Criticism

Avatar

By RalmonM 30 Aug 2016 03:40

Member · 13 comments

I understand that we should share the concept of Open Source but Tuxemon is first and foremost a game. While story is important in RPG (I think it is RPG), at its core, it is still a game, so I think game mechanics and entertainment value trumps Philosophy.

It is just that, inserting the open source philosophy into the story itself greatly narrows the possibilities of what the story could achieve. For example, it limits the available faction to two, the supported and the non-supporter; we can't make any other faction that could fit into the story.

At the same time, it greatly narrows the audience for the game. While I support open source, this is not everyone's cup of tea. Many would be just play the game for the game itself and not for some philosophy. The more important matter is the target audience. To whom the game is for. This, to me, seems to be targeted for Pokemon lovers, which in that case, inserting the philosophy of open source into the story itself isn't going to enhance the experience of playing the game.

Also, inserting the open source philosophy into the story itself would make the game present a message about open source and closed source. This is not something that should be tackled in an RPG. A Pokemon inspired RPG is not the best platform for that. At best, the message would not reach the players; at worst, it would be very preachy.

I suggest that the philosophy of open source be removed from the story, after all, open source, to me, is a practice. More successful open source software is the best contribution to the open source philosophy rather than some educational story.

For the story itself, instead of evaluating it to the standards of open source philosophy, it is better to judge it by its contribution to the gaming experience.

I might be to critical at this, but I think the story just become too limited and restricted to what it could do. A more open approach to what the story and world lore could be, for me, has more potential.

Last edited by RalmonM (30 Aug 2016 11:18)

Avatar

By Sanglorian 30 Aug 2016 10:13

Champion · 510 comments

Hi RalmonM,

Firstly, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

If I can criticise your criticism, I feel like it's too general. We have a working framework for the story, so rather than your general thoughts about potential problems, I'm more interested in what you think of this implementation. Does it avoid being preachy? Does it need three or more factions and, if so, would it be difficult to include one? Would Pokemon fans have trouble enjoying this story?

I'm interested to hear what you think.

Avatar

By RalmonM 30 Aug 2016 11:04

Member · 13 comments

I have been reading various topics, the wiki and anything I could read about the project.

-Does it avoid being preachy? - maybe no. I had read the Official Art Direction Thread and it discuss some very provocative stuff, like restriction of the use of tuxemon, enforcers, etc. The story is not complete yet, but I always consider the ending. How would the story end? Of course somehow our hero defeats the Cathedral(?). That the Cathedral's Philosophies is wrong, that our hero is right, that everyone should be free to use tuxemon without restrictions ect.. All the shenanigans that is just difficult to make not preachy.

-Does it need three or more factions and, if so, would it be difficult to include one? - It may or may not need more factions, and yes, other factions will be difficult to include. Again, in the OADT, the setup makes it so that there is only two logical factions. Any other factions would have little or no purpose.

Also, I'm not against this because of that, but because it restricts the potential of the story. I've been trying to come up with ideas, but trying to fit it to the philosophy of open source makes it difficult.

-Would Pokemon fans have trouble enjoying this story? - Yes. The core of a pokemon game is in being the greatest trainer. Capturing cool monsters and training them and be the best… which is not what open source is about. In fact, some ideas that are in OADT includes the cathedral taking your tuxemons away, which is the complete opposite of what trainers would want. I mean, you came to train tuxemons, but instead you are engaged in a rescue mission without tuxemons.

I think, Tuxemon needs a story premise that is more aligned with the game mechanics. Tuxemon is supposed to be:

"Completely open source monster fighting RPG. Capture and battle monsters against others!"

It is a game where players capture and battle monsters against each other but, so far, the story premise even goes the complete opposite where you are restricted from capturing and battling with tuxemons.

Avatar

By dulsi 30 Aug 2016 20:33

Member · 27 comments

The general idea of the story seemed like it could be preachy. Frankly I don't think it matters. If you don't like the story just create a new one using the engine. If it is better than the "official" campaign, we can always make it the official one. I've never played a pokemon game so I don't know enough to compare it to tuxemon.

Avatar

By RalmonM 30 Aug 2016 23:09

Member · 13 comments

Maybe it would not matter, or maybe it would. The one who has the most say to that is the one who are going to play the game. Whether they be alright with the story forcing the morals to them or they be annoyed by it is up to them.

As for creating a new one, that might not be accurate. There is no actual game with the 'official' story. It is still all in planning, pre-alpha.

And also, this forum here exist so that we could discuss. I present my arguments, you present yours. Then lets reach to some consensus. If you think my points, about the direction of the story, is wrong, then tell me why.

As for pokemon, it is quite simple. You catch monsters and train them. You can actually just do that and not bother with the storyline. For its story, it is very much the same for every game. You battle to be the champion, the best of them all.

Though, pokemon game has something more essential at its core. It is about collecting. Really. While you could capture and battle and breed and train and trade; you are essentially collecting the monsters and having fun with your collection. That is basically it.

As for tuxemon, it is a "clone" of Pokemon. As stated the website:

"In the spirit of other open source clones like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart,…"

Though, the later part of this quote indicates that it is more like inspired by the pokemon games (especially the capture monsters and battle monster against others part) but take a different route.

Avatar

By tamashihoshi 31 Aug 2016 12:15

Champion · 251 comments
RalmonM wrote

(...)
-Would Pokemon fans have trouble enjoying this story? - Yes. The core of a pokemon game is in being the greatest trainer. Capturing cool monsters and training them and be the best… which is not what open source is about. In fact, some ideas that are in OADT includes the cathedral taking your tuxemons away, which is the complete opposite of what trainers would want. I mean, you came to train tuxemons, but instead you are engaged in a rescue mission without tuxemons.

I think, Tuxemon needs a story premise that is more aligned with the game mechanics. Tuxemon is supposed to be:

"Completely open source monster fighting RPG. Capture and battle monsters against others!"

It is a game where players capture and battle monsters against each other but, so far, the story premise even goes the complete opposite where you are restricted from capturing and battling with tuxemons.

