaBred (632671)

              I like single-player Torchlight (well worth the $5 I paid on Steam for it, I'd even pay $10-$15). They're apparently working on a multiplayer Torchlight II. Why even worry about Diablo?

            • by Ihmhi (1206036)

              Before I had Internet Diablo II and Starcraft were all I really had to do for fun. Starcraft II already seems to be disappointing all but the really hardcore multiplayer folks. I'm with you on the worries about Diablo III.

              You have to wonder how much of this decision is Blizzard and how much of it is Vivendi and Activision.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by dskzero (960168)
            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.
            • the lack of people defending it

              But we did! On the last dozen or so times SC2 has come up, and when a long list of grievances to King Morhaime wasn't completely off-topic. It's been done to death.

              We're bored of confronting the haters who have nothing better to do than be bitter about their difference of opinion and disappointment that life isn't perfect. We've moved on and keep enjoying the game.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Cinder6 (894572)

              The people who like the game are too busy enjoying it to even read the hater comments.

          • by Raenex (947668)

            you are 'encouraged' to be always online, you have to deal with authorizations to even dream about playing offline on some shitty guest account (your progress on your account and on guest are separate so you'd have to start campaign from scratch)

            This doesn't appear to be true. From what I can tell by reading this thread [battle.net], you are required to authenticate online initially and every 30 days after that. It appears there is/was a bug (they say they have a patch, but I don't know if it is released yet) that if your machine changes it's hostname when offline, the authentication doesn't stick.

          • 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".

            • by Vaphell (1489021)

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

              how does that work when few people want to play alternately? does the new campaign destroy the old one or you get to reload from saves? Either way, inconvenient.

              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.

              they were spammed because it was trivial to create bunch of accounts, also blizzard never really cared about law and order on battle.net - after all when the copies are sold, money was made, why bother to police their network service. Now single account costs 60 bucks, i don't think many would try to spam and risk permaban.
              Another thing is you coul

              • by Rewind (138843)

                how does that work when few people want to play alternately? does the new campaign destroy the old one or you get to reload from saves? Either way, inconvenient.

                You can still reload your old saves, they don't go anywhere. At least the local copies. I am not too sure what the 'cloud' saving does. Local copies save though.

                they were spammed because it was trivial to create bunch of accounts, also blizzard never really cared about law and order on battle.net - after all when the copies are sold, money was made, why bother to police their network service. Now single account costs 60 bucks, i don't think many would try to spam and risk permaban. Another thing is you could always create your own channel, nobody forced you to sit in the public one. Now you don't get any of that, but as i said - try to organize anything with that pathetic IM.

                Well that was (later) true of the original. They stopped chat gateways a while back I think. Now it is $60 sure, but I would guess that was done for later? I dunno. I didn't have any issues with it. What exactly don't you like about the chat and party system? I mostly use voice chat on it with my friends and we found it useful enough to not

        • Re:Just in time! (Score:5, Informative)

          by MachDelta (704883) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @06:15AM (#33226250)

          I wish I were kidding. Section 7 of the EULA flat out states that you can never "sublicense or transfer" the game to any person or entity. The funny (and sad) part is it even goes on to say that *IF* a court overturns that little nugget, then you agree to call Blizzard customer service so that they can charge you a "processing/handling fee" just so you can sell the game.

          It's one hell of a nasty EULA. :\

          • Re:Just in time! (Score:5, Informative)

            by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:50AM (#33227526)
            Over here in the UK, we have the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations. I'm pretty sure that "You have to call us and pay us so you can resell this game you bought" would fall foul of it. It's a question of whether Blizzard would turn up to small claims court when you sue for the "processing fee" to be waived.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          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 -

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        I spent almost half a minute wondering who did a graphics overhaul to Star Control 2.
      • by MaXMC (138127)

        I'm waiting for the StarCraft 1 re-make in the StarCraft 2 graphics engine. That's something I'd buy.

      • by javajeff (73413)

        Well, I am loving SC2. I have always believed that innovation is way overrated. Some people just need any update to their favorite games. When a company innovates and creates a new experience, then everyone complains that they changed the game. Game companies cannot win, and it is a daunting task to try to satisfy everyone.

        I think that the game should have LAN play, but I am not someone who uses that feature right now in my life. My main source of entertainment is battle.net. Let me say that the new b

      • by MaWeiTao (908546)

        The fact that they didn't reinvent what works is the best part of the game. There are games that really only need graphical updates and this is one of them. I'm tired of developers having to reinvent a game with every sequel. And given the competitive nature of Starcraft it makes sense they would be reluctant to tamper with the formula.

