Other opensource FPS?

by Skorbut on 03/28/2005 21:31, 54 messages, last message: 08/27/2005 03:19, 22068 views, last view: 05/05/2024 16:02

Hi all

Exists other serious opensource FPS than cube? And I don`t think on stuff with a extended quake engine or something like that. Or is cube the only serious one?? (and after much searching in the web, I think so)

   Board Index   

#35: Re: ..

by Pxtl on 04/28/2005 06:20, refers to #34

I was thinking something similar actually - the best ways to add to Cube gameplay would be to give the mappers more toys in terms of fields to play in. Actually, these would be better in Sauer - have more zone types, as often seen in Unreal Tournament, like zero-gravity zones, low-friction water zones, etc. Do the same with surfaces, adding conveyor belts, etc. All of these things are underused in FPS games except as bad "gimmick" maps. Another concept - apply the old Quake concept of ladders to Sauer, and let the mapper define any surface (including the ceiling) as a ladder. Then, handle every ladder as a downward conveyor, so players must struggle to keep up the ladder, jumping first to get upwards inertia. Model it as the player's attitude being a compromise between the wall's normal and standing against the force of gravity, so that the player looks like they're running up the ladder (instead of climbing it). Presto: mappers can now define Matrix-style "wallrun" zones.

reply to this message

#36: Re: ..

by tentus on 04/30/2005 20:46, refers to #35

ooh, i like that idea. that'd be ridiculously fun to play with.

reply to this message

#37: Re: ..

by deathrabbit on 05/04/2005 00:06, refers to #35

That would be REALLY cool as long as a ladder doesn't HAVE to be a convaer belt.

reply to this message

#38: ..

by jean pierre on 05/04/2005 14:48

Danger Zone or worsth as the LOTR(Lord Of The Rings)Say it the Dead Zone where the enemy's health and particle and difficulty are doubled.

reply to this message

#39: ..

by jean pierre on 05/04/2005 14:49

Err not particle i ment projectile.

reply to this message

#40: Re: No not retribution engine

by MeanMachine on 08/09/2005 19:56, refers to #15

Jean-Pierre doesn't like the Retribution Engine because he is banned from their forums ;) Sorry, it's off-topic but couldn't resist :D

reply to this message

#41: Re: No not retribution engine

by MeanMachine on 08/09/2005 21:01, refers to #41

FireBallz = jean-pierre = lava :D

who said it was my engine? It's not :P I just know you're banned from their forums :D :D Whats HL2 got to do with anything? This thread is about free stuff, not commercial engines ;)

reply to this message

#42: ..

by horstal1ty on 08/19/2005 21:21

www.warsow.net / good fps game

http://nfk.pqr.ru/ / isnt 3d, but great fun [quake III in 2d]

reply to this message

#43: ..

by kaczor on 08/20/2005 09:52

quake 3 itself is now open source :-)

reply to this message

#44: Re: ..

by scott666 on 08/20/2005 23:01, refers to #44

>It's 99% of all musicians' dream to be signed up into slavery to a label even today, so that's where the malaise begins.

That's just because the RIAA has a complete monopoly on all major music distribution channels. Good luck hearing a song on an indie label on the radio or finding it in a retail outlet.

reply to this message

#45: Re: ..

by pushplay on 08/21/2005 00:37, refers to #45

> "The Internet" isn't a distribution channel

Apparently you haven't gotten around to telling Apple yet.

reply to this message

#46: Re: ..

by scott666 on 08/21/2005 01:37, refers to #45

> > "The Internet" isn't a distribution channel

> Apparently you haven't gotten around to telling Apple yet.

The operative word in my post was "Major". I'm not saying people don't get music from the internet, I'm saying it's nowhere near as popular as the radio or buying CDs.

As an aside, I think iTunes is one of the worst online music stores. I can't believe that people will pay for DRMed lossy audio files that cost the same price as actual albums with lossless audio, cases, album art and liner notes. Allofmp3.com on the other hand...

reply to this message

#47: Re: ..

by pushplay on 08/21/2005 09:37, refers to #46

No, you didn't say major. I'm not even sure what that would mean in this context.

reply to this message

#48: Re: ..

by spentron on 08/21/2005 14:51, refers to #45

"You would have thought that musicians would want to capitalize on that new and direct channel to their audience,"

In my experience, even when you're willing to give away your stuff most aren't interested in taking it. Most consumers require a strong mass market pushed on them to get their attention. Maybe the examples I've tried aren't the greatest, you can buy better, but it's still as good as the stuff that's really really popular. There's even an aspect of people really interested in stuff that communicates success more than musicality, because they're more interested in being successful themselves than in making or listening to music.

In the slightly different case of games, some of the expensive console games are too large of productions to ever be done for free. If you're willing to give up the frills, though, you can find free games and free add-ons that are, at least, very cool.

I don't know why anyone would chastize people for not wanting to work for free. We all have to do something that's not for free or be supported by someone else. Preferably the rewards go to those deserving. But consider the music case: maybe the artist should get more than 1% but it is far more fun to be the artist than to run the business.

To the extent I'm even making free game stuff anymore, it's because I can concentrate on doing what I want rather than what anyone else wants -- although it seems others should like it too. But it's still far easier to throw together some bits at a "rough sketch" level than finish a complete package ready enough for consumption.

reply to this message

#49: Re: ..

by pushplay on 08/22/2005 01:42, refers to #49

> Which band do you know of that distributes their music successfully over the internet only?

Maybe no successful band distributes only by the internet, since that's like throwing money away. But successful musicians do have internet-only content, or become successful through initial internet-only release.

reply to this message

#50: That Doesn't Avoid The Trap

by pushplay on 08/23/2005 01:44

Suppose 4 people of equal talent and expertise work on 4 seperate projects. One of these projects attracts a following such that if only one person had worked on it for 4 times as long, he would be successful under the above definition. Is that project a success, and where do you bury the survivors?

reply to this message

#51: Re: That Doesn't Avoid The Trap

by pushplay on 08/24/2005 02:17, refers to #51

No, you've clearly missed the point of the argument. I'm setting up a scenario where the same project gets the same amount of attention but based upon the number of people who worked on it it's a success or isn't. Which is silly which makes that definiton of success insufficient.

reply to this message

#52: Re: That Doesn't Avoid The Trap

by pushplay on 08/25/2005 01:46, refers to #52

For a project to be successful it has to make money propertional to the number of people working on it, or else they can't all live on that.

reply to this message

#53: Re: That Doesn't Avoid The Trap

by pushplay on 08/26/2005 01:52, refers to #53

You're confusing success of a project for success of an individual or company.

reply to this message

#54: Re: That Doesn't Avoid The Trap

by pushplay on 08/27/2005 03:19, refers to #54

We were talking about success of a band, which is more of a project than an individual or corporation and certainly can be a multi-person venture. Personal success isn't nearly as interesting a question.

reply to this message

   Board Index