Open Art

#1 To be honest, I'd disagree.
Code and art are very dissimilar, and I can't see "OpenArt" truely ever working. Not on a large scale at least.
You can reuse and modify OpenSource code, and the end user will have no idea you used the same code as someone else. Use the same (or slightly modified) art, and they will notice. Furthermore, a "starting base" for art would stifle creativity. It would give the artist a "style framework" that they would have to stick to, or alter the base so much it became a different style. One thing many people don't realise is that modifying someone elses art can often take considerably longer than simply creating your own from scratch. In my experience at least.

I could create a fully animated character in two days. Give me an animated mesh to start with, and I have to modify the original mesh, textures, etc to suit what I have in mind for the character. By that time, it could be so different that I have to re-rig it, and re-animate. Effectively, I've started from scratch anyway.

That doesn't event take into account that if artists didn't modify the original mesh to such extents, then indie games would ultimately suffer from clone-syndrome. Look at art from people using "Poser". You can look at it and immediatly know that the figure came from Poser. No matter how much they morphed it, changed it in ps, etc, you can always tell. Even if it's rendered in a different ap, there's something about it, which always makes it look like a poser figure. I believe this would be the same with "OpenArt".

Essentially, if OpenArt could work. I believe it would already be working, and being used by the community.

It's a nice concept, but like so many concepts, it's unlikely to work in the real world.

#2 Well said Andru.

Logan

#3

Quote:I could create a fully animated character in two days. Give me an animated mesh to start with, and I have to modify the original mesh, textures, etc to suit what I have in mind for the character. By that time, it could be so different that I have to re-rig it, and re-animate. Effectively, I've started from scratch anyway.

Isn't this the same as using Open Source Software? For example, if you want to turn Torque into an MMPOG, you have to re-write large amounts of the code.

#4 Honestly, I think that COULD be very useful.

Using base art doen't lock you into a style. I wouldn't use the canned stuff to start really important models, but it'd be useful for filler type art.

#5 I'd had a thought similar to this myself the other day I didn't see the point in re-doing models from game to game when they could be done well once (for certain settings obviously).

To that end i've started working on some realistic weapons that I hope to give away for free as soon as they are complete, it's fantastic modelling practice for me and other people get to benefit from this as well. They will most likely be in obj format (due to lack of Maya exporter) and have no textures as thats a) not my skill and b) allows for people to customise the object how they want it to look.

#6

Quote:Isn't this the same as using Open Source Software? For example, if you want to turn Torque into an MMPOG, you have to re-write large amounts of the code.

Except it would take a lot longer to completely re-write torque with the MMOG included, than to just modify it. It would probably take less time to make your own model, than to modify an existing one.

Quote:Using base art doen't lock you into a style. I wouldn't use the canned stuff to start really important models, but it'd be useful for filler type art.

For filler art, I guess I'd agree. But you can buy milkshape and convert any free models to your format for filler art, no need for "OpenArt".

#7

Quote:

For filler art, I guess I'd agree. But you can buy milkshape and convert any free models to your format for filler art, no need for "OpenArt".

Well, "free models" actually pose a great problem... if you are talking about models off a web site somewhere.. you can't really be sure who owns them. In any case, if you ship with a "free model" you had better track the author down and get a signature on a licensing agreement...

OpenArt is meant to standardize this process and make it feasible to use "free models"... by applying a working license to them... it also serves to track the lifetime of the model... nothing tricky... exactly how OpenSource works...

I can see the people involved... if I need modifications, I could even hire the original author to do them

Anyway, I don't see this happening any time soon... but services like TurboSquid show me that it will happen.. though certainly not tomorrow...

I truly wish that older games would dump their resources into a stream like this... most of that stuff is never seen again... it's sad really... and no, I am not talking about wholesale use of copyrighted characters... sheesh...

