BGMC 35 Discussion Thread

Game Engine Game Engine Support and Discussion
1

bgmc_wallpaper_2
bgmc_wallpaper_21920×1080 206 KB

Hey, what’s up? According to the result of the last BGMC, I’m supposed to organize the next one, the BGMC 35! That’s the second time I do that (the first one was BGMC 31).

This time I intend to limit the games only to a abstract theme (no mechanic), and I ask you to avoid suggesting mechanics as themes (as for ‘shooter’, ‘platformer’, etc). Sure, I’ll not censor any suggestion, and if a theme which is a mechanic win by vote it will be the chosen theme. Anyway, take a look at Ludum Dare’s themes for an idea about abstract themes.

Write down below:

  • Theme suggestions
  • Date and jam duration suggestions
  • Other related suggestions and questions

Don’t be shy. :wink:

Current suggestions

  • Cyberpunk
  • Blood and guts
  • Global warming
  • Post-apocalyptic
  • Physics
  • Sci-fi
  • Back to Front or Upside Down
  • Retrowave
  • Farmer
  • Homework

Suggested date

  • April 18th
5 Likes
2

Cyberpunk theme is awesome(oi Joel sou do grupo)
Ten days of development.
Só pode usar personagem humanos cartoon.

2 Likes
3

Bringing a subject to discussion: is it inherent of BGMC the need of sharing the source code of the game?

I don’t have any problem with that, but I knew people who wanted to participate but did’nt because of this requirement. I know the GPL issues and all that, but what do you think?

4

I’m excited for this, I should be able to participate, and I am also looking into getting a friend to join as well! I don’t have any specifics right now, but I’ll think about it, I don’t really care about the timing (college is up in the air with scheduling)

1 Like
5

gpl is a core part of what makes blender, and bge is blender. even if it wasnt a legal issue (gpl license requires making source available), sharing is an integral part of open source. we must stay strong.

animal farm is coming to mind…

1 Like
6

Let anyone do what he wants the community is not big if we start alienating people by forcing them to share their full work for free, upbge will not go anywhere.

2 Likes
7

Oh, guess what I could do if this competition allowed closed-source?

It’s not malicious software, I swear! And you’ll have to take my word for it because now you can’t read the code, for some devly bois fear GPL.

I joke of course as I haven’t written a virus in my life, but for people addicted to obfuscation this is the first thing that comes to mind. Just what is so special about your hastily hacked together project that you don’t want anyone taking a lil’ peak, eh?

Like come the effigies on, maan.

If this becomes a thing, I’ll oppose, protest and overall be very grumpy. I mean, I don’t like this one bit and won’t shut up about it until no one dares make that suggestion again.

Seriously though, not in a million years. FOSS all the things or GO.

and theme: BLOOD AND GUTS

2 Likes
8

Well, let’s keep as it is then.

1 Like
9

The whole idea behind the bgmc is to let other people learn from the games that are made. so this requires the game to be opensource.

2 Likes
10

I agree with @warcanin . And to be more precise, I agree with both sides of the discussion. You all have a point and what is missing for us to keep growing UPBGE is to bring both opinions to life.

I think there is time for anything: Time to share, time to grow. Very few people join the BGMC, big part is due to the rules. If you want to grow the community, then it’s a great idea to make it easier for people to join. We all know well that the .blend file is not GPL, as BF keeps clear. And that’s why we have such a thing like BPPlayer.

As some of you know, I’m the host of one of the biggest youtube channels related to Blender + UPBGE, with more than a hundred thousands views a month on the topic and I’m glad to share that thanks to that I redirect hundreds of new users daily to UPBGE. Not showing off since I’m not the only one bein beneficed by that, but the whole community (including you that is reading this). But I never shared BGMC there because of the rules that I’m not a fan of, being honest.

So my point is: Some people want to share the code so others can learn from it, like @Cotaks exposed. But some people don’t. What we can do is create two categories, just like ludum dare does: One that requires it to be open source and other that doesn’t.

That’s ok for two reasons:

First of all, it will bring more people to the jam, we’ll start talking about 100, then 200, then 500, then a thousand entries per event, and that would be awesome. Based on my community alone, I think a thousand entries is not far away from becoming a thing. And with so many new entries, we’ll have:

  • More quality games and new users to UPBGE
  • A portion of this number will prefer to join the open source category, bringing more learning sources for those who wants to.

And that alone is amazing!

