411 replies to this topic

[Mitchfork]

As somebody who is not interested in programming, I have to ask: what is the big fuss about making Zelda Classic open source?

Considering all the present limitations of Zelda Classic (and really game making engines in general), as a designer I can't deny the allure of being able to fix these limitations as would be possible in an open source program. However, as a player, it would be highly frustrating to download someone's own version of Zelda Classic just to play one quest. Unless I misunderstand the concept of open source, this is what I foresee happening. It's bad enough that we have to deal with two incompatible stable versions and rolling updates. Why make it that much worse?

[Lemmy Koopa]

That was the original plan, yes, but I figured it'd save engine power to only have one scripting language. You can still program in ZScript, but it will compile to Python instead of ZASM.

Now THAT'S good

[Plissken]

As somebody who is not interested in programming, I have to ask: what is the big fuss about making Zelda Classic open source?

Considering all the present limitations of Zelda Classic (and really game making engines in general), as a designer I can't deny the allure of being able to fix these limitations as would be possible in an open source program. However, as a player, it would be highly frustrating to download someone's own version of Zelda Classic just to play one quest. Unless I misunderstand the concept of open source, this is what I foresee happening. It's bad enough that we have to deal with two incompatible stable versions and rolling updates. Why make it that much worse?

That's why open source + .exe compiler would be the awesome.

[lucas92]

I think you misunderstood the conception of open source. Open source means that the code is accessible to everyone. There will still be official versions and the code could in some sort of revision system like SVN or CVS.

[Nathaniel]

Right, but that all makes sense from a programmer's standpoint. Ebola, or anybody else not too keen to programmer's jargon, including myself, is not going to understand what any of that means unless we do extensive enough research, and understand the explanations found within that research. As far as I understand, there is an organized system to it all. Anybody has access to the source code, but only some would be in control to any official changes to the program, I believe. Just because one person tinkers with it, doesn't mean that their work will be labeled as official changes, I would assume. Evolvement of the program would come with some level of community cooperation. If Firefox can be open source, why couldn't something on a much smaller scale that is free be, such as Zelda Classic? It's not as if anybody has to pay for the program anyway, nobody is being paid to develop it, and nobody is being paid to design quests with it.

[sigtau]

As somebody who is not interested in programming, I have to ask: what is the big fuss about making Zelda Classic open source?

Considering all the present limitations of Zelda Classic (and really game making engines in general), as a designer I can't deny the allure of being able to fix these limitations as would be possible in an open source program. However, as a player, it would be highly frustrating to download someone's own version of Zelda Classic just to play one quest. Unless I misunderstand the concept of open source, this is what I foresee happening. It's bad enough that we have to deal with two incompatible stable versions and rolling updates. Why make it that much worse?

That's the misconception involved with open-sourcing. With a proper version-control system (i.e. only a few "official" devs hold the keys to "writing" to the official source library), there would be no problems with this. When someone makes their own builds of ZC, they could indeed do what you're saying, but they could also provide a patch file enabling the official devs to merge the source code.

If someone forks the source code (which, I trust the ZC community in that most of our programmers aren't stupid enough to keep the fork an entirely separate deal) then there certainly won't be an issue with merging the fork with the official branch.

Edited by TMS, 14 June 2010 - 03:42 PM.

[Lemmy Koopa]

If it was open source, people outside of the ZC developers could contribute to helping ZC out.

[Yapollo]

I am trying to learn scripting (2.5 doesn't work for me...), and I have to agree that there is a lot of potential for open-source coding, which has already been said. However I also like the creativity of working within limits (though I do prefer wide limits, such as 2.10 vs 1.90). And, as pointed out, 2.5 should probably be finished. Though, I must say that the ideas being thrown around sound like definite positive improvements.

[Mitchfork]

That's the misconception involved with open-sourcing. With a proper version-control system (i.e. only a few "official" devs hold the keys to "writing" to the official source library), there would be no problems with this. When someone makes their own builds of ZC, they could indeed do what you're saying, but they could also provide a patch file enabling the official devs to merge the source code.

If someone forks the source code (which, I trust the ZC community in that most of our programmers aren't stupid enough to keep the fork an entirely separate deal) then there certainly won't be an issue with merging the fork with the official branch.

Once again, I'm not a programmer, but at least this eases that issue in my mind.

EDIT: Actually I have programmed before, but not in the sense that I could do anything for ZC.

[Koopa]

While the ZC source code is closed, AGN does not hold a patent on "Zelda Clones". If we're serious about this new Zelda, there's nothing to stop us setting up an independent team of developers - perhaps in this very thread - and getting started. If it takes off, PureZC could be the official home, possibly with beta forums like AGN has once the project reaches beta stage. If it's open source the code could be hosted for free at sourceforge or somewhere similar. Someone will have to take the first step. Any takers?

[Nathaniel]

While the ZC source code is closed, AGN does not hold a patent on "Zelda Clones". If we're serious about this new Zelda, there's nothing to stop us setting up an independent team of developers - perhaps in this very thread - and getting started. If it takes off, PureZC could be the official home, possibly with beta forums like AGN has once the project reaches beta stage. If it's open source the code could be hosted for free at sourceforge or somewhere similar. Someone will have to take the first step. Any takers?

It would also probably need a new name, or at least not the exact same name. That will take some brainstorming and picking from a list of possibilities, since "Zelda Classic" is really a product of Phantom Menace, including all upgraded versions of that original engine. And since there would no longer be involvement from Armageddon Games, there would also need to be a new gaming organization (small and not-for-profit, of course), preferably one that only has to do with this new program. Whatever is necessary to make it happen, provided there are the right people willing to do it. Where there is a will, there is a way.

For a name, I wonder if we could get away with "Pure Zelda Classic" or "Pure's Zelda Classic". If not, then certainly other things could be thought of. As for a gaming label, how about "Pure Zelda Classic Productions" or "On the Green Productions" (shameless upsell on the latter)?

[Yapollo]

You could name it Pure Zelda.

Zelda Classic as a name involks memories of the 1st Zelda and classic gameplay. The name "Pure Zelda" involks such connections with a PureZC twist.

As for programming, what code would we be using?

[Beefster]

C++, hands down. We'll probably use SDL for the game engine and wxWidgets for the GUI.

One matter we'll need to consider is how we'll do password protection with an open source engine. I'd say password-encrypt it, but then you'd need the password to play the game...

I don't think "Pure Zelda" quite conveys the goal of the project. It kinda says "you can only make Zelda games with this..." which isn't at all true.

[Koh]

I thought the Zelda part had to be in there, but if not, "Pure Classic" would work, as it's short and to the point.

I'd help with the programming, but unfortunately, I've lots to learn about program creation in C++.

[Geoffrey]

I suggest taking Zelda out of the name entirely, as this would allow us to stray away from any copyright infringement...just in case Nintendo ever decides they don't like us anymore.

Something as simple as "Pure" could work.