狗爺語錄

Subscribing to HappyPenguin RSS feed might be an error. I just keep reading the same game descriptions over and over (and yawning). Finally, finding myself so bored, I decided to summarize the game descriptions. These patterns should fit more than half of all games listed in Happypenguin:

• A <original name>-like <game type> game.
• A <game type> game similar to <original name>.
• A port of <original name> game.
• A clone of the famous <original name> game.
• A clone of the classic <original name> game.
• A <game type> <original name>-like game.
• <game type> variant of <original name>.
• A GPL clone of <original name>.
• A game of <game type>, similar to <original name>.
• An open source implementation of <original name> game.
• A graphical makeover of <original name> game.
• A <game type> game in the style of <original name>.
• <original name> <library> port.
• A <description> <original name> clone.
• <name> is a <game type> game like <original name>
• Remake of the old classic <game type> game.
• <name> is an open source <game type> game written in <language>.
• A <game type> game based on <original name>

Not to mention the most simple and elegant one:

<original name> clone.

Well, probably HappyPenguin should write a game description generator, saving people’s need to enter description by themselves.

To be fair, I can’t blame HappyPenguin, it’s just an aggregate of information of various Linux games.

There was an article on ZDNet about the relation between OpenOffice and Microsoft Office; one thing was so true. What would OpenOffice become, if it just continue posing itself as an Microsoft Office copycat? It can never achieve 100% compatibility, that is a losing game. People using such product aren’t very serious corporate users (like me), who just need simple documents. Anybody trying to open 1000-page documents, documents with complex layout, or those with video embedded, will understand what it means. The only way out is to challenging existing standard, or creating something new that users desire. (Though OpenOffice seems to fail in both ends; but that’s out of topic.)

Same applies to games. Most ‘open source games’ would be better described as ‘half-ass hobby personal projects intended for practising programming skills’. It is rare to have some open source games to really stand out and become popular, freeciv etc are quite extraordinary in this sense.

However, I didn’t blame them too, it’s in fact the best game authors can do. Would casual game programmers ever manage creating big titles? No. Compare with big names like EA or Square-Enix, casual programmers simply don’t have the resources to create high quality games, be it graphics, game flow, character design, music or everything else. (Yes, big titles don’t always create great games, but still better than those which look like unfinished prototype) Copying idea or game flow from existing games is the most economic way to create new ‘game’. Not to mention, most of them are just programmers, who are more interested in programming skills more than anything else. Thus a selected few games with real graphic designers, such as Frozen Bubble, are comparatively much more popular than those without, as they provide a more enjoyable experience for casual gamers. Compare with the number of casual users and gamers, how large is the portion of people who’d rather play MUD or rogue, or ugliness of graphics and sound effects have zero effect on their gaming experience?

Put it this way. Most of casual gamers actually don’t mind if they are playing big titles or not. What they want is something with playability — defined in terms of ability of repeated playing without being bored easily, and whether graphics and sound effects are up to standard so that players wouldn’t find the game disgusting. Many little games satisfy this requirement, such as those from Yahoo, MindJolt and other game vendors. That is innovation — not creating ground-breaking new game category, that only happens at most once per several years. The innovation is, add some little element so that gamers would say, “Aha, something new”. Even Tetris can become something much more enjoyable, see TetriNET for example.

However most open source games can’t even go that far. Lots of programmers usually feel comfortable inside their over-engineering cycle: change API, fix bug, rewrite, fix bug, change API, fix bug, rewrite, fix bug…… Gnome games was such a bad example, up to and including Callum McKenzie era. What is done? Changing API, making games resizable, making games accessible, etc. Granted, some changes do cause the games to be more playable for selected group of people (such as those with disabilities), but overall, all changes provide NO VALUE to the game itself. Until Andreas Røsdal toke over the project, who did add value to the game, and brave enough to conduct polling, shake it up and replace unwanted games with new stuff (such as GGZ support and chess). Putting aside the question whether anybody actually runs networked game, at least he was potentially exploring a new area. Most others would just debate about whether a game is written in Mono or Python or whether tarball size is too large. Damn them. Damn all their work. Those maintainers concern their own well-being only, not the users.

Another one seriously out of touch with the rest of world is crossfire RPG. Until very recently, its 1990-era X11 client (written in Xaw? I forgot) was still the de facto standard client GUI. Yeah, it has GTK+ client, so what? The one with long term support is written in GTK+ 1.x, not 2.x. The GTK+ 2.x one didn’t debut until 2005, and during initial releases that GTK+2.x client was unusable. Bizarre + broken layout, widgets overlapping each other, random crashes, I wouldn’t call that playable. Hope it works better now. Why such bad situation? One is lack of maintenance, officially maintainers had been doing book-keeping just for their precious X11 and GTK+ 1.x versions, not others. And the server architecture, monsters, inventory, all keep changing in an unscalable way. Who else except maintainers have enough time and energy to follow the constant change closely? Not to mention, they are still holding tight with their 80’s square grid graphics like those Dos games do. Somebody has proposed isometric view before, but no, the maintainers are so satisfied, nothing needs changing. Thus yet another fork (there exists another fork due to dissatisfaction of graphics). Although native 3D gaming support on Linux still looks like non-existent beyond “Oh yeah! 3D on Linux works now! Compiz rulez!”, that’s another issue. For Linux, it’s more like on par with SGI workstations on early 90’s: specialized 3D construction software exists and worked well, but not much in every other area. People are still thinking how to add OpenGL support to their GUI libraries. Now go ahead and search for all those angry comments when 3DO still released their once-famous Might and Magic series during 2000 (to be precise, MM8) using that old pseudo-3D engine which is 2D in disguise. And note that the comments appeared on 2000, not 2008. Even gamers on THAT era would complain.

Take a look at the commercial side. Basically, we have a chicken-and-egg problem (since late 90’s): No demand, thus no supply. No supply, thus no demand. Nothing changed, up to now, and possibly in the future too. Some attributed failure of Linux commercial games to wrong sales strategy. The most famous one was Quake 3 Arena: when John Carmack announced disappointing sales of Linux version, so many Linux advocates were pissed off. In particular, it was mentioned in discussion groups that the real failure was due to different release time for Windows and Linux version — Linux version was released several MONTHS behind Windows version. When Windows version was out, what will hard-core gamers do? Will they pay double price (Linux binary plus Windows WAD files) and wait for several months, in order to play Linux version, while everybody else would be playing right now? People buying Linux versions are better described as die-hard RMS-like Linux fanatics, who are not eager to play Quake at all (otherwise WHO would wait for months?). No doubt, failure is inevitable.

At around the same time, Loki was working hard, and they did hire great engineers. But then, it was just porting big titles from Windows (and for most of the titles, released after Windows version is out), so they were later out of game (pun intended). Companies have business decisions, and it makes sense for them to create something for 95% of users first. Skype, Real player, Flash, Acrobat Reader, all do that. Things are improving a bit, but definitely, not for games. I gave up hope to wish the cycle be broken through.

A simple example: I’ve bought Civilization IV.

• Would I still play freeciv? No.
• Would I pay once more (after waiting for months, if it were to exist) in order to play it on Linux? No. It’s my money.
• Would I struggle with Wine or Cedega in order to play it on Linux? No. I already have something playable.
• Cedega has better support in recent releases, would I change my mind? Still a resounding “No”. If I were to test it on Linux, it would be rather for experimental purpose, not for full-hearted playing. I didn’t trust the thing worked 100% from the start.

Treat my rants as angry complaints from casual gamers who happen to use Linux as well.