-J

#8 Although i have only glanced through this thread, what your considering (i think) is a database or resource of place holder art for people to use and or modify for their project, a few artists including myself have considered this approach, without much success, simply because it means having compiled versions of recent builds of TGE for testing, (this doesnt sit too well with GG), unless or until that situation is improved, i doubt you will see a great influx of free good quality art for use or for modification with usage rights.(this obviously dosent concern artists working on a specific project)
just my 2 cents.

#9 Vivian you don't need a Torque engine build, you could just download the Realm Wars demo.

#10 Personally I'd find this sort of thing VERY useful - I'm a programmer and cannot be bothered/lack the talent to make models for prototyping ideas, playing around, roughing out a concept etc, etc,

It seems that alot of programmers are willing to give their time and energy to open source projects. Where as alot of artists apear to have a very strong personal attatchment to their work - their model is their baby.

What Joshua is suggesting is a break away from this mentality. If indy games are to truely compete then a community approach needs to exist for code/art/distribution/sound etc etc

La Revolution is what we need!

#11 This sounds like a good idea but it can have both downsides and upsides. By having art free to the public, it does let the programmer have a more flexible range to play with the code faster and test things easier. Now the downside to this is what has already been explained. The legal rights to these models or works of art would need to be either shipped with the model, IE a txt doc that lets them know who made it, and if it can be used for the public without legal representation. The Torque community from what I have seen so far is pretty tight knit and works together on a common goal. To make games. This is what we do and have showed the effor from the start by buying the TGE licence. Now if we could make an resource for just models and art that can be used for testing purposes then that would be feasible. We would just need to get a base of rules set, even though it is free, it would be mainly for building and not for the final product.

#12 I don't understand... what must be done that can't be prototyped using the models of RW or any that come with Torque?

You can't have twenty games with the exact same trees. That's a major faux pas. Sooner or later, you'll need to get at least one graphics person, which means you won't need the repository anyway.

Something more useful to the Torque community might be something like Polycount, but built on a set of generic standards (so the same model can be put in any of the games but use the same sequence files to animate them).

--Eric

Edit: I completely agree with Andru's viewpoint.

#13 How can having access to a library of simple objects etc be a bad thing ?

Say I wanted to rough out a game based in todays world.... If I used the Elf and Orc models from RW instead of humans, ye olde world buildings instead of offices, horse and cart instead of Ford..... I'm gonna have a hard time convincing someone that the setting of the prototype game is set in 2002.

How does this sort of idea differ from everyone using the excellent fxToys and the ton of other cool stuff people have been good enough to share with the community at large ?

I accept that you will not build a game using 100% "free" models, but surely easy access to stock objects cannot hurt ?

#14 In Graphic Design you have collections of stock photos in paper and electronic media. There will always be that kind of designer wannabes pasting that photos almost as it is in their "works", but they exist to provide research material, maybe you can even pick parts of one, if you know what you're doing. To collect someone else's art is a good procedure for a Graphic Designer, creation needs references. You put down in a creation work what you're filled of.

The same applies to game art.

This art doesn't need to be free, because it was made and compiled by someone. The art of Unreal Tournament 2003 is an example, it's offered like a plus (not hidden inside game files). But there would be a free art repository, to help the learning process and for a responsible use like I said before.

There would be a high quality free collection to help novices (like me!) to learn from a good animation, to see inside a model texturing, to mess with a good piece of architecture from the games we love. There would be more of this, and better organized. Today we must keep hacking tutorials cooked by individuals spread over the Internet (thanks to all of them!).

#15 As I said, I agree with Andru.

In all reality, I'd be surprised to find out that a game company will want to see a 'demo' or 'proof-of-concept' game using just generic art. You want to show them how your game, _WidgetStrike_ is the next hot thing. They've already got all the CounterStrike clones they could ever want. What makes yours better? (rhetorical question)

Of course, you're just asking for opinions, and I offered mine. It doesn't mean you can't go through with it, and/or have a nice resource built up. Best of luck to whomever does.