        As for the other problems, it's really par for the course in this day and age. Is anyone surprised they dropped LAN support? For all the clamor how many people would actually

        • by Vaphell (1489021)

          Not buying and complaining? You are promptly shot down by the zealous fanboys as a wannabe pirate, good luck complaining. I thought i may as well become one and now i am an example of this:
          http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/19/ [penny-arcade.com]
          I DLed warezed copy of SC2 and I say this as someone who has most of the blizzard games. I decided they are not worthy getting my monies anymore. They changed so much after the merge with activision it's unbelievable. Axing tried and true features left and right does not win my

      • StarCraft 2 has no LAN play...Wow. Just...wow.

        This is like the Bush re-election of the gaming world.

    • by aliquis (678370)

      I was almost ready to buy Starcraft 2, but now I see this amazing game!

      What has been stopping you so far? Sounds like you have a machine capable of running it and in that case I don't see the problem if it's anything you could see yourself playing.

      The game was dirt cheap, I was expecting more, price was 389 SEK here in Sweden.

      Personally I actually get to play it at decent quality I would have to invest in a Intel P55 + Core i5 760/870 or X58 + i7 930 (preferably with one UDMA133-controller to) with GTX 460 1 GB graphics system. And well, that will cost a lot more =P

      The game is

      • by SkunkPussy (85271)

        interesting, in england it was about 40% more than any other pc game

      • by delinear (991444)
        Regardless of the price there are all kinds of reasons not to be first in the queue to buy a new game - DRM worries and multiplayer issues being the primary ones (a lot of people choose to wait unti they fix the first wave of issues before they commit to buy).
  • Resolution error (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tacarat (696339)
    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 tacarat (696339)
      Curses. Screen edges needed for scrolling. Maybe sleep would be better than a quick game...
      • You can use the arrow keys for scrolling without too much trouble in addition to panning by clicking on the minimap. It's one of the more windowed-mode friendly games I've played, really.
  • by silanea (1241518) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @06:27AM (#33226294)

    Not that I think this game would hit any 32 bit architecture limitations, but why is there no 64 bit build for Windows provided? I have seen this with many projects. OpenOffice, Inkscape and Mozilla do this, Eclipse only recently began to offer all of its preassembled packages for both Windows platforms. Developers of proprietary consumer software, with the partial exception of Adobe, seem to be largely oblivious of the existance of 64 bit platforms, probably because switching will not reap them more cash. But why do OSS developers opt to ignore this platform? The Steam Hardware Survey [steampowered.com] has Windows 7 x64 at 28%, double that of its 32 bit version and following closely to the 32% of XP 32 bit. 64 bit is not any more the domain of nerds or early adopters, it is becoming the dominating platform in the Windows ecosystem.

    So my question is: Why is it ignored? Would it really be hard to provide 64 bit builds? Would this require a lot of additional development work?

    • by jack2000 (1178961)
      My money is on laziness. At least valve is taking 64bit seriously. Frankly most stuff works on it just fine. Also microsoft are working on bettering the WoW(windows on windows) visualizing software(it's been there ever since XP64) and there's going to be some more time where you wouldn't care if an app is 32 or 64 bit because both will work ok.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by richlv (778496)

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

    • by Kjella (173770)

      It's not nearly as important, because most Windows software ship with all their dependencies as well. While 64 bit linux can run 32 bit software, then you need all the libraries to be compiled as 32 bit as well because otherwise pointer sizes would differ. Unless the application uses more than 4GB of RAM, all you miss is a few percent performance.

    • by imbaczek (690596)
      a good, free, x64 c/c++ compiler doesn't exists on windows. gcc is getting there, but it's still not the thing yet.
    • by mdwh2 (535323)

      Visual Studio Express (the free version) doesn't support 64 bit (at least as of 2008 edition, not sure if 2010 changed this?), so you have to pay for it. That's the reason why I don't compile for 64 bit (even when writing Windows-only applications, and even though I run 64 bit myself), and I suspect this may be a factor for other free developers too. I'm not sure if there are any other free compilers on Windows that support 64 bit?

      It does seem odd to me that Microsoft would limit this functionality - whilst

      • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)

        ``It does seem odd to me that Microsoft would limit this functionality - whilst they obviously want a reason for people to pay for the full versions of Visual Studio, crippling 64 bit is surely going to harm adoption of 64 bit Windows, which can't be good for Microsoft.''

        Actually, I've heard many complaints about 64-bit Windows. Perhaps less adoption of 64-bit Windows _is_ good for Microsoft ... or at least was when they released VS 2008.

    • by ildon (413912) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @11:10AM (#33228460)

      64 bit is perfectly backwards compatible with 32 bit. If there's no advantage to making a 64 bit build, why bother? It's just more QA time for no reason, and possibly more support time later on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Softhaus (1451127)
      As the build person for Mega-Glest... I would say no 64 bit build for windows because it isn't needed at the moment, the 32 bit version runs fine in 64 bit windows. Linux on the other hand has different solutions for 32 bit emulation for different linux distro's.. the easiest thing was to build 32 and 64 bit versions under nix.
  • Spring RTS (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If you want a really good real time strategy engine/game try spring (http://springrts.com) it is far more robust and fun than any other rts I've ever played (including this one), it's interface easily surpasses starcraft 2 and supcom.