I think there is something important you might have not thought of:
"instead you are engaged in a rescue mission without tuxemons"
i am unsure which part of the story you mean here, but isnt this just once or something? (or im being stupid again, not sure)
A pokemon fan, as you described, will try to catch them all and train them all, its about collection.. will such a person "rush" through the story? I don't think so.. instead such a person will be doing something like side quests, where you can catch em all without problems.

I remember in pokemon mystery dungeon (best comparison) you had a part in the story where you ran off the village because people searched for you or something; you had a few levels where you had no shop, no npcs or anything.. you could only save.

despite that part, you still enjoyed the game. because it was only 1 part of the story, and when you continue the "main campaign"/"main quest" you will prepare yourself for such events.

I fear, if we loose the story too much, the story ill be too irrelevant; people will play the game for the mechanics only. but since we are talking of the main campaign of tuxemon, IMO the story should be somehow fun and engaging

- - -

yes, tuxemon says, its pokemon inspired. but that doesnt mean we have to create a game that is exactly the same
pokemon mystery, what i took as an example, was also a "pokemon inspired game" at some point... but they didnt go the standard story or anything. instead, they did something more unique, which was still a fun game for pokemon fans.


We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day!

Avatar

By tamashihoshi 31 Aug 2016 12:20

Champion · 251 comments
RalmonM wrote

The one who has the most say to that is the one who are going to play the game. Whether they be alright with the story forcing the morals to them or they be annoyed by it is up to them.

Thats something important. I think when tuxemon gets out of pre-alpha, when the game has a story with maps and stuff, we can ask people to tell us their thoughts on the game.
like those pre-alpha gameplay demo things on kickstarter where you can fill out a form after playing a game, writing "i liked the graphics but the story was annoying" or "was good ty" and send that directly to the dev(s)


We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day!

Avatar

By RalmonM 31 Aug 2016 23:06

Member · 13 comments

The problem with your comparison is, it is a side quest, and not the whole point of the game. Tuxemon takes the philosophy as the whole point of the game.

And as the tuxemon website says:

Completely open source monster fighting RPG. Capture and battle monsters against others!

You capture and battle monsters against others… but the story doesn't encourage that. Other examples of ideas running around: you are restricted to where you can have battles, and you are prohibited from capturing monsters in certain areas.

A pokemon fan, as you described, will try to catch them all and train them all, its about collection.. will such a person "rush" through the story? I don't think so.. instead such a person will be doing something like side quests, where you can catch em all without problems.

But, that is the problem with the story of Tuxemon. You can't catch em all without problems. The premise injects the idea of restriction. Don't battle here, don't capture monsters here, it is illegal to get certain monsters, etc. See the problem?

Meanwhile, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is a spinoff. It is a completely different game; there is no capturing monsters of one. PMD is to Pokemon as Mario Cart is to Super Mario. The only thing common between the spinoff and the main games is the characters. PMD can do that because it doesn't really go against the main game mechanic, you can't do that to with the main Pokemon games though. I mean, a pokemon game where you can only save for a (long) period of time?

yes, tuxemon says, its pokemon inspired. but that doesnt mean we have to create a game that is exactly the same

And to that:

In the spirit of other open source clones like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart,…

Tuxemon has an intention of being a Pokemon clone. Well, not exactly copy the game, but create a game that gives a similar feel and experience.

pokemon mystery, what i took as an example, was also a "pokemon inspired game" at some point... but they didnt go the standard story or anything. instead, they did something more unique, which was still a fun game for pokemon fans.

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is not pokemon inspired, it is a spinoff. Other pokemon spinoff includes: Pokemon Colosseum, Pokemon Snap, a pokemon trading card game and there is even a typing tutor game. These games is not the same as the main games, in fact many of these you would not be capturing and training pokemons and have a completely different game mechanics.

What you seem to try to say is that Tuxemon should be a spinoff of the Pokemon game… that would not really work. If you create a spinoff the pokemon game but doesn't use pokemon… that would be an entirely different game.

And I like the idea of a demo. Feedback is really important especially for open source software like this.

Avatar

By Sanglorian 1 Sep 2016 04:21

Champion · 510 comments
RalmonM wrote

But, that is the problem with the story of Tuxemon. You can't catch em all without problems. The premise injects the idea of restriction. Don't battle here, don't capture monsters here, it is illegal to get certain monsters, etc. See the problem?

No, I don't see the problem. By the end of the game, all monsters will have been caught or be available to catch. Yes, at times some monsters are not available ... that's true for the Pokemon games as well.

As I said before, it seems like you are thinking about how the ideas behind the story could be taken to the extreme, and therefore lead to a bad game. That's a fine thought exercise, but we have an existing story draft and I don't think it goes to the extremes you describe. In fact, I think it would feel very familiar to fans of the Pokemon games.

Avatar

By RalmonM 1 Sep 2016 06:05

Member · 13 comments
Sanglorian wrote

No, I don't see the problem. By the end of the game, all monsters will have been caught or be available to catch. Yes, at times some monsters are not available ... that's true for the Pokemon games as well.

As I said before, it seems like you are thinking about how the ideas behind the story could be taken to the extreme, and therefore lead to a bad game. That's a fine thought exercise, but we have an existing story draft and I don't think it goes to the extremes you describe. In fact, I think it would feel very familiar to fans of the Pokemon games.

Not being able to capture the monsters ate a given time is not the issue I'm pointing about. It is that this restriction comes from the story premise. The restrictions found in pokemon games is more natural (only in certain areas) or a game mechanic (certain pokemon is available in different version of the game). The story premise itself has nothing to do with it.

The restrictions found in Tuxemon is story driven. The story is not really developed yet, so the things I had found might or not be included, but one of the idea that seem to be accepted is to have your starter monster taken away from you at the start of the game. Another is to have these enforcers battle you if you try to capture monsters in restricted areas. That just sounds bad for the game play. Like, you just received your first Tuxemon, then it was taken away from you because… plot. You found a awesome tuxemon and you tried to catch it… but enforcers come and scold you (and take away your Tuxmon?) because… plot. The story is intervening with the game mechanics of collecting monsters, and, for me, that is not good.

Also, another game mechanic is the "battling monsters against others," essentially being a trainer; and again the story premise, doesn't encourage this. You have to defeat the seven pillars, but if think of it carefully, do you really need the tuxmons for that? Why don't  not become a ninja assassin and take them out? Or why not create a rebelion? Why train Tuxemons?

