Would you rather your favorite game be open sourced, or a spiritual successor be reelased?

[Nutmeg]

In most cases I prefer a good open source effort. Which do you prefer?

 

[circ]

In most cases open source means nothing happens except for an early alpha build. After that the developers get into a primadonna argument and one or more of them create a diverging branch. Game ends up no better and gets some really ridiculous additions.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

But in the cases where an open source port is successful, it is a massive benefit to everyone I can think of. It gives so many options - do you choose to play the "vanilla" game, or add some mods or additions made by others? Getting the game to run should no longer become a problem, and even long-standing bugs and problems can (and most often will) be fixed.

I had to think long and hard to come up with ANY "spiritual successor" that actually WAS superior to the original title, and that was Heroes of Might & Magic succeeding King's Bounty.

 

[Menckenstein]

Neither. Let it die with dignity.

 

[felipepepe]

When people ask for open source, what they really want is for other people (not him) to keep making / changing stuff for their games (for free, btw), so just be honest and ask for a proper spiritual sequel...

 

[Absalom]

I'm with menck. I never understood the appeal of sequels (and im :patriot:, too)

 

[deuxhero]

When people ask for open source, what they really want is for other people (not him) to keep making / changing stuff for their games (for free, btw), so just be honest and ask for a proper spiritual sequel...

I don't know. If they didn't lose the source for Fallout, someone could make the needed engine improves that would make me want to touch it again (fucking 5 inventory items visible at a time and hideously long animations, even at "fast" bullshit)

 

[MicoSelva]

Are we talking about RPGs? because I will take Tides of Numenera over open-source Infinity Engine any day.

In non-RPG land I would be leaning towards spiritual successors too. For example, a spiritual successor to Interstate 76 would be nice. Open source I76 would be pointless.
And no, there is no such thing as Interstate 82. It simply does not exist.

 

[SCO]

Open source uber alles.

Bugs suck.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Spiritual successor. Reading changelogs is cool and all, but I like playing games more.

 

[DalekFlay]

New IP and open source 'cause why not.

 

[DraQ]

Both.

Because why not?

 

[warpig]

I don't care much for mods so spiritual successor all the way. Of course done properly, not Bioshock style.

 

[Blonsky]

In my little experiance with mods i found out that 90% of them is shit, so i would rather have a good spiritual successor.

 

[Karellen]

If I count a game as my "favourite", it follows that I like it just fine the way it is. This being the case, I have no particular interest in fan efforts to change my favourite games, even if they were successful, which they rarely are. So, the way I see it, getting a spiritual successors is preferable - it would be a whole new game, so it can iterate on the original with greater freedom, and also avoids the irkiness of having someone mess with the particulars of a game that really was good to begin with.

Having said that, open sourcing is by far the best solution to the preservation of games in the long term, so the idea that the assets and source code of classic games are preserved, available and transferrable to different platforms makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. So having both is ideal, but for different reasons.

 

[DraQ]

If I count a game as my "favourite", it follows that I like it just fine the way it is.

Well, not really. Case in point - all the 'flawed gems'.

Other than that - .

 

[yes plz]

Depends on the conditions of the spiritual successor. Is it guaranteed to come out and be made by the original creative staff? If so, definitely that. The idea of one of our favourite games going open source might make us think up a lot of cool ideas that could be done with it but they almost always remain just that -- ideas. Even the ones that make it past the conceptual stage usually never see the light of day.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Open source uber alles.

Bugs suck.

Seems like those working on open source projects don't agree, seeing as they're buggy as fuck, much worse than commercial projects. Modders fixing known bugs doesn't translate that well when working on open source projects. Unless you actually want to wait several years for that bug free game.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

Make the game open source. Just so it can have its bugs fixed faster. Just imagine what could be done if Arcanum was "open sourced"?

 

[Karellen]

If I count a game as my "favourite", it follows that I like it just fine the way it is.

Well, not really. Case in point - all the 'flawed gems'.

Other than that - .

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out. I do like numerous games that do have some clear flaws, but especially if they are games that I played a long time ago, it often feels like even the flaws, glitches, exploits, balancing errors, AI hiccups and such - just to name a few things - are really part of the game experience. I make exceptions, of course, for things like tasteful restoration projects, bug fixes and minor technical corrections, which arguably bring a game closer to what it was intended to be, but even those can feel like one of those DVD restorations of classic films with a lost scene represented by still images and voiceovers. It's very interesting to see what was lost or taken out, but mainly from an academic point of view.

In all fairness I suppose it's better to have both a vanilla option as well as a good attempt at a fixed version. Still, if I end up replaying a game, it's usually going to be partially due to nostalgia - basically, because I want to relive the original experience. So there's a good chance that I'd feel a sense of loss if the familiar niggles aren't there anymore, even if the game is technically better as a result. I mean, what is Fallout without Dogmeat walking into the Military Base force fields every time? At some point it ceases to be good or bad, it's just something that is.

 

[DraQ]

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out. I do like numerous games that do have some clear flaws, but especially if they are games that I played a long time ago, it often feels like even the flaws, glitches, exploits, balancing errors, AI hiccups and such - just to name a few things - are really part of the game experience.

This made me think of Todd '' Howard and his crime-reporting chickens, so I can't help but disagree.
Vehemently.

 

[tuluse]

I like my games made by professionals, so I would lean towards the spiritual successor.

Make the game open source. Just so it can have its bugs fixed faster. Just imagine what could be done if Arcanum was "open sourced"?

You'd have to create a brand new character system and redesign combat from scratch to "fix" Arcanum. That would be so much work you might as well port the whole thing to a new engine.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

You'd have to create a brand new character system and redesign combat from scratch to "fix" Arcanum. That would be so much work you might as well port the whole thing to a new engine.

Still doable, and easier than going all Drog and reverse engineering the game. I'm not saying that it's an easy task. I know is really difficult, but I think that it would make things at least possible.

 

[Oesophagus]

How about we leave the dead buried and try and, I don't know, come up with something original?

 

[Karellen]

Well, I'm glad you pointed that out. I do like numerous games that do have some clear flaws, but especially if they are games that I played a long time ago, it often feels like even the flaws, glitches, exploits, balancing errors, AI hiccups and such - just to name a few things - are really part of the game experience.

This made me think of Todd '' Howard and his crime-reporting chickens, so I can't help but disagree.
Vehemently.

Well, Skyrim without hilarious bugs sounds like an even more boring, less mockable Skyrim to me, but then I don't generally like open world games much anyway, so they'd rarely fall into the "favourite game" category for me. Point taken, though - for games that revolve around a simulation element, it's important for the simulation to work for the game to be even playable, no matter how comedic the bugs are.