| LAZ |
I am a big fan of the SCI studio project. I spend so much time on surfing the web, trying to find any working software for Sierra games resource extraction. I found nothing that works (i mean there are some tools, but they are so 5h!77y), the SCI is really nice. IMHO this tool is really cool (its author is really advanced programmer), but yes its main problem it is not commercial, i mean it is not even a shareware. In this case why making this project that HEAVY, i mean there so many features included (graphic and text editing, etc), but most of them are useless. I doubt that someone will use SCI to make a professional game, i think that most of the users use SCI for resource extractioning only. In this case the project can be kind of modified. I am caonstantly looking for any updates and i just realize that project is actually closed. It was mentioned in one of the news that the support for SCI32 is done, and it works with graphics, etc. Probably it is not a bad idea to make it as it is, do not include so much extra features, the simple resource viewer or converter (even console version) i mean it converts the resources or extracts them, it will be just fine, and what most of users expects and waits for. If there is something done, but there is not time for alpha release, is there any other ways to keep an eye on how the project goes? Brian do not waste your time, but do not forget about us :))) P.S. By the way, for those who uses the SCI for resource extractioning and game developing. How many of each of you. I am personally use it for resource extractioning. |
| AGI1122 |
Lot's of people have been developing games in SCI now, so please don't assume that it is only used for extracting resources. About going commercial or shareware... commercial isn't really something he could legally do and would cause lot's of problems considering he doesn't own any rights over the SCI engine. And going shareware means he would be giving up alot of rights to his code. This is why he open source gpl'ed it, to keep his rights to the source code of the studio, and not get in trouble for going commercial with it. I don't think there is any problem with the way it is being distributed at all. As for your saying most of the features are useless, that is just because you are using it as an extractor which is not the reason SCI Studio was created in the first place. It was created so we could make our own SCI games, not so people could extract stuff. As for making a professional game, it depends on what you mean. If you are talking about making money off the game, that would be illegal so of course nobody would be doing that. But if your talking about quality, then alot of people would be making greate quality games, and how good they are, is really in the eye of the beholder. The project is not closed, it is still being worked on by Brian. While you may not need all those extra features since you are just trying to extract stuff. We are actually trying to make our own games, and those features are needed for us. So let Brian finish them, and don't pester for him to just release it as is because doing so would mean it would buggy, featureless, and not as good as it could be if he finished it. And if you read through this board you will notice that most posts here are about game design with SCI rather than extracting resources. So it isn't wise to assume that everyone is just wanting to extract resources just because that's what you are doing. |
| LAZ |
Thanks for a reply. Ok, what i mean is that SCI do not need everything it has, other editors and tools can be used for graphical editing, text editors can be used for scripts writing, etc. When Brian tryes to include everything, it means that he makes everything himself, it takes time, and lots of human resources. IMHO, imagine you run a program (SCI) and show it a game directory, it makes a directory with all the resources, ready to be used by other apps (lets say, the graphics is converted into bmps, gifs, whatever Brian prefers, the scripts are converted into txt, music into midi, mp3, wav, whatever). Now with using 3rd party componenets you are free to edit it as you like (There enough documentation on what how and where.). After you made all that, you simply run teh SCI, and it packs everything back. (As result, i think there has to be much less to be released.) I know, when a programmer is releasing some of the projects he personally interesteed in, he wants to make it just perfect, and usually he wants to include everything, but to be realistic: how much time will it take? By the way, the point about non shareware is fair, but if the project is separated into parts, you can make shareware some of them (all the editing parts), while extraction can be under the current license conditions. Probably i am not that interested in games, but using old SCI engine is same to using old DOOM (or even Wolf) engine to make 3d shooter. Except that i have not seen any engines for quest making up for now. |
| Nychold |
