Feature suggestion: game source distributions

[lunasspecto]

I think it would be neat to be able to distribute a Ren'Py game as a source package. Is there already a way to do this? If not, does anybody here agree with me?

Peace,
Kazuki Mishima

[Ren]

Well, I'm not a developer so I could be totally wrong but I always thought you could just avoid encrypting your images and sounds and then specify in your licence that everyone is free to use your content.

[PyTom]

That's about right. If you include the .rpy files, and don't archive images, your game is basically a source distribution. It won't include the source for the libraries Ren'Py depends on, but that's about 30 megs compressed, which isn't really worth it.

[chronoluminaire]

Yeah, by default source is distributed. You have to select "archive files" to make the source not get distributed. Some things (like my TileEngine and UnitEngine , or DaFool's Yaruge Girl Triona) are distributed with full source and images. Most games tend not to be, just because that way finding the secrets of the game is more challenging than just reading the source.

[monele]

Most games tend not to be, just because that way finding the secrets of the game is more challenging than just reading the source.

I hope it's not the reason why games are obfuscated, because that's a bit silly . In the sense that if the player is not going to randomly check the source and discover the solution... and if it's done on purpose, then just let them find the hint they need

[Jake]

I hope it's not the reason why games are obfuscated, because that's a bit silly . In the sense that if the player is not going to randomly check the source and discover the solution... and if it's done on purpose, then just let them find the hint they need

While I think a large number of games are actually obfuscated because people don't want other people running off with their hard work (the necessity of which for amateur games is an entirely different discussion...) and while I kind of agree with this let-them-look-if-they-want-to approach for some titles, I don't think that it's universally a reasonable tactic.

Some games are more or less straight puzzle/mechanics affairs, such as - to pick an example - Magical Boutique. In these cases, sure, it makes sense; a player who's stuck enough to go and look at the source is probably equally stuck enough to go ask on forums or look for online guides, so one might as well make it easier for the player to find their answers so that they continue to enjoy the game. I'm not above going to look on GameFAQs to find out how to get past that dastard goat in Broken Sword and I don't expect anyone else necessarily to be. It's better than just giving up on the game entirely!

However, some titles - a lot of VNs in particular fall into this kind of category - aren't really games so much as stories, and the intent differs here a bit, to my mind. If I write a game which is a series of puzzles in order, then the intent is to entertain the player by giving them puzzles to solve; if they can't solve one of them, then their enjoyment of the title is totally held up until they find the solution, they can't proceed with out it. But if I write a story, the player can always proceed, and my intent isn't to challenge them at all but to produce in them a sequence of emotional states. If they look at the source, they can read the scenes outside of the intended context - without the pictures and the music - and quite plausibly in the wrong order, or mixed up with scenes from a different branch (and thus a different story). This diminishes the work - it might spoil the impact of those same scenes later, it might tell them things out-of-order which ruin earlier scenes by giving knowledge the player shouldn't have at that point - but one way or another, it spoils the author's intent for the way his work should be enjoyed.

[monele]

If they look at the source, they can read the scenes outside of the intended context

Well too bad for them. It's like reading the script of a movie before watching it and then complaining you knew the story, isn't it? ^^;... If the game doesn't oppose any resistance (puzzles), then looking at the sources before playing it all is a masochistic compulsion

[Jake]

Well too bad for them. It's like reading the script of a movie before watching it and then complaining you knew the story, isn't it? ^^;...

Yes - but all the same, it is the right of the artist to decide how his work can be framed (insofar as he decides in what form his work can be published). It's entirely up to the game-maker to decide whether they want to allow people to see just the script on its own, and the potential lack of enjoyment for the reader is as good as reason as any to disallow it.

Especially within the context of free amateur games! I'm a game maker, I've put in all this effort in to write, edit, script and oftentimes draw for and/or compose for my game - I want people to enjoy it, that's my reward for having made the thing in the first place. If I think that people won't enjoy it so much if they read the script, then it's to my mind perfectly reasonable to just not let them read the script. I'm giving you this game for free, all I ask is that you enjoy it the way that I intended.

(And really - I think you'll find most movie studios don't like their scripts getting made publically available, at least until some time after release, either... )



Now, note that I also see this as a totally distinct discussion to the one about source code - it's just unfortunate that in this case, the two are more or less always in the same file. Personally, I'll continue to tend towards obfuscation for the reasons above, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily not amenable to explaining to people how stuff was coded - how particular effects were done, how logic was programmed, etc.

[chronoluminaire]

Yes, I think that the distinction between the source code (for the programming bits) and the script (for the story) is a significant one. I'd like to have released the source code for Elven Relations' combat engine, as I'm more than happy for people to see how that was done, but I didn't want people to be able to see the working behind how to get which ending (especially Ending 1): I'd rather give them tailored hints on the game's thread or some other communication mechanism than provide the temptation for them to look straight into the source (as one of my friends did when I mistakenly released the source in the Mac version of 1.0).

[Adorya]

Just release the code some month later or just update the wiki with your own code as example then

[monele]

Mmm, okay . I just thought it was too overprotective of the player, like preventing him from skipping cutscenes, which usually ends up being a pain. Here too, I thought removing a way to actually get unstuck would end up being bad. Well, I still think not providing any sort of hint guide as compensation would be bad form, at least a while after the initial release (not everyone goes to these forums for hints... and there are no FAQs around the web, right?).
It doesn't mean the guide should be all "do this and this and this". It could be progressive hints for multiple topics, which would be similar to having the author helping.

So, I understand, but I beg authors to understand how frustrating it is not to have any hint about how to finish a game.

[DaFool]

From the perspective of this gamemaker, it's like this:

*if I felt like I managed to make the true vision of what I originally intended, the whole everything including execution must be kept and safeguarded. Therefore resources are obfuscated.
*if I felt that I didn't quite make what I originally intended, resources are open-sourced with the hope that the idea can be reused to produce something bigger and / or better, from what was originally attempted. Otherwise, the game would not have much use.