The game mechanics then become forced since "battling monsters against others" has nothing to do with the story premise. The conflict is comes from conflicting philosophies and not about being a great trainer, or even just being a trainer. That type of conflict is better presented by having the two parties confront each other directly, instead of judging who is right or wrong by from the outcome of a tuxmon battle. I mean, you win the battle, then you are right; you lost the battle then you are wrong?

Though, I see that the story is still a draft, and a lot can change; but my concern is that, the story premise doesn't really match the game mechanics very well. We maybe able to adjust it so it would mesh better, but I just think that we should consider other ideas that might work better with the game.

Avatar

By tamashihoshi 1 Sep 2016 09:20

Champion · 251 comments

you are right about the spin-off comparison, i think i went into the wrong direction, sorry about that ^^'

RalmonM wrote

Like, you just received your first Tuxemon, then it was taken away from you because… plot. You found a awesome tuxemon and you tried to catch it… but enforcers come and scold you (and take away your Tuxmon?) because… plot.

but you get them back because... plot
i still dont really understand how this change something. arent games usually doing that?

RalmonM wrote

Also, another game mechanic is the "battling monsters against others," essentially being a trainer; and again the story premise, doesn't encourage this. You have to defeat the seven pillars, but if think of it carefully, do you really need the tuxmons for that? Why don't  not become a ninja assassin and take them out? Or why not create a rebelion? Why train Tuxemons?

The game mechanics then become forced since "battling monsters against others" has nothing to do with the story premise. The conflict is comes from conflicting philosophies and not about being a great trainer, or even just being a trainer. That type of conflict is better presented by having the two parties confront each other directly, instead of judging who is right or wrong by from the outcome of a tuxmon battle. I mean, you win the battle, then you are right; you lost the battle then you are wrong?

Ahhh now I get what you mean..
that's something i havent thought of

let me check if im right:
we have 2 problems with the story

1) to fulfill your duty to defeat the cathedrals and release the caught tuxemon to the wild, there is no need to use tuxemon
morally it would even be better, because you capture tuxemon to free captured tuxemon... which is ironic at some point. unless we do the story right of course.
but that brings us to point two

2) in pokemon you use pokemon as your slaves - everyone does that - and its okay.
in tuxemon we have a moral problem, since the story says its actually not okay

yet, the problem about the cathedral is not that they are using tuxemon, but they are literally using them as slaves, they do experiments on them and create artificial tuxemon... so the moral question about capturing monsters isnt the main problem but how they are treated

...well, that's all no problem, we don't have a finished, fixed story yet. we can change it to any way we like (or just create a new one)

do you think we should create 2 campaigns instead?
1 campaign without a real story, as in pokemon, where you just run around randomly, fighting some random dudes in arenas, winning badges you dont really need...
a second campaign, which is our current main campaign, "spyder in the cathedral" ???

honestly, i dont know how much work it is to create a campaign... but since we will sort the tuxemon and stuff, and since the system will support multiple campaigns, we could start with 2 campaigns directly. one carrying the pokemon spirit completely, one being something original

Last edited by tamashihoshi (1 Sep 2016 09:20)


We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day!

Avatar

By RalmonM 1 Sep 2016 13:55

Member · 13 comments
tamashihoshi wrote

but you get them back because... plot
i still dont really understand how this change something. arent games usually doing that?

First, not just any games. The main pokemon games.

Second, no. That is not the usual. In any game where you gain some form of 'pets' or 'minions' (or anything) to own; be it Farmville, Dungeon Keeper, Virtual pets, Digimon, Insaniquarium, and so on; the game would usually not forcibly take them from you. I don't know what games are you playing, but I never encountered a game that did this.

tamashihoshi wrote

1) to fulfill your duty to defeat the cathedrals and release the caught tuxemon to the wild, there is no need to use tuxemon
morally it would even be better, because you capture tuxemon to free captured tuxemon... which is ironic at some point. unless we do the story right of course.

Yes. If setting them free is the objective, then we should not be capturing Tuxmons.

tamashihoshi wrote

2) in pokemon you use pokemon as your slaves - everyone does that - and its okay.
in tuxemon we have a moral problem, since the story says its actually not okay

yet, the problem about the cathedral is not that they are using tuxemon, but they are literally using them as slaves, they do experiments on them and create artificial tuxemon... so the moral question about capturing monsters isnt the main problem but how they are treated

And, you think that capturing monster and use them to fight other monsters (for fun) isn't? Breeding, and forcing them to combine (I think there was a mechanic like that that people like to implement), holding them in "capturing devices" and the like…

tamashihoshi wrote

do you think we should create 2 campaigns instead?
1 campaign without a real story, as in pokemon, where you just run around randomly, fighting some random dudes in arenas, winning badges you dont really need...

First: just run around randomly… what is wrong with that? Many games (and real life) literally makes you do this. It is called trial and error.

Second: fighting some random dudes in arenas… as opposed to fighting "not" random dudes in arenas, or fighting random dudes in "not" arenas, or fighting "not" random dudes in "not" arenas? Or maybe you prefer fighting dudetes.

Thrid: winning badges you dont really need… as opposed to freeing tuxmons by capturing tuxmons (and breeding them and forcing them to fight, etc.)?

I understand your criticism about the pokemon games, but Tuxmon's premise isn't any better, in fact Tuxmon might be worse.

tamashihoshi wrote

a second campaign, which is our current main campaign, "spyder in the cathedral" ???

Could be, after all, what I am against at is adding the philosophy of Open Source by using Tuxmon as an analogy. It just creates for broken morals and restricted game play.

tamashihoshi wrote

honestly, i dont know how much work it is to create a campaign... but since we will sort the tuxemon and stuff, and since the system will support multiple campaigns, we could start with 2 campaigns directly. one carrying the pokemon spirit completely, one being something original

The spirit is much more universal than you think. It is about collecting… with the added bad-assery of monsters and fighting and battles and evolutions… and monsters.

And I think 'original' isn't exactly what is needed. As stated:

In the spirit of other open source clones like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart,…

The objective is to follow the 'spirit' of clones… which I think means to create a clone… which I think means to be not totally that creative.