Thanks for a reply. Ok, what i mean is that SCI do not need everything it has, other editors and tools can be used for graphical editing, text editors can be used for scripts writing, etc. When Brian tryes to include everything, it means that he makes everything himself, it takes time, and lots of human resources. You do have a point. However, it's a rather poor one, in my opinion. There's nothing, nothing worse than being forced to download and use a dozen different programs to do anything. Try writing a Windows based program using nothing but a command line compiler, an icon creater, a BMP creator, a resource compiler, and a text editor to write both the source code and the resource files. Sure, at first it's cool...if you have nothing else, but then switch to a program like Visual Basic or Borland C++ Builder and see which is easier. ^^ I think Brian is making the correct choice by putting everything in one big chunk. Plus, it makes migrating from AGI Studio to SCI studio about 3 times easier. I know, when a programmer is releasing some of the projects he personally interesteed in, he wants to make it just perfect, and usually he wants to include everything, but to be realistic: how much time will it take? This is a very over-asked question here, to which everyone gets the same response: It will take as long as it takes, so quit asking. ^_~ By the way, the point about non shareware is fair, but if the project is separated into parts, you can make shareware some of them (all the editing parts), while extraction can be under the current license conditions. Not familiar with the utilities used in the source code, I see. The graphics editing software uses file formats which have license requirements. (Niether GIF, JPG, TGA, or PCX have free encryption licenses; only decryption). Also, I'm not even sure about BMP. Also, converting from a bitmap to a vector graphics picture in SCI would be a nightmare of a program and couldn't even be shareware (because again, the encryption of the file format for SCI would be illegal to sell.) Sound file formats have similar requirements (ESPECIALLY Fraunhoffer MP3 files). Ogg Vorbis is the only one I know of which does not have any royalty requirements for selling software, and that again does not covert to MIDI files easily. Also, even the syntax highlighter for SCI studio has licensing agreements on it. (I know...I had to agree to them to compile SCI's source code on my system!) So, I'd say you should refresh what you know about file formats and legal licenses. Probably i am not that interested in games, but using old SCI engine is same to using old DOOM (or even Wolf) engine to make 3d shooter. Except that i have not seen any engines for quest making up for now. You haven't seen AGS? It's probably the biggest Adventure Game Studio (AGS) around. It's totally free if your games are free, and I think even if you want to sell the games it's free too. And yes, it's already finished so you can quit asking when SCI Studio will be finished. XD |
| AGI1122 |
First off, the tools built into SCI Studio are much better than the tools that come seperately. For instance the script editor, it has color coding which makes debugging and programming a whole lot easier. And converting back and forth between formats would be a pain for Brian to do because of legal problems with different formats. You haven't seen AGS? It's probably the biggest Adventure Game Studio (AGS) around. It's totally free if your games are free, and I think even if you want to sell the games it's free too. And yes, it's already finished so you can quit asking when SCI Studio will be finished. XDHe isn't trying to make games. He is wanting to extract the SCI games resources... SCI Studio is supposed to be to make it easier for us to make SCI games. Not so it will be easier for you to extract stuff. The only reason there even is extracting is because it could be of use to us who are making SCI games. |
| LAZ |
About graphical formats it was only the suggestion, and it was mentioned that: >whatever Brian prefers. (You know how these kind of problems are usually solved? If you need to include something you cad it as a trhird party plugin, which can do some tasks. I mean you can plug in the converter into gif, jpg, whatever, simply do not mention you are an author. :) ) Also i do not remember that i have sayd exactly which part should be shareware and which is free (Do I?), all I suggested is to split the projecty, but ok if you people find all_in_one_package solution better, ok, it is your choice, I think it is only the question of taste. Only the problem is that it will take more time for Brian to release it. And do not blame me for a time questioning, (How long are you going to wait for a new release?) > It will take as long as it takes, so quit asking. ^_~ Well, wait as long as it takes. :) |
| cloudee1 |