--Eric

#16 True enough....

Well, if there are any modelers out there who are able to make the models in "Torque format" I'd gladly add a section here to host them.

Anyone interested please email me here

Cheers, Chris

#17 I fail to see the down side with this.
Free models does not mean that you have to use them.

I'm mostly a 3D artist and working on becoming a programmer. I have just released some code, but I have not publically released any models as such. Why?

I have thought about doing it several times, but never got around to it.

Ever since I began playing with a computer back in the early 80s, I learned by editing and playing with other peoples work. EVEN when I was working on 3D models.

For those that disagree with this openModel idea, why discourage it? Artists have pride and will always stribe to make their own art. How can this harm you in any way? I pressume the attempt to discourage this idea is based on the fear of the impact on your interests.

If such a model database was created I very much doubt that we will begin to see a lack of creativity in the model sector.

Enough of my rant..

Joshua, it's a nice idea!
Keep at it and let's see if does not benefit the community after all.

#18 Hey guys, here's the opinion of a newbie, for whatever is worth:

I think generic art could be made under an Open Source-like license, while game-specific art should remain propietary. For example, I wouldnt try to place my demo, with the character of Lara Croft on it, even if it were free! Lara Croft, is Lara Croft, belongs to Tomb Raider, and is instantly recognizable (here's the key!) so any game with her on it, even if I change the skins or morph things here and there, whatever, cant claim to be original anymore. And I want to be original.

On the subject of Tomb Raider's BEARS however.. or the wolves.., or perhaps the generic bricks textures, some of the vines, hmm.. trees, etc.. generic things, that dont have the game's trademark look on them.. if they were free, I'd sure use those. Yeah. Why not. Its a bear! It paces around, it stands on his hind legs, it growls, and it slashes. Why should a modeler have to go through old National Geographic issues, and Discovery Channel reruns to study how bears move, etc, -all over again-? The key is the word "again". Am sure some guy already did all this for Tomb Raider, and his goal was to make a realistic bear, just like my goal is a realistic bear, and if people wont identify it as Tomb Raider's one.. well, lets take it. Thats just my opinion.

I do think.. that if GarageGames made an art repository, made by indies like us with a total free license, and composed exclusively of generic things, that are not recognizable to any particular game, yeah.. I think that would be a good thing. Things like cars, houses, chairs, etc. Sure, if you need to do little changes, to better fit them to your project, you may do those little changes, and save yourself some work. If you need to do major changes, then what you need cant really be called "generic" anymore right? So you make it yourself, as before. And of course, if you do need a generic thing, but dont like the one you found in the GG's Repository, well you dont -have- to use it.

I basically agree with Andru on what he said, but at the same time, I dont think it would hurt to have a repository of generic models and textures.. for as long as they're generic. As a bonus, it would be a good way for an artist to showcase his work, or for a team leader to test an artist, before accepting him in the team, I guess.

Just my 2 cents, am trying to join this community for real B)

#19 It's actually suprising to me that this hasn't already happened at GG. The only discussion on the boards that I have seen that seemed at all serious was a repository where you pay for models.

It's a little disheartening to see that there are artists who seem to be resisting a free repository of general models or textures.

While at the same time programmers are being pressured to provide DOT3, more effects, and shaders for free. How is programming any less of an art than modeling? Why should I pay $100.00 for an animated model and not pay Melv $100.00 for fxFoliageReplicator?

Oh, and I know what I'm talking about, I do both programming and art. I put as much into my software as I do my models.

In my opinion, this is the single problem with open sourced software. The engineer is devalued and open sourced free mods to software become the norm and are expected.

#20 Cool! Some more people that agree with this idea.

Like I said above - I'm willing and able to arrange for any art resources to be placed onto the net. What I'm **not** able to do is make any models... hence my interest in this sort of thing.

So, roll up, roll up!! Please contact me via the link above and lets get the ball rolling on Joshua's revolution - the more the merrier.