You just taken this 'originality' concept too much. There is nothing wrong with copying or being similar (like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart). In fact, many Open Source projects are that, open source versions of popular closed source softwares.

And, while it is wonderful to be truly original… I would rather play a game that is not original but fun, than play a game that is totally original in its awfulness.

Still we could make a game that is totally original and fun, but that would be against the reason why Tuxmon was made in the first place. And I put them again here:

Completely open source monster fighting RPG. Capture and battle monsters against others!

And

In the spirit of other open source clones like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart,…

We could really follow this statements, or we could just throw them out and have our own way with this game.

Avatar

By ShadowApex 1 Sep 2016 20:07

Lead Developer · 374 comments
RalmonM wrote

You have to defeat the seven pillars, but if think of it carefully, do you really need the tuxmons for that? Why don't  not become a ninja assassin and take them out? Or why not create a rebelion? Why train Tuxemons?

Why does Team Rocket or any other antagonist in the Pokemon series use Pokemon to complete their evil plot? Using monsters in the Tuxemon plot operates the same way.

RalmonM wrote

Also, inserting the open source philosophy into the story itself would make the game present a message about open source and closed source. This is not something that should be tackled in an RPG. A Pokemon inspired RPG is not the best platform for that. At best, the message would not reach the players; at worst, it would be very preachy.

I would say the main direction of the story is to try and not be preachy, but have a story that subtly presents the views of the Free Software philosophy.

RalmonM wrote

As stated:

    In the spirit of other open source clones like SuperTux and SuperTuxKart,…

The objective is to follow the 'spirit' of clones… which I think means to create a clone… which I think means to be not totally that creative.

We don't need to pigeonhole ourselves to what's written on the website. I wrote that description about 5 years ago, and the project has changed and evolved much since then. The direction I feel most of the community has come to the consensus of is to create a monster fighting game inspired by the feel of the original Pokemon series. We do not want to make a clone, but if people want to make a campaign that more similarly mirrors the Pokemon series, they'll have all the tools to do so with the Tuxemon engine.


Avatar

By bitcraft 1 Sep 2016 22:04

Champion · 167 comments

I'd just like to remind everyone that video games are free to invent the restrictions that they oppose on the game world.  Mario can just 10x his own height and spit fire after eating a flower, but you don't see gamers being critical about the realism, or upset that the flowers don't tie into some other sub plot.

I'll also just add that if Tuxemon where just a straight clone of other games, why wouldn't you just play other games that are basically finished and ready to play?  There has to be some parts of that are different or interesting to attract people to play it.  If Pokemon GO was released as just a straight copy of the traditional pokemon game, would it be as popular?

I'd like to address a couple ideas that I've read in the thread...

  • Without a script, I don't think it is fair to accuse the project of forcing morals onto the player
  • Furthermore, many games do have some moral dilemma as a feature of the story.  Team Rocket treats pokemon very badly, for instance.  I doubt many gamers feel offended that they are forced to take the moral stance that killing or experimentation on pokemon is unethical and should be stopped.
  • There are many ideas in the open source movement, and it is certainly not "for" or "against"
  • The thinly veiled concept of FOSS software is just that...thin.  You will hear about it alot in the forums because this is where things are discussed, but it doesn't mean the game will be about some preferred FOSS license.

I've also felt that sticking too close to the FOSS movement would be hokey, but being a part of the community for a while now, I don't see it being that way.  I do enjoy the ideas the community has come up with and support it.

RalmonM, I think you do have a point about capturing monsters may be confusing, since the story dictates that they are supposed to be free.  Pokemon, in a way also has this dilemma.  They get around it by letting pokemon be happy under humane captivity, so I don't see why thats a problem with the Tuxemon storyline if it is addressed early.  Furthermore, I don't know if it has been alluded to, but one could see this as an alternate reality where Team Rocket "wins" and creates a world where creatures are born and bred under very bad conditions, exploited even.

Maybe....humans and tuxemon have a symbiotic relationship....maybe humans need things the tuxemon provide, and tuxemon cannot reproduce without humans?  Perhaps the capture device benefits some deficiency that tuxemon have, and breeding is required for their own survival.

Finally, Tuxemon is open source and anyone is allowed to build any story they want (within the restrictions of the license it is released under, copyright, etc).

Avatar

By RalmonM 2 Sep 2016 01:43

Member · 13 comments

@ShadowApex

ShadowApex wrote

Why does Team Rocket or any other antagonist in the Pokemon series use Pokemon to complete their evil plot? Using monsters in the Tuxemon plot operates the same way.

The Team is a side quest, a subplot. They where not really the point of the game.

ShadowApex wrote

I would say the main direction of the story is to try and not be preachy, but have a story that subtly presents the views of the Free Software philosophy.

The message is there by the fact that this game is open source. You don't need more than that.

ShadowApex wrote

We don't need to pigeonhole ourselves to what's written on the website. I wrote that description about 5 years ago, and the project has changed and evolved much since then. The direction I feel most of the community has come to the consensus of is to create a monster fighting game inspired by the feel of the original Pokemon series. We do not want to make a clone, but if people want to make a campaign that more similarly mirrors the Pokemon series, they'll have all the tools to do so with the Tuxemon engine.

Maybe, you need to reflect it to the website? It can be considered as false advertising since what is stated on the website is not what the project actually is. If the nature of the project has changed, then the least you can do is to reflect it there so that anyone who would come would know what the state of the project really is.

So… I suggest to remove those statement and replace it with something that truly reflects what the project is supposed to be now?

@bitcraft

bitcraft wrote

I'd just like to remind everyone that video games are free to invent the restrictions that they oppose on the game world.  Mario can just 10x his own height and spit fire after eating a flower, but you don't see gamers being critical about the realism, or upset that the flowers don't tie into some other sub plot.

What you have listed are restrictions. In fact, those things made for a great game play. Compare "to spit fir after eating a flower" to "enforcers confiscate your tuxemon because you battled in the wrong place." They aren't even similar.

bitcraft wrote

I'll also just add that if Tuxemon where just a straight clone of other games, why wouldn't you just play other games that are basically finished and ready to play?  There has to be some parts of that are different or interesting to attract people to play it.  If Pokemon GO was released as just a straight copy of the traditional pokemon game, would it be as popular?