I am gladly waiting for something which I can use to CREATE games, rather than something that just extracts resources. Ripping graphics from a game is a nice bonus to scistudio, but by far it is the least appealing feature, I would rather create than copy! Because all you want to do is extract resources don't assume that is all anybody else does too. I would wager to guess that most people who actually use scistudio, use it to create. |
| LAZ |
As i told before: >After you made all that, you simply run teh SCI, and it packs >everything back. Nothing limits your creative ideas, imagine a full resource as an archieved file, you open it, and all resourcess are on the dirve, you edit them as you like, using SCI, Photoshop , WordPad :) Whatever, you simply edit them, you do not way them to be extracted everytime you apply to them. Less memory is needed (except space on a harddrive, but i have recently extracted all the graphics from larry7, and it took about 100mb). I do think it is much faster. Do you know how quake pakS it resources, same can be implemented here. I do not know guys, it is up for you and Brian to decide, but i think it is much faster and easier, and ofcoz it is simplier to implement. (Why nobody picked this point and only blame me :)). |
| AGI1122 | But there is a point you are missing. If he did decide to do this like your saying it would take even longer because then he would have to rewrite SCI Studio to do it in that way. So would you really prefer it to take longer to make them all seperate tools and to be just extraction and packing? |
| LAZ |
What can i say to make an extraction and intraction will not take long, by the way there is a source (tiny one) for extraction for SCI1 and SCI32, already released by another person. Intraction will not take long too. Separating tools - yes will take a little longer, but you will have a chance to work with SCI32 already? Don't you think it is worthable??? And why you think it will take longer (into pieces separation?, only the code review - that will be hard). Conclusion. As i can see you people have already stable and certain way oriented community here, and I do not see any reason to continue this subject, sorry for thouse who was disturbed. All the bast in your game developing, hope to see some of your releases in the NEAREST FUTURE. $ee Ya |
| AGI1122 |
by the way there is a source (tiny one) for extraction for SCI1 and SCI32, already released by another person. Intraction will not take long too.Those tools are very old and can only be used to extract, and other than Brian integrating/making his own tools to edit and create games, nobody else is working on creating SCI tools of this sort. but you will have a chance to work with SCI32 already?SCI32 games are not currently editable/creatable. SCI0 is the limit at this point in time. But after the next version of SCI Studio is released we can make just about any type of SCI game whether it be SCI0, SCI1, SCI32, or whatever other versions there are. And why you think it will take longer (into pieces separation?, only the code review - that will be hard).Have a look at the source code of SCI Studio, removing that much code that interacts with all the other code would take a long time. It isn't just a simple cut job, you have to be sure you are not cutting out the wrong code or code that interacts with other parts otherwise it would break everything. So naturally it would take alot longer because he would have to evalute every bit of code as it is removed. Personally I am not really disturbed by this, but I don't think that doing those things would be good for the project and would only make things harder for the game developers as well as take longer for us to be able to use them. You did have some valid points, but those points don't outweigh what would be lost if they where actually done. |
| JesseJames | Also (correct me if I am wrong) most of the next version of SCI Studio has been done. Brian is mainly doing bug fixes now and working on the way the SCI languages syntax. |
| AGI1122 |
Well finishing SCI Studio isn't everything... he has to write template's, tutorials, documentation, etc... There is more than just working on the studio. ;) |
| JesseJames | Actually, I thought Brian had paused work on SCI Studio due to things happening in real life (Whatever that is). |
| Brian_Provinciano |
JesseJames wrote: Hrm... who's making these things up about me? What's happening in my real life? I'd like to know... Anyway, I got busy with work and couldn't work on any of my other projects either. I was working on GBAGI, etc. Lots of things |
| Eero R | They've misunderstood a post you made a while ago. (I did too...) |
| Naksuapina |
Chris Cromer wrote: Why would making commercial games with SCI studio be illegal? If i'm understood correctly, SCI Studio, and the template game are licensed under GPL. If somebody wanted to make a closed source game with SCI Studio, he'd need to rewrite only the template game, which would be rather easy, as there would be already be a template game, which could be used as a reference model. No copyright infringements done. On the other hand, making commercial games and applications that are under the GPL is not a problem either. See MySQL, it's GPL and it's commercial. -Naksuapina |
