No. I'm sorry to say I do not think this changes the position. The fact remains file formats (even tagging all the formats in the submission) is more appropriate than tagging the game engine itself. I understand Castle Game Engine supports more than just the X3D format, but the tags aren't intended to describe software, they're for describing the submitted art. If the submitted art includes multiple formats, you should tag all those formats. Any features in the assets being submitted that are not described specifically enough by a format tag, should aslo be tagged. "bumpmap", or "shadows" for example. You'll find these are tags already in use for other models with such features.
Furthermore, the issue of ubiquitousness still stands. When Castle Game Engine gains a more prolific adoption, I may reconsider, but again, even extremely popular game engines like Unreal are not appropriate tags for artwork that is engine-agnostic.
Using a proprietary file format would not really resolve the issue either, though. If you have art that only works with this one game engine, the community here would ask for it to be provided in a more ubiquitous format like X3D or OJB so that it may be used by more than just a single engine.
This is not a targeted decision against just Castle Game Engine. We are regularly flooded with tags referencing very specific products and projects as an attempt to promote the submitter's proprietary product. Promoting your project is encouraged, but in order to keep the tags useful, managable, and not completely mired in terms that none of our users search for, we have to curate these tags and keep all terms reduced to non-proper nouns and descriptions that do not refer to narrow products. Even then there are hundreds of thousands of general-scope tags describing the art here on OGA.
I know you are not satisfied with the collection solution, but for what it's worth, you are able to add as many collaborators to your collections as you want. Any CGE community members can also curate such a collection.
michalis is right; the license.txt found inside the download package is contradictory. The terms in the package are not compatible with CC0, nor any other license accepted on OGA.
@software_atelier: would you be willing to remove the license.txt or replace it with the standard CC0 language? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. Thank you for understanding.
Tags are used for searching art by ubiquitous desciptors. The castle game engine is not ubiquitous enough to be explicitly searched under. If you are the only ones submitting castle game engine compatible content, it isn't really a globally understood search term. Admittedly, format and compatibility are reasonable terms to tag art with, but in this case, "castle game engine" does not describe compatibility nor format. X3D does this, as does collada, 3DS, and OBJ, but the castle game engine is not the only application that supports these formats.
It's possible the openness and popular adoption of the castle game engine would suggest such a term be a tagged descriptor, but that point has not yet been reached. Very few game engine names make sense as descriptions for artwork, especially not for art that works on more than one game engine. For example, the Unreal engine is a very well-known and popular engine, but that tag is also not found on art descriptions because 3D art is rarely formatted exclusively for the unreal engine, and if it were, it wouldn't be much of an open asset.
There are many new submissions that include the submitter's handle, or project name, or internally created product. All such tags are routinely removed; it makes sense to talk about your project/product in the description, but tags are for searching universally-known terms that describe the art itself, not the software you could use it with. Thus, the text above saying:
"Adding your name or your project name as a tag is unlikely to help anyone find the asset and has zero SEO impact. There is a separate field dedicated to searching by the artist's/submitter's name."
P.S. You are welcome to mention your game engine (and even link to it) in the description of the assets you're submitting. One thing many users do to brand their submissions is to change their username to match the product or service name they wish to promote. For example having a username "Castle Game Engine" instead of "michalis". If you want a way to link your customers to a set of submissions compatible with your game engine, there are already several options: Linking to your profile page already lists all the assets you've submitted. Alternatively, you already have a collection of assets used in Castle Game Engine games and demos. If you want a way for any user to indicate the format of the art, they (and you) should be using the file extensions or format names as tags instead of the engine name.
No. I'm sorry to say I do not think this changes the position. The fact remains file formats (even tagging all the formats in the submission) is more appropriate than tagging the game engine itself. I understand Castle Game Engine supports more than just the X3D format, but the tags aren't intended to describe software, they're for describing the submitted art. If the submitted art includes multiple formats, you should tag all those formats. Any features in the assets being submitted that are not described specifically enough by a format tag, should aslo be tagged. "bumpmap", or "shadows" for example. You'll find these are tags already in use for other models with such features.
Furthermore, the issue of ubiquitousness still stands. When Castle Game Engine gains a more prolific adoption, I may reconsider, but again, even extremely popular game engines like Unreal are not appropriate tags for artwork that is engine-agnostic.
Using a proprietary file format would not really resolve the issue either, though. If you have art that only works with this one game engine, the community here would ask for it to be provided in a more ubiquitous format like X3D or OJB so that it may be used by more than just a single engine.
This is not a targeted decision against just Castle Game Engine. We are regularly flooded with tags referencing very specific products and projects as an attempt to promote the submitter's proprietary product. Promoting your project is encouraged, but in order to keep the tags useful, managable, and not completely mired in terms that none of our users search for, we have to curate these tags and keep all terms reduced to non-proper nouns and descriptions that do not refer to narrow products. Even then there are hundreds of thousands of general-scope tags describing the art here on OGA.
I know you are not satisfied with the collection solution, but for what it's worth, you are able to add as many collaborators to your collections as you want. Any CGE community members can also curate such a collection.
michalis is right; the license.txt found inside the download package is contradictory. The terms in the package are not compatible with CC0, nor any other license accepted on OGA.
@software_atelier: would you be willing to remove the license.txt or replace it with the standard CC0 language?
Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue.Thank you for understanding.EDIT: fixed, thanks! :)
Tags are used for searching art by ubiquitous desciptors. The castle game engine is not ubiquitous enough to be explicitly searched under. If you are the only ones submitting castle game engine compatible content, it isn't really a globally understood search term. Admittedly, format and compatibility are reasonable terms to tag art with, but in this case, "castle game engine" does not describe compatibility nor format. X3D does this, as does collada, 3DS, and OBJ, but the castle game engine is not the only application that supports these formats.
It's possible the openness and popular adoption of the castle game engine would suggest such a term be a tagged descriptor, but that point has not yet been reached. Very few game engine names make sense as descriptions for artwork, especially not for art that works on more than one game engine. For example, the Unreal engine is a very well-known and popular engine, but that tag is also not found on art descriptions because 3D art is rarely formatted exclusively for the unreal engine, and if it were, it wouldn't be much of an open asset.
There are many new submissions that include the submitter's handle, or project name, or internally created product. All such tags are routinely removed; it makes sense to talk about your project/product in the description, but tags are for searching universally-known terms that describe the art itself, not the software you could use it with. Thus, the text above saying:
P.S. You are welcome to mention your game engine (and even link to it) in the description of the assets you're submitting. One thing many users do to brand their submissions is to change their username to match the product or service name they wish to promote. For example having a username "Castle Game Engine" instead of "michalis". If you want a way to link your customers to a set of submissions compatible with your game engine, there are already several options: Linking to your profile page already lists all the assets you've submitted. Alternatively, you already have a collection of assets used in Castle Game Engine games and demos. If you want a way for any user to indicate the format of the art, they (and you) should be using the file extensions or format names as tags instead of the engine name.
Excellent! thanks.
Lovely books. :)
"CC0 textures" from where?
well, you're doing great at that. Thanks for fixing the license so quickly after haxx's comment. :)
Great icons.
gotcha. Looks like it was already resolved. :)
@haxx: what icons here are from which game-icons.net icons?
"2D" is a redundant tag; this is already in the "2D art" category.
"3D art" is a redundant tag; this is already in the "3D art" category.
Pages