[Scummvm-devel] Out of This World / Another World?

Travis Howell kirben at optusnet.com.au
Wed May 5 21:17:00 CEST 2004


Pawel Kolodziejski wrote:
> Reasons for AWE become part of scummvm:
{snip]

Various SDL libaries could achieve the same result.
The scalers would need to be adjusted to support RAW's graphics anyway.
Just because you want to help with RAW, doesn't mean it has to become part
of ScummVM either.
RAW could be added as separate project on SF with the same results, anyone
interested could join that project too.

Eugene Sandulenko wrote:
> I don't understand whole hysteria about the matter, especially that
> some even non-developers say harsh words and give no reasons, just
> feelings. We all are mature persons here and we do everything in our
> free time with no force but our own intentions. So what's up?

It just seemed much too sudden, especially give the non-adventure type of
the game engine. I just saw talk about a possible merging of RAW the other
night and see RAW engine in CVS the next day.

> Ok, let me start. First. Lack of discussion. Which engines have been
> announced here before commit? I know I'm one of latter developers, but
> Sword1, Kyra and SAGA popped up in my presence, and Sword2 and FOTAQ
> not too much earlier. What I recall, only SAGA was announced (by me),
> but nobody even cared to reply. I've had co-leaders' opinion before
> the send, but nobody even told anything later. That's not an
> accusation, things did work out by the time by means of #scummvm.

All previous engines were know about (On IRC at least) for some time, before
been added to CVS. The adding of SAGA engine was planned for long time, it
was just waiting for someone to port existing reinherit code to ScummVM
That could be why there was no replies at the time.

> Another reason I didn't write to the devlist, is that prime goal of
> that letter should be (by Ender's words) to inform Fingolfin, but I
> sent him a letter and got a reply he already forwarded here. I was
> kind of satisfied.
>
> Why is it so? Our policy, both public and internal was (and I hope is)
> following: Do it if you'll support it. Hence is Fingolfin's reply.

The main problem seems to be the non-adventure type of this game engine.

> Next thing I would rant about it is this "Another World is not even
> adventure". How is that? I'll cite random game descrption:
>
> -- cut here ---
> Out of This World" is an adventure game, where the adventuring element
> is concealed behind what looks like a typical platform shooter. The
> gameplay is based mainly on physical and environmental puzzles. Each
> enemy requires a different strategy, and often there is only one way
> to solve the problem.
> -- cut here ---
>
> I didn't find any gamelist site which doesn't connect AW/OW with
> advenutre genre.

I have not played the game, but the above mention of enemies and strategy
certainly sounds more like an action game.

> I know even some dev'ers don't like FT for its action sequences. I
> know, there are boring mazes in Zak and ITE. There is fighting in
> indy3 after all. Everybody among adventure games companies tried
> almost every kind of gameplay. Tell me what you think about stupid box
> moving and jumping in Sword3? They call that puzzles.

The sequences in Lucasarts adventure game were always well themed with the
story of the games though, not just some pointless action sequences thrown
in like many modern action/adventure type games. I wouldn't call Broken
Sword 3 a typical adventure either, due to action sequences (Sometimes
timed) and those pointless puzzles (Like crates). It re-used the engine from
In Cold Blood too, which was definately not a typical adventure game either.

> Some retired members even expressed an interesting idea (paraphrased):
> 'This is awful thing ScummVM now is. It should be split in
> SimonRenewed, BASSImproved, FreedFOTAQ, BestSAGA and
> NeoKyra. Otherwise I quit.' Excellent idea, so good that it worth door
> slamming.

That is going too far, people can choose not to develop or even compile
engines they aren't interested in.

> Joysticks were today's joke. What was that? Who said that? Why is it
> needed? Gamepads are much better. Ah, we already have GP32 port
> with joystick and Dreamcast with gamepad. Go get these and play Monkey
> Island with joystick. Another World doesn't need this.

I don't see anything wrong with joystick support either, as long as it is
kept optional.

> So, well, this is a bad addition. Some developers already expressed
> that they don't like:
>
>   o Full Throttle
>   o Maniac Mansion
>   o Inherit the Earth
>   o Monkey Island 2
>   o All Humongous Entertainment games (30 or so)
>   o The Dig
>   o Flight of the Amazon Queen
>   o Beneath a Steel Sky
>
> What should we do with these?

Again the main issue seems the type of game engine been added this time and
that there was not a discussion about adding a non-adventure type game
first. It isn't just that people don't like particular games.

> Why do we continue ScummVM development if there is dosbox? If you
> don't like slowliness of the latter, buy better computer. Who need
> this old adventure crap if there is Serious Sam 2 and Doom 3? Real men
> play those games.

Dosbox isn't perfect either, depends on what games you are trying to run.
Dosbox isn't an option for some due to speed, on slower PC systems and big
endian systems. Buying a faster computer to play old games, just doesn't
make sense either.

I'm against adding any non-adventure type game engine to ScummVM, it goesn't
against the purpose of the project. I think it would be best if the RAW
engine was removed from CVS and added to SF as a separate project for now.
Since it doesn't seem suited and seems to be causing trouble amongst
developers, especially if it means developers are leaving the project.
Maybe we should add a page to web site about the exact purpose of ScummVM
project, mentioning what would and would not be accepted as an additional
game engine to project. In order to prevent this type of issue in the
future.





More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list