That could be said to SuperTux and SuperTuxKart.

And, I never mentioned that we copy Pokemon exactly. The issue I was putting forward is that inserting the philosophy of Open Source into the story itself isn't the best thing for the game. I proposed that we take it off the story.


bitcraft wrote

I'd like to address a couple ideas that I've read in the thread...

  • Without a script, I don't think it is fair to accuse the project of forcing morals onto the player
  • Furthermore, many games do have some moral dilemma as a feature of the story.  Team Rocket treats pokemon very badly, for instance.  I doubt many gamers feel offended that they are forced to take the moral stance that killing or experimentation on pokemon is unethical and should be stopped.
  • There are many ideas in the open source movement, and it is certainly not "for" or "against"
  • The thinly veiled concept of FOSS software is just that...thin.  You will hear about it alot in the forums because this is where things are discussed, but it doesn't mean the game will be about some preferred FOSS license.

And I address your points:

  • The script might not be complete, but the intention is there. Why wait for the script to be finished before pointing things out?
  • This isn't exactly accurate. Team Rocket is a criminal organization. Not only do they treat pokemons badly, they use them to do crimes. The end objective being about taking over the world. This stands in contrast to the Cathedral who mostly desire that the tuxemon they created be restricted in its use and the punishment they mettle out the rights to that said tuxemon (program) would be revoked. No matter how you think about it, the Cathedral is no criminal organization (like Team Rocket). They do have the rights to restrict the use of their creations even if it is an inconvenience for the owners. Equating the Cathedral to a criminal organization (Team Rocket) is too presumptuous. Most would not agree with that comparison nor is the comparison correct.
  • What is this? I'm not questioning Open Source. I'm questioning its inclusion into the story. I don't think that injecting it into the story is going to help the game. It is like inserting the philosophy of Open Source into the story of SuperTux game, or any open source game (with a narrative) for that matter (like the Battle of Wesnoth and 0 A.D. ).
  • I hope so because that is really my concern. People might just get too worked up with inserting Open Source ideas into the story that the message become the main force of the game instead the game and the tuxemons themselves (and the players).

bitcraft wrote

RalmonM, I think you do have a point about capturing monsters may be confusing, since the story dictates that they are supposed to be free.  Pokemon, in a way also has this dilemma.  They get around it by letting pokemon be happy under humane captivity, so I don't see why thats a problem with the Tuxemon storyline if it is addressed early.  Furthermore, I don't know if it has been alluded to, but one could see this as an alternate reality where Team Rocket "wins" and creates a world where creatures are born and bred under very bad conditions, exploited even.

The main reason why this isn't an issue in pokemon is because pokemon games don't really focus on morals and philosophies and such matters. Pokemon game is about collecting them and being the best pokemon trainer. Capturing and training pokemon doesn't contradict with the storyline. However Tuxemon focuses on the concept of Open Source by using the tuxemons as an analogy, and because of that, we have to make excuses (It would be worse if the enemy wins) to justify the contradiction caused by the game play.

And since, the story isn't really developed yet, I wanted to present this criticism on how the nature of the story doesn't really go along well with the desired game play and even contradictory in some areas. Either change the story to fit the game play, or change the game play to fit the narrative.

bitcraft wrote

Finally, Tuxemon is open source and anyone is allowed to build any story they want (within the restrictions of the license it is released under, copyright, etc).

Hmmm. Okay. I'll try my take on it. Needs to study a lot though.

Last edited by RalmonM (2 Sep 2016 01:48)

Avatar

By Sanglorian 2 Sep 2016 02:33

Champion · 510 comments
RalmonM wrote

  • This isn't exactly accurate. Team Rocket is a criminal organization. Not only do they treat pokemons badly, they use them to do crimes. The end objective being about taking over the world. This stands in contrast to the Cathedral who mostly desire that the tuxemon they created be restricted in its use and the punishment they mettle out the rights to that said tuxemon (program) would be revoked. No matter how you think about it, the Cathedral is no criminal organization (like Team Rocket). They do have the rights to restrict the use of their creations even if it is an inconvenience for the owners. Equating the Cathedral to a criminal organization (Team Rocket) is too presumptuous. Most

This is the crux of the moral impetus of the draft script. The Cathedral is as bad as a criminal organisation - or worse. It acts as the de facto government, so whether it breaks the law is academic - it makes the laws. Team Rocket are the villains because they're a gang; the Cathedral is the villain because it is a corrupt company/syndicate of corrupt companies. The Pillars are arms manufacturers, junk food sellers, fossil fuel miners, etc. Their private security acts like a police force. Team Rocket tries to steal Pokemon; the Cathedral "confiscates" them. Team Rocket takes over Silph Co; the Cathedral buys them out.

The draft script also is very limited in the ways it deprives people of tuxemon - perhaps too much, in fact! There are some exclusive tuxemon that have to be bought through the Pillars - until the Pillar is defeated. And at one point, your top tuxemon are taken away - to encourage you to play with your B team. Since one of the problems of the Pokemon games is that most of your Pokemon never see battle, taking away the top tuxemon encourages the use of more tuxemon, not less!

-----------------------------------

The conceit is that how creatures are restricted is analogous to how creative works are restricted in the real world ("creature" and "creative" both come from "create"; a creature was originally a created thing).

But we can use the creatures/creative works that we have to challenge the wicked corporations that would restrict them. As our creatures/creative works grow stronger and more numerous, the wicked corporations are defeated and fewer creatures/creative works are restricted until the protagonist's victory where no creatures/creative works are restricted.

I think that's a clever and subtle conceit for an open source game to have. It gives the player a goal, and a reason for battling. The use of battling creatures makes sense, because they're a metaphor for the battle of ideas. "As it is above, so it is below" - the purpose of Tuxemon: The Game is the same purpose as a tuxemon in the game - a creation that helps win the battle of ideas for freedom and open source.

