Talk:Game engine recreation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
[edit] I removed this
- FS2 Open (the FreeSpace Source Code Project) for FreeSpace 2
i don't think it qualifies as a recreation of a game engine, since the code source was releast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel ;-) (talk • contribs) September 1, 2006
[edit] What about dead projects?
For instance, SCSharp site is down for very long.
- Perhaps some categorization could be used. rewiki has a number of categories, but the problem is when is a project dead? One month of no activity? One year? Two? Mikkel 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Periods of inactivity, unless long periods like a year or more, are a silly way to measure whether a project is to be included or not, I'd think; what about a project which has no recent (public) development activity but still has active users or non-public development? It might be nice to try and mention whether a project actually works (to some extent, at least) or not, though. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps limiting the categories to completable, playable, and implementing/early, and noting on a project if one notices that it has been dead for over a year, or the team has said it is dead. Mikkel 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Another thought occured to me. Would it be preferable to list by what game is implemented or the name of the engine? I should think that the former makes the most sense, as the engine names are usually only comprehensible to those knowing them. Also, one looking through the list would probably be looking for a specific game to see if there is an engine for it. If there are no objections, I'll have a go at restructuring this list at some point in the near future. Mikkel 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Periods of inactivity, unless long periods like a year or more, are a silly way to measure whether a project is to be included or not, I'd think; what about a project which has no recent (public) development activity but still has active users or non-public development? It might be nice to try and mention whether a project actually works (to some extent, at least) or not, though. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free Civ
Perhaps I am mistaken, but shouldn't Free Civ be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.211 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
