It is taking all my will power not to put down my two active projects and do something with this set for the Spring OGA Game Jam.
Can I ask, how do you picture the game playing? It looks like a series of single screen challenges. Something like Donkey Kong or other classic arcade games.
PM me if you don't want to reveal your secrets publically. :)
Awesome! It's a great heart pendant to start with but the blue and red veins really send it over the top! It's somehow both really kiddie and really brutal at the same time! I love it! Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
There are not too many italic fonts on OGA so this is a great contribution.
Saturday, November 5, 2022 - 14:16
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
These are great! I went ahead and added them to the set, hope that's alright.
This set is AWESOME!!
It is taking all my will power not to put down my two active projects and do something with this set for the Spring OGA Game Jam.
Can I ask, how do you picture the game playing? It looks like a series of single screen challenges. Something like Donkey Kong or other classic arcade games.
PM me if you don't want to reveal your secrets publically. :)
Awesome! It's a great heart pendant to start with but the blue and red veins really send it over the top! It's somehow both really kiddie and really brutal at the same time! I love it! Thanks for sharing!
This is a nice set! I used it in the logo for this year's OGA Summer Game Jam.
https://itch.io/jam/opengamearts-summer-game-jam-2023
For the logo, I shrunk and recolored window2 to SMS palette, added a little sun too. Here's a copy in case it's any use to anyone.
Thanks for sharing!
Well, it doesn't start until July so we've some time to go yet.
https://itch.io/jam/opengamearts-summer-game-jam-2023
And for good measure, here's the shrunk down verison from the logo.
Love this pic! Used it for the OGA Summer Game Jam 2023 logo.
Ported it to SMS palette and also cleaned up some of the edges/anti-aliasing.
It was enough work that it seemed like sharing, so here you go!
Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
Cute indeed! Thanks for sharing!
There are not too many italic fonts on OGA so this is a great contribution.
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
Pages