Last edited by Sanglorian (2 Sep 2016 02:34)

Avatar

By RalmonM 2 Sep 2016 05:43

Member · 13 comments
Sanglorian wrote

This is the crux of the moral impetus of the draft script. The Cathedral is as bad as a criminal organisation - or worse. It acts as the de facto government, so whether it breaks the law is academic - it makes the laws. Team Rocket are the villains because they're a gang; the Cathedral is the villain because it is a corrupt company/syndicate of corrupt companies. The Pillars are arms manufacturers, junk food sellers, fossil fuel miners, etc. Their private security acts like a police force.

And for what reasons are the Cathedral evil? Team Rocket is clearly evil with their intentions and actions (like sinking a ship), but the Cathedrals biggest transgression is to testrict how you will use their Tuxemons.

This is the problem with the premise, you present the idea of proprietary and any form of restriction as evil, to the point that you even stated that they are worse that criminal organizations that abuse living creatures and has taken human lives.

Sanglorian wrote

Team Rocket tries to steal Pokemon; the Cathedral "confiscates" them.

The difference is Team Rocket doesn't create Pokemons, while on the other hand the Cathedral does create the Tuxemons. They really don't need your Tuxemons. They could easily create more. In here, Team Rocket steals, while the Cathedral restricts. There is a very big difference.

Sanglorian wrote

Team Rocket takes over Silph Co; the Cathedral buys them out.

That doesn't make sense. The Cathedral is Silph Co itself. Silph Co. that just have monopoly and control over their products. This comparison is just wrong.

Sanglorian wrote

The draft script also is very limited in the ways it deprives people of tuxemon - perhaps too much, in fact! There are some exclusive tuxemon that have to be bought through the Pillars - until the Pillar is defeated. And at one point, your top tuxemon are taken away - to encourage you to play with your B team. Since one of the problems of the Pokemon games is that most of your Pokemon never see battle, taking away the top tuxemon encourages the use of more tuxemon, not less!

No! No way. Why would you take away from the players their favorite monster? No! That would not encourage them to use their less favorite monsters, that would just enrage them. Who would want to have their monster who they spend a lot of time and sweat be taken away from them for a reason like that? Most players would rather have their other monsters taken that lose their favorite ones.

Sanglorian wrote

The conceit is that how creatures are restricted is analogous to how creative works are restricted in the real world ("creature" and "creative" both come from "create"; a creature was originally a created thing).

But we can use the creatures/creative works that we have to challenge the wicked corporations that would restrict them. As our creatures/creative works grow stronger and more numerous, the wicked corporations are defeated and fewer creatures/creative works are restricted until the protagonist's victory where no creatures/creative works are restricted.

The problem is you are demonizing people who don't share your view. What if a person creates a game for Android but doesn't share the source? Is this person evil? If a company develop a new software but doesn't share the source, does that makes them evil? They have have all the rights to not share, as well as we have all the rights to share.

Sanglorian wrote

I think that's a clever and subtle conceit for an open source game to have. It gives the player a goal, and a reason for battling. The use of battling creatures makes sense, because they're a metaphor for the battle of ideas. "As it is above, so it is below" - the purpose of Tuxemon: The Game is the same purpose as a tuxemon in the game - a creation that helps win the battle of ideas for freedom and open source.

No. It is not cever, nor is it subtle. Representing peole who doesn't agree with your view as evil isn't a correct metaphor for the battle of ideas. It has a complete and total bias, and force your views onto people.

While I agree with the concept of Open Source, I would never present my ideals in a form of a game. I state again, the story of an RPG game is not the proper platform to express these.

The first and foremost aim in game making is to create a great game. Ideas should be included in the game because that would improve the gaming experience. To me, many of the ideas presented would not make the gaming experience pleasurable or satisfying. What you have done here is trying to use a game as a medium of propaganda.

Avatar

By ShadowApex 2 Sep 2016 08:38

Lead Developer · 374 comments
RalmonM wrote

And for what reasons are the Cathedral evil? Team Rocket is clearly evil with their intentions and actions (like sinking a ship), but the Cathedrals biggest transgression is to testrict how you will use their Tuxemons.

This is the problem with the premise, you present the idea of proprietary and any form of restriction as evil, to the point that you even stated that they are worse that criminal organizations that abuse living creatures and has taken human lives.

I differ with presenting the Cathedral as explicitly "evil". There have been discussions about this very topic elsewhere. If you look at the World Lore wiki page on GitHub, the leader of the Cathedral is described as a character that you can sympathize with, as he truly believes that the model he created was for the benefit of everyone:
https://github.com/Tuxemon/Tuxemon/wiki … ore#dameon

Whether the Cathedral or the Bazaar model is right is ultimately up to the player to decide for themselves, if they so choose to analyze the story in more depth. The goal of the Cathedral and the Bazaar analogy of the story is to get the player thinking about the ethics of freedom in some way. It is not to explicitly demonize one particular point of view.

RalmonM wrote

While I agree with the concept of Open Source, I would never present my ideals in a form of a game. I state again, the story of an RPG game is not the proper platform to express these.

I disagree with this sentiment completely. Games can be exactly the medium to express philosophical and ethical  ideas. There are countless examples of games that force you think about ethics, philosophy, and what it means to be human. SOMA, Bioshock, and Planescape: Torment are just a few examples that make you, as a player, question the nature of consciousness, what it means to be human, and what things we should consider to be ethical.


Avatar

By Sanglorian 2 Sep 2016 08:38

Champion · 510 comments

Why do you say the Cathedral's biggest transgression is to restrict how we use tuxemon and - especially - use the term "their" tuxemon? Their are other transgressions, and part of the point of the story is that the tuxemon are not "theirs".

But I'm glad we're having this conversation, because it's making me think about how we can emphasise the unjustness of the Cathedral locking away tuxemon. Obviously unleashing the Spyder virus and the extra-judicial confiscation of tuxemon are examples in the draft script of the Cathedral acting badly, but you've inspired me to think about other transgressions that we should have them perpetrate. There are plenty of examples from the real world about how the use and abuse of copyright law, trademark law and patents has had terrible consequences for humanity.

Sanglorian wrote

The difference is Team Rocket doesn't create Pokemons, while on the other hand the Cathedral does create the Tuxemons. They really don't need your Tuxemons. They could easily create more. In here, Team Rocket steals, while the Cathedral restricts. There is a very big difference.