| AGI1122 |
Naksuapina wrote:What you don't understand is that SCI is NOT owned or created by Brian. It was made by Sierra Online not Brian. SCI Studio is GPL... but the engine is NOT. Our selling games using the engine would be illegal regardless of whether we used the template game. So how do you think you are going to go about selling these games when it would be illegal to distribute the engine? And without the engine the games can't run.Chris Cromer wrote: The executable that runs the games, as well as the file structure for storing the data of the games is not under GPL or even created by Brian. |
| Naksuapina |
Chris Cromer wrote: FreeSCI (or, CABAL::SCI now) - a GPL'd engine. So, where's the problem? (According to your previous posts, you should be well aware of that project.) -Naksuapina |
| AGI1122 |
And those are built off of the original SCI interpreter and work in the same way as it, still illegal. Regarless of how you look at it, selling games that use SCI is illegal. It's like me stealing somebody's product, making my own based on it and works with it's data, then GPL'ing it. I didn't own the original product, so it is illegal regardless of the fact that I wrote my own intepreter... because it still uses the original file format as well as general way of working. |
| cloudee1 |
Now Chris I think even you are stretching it a bit, you don't like to be wrong do you ;D, me neither so that's not a bad thing. Here's what I think: Just because I make a cake out of the same ingredients as a sara lee cake doesn't mean I can't sell it, I just can't call it Sara lee. I seem to remember reading that atari once tried to sue sierra for a straight up copy of a pac man game, sierra won. What is legal or illegal is to be determined by the courts. If I have gone through and changed every line of code, there is no way anyone could come back and say that they are the same code, even though the structures are the same, they're not. Now I'm not sure what freesci has done in they're project but if it has been rebuilt then no one can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are the same code when they aren't. Knowing the Sierra of today do you think for a minute that they would even allow they're intellectual property to be GPL'd FreeSCI (or, CABAL::SCI now) - a GPL'd engine Regardless, my final thought: You could probably get away with selling it but you probably aren't going to be able to sell any. |
| Brian_Provinciano |
Now this topic is getting off-topic, but in case you guys didn't know, Sierra patented a bunch of it's algorithms and such. Secondly, had a competing company put out some adventure game based off a reverse engineered SCI, they could definitely be sued. Although, now, I doubt Sierra would really care. However, if you started making a bunch of money, they might notice and decide to take action. Your call. The fact is that whether they win or not, it doesn't matter. They'll just take you to court until you have no money left. BTW, if you did make money from it, you should really donate a chunk of it to FreeSCI, as programmers in the real world get paid very well for what they do, as without the FSCI team, you wouln't be putting out a game at all :) |
| Naksuapina |
Chris Cromer wrote: Copyright doesn't work that way. Copyright protects the actual content, not ideas or looks'n'feels. Sierra has copyrights on their own interpreter, and FreeSCI guys do have copyright to their interpreter. FreeSCI guys are licensing their interpreter under GPL, so anybody can take it and distrubute it under the GPL terms. If there happens to be a commercial game (ie. non-GPL'd) bundled with the FreeSCI engine, there might be a copyright violation towards the FreeSCI developers, but it certainly isn't sure that they'd win the case, as the developers of the commercial game would most likely ship the FreeSCI engine right under the GPL terms. About patents, it would be interesting to hear what patents Sierra would have on their algorithms and such. First of all. patents are always geographically constrained. For example, in Europe you usually can't patent algorithms. Then, if Sierra really had some patents on the SCI technology, they'd most likely be already, or really soon expired. Brian however has a point about the US law system: it doesn't care whether or not Sierra had premises to win the case, they can still outnumber most of us in the number of lawyers. Well, this discussion is on a theoretical (and off-topic as well :) level, as Sierra doesn't seem to be interested in the almost 20 year old games they have, (and most likely, they are wise in their decision of letting people hack around with the old stuff). And then, the SCI environment is very unlikely to be the environment of creating the next block buster game. As a programming exercise, and a hobby, both the FreeSCI and SCIStudio are most likely really entertaining projects. -Naksuapina |