    For example It's great because you can select a bunch of units, and then draw a line of attack and have your units attack each position, instead of cluster fucking together.

    All projectiles are actually calculated out as to whether they'll hit something, and everything's affecte

    • by GooberToo (74388)

      I second this. The Spring engine has many good games (mods) available. Games range from Total Annihilation clones to WWII to truly unique game play like Kernel Panic. There is even a Star Wars mod (looks awesome) nearing completion.

      The game play is fun. The graphics are decent. There is an active community in their forums. The developers (engine and mods) are accessible and friendly. There are even a variety of AIs to choose from; many actively being supported and developed. Some mods even have their own, c

  • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie@NOsPAM.hotmail.com> on Thursday August 12, 2010 @07:09AM (#33226450) Homepage

    One thing I've noticed over and over again is that F/OSS games always look horrible, have seriously outdated graphics and usually even sound effects are annoying enough to make me want to completely disable sounds. And another thing that seems very common for F/OSS is that they're always aimed for playing against other human players or a skirmish against AI players; there's never any actually interesting, multi-faceted single-player campaign with any worthwhile storyline. Why? Do we have no skilled artists to create graphics for games, or is it lack of coding skills? Or why no interest in developing a game enjoyable solo, only multiplayer games? Hell, not even co-operative campaigns with storylines! I'd give almost anything to find a recent, good-looking game with interesting storyline and which could be played co-op; none of the commercial games anymore these days seem to offer that so that'd be a great niche for F/OSS games to fill.

    Of course, I haven't tried every single F/OSS game out there, but I've come across and tried quite a large selection and checked out gameplay videos etc on even more games than I have actually played. I _might_ have missed some really good ones but given the overwhelming evidence as to the quality of F/OSS games I doubt it. And no, I don't count remakes of old commercial games, they're not new games even if they happen to be from scratch with a different license scheme..

    Makes me kinda sad. I am a F/OSS supporter, I've got several computers running Linux 24/7, and hell, even my phone has already 2 different Linux distros installed on it. But I am and have always been a gamer and I just can't use Linux for my gaming needs; I always run into issues when trying to run Windows-games via Wine, and there's no worthwhile Linux-games available...

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why? Do we have no skilled artists to create graphics for games, or is it lack of coding skills?

      It's pretty simple.

      Anyone who has graphical skills doesn't want some "programmer" dictating to them what art to make. Especially if they are not getting paid. They would rather make the art for their own game idea.
      Anyone who has programming skills doesn't want some "artist" dictating to them what type of game to make. Especially if they are not getting paid. They would rather create the design for their own game idea.

      • by mdwh2 (535323)

        Anyone who has graphical skills doesn't want some "programmer" dictating to them what art to make. Especially if they are not getting paid. They would rather make the art for their own game idea.

        I don't think that fully explains, otherwise we'd at least see the results of their efforts. Unless you mean they attempt to make their own game, but fail because they lack programming skills, which yes does seem likely.

        I think more generally, the problem is that artists aren't interested in making graphics specific

      • You might well be right: the only game actually play, Battle for Wesnoth, clearly values artists and has beautiful artwork - although if you look at the original release it started with crappy graphics. Is it true that the developers of game with poor graphics do not value artistic contributions.

        I do not think the graphics in Glest are that bad either.

        Incidentally, the GP should note it has lots of fun single player campaigns,

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by MaXMC (138127)

      Have you tried The Battle for Wesnoth?

      http://wiki.wesnoth.org/Description [wesnoth.org]

    • For the campaign element, at least, I'd suggest you try looking into Battle for Wesnoth, it's an RPTBS. But in general I agree, a lot of the open source games still seem driven by the idea that they are written by coders for coders. And apparently we coders don't care about graphics at all.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zwei2stein (782480)

      1) Multiplayer foss gmes are more common because it is easier to get into touch with other people who like to play (and) code multiplayer games. Which is blessing as they can agree on game design and mechanics because they usually want to clone one specific game (which is good thing because project where developers can not agree on basic mechanics die fast.).

      2) Decent detailed 3D model of one humanoid creature can take month or more. Skilled artists simply do not have enough free time to do it as hobby. At

      • by Lendrick (314723) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:49AM (#33228128) Homepage Journal

        Hey folks!