But this is key to ideas of software freedom, open source, copyleft, and the free and open movements more generally. What does it mean to "create" something? We all draw upon what comes before, why does some drawing-upon lead to protectionism, monopolies, law suits and extortion, and drawing-upon doesn't? Who owns the commons? In the real world, intellectual property is responsible for awful injustices - and those injustices play out in the game.

Sanglorian wrote

No! No way. Why would you take away from the players their favorite monster? No! That would not encourage them to use their less favorite monsters, that would just enrage them. Who would want to have their monster who they spend a lot of time and sweat be taken away from them for a reason like that? Most players would rather have their other monsters taken that lose their favorite ones.

For the challenge, the novelty, the experience? Because it makes reclaiming your favourite monster all the sweeter when it happens? Because it makes the villainous scheme suddenly personal? You're saying that something the villains do will enrage players. That's good!

Sanglorian wrote

No. It is not cever, nor is it subtle. Representing peole who doesn't agree with your view as evil isn't a correct metaphor for the battle of ideas. It has a complete and total bias, and force your views onto people.

While I agree with the concept of Open Source, I would never present my ideals in a form of a game. I state again, the story of an RPG game is not the proper platform to express these.

The first and foremost aim in game making is to create a great game. Ideas should be included in the game because that would improve the gaming experience. To me, many of the ideas presented would not make the gaming experience pleasurable or satisfying. What you have done here is trying to use a game as a medium of propaganda.

All games will make moral choices and political choices, whether they do so explicitly or not. How honest and direct they are about their moral and political stance will vary, of course, and their are more and less sophisticated ways of communicating your message. It's also possible to acknowledge the complexity and nuance in the real world, or to fail to do so.

But these choices can only be assessed in the specific. This choice does X, that choice does Y. This element meets a certain standard, that element falls short of it. The broader concept, conceit, vague ideas, aren't things that can be assessed in this way, because the implementation is everything.

For example, are we portraying the villains as evil, or as doing nothing wrong? You say both - but how can that be? It'll all come down to the implementation, which is I think a much more fruitful topic for criticism than the broad objectives/conceit.

Avatar

By tamashihoshi 2 Sep 2016 09:20

Champion · 251 comments
RalmonM wrote
tamashihoshi wrote

do you think we should create 2 campaigns instead?
1 campaign without a real story, as in pokemon, where you just run around randomly, fighting some random dudes in arenas, winning badges you dont really need...

First: just run around randomly… what is wrong with that? Many games (and real life) literally makes you do this. It is called trial and error.

Second: fighting some random dudes in arenas… as opposed to fighting "not" random dudes in arenas, or fighting random dudes in "not" arenas, or fighting "not" random dudes in "not" arenas? Or maybe you prefer fighting dudetes.

Thrid: winning badges you dont really need… as opposed to freeing tuxmons by capturing tuxmons (and breeding them and forcing them to fight, etc.)?

I understand your criticism about the pokemon games, but Tuxmon's premise isn't any better, in fact Tuxmon might be worse.

hahaha oops big_smile
that was actually not criticism because there is nothing wrong with a non-existent storyline.. just my ironic/sarcastic way to talk - sorry 'bout that

this was said a few times already but your are taking something too serious which is just being discussed. why not join the discussion, and point out your worries? instead you confront us with a WOT critisism in a new thread, and im still not even sure which parts of the story you are talking about..

this thread kinda feels like a confrontation, not like a "lets fix wrong things".. more like "you are doing it wrong, this is bad".. thus creating 2 sides kinda... "story likers" vs "story dislikers"

so without trying to do the "you present your arguments, i present mine" any more, I want to ask you:
do you have any suggestion on what to change about the story explicitly? do you have a suggestion how to make, what is beeing discussed, more subtle and not forced?


We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day!

Avatar

By RalmonM 2 Sep 2016 14:26

Member · 13 comments

@ShadowApex

ShadowApex wrote

I differ with presenting the Cathedral as explicitly "evil". There have been discussions about this very topic elsewhere. If you look at the World Lore wiki page on GitHub, the leader of the Cathedral is described as a character that you can sympathize with, as he truly believes that the model he created was for the benefit of everyone:

I come to that conclusion because Sanglorian said this:

Sanglorian wrote

This is the crux of the moral impetus of the draft script. The Cathedral is as bad as a criminal organisation - or worse.

It was very clear. It was not me who said that, it was Sanglorian.

ShadowApex wrote

I disagree with this sentiment completely. Games can be exactly the medium to express philosophical and ethical  ideas. There are countless examples of games that force you think about ethics, philosophy, and what it means to be human. SOMA, Bioshock, and Planescape: Torment are just a few examples that make you, as a player, question the nature of consciousness, what it means to be human, and what things we should consider to be ethical.

Yes, they make you question things. Tuxemon however, forces to the players the answer. Proprietary is evil, Open is the way.

And also, will people take the issues presented in the games seriously or think that deeply about them? Case example, the original ending for the Mass Effect trillogy. You are given three choices. And the gamers reaction? WTF! Where is my happy ending. The ending is just a choice of which Instagram filter will be picked! The question the choices present is disregarded and doesn't really stick to their minds. Just because you make the players question stuff doesn't mean the players will get it, or take to heart.

Another thing I must point out is that I was talking about Open Sourcing and not any philosophical and ethical ideas. The thing about those games you point out is that they tackles subjects that almost anyone could understand and relate to. Something mush more universal. Open Source however is not something most people would even know, relate to or even care about, especially the gamers. That is why I think that the narrative of the game like this isn't the best platform for expression.


@Sanglorian

Sanglorian wrote

But I'm glad we're having this conversation, because it's making me think about how we can emphasise the unjustness of the Cathedral locking away tuxemon. Obviously unleashing the Spyder virus and the extra-judicial confiscation of tuxemon are examples in the draft script of the Cathedral acting badly, but you've inspired me to think about other transgressions that we should have them perpetrate. There are plenty of examples from the real world about how the use and abuse of copyright law, trademark law and patents has had terrible consequences for humanity.

Well, it is great I guess. Though, I'm still not into it. I will try to make my own take instead, as bitcraft suggested. I will be bussy figuring out how to do that.