Second, read other people’s code is not the only source of learning. Of course it’s a good one, but not the only one. What about feedbacks? Encourage people to play others game and give quality feedbacks. A single feedback you receive in your game may be more valuable than spending two weeks going thought other people’s code.

Well, that’s my point and my constructive suggestion. From what I see, both sides of the discussion have valid arguments. But why not allow both? Because keep splitting this will only lead to one thing:

  • Less people using UPBGE
  • Less learning sources
  • Poor quality results

I’ve been asking to change this rule since the beginning of BGMC, IIRC since around edition 5 or 8. C’mon, folks. It’s a win to win decision. I’m pretty sure that the ones who participate up to today, I’ll not close theirs sources just because of the new rule. So no one will lost anything. Except that we’ll have a bunch of new users.

Remember: our community, more than ever, needs to be together. Let’s focus on the main point which is keep BGE love alive and bring more people to it! I can ensure that y’all are corect and have a good point. But since we have a split, let’s focus on BGE and not lose our minds on small things.

Best regards!

4 Likes
11

So you’re in a position to hype thousands for this but refuse to do so because open sourcing one week of your time is too much?

Golly, am I stoked that it’s this one point you take issue with: flat-out tells the story way more clearly than you think.

Rather than pushing for rules to be changed, you should lead by example, join the freaking jam and show your audience that open sourcing a small game is not a big deal.

Can’t do that? Then you’re just petty, and that’s that.

1 Like
12

Since my native language is portuguese, Im very familiar with unidaystudio’s channel and have learnt from it immensely. He shares a ton of his work and knowledge online for free, no sense in using the word 'petty" here. I see the point of trying to accommodate more and more people, thats something thats always desirable, in every community project. Still, I do believe that part of the reason a lot of people are ready to benefit from open source material but dont feel confortable sharing their own efforts is largely a matter of culture, of education, and things like blender and bge play an important role in challenging that culture. So even if that means less participants, its feels nicer to keep contributions open, as a matter of principle. Just an opinion.

I have so little knowledge with bge/upbge that I probably wont be able to participate in any jams for years, but I would suggest games with an environmental/global warming theme, stuff like scorched earth, post apocalyptic worlds, kinda like mad max or something.

1 Like
13

Well … let’s face it, nobody here who participates in the BGMC is a professional. And as has always been the spirit of the BGMC, the rule of sharing its sources has always been a part of it. If you don’t have the balls to do better, then it’s fair not to share the code. And yes … it is stingy to demand that the BGMC change its rules because of personal options. Didn’t like the rules? Just don’t participate.

´Theme: Post apocalypse

14

Personally I don’t really see the reason why people want to keep their games closed-source for a small game jam, but I think letting people choose whether or not to make it open-source is fine. More participants the better, in my opinion.

2 Likes
15

@joelgomes1994 The idea of Uniday is great, make 2 categories and let the maximum of people participate, also it’s not like anything implemented cannot be reverse enginered, the hardest thing to have is an idea and implement it, when you know something is possible doing it again is only a mather of time.

And to be clear i have nothing to hide and when i participate i will make everything open source but i find it sad that there has to be fighting for this kind of things, let people do what they want.

3 Likes
16

Closed source is not a option - the spirit of bgmc is for people to learn from each other and grow by competing.

I think GPL makes us stronger and the people whining about it for the most part don’t even seriously code.

17

TBH I am super confused by all of this, what is driving people away from the competition? I honestly don’t know anything about open or closed source, I just love participating :slight_smile:

18

Discussions aside, just a reminder that more theme suggestions are welcome. :wink:

1 Like
19

Open source means people can read your code, in opposition to closed where you (try to) prevent people from accessing it. People not wanting to open source a game made with BGE is beyond me. Especially with the gray area that is the GPL in that regard.

I surprisingly agree. Maybe it is out of hope of making something revolutionary, although I have yet to see such code in the BGE…

The only way I see to painlessly allow people to make closed-source games would be to open this contest to other engines, and only keeping the requirement that 3d models and animations must be made using Blender in some way…

@joelgomes1994 theme proposition: Physics?

2 Likes
20

When I was learning how to code, specific solutions took a long time to do with lots of trial and error. I felt protective of my work back then because I invested so much in it.

Now, if I want to do something new, it’s a quick Google search and a few minutes of playing. The warm-fuzzies from knowing someone might learn something from my work outweighs any worry that someone will create a competing product. The reality is that if they’re capable of competing with me, then they’re also good enough to come up with the solution as well.

Not that I have skin in the game, but my vote would be to keep things open source.

4 Likes