        Founder of http://opengameart.org/ [opengameart.org] here. I noticed the bandwidth spike, so I thought I'd take a look at the referrer link, and I'm glad to see someone finally mention us on Slashdot. Honestly, I'd love to have a *real* slashdotting. The server's hefty enough to handle it, and the publicity would be immensely helpful. :)

        At any rate, one of our underlying missions is to help FOSS games move beyond "programmer art", and we do that by taking donations and then using those to commission artists to do art. I run the site mostly out of pocket, and with all the commissions, it costs me a good $500 monthly, in addition to the roughly $100/month in donations that we bring in (mostly community members with recurring subscriptions). Shameless plug: If you subscribe, even for $3/month, that's money we can use to buy art for everyone that will never go away. :)

        One of our current projects is an art revamp for a Smash Bros. clone called Ultimate Smash Friends. ( http://usf.tuxfamily.org/wiki/Main_Page [tuxfamily.org] )

        Here's are the first two characters we've commissioned:

        Xeon: http://opengameart.org/content/xeon-ultimate-smash-friends [opengameart.org]
        Awesome Possum: http://opengameart.org/content/the-awesome-possum-ultimate-smash-friends [opengameart.org]

        It's a lot of work, and it's not cheap, but there's a lot of FOSS game code out there with a lot of potential, and I think it's worth it. Plus, all of the assets we commission are CC-licensed, so they're reusable as part of the commons.

        Feel free to hit me up if you have any questions or ideas. If you have thoughts about the site interface (we're still working on it), there's a forum thread discussing planned changes for OGA 2.0. I'd love to hear what you think!

        Peace,
        Bart K.
        http://opengameart.org/ [opengameart.org]

      • by fikx (704101)
        follow-up question for 2)
        why are OSS games considered only a hobby?
        I look forward to the day when a dedicated game developer (not in spare time, but to make a game and sell it) include the source code on the install disk...
        but I can prolly guess a few answers to my own question...
      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        5) Open game development is a sloooooooooow process. It'd take several years to make a campaign a player goes through once in maybe 20 hours and never looks at again. Story amplifies the problem because once you know it that's it.

    • by zacronos (937891)
      I haven't tried them out yet, but some of the games on this page look rather nice: http://springrts.com/wiki/Games [springrts.com]
    • by Hatta (162192)

      Open source always prioritizes function over form, as it should be. If the core gameplay is good, what do you need graphics for at all? See Nethack.

      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        Attracting users which is critical for a multiplayer-based game. You don't want 90% of your users to be scared away the first time they start your game. Polishing something to the degree where an average user will accept it is much harder than it sounds.

      • That's just an excuse and a really poor one at that, too: there is absolutely no reason why you can't have both, they aren't exclusive of one another.

        Graphics isn't just eye-candy; if used properly it can be a powerful boost to the atmosphere, it can be used to draw the player's attention to crucial storyline developments, and last but not least, some people are just more visual and others and as such need more visual stimulus to be able to fully immerse themselves in the game.

  • Anybody know how well it plays on Windows 7 x64, and/or if they plan a 64 bit Windows port? It is really a shame how FOSS developers nearly always have an x64 Linux port but almost never have a Windows x64, especially given that from what I've seen more and more of the machines are coming with x64 by default to get rid of that pesky 4Gb memory limit.

    Sure I know a lot of the time Windows will run the x32 (haven't messed with Linux x64 but I assume they have the same ability) but I've found that native x64

    • by iosq (1084989)
      Gave it an install on my Vista x64 machine, runs just fine for me. Be warned though, played Glest waaay back, and the nostalgia goggles did nothing for the graphics - low polygon models and blurry textures await.
  • by radarsat1 (786772) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:40AM (#33228022) Homepage

    I downloaded it but I notice the installer is an ELF executable. This is sort of a Windows-style way to distribute an application. If I run it, I have no idea where it will put files on my system. I'm not too comfortable with that, why not distribute a deb that will allow my system's package manager to let me uninstall it easily?

    (Or next best thing, just a tarball that unzips to a predictable location and runs from there.)

    As it stands, if I want to be careful I'd have to create a low-priviledge user with a clean directory just to easily track what happens during install without worrying about it writing to my system directories or to a weird place in my home directory. Kind of a lot of work just to check out a game.

    • by Softhaus (1451127)
      There is a deb on playdeb.net for an older release.. perhaps bug the guys over there to update it to 3.3.6. Sorry, as the build miester for Mega-Glest (MG) I don't have tones of Linux experience so making native packages for every distro is a bit of a challenge.
      • by Excors (807434)
        Have you seen the OpenSUSE Build Service [opensuse.org]? That can automatically build native packages for several distros (OpenSUSE, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu (if you don't depend on anything in Universe)), and already has plenty of games [opensuse.org], and isn't too hard to set up when you can copy from existing examples. (I've been trying to use it for 0 A.D. and it seems okay so far.)
  • I'd love to play from mac to my (ugh!) PC laptop...

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.

Working...