Existing Discussion Points:
* Release 2.0
* We need to confirm if Busgbane can or cannot do the moon and turtle boss
replacements * We need to make sure no one else has concerns about removing the turtle
boss if needed (and decide what to do if we can't get a moon replacement). * We need
to agree upon what must be done for the release to be finished. Can we set a date yet, or
is it indeterminate?
* Release 3.0 * What if we created brand new levels for the new release series? This
would cut down on our level conversion issues when dealing with new mechanics. It would
also allow more story integration and allow us to consider how power ups and enemies could
better be introduced in new worlds. * We would still want to write the level format
conversion scripts - we would probably still want to use portions of old official levels,
and users will be interested in converting old levels.
*The Hedge Discussion (#298) * I had originally suggested using eyes and a mouth on the
hedge, and Sydney used these. * A nose was also placed on the hedge, which Bugsbane and
sauer2 objected to * Bugsbane and Quintus had concerns about the use of eyes on a
background object because this is similar to the Mario games. Bugsbane also viewed it as
deviation from the tentative plan for the style guide. * sauer2 and Sydney felt eyes can
work on some objects as long as the style is different and as long as the usage is
limited. Sydney does not want his face work to be discarded.
* The concern also has been raised that the eyes on objects were an important part of
the cuteness on objects, and removing them has made our background scenery very bland.
This seems to be coming from several sources.
* The disagreement on this task is much stronger, so we should discuss this one
New Discussion Points:
* New item - suggested by sauer2 - OpenGL / SDL replacements - tickets #105, #55, #11 *
The existing OpenGL API is deprecated and has somewhat questionable support on some
devices. * Our SDL version is also out of date
* Luiji has argued there is no rush to upgrade OpenGL
* We had tentatively decided to move towards removal of explicit OpenGL for most
rendering. This is in part because the newer versions of OpenGL require shaders (GLSL),
which are even more difficult for most people to use than the old OpenGL. We would
instead use a higher level API that does most OpenGL for us. Exceptions would include
tasks such as lighting systems (see #94).
* We had tentatively decided to move towards either Allegro/SFML/SDL 2
* grumbel from the Super Tux project said that the new SDL does not normally allow
usage of OpenGL for tasks such as lighting systems. I think you have to use an SDL
rendering API instead. My suggestion here is to instead use Allegro/SFML if it can be
confirmed that GLSL (Open GL Shading language) can be used with them. Our team probably
has more experience with GLSL than SDL 2 for this specialized kind of task. * I propose
we replace #105, #55, and #11 with one ticket - 3 tickets is causing confusion.
* New Item - Target Audience / Level of Cuteness in Graphics
* Concerns were raised that the "cuteness factor" is missing in the current
game. Various views have also been expressed for how cute the game should be.
* One item in particular that is probably creating a perception of lack of cuteness is
the removal of eyes from background objects. We have only added mouths to power up blocks
at the moment. The removal of waffles may have also contributed to this perception but
may not be as major. The industrialized pipes are an additional possibility here (though
the current plan is to eventually have these only in the factories).
* How deep should the story be? Do we want to continue with the deep story line or
change to a "thin wrapper story"? * What age group do we want to target? Do
we want to focus only on children or try to focus on both adults and children at the same
time (ie have a game existing on two levels)?
* How similar do we want to be to Secret Maryo Chronicles? Do we want to have a
similar level of cuteness or try something different? Do we want a similarly natured
story? We are changing mechanics, so game play would change.
* We have discussed changing Alex's graphics (#264). What age should he be (if he
has an age - multiple views have been expressed)? What is his profession? Lastly, how
cute should the graphic be? Should he be smiling at all times on the map? * See
--My suggestion is to use a deep story to appeal to both audiences on different levels,
with an adult age defined for Alex, and keeping the game cute overall but a little less
cute than SMC. This is basically what we've been doing except that it would be good
to consider an alternative to just wiping out eyes on background objects -- I think this
is how we could address the cuteness concerns. The deep story approach may give us a
chance to be different from other platformers.