Sanglorian wrote

For the challenge, the novelty, the experience? Because it makes reclaiming your favourite monster all the sweeter when it happens? Because it makes the villainous scheme suddenly personal? You're saying that something the villains do will enrage players. That's good!

Be very careful. Is this a kind of challege the gamers would like? Is being novel enough to satisfy the gamers? Is this kind of experience what gamers is looking for? Would this make the villainous scheme be personal to them or will  they get frustrated with the game instead? Are you certain that the players will get enraged at the enemies, or be enraged with the game?

My take would be: villains that challenge the players. I'm not going to make the players hate them but instead make the players want to challege them to a battle. Just like the Gym Leaders in pokemon. My idea was to have these trainers who dedicate themselves to Tuxemon training and are recognized as the best of the world.

Sanglorian wrote

All games will make moral choices and political choices, whether they do so explicitly or not. How honest and direct they are about their moral and political stance will vary, of course, and their are more and less sophisticated ways of communicating your message. It's also possible to acknowledge the complexity and nuance in the real world, or to fail to do so.

Wrong! Games like Tetris, Snake, Pac Man, Galaga, Mario Kart, Solitaire, Sim City, Flappy Bird, Candy Crush, Bejewelled, Just Dance, Peggle, Farmville, Minecraft, Puzzle Bubble, Dress Up games… I could name lots and lots of games that doesn't have a shred of moral and political choices to speak of. Tetris and these other games shows that the game play could be just be the whole point needed to make a great game.

Those game that deal with those themes could do so because the gameplay allows them. If the gameplay is like tetris… you can't really express much of anything.

Sanglorian wrote

But these choices can only be assessed in the specific. This choice does X, that choice does Y. This element meets a certain standard, that element falls short of it. The broader concept, conceit, vague ideas, aren't things that can be assessed in this way, because the implementation is everything.

I kinda have a hard time understanding this, but I think you mean that with two choices, one is wrong and the other one is right? But bigger matters can't be expressed like this. They require a more proper implementation?

Sanglorian wrote

For example, are we portraying the villains as evil, or as doing nothing wrong? You say both - but how can that be? It'll all come down to the implementation, which is I think a much more fruitful topic for criticism than the broad objectives/conceit.

Okay, I clarify. You are trying to portray the villains as evil, much worse that Team Rockets, much worse than abusers and murderers, an abomination; because they don't let you use Tuxemons the way you want. They confiscate the Tuxemon you bought for not battling in designated battling areas. You are not allowed to capture certain Tuxemons too. You are being punished for breaking their rules and regulation of the use of Tuxemons. They are presented as evil mainly because the don't let you do anything you want.

Yes, implementation…  I said before: either change the story to fit the game play, or change the game play to fit the narrative. If you are very into this idea, of choices and morals and politics , then you might just have to completely change the gameplay. Especially the gameplay of collecting monsters. That gameplay just can't express these things.


@tamashihoshi

tamashihoshi wrote

why not join the discussion, and point out your worries?

I just did, that was the first thing I done. My very first post. Didn't you read it?

tamashihoshi wrote

instead you confront us with a WOT critisism in a new thread, and im still not even sure which parts of the story you are talking about..

I'm allowed to criticize, am I? And I think my criticism is valid, so I put forth my criticism.

And what part of my explanation isn't clear? I will try to explain myself further to you if you still don't understand.

tamashihoshi wrote

this thread kinda feels like a confrontation, not like a "lets fix wrong things".. more like "you are doing it wrong, this is bad".. thus creating 2 sides kinda... "story likers" vs "story dislikers"

So I give a vibe of "you are doing it wrong, this is bad" instead of "lets fix wrong things" but, how could I offer a fix when I don't point out what I think is wrong? That something is bad? I just can't give the fix without telling what is meant to be fixed.

I understand that I might not be presenting my points the best way, but who does? I'll try the best I can, but I don't think that I am be able to express my points the way you like it. Maybe you could tell me how am I supposed to present my points?

tamashihoshi wrote

so without trying to do the "you present your arguments, i present mine" any more, I want to ask you:

Because you not really talking about my arguments. You are actually talking about me. That I'm taking things too seriously, that I'm confrontational. You aren't really dealing with things I'm talking about. You haven't talk about my points so far, except to say that you are still not even sure which parts of the story I am are talking about. Since you don't bring up my arguments, I don't expect you to bring yours.

tamashihoshi wrote

do you have any suggestion on what to change about the story explicitly? do you have a suggestion how to make, what is beeing discussed, more subtle and not forced?"

Okay. It is this. Let us not make the story Tuxemon tackles the idea Open Source. Remove Open Source from the story.

Instead, I wish that we are more open to ideas even if it doesn't pertain to open source. Anything really. Pirates, Ancient China, hermit Tuxemon trainer, a mechanism for players to create their own Tuxemon, etc.. Things and ideas that I think is more fun.

Now that I presented some of my ideas, what do you think? I give you permission to be critical and confrontational. I promise I would not take offence with what you will say and will consider them very carefully.

Are for being subtle instead of being forced… I was suggesting that we axe it, so yeah. No ideas from me.

Last edited by RalmonM (2 Sep 2016 14:32)

Avatar

By bitcraft 2 Sep 2016 17:25

Champion · 167 comments

RalmonM, at the risk of seeming rude, let me ask you, what are you doing here?  You seem to have just joined the forums to tell everyone that you don't like it and we should change it.  Well why should we?  What have you done to earn our respect?  Who are you to come here and make these demands? 

I'll tell you who we are; we have a community of people building something, sharing ideas and generally working well together.  Our ideas for the most part have worked well within the group and generated lots of great discussion and ideas.

We've had differences of opinion in the past, they have always been resolved with kindness.  I will say your aggressive posting and combative chatter doesn't earn you any respect.  You may feel you are right, and you are entitled to your delusions, but don't waste the time of people who are doing this for fun and in their spare time, just because you disagree with whatever you think we are doing.

If you don't like it, you can politely leave, instead of distracting the community with this nonsense.  You can accept it, or kindly suggest changes, instead of making demands that nobody really agrees with.

Last edited by bitcraft (2 Sep 2016 17:32)

Avatar

By ShadowApex 2 Sep 2016 18:22

Lead Developer · 374 comments

I think this thread has run its course. This topic is locked.