* New Item - Rules for Keeping Power ups * We had discussed introducing a flight /
hover power up in #31 - Ticket Name - Cape Maryo. * Concerns were raised that the game
would be too easy if you can bring the Cape power up from level to level because it would
allow the user to hover or fly over obstacles * I had suggested introducing signs that
cancel out a given power up or class of power ups in order to moderate the above
level-design-breaking concern. One person objected, but no one else had taken a
position. My view is that allowing flight / hover power ups across levels helps moderate
difficulty (one touch from a pit or lava kills Alex, and we all tend to create tricky
jumps). It also can be fun to bring a power up from level to level, and this is
consistent with the ice/fire power up.
* Another suggestion was to make flight / hover power ups temporary only.
* Quintus had also thrown out the idea of pits not killing Alex instantly and warping
him to the previous solid position. This is basically what is done in the Zelda games and
would be another way to moderate difficulty. * We should also discuss shops and the
possibility of item systems again. How will these systems be defined?
It is probably not possible to cover all of these topics (fully) in one meeting - we must
prioritize. Also, not all of them have to be completely decided. Some, such as the
release plan, do need to be decided.
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:30 AM, Luiji Maryo <luiji(a)users.sourceforge.net>
Marked the date/time on a sticky note.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I think we need to add resolving
to the discussion list. We will also need to decide whether to allow eyes
on a handful of other scenery objects or not. It is probably best to
resolve this before the release, since we will be making first impressions
On Monday, March 2, 2015 8:22 AM, Sydney Dykstra <sydneyjd(a)openmailbox.org>
That should work for me, but as always, i cannot garuntee anything.
On 03/02/2015 08:01 AM, Chris Jacobsen wrote:
We might consider posting this in a github ticket -- some people use neither
the forums nor the mailing list or check them infrequently. Hopefully this
will start to be less of an issue when we move off github :)
On Monday, March 2, 2015 6:19 AM, Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu> wrote:
(I’m also going to post this on the forums)
it has turned out that there are some issues regarding TSC lying around
that should be resolved once and for all by having a larger general
discussion in IRC on them. The main issue is probably what has been
suggested by datahead in IRC recently, namely the handling of the 2.x
development branch after the 2.0.0 release. Apart from that there are
some further issues we ought to discuss, and I think best way to do that
is to have everyone from the team join an organised (i.e. ordered by
topics) IRC discussion session. This requires first and foremost to find
a date and time that allows every team member to join. I suggest the
following for now:
2015-03-21 20:00:00 UTC
Please object immediately if you know you are unavailable at this date
Discussion schedule until now:
1. Determing the voting process (proponent: Quintus)
2. Maintenance of the 2.x branch and opening of the 3.x branch
3. Release date of the 2.0.0 release (proponent: Quintus)
4. Translation tools and services (proponent: Quintus)
PLEASE SUBMIT MORE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION! We don’t have the entire team
in real-time chat that often. Take this opportunity and submit some
topic that needs discussion and a binding result.
As usual, for each topic we shall try to find a consent. If this isn’t
possible, we shall vote on the topic. As we’ve not yet defined a proper
voting process, I’ve put that topic first on the schedule, and am going
to propose a voting procedure. By popular demand I’ll make a hopefully
more easy suggestion than what I send to the mailinglist recently (needs
are different in IRC anyway).
I’ll post a more complete announcement with more detailed information on
each of the topics and IRC modalities once we have the topics list
complete by say, 2015-03-16. Please object if you don’t like this
If you submit a topic, thus please give a short paragraph of overview
that I can include into that announcement then so that even those people
who don’t have followed this discussion can get a short overview of
what’s going to be going on.
PLEASE SUBMIT MORE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION!
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
My key fingerprint: | Mein Schlüsselabdruck:
B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20 | B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20
8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F | 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F
When Linus Torvalds dies, Linux is going to be forked.