DemoQuest - Now general 'Quest discussion - Possible new team recruiting

[monkey0506]

The AGS 3.0 thread isn't really the place for this discussion, so I'll start a new thread. It's not technically a technical question, so I'll post it in the Adventure-talk forum. If this is the wrong one, moderators, feel free to slap me with a moist trout.

CJ had this to say:

I suppose overall my main concern with the demo game is the fact that it's a 256-colour game in what is a hi-colour world these days. Hopefully that shouldn't confuse too many newbies though.

I was wondering how many people would object to upgrading the DemoQuest demo game to 16-bit. 8-bit can be confusing to users who may be using AGS for the first time and are maybe trying to use the DemoQuest as a base to build around so they can get a feel for the engine.

If they tried importing any new graphics they would have to make sure the graphics were at 8-bit. They would also then have to work with the existing palette, which could definitely cause confusion: "Why are my graphics messed up?"

16-bit would also allow the possibility of showing the graphical capabilities of the engine. It's been discussed several times that one of the apparent "flaws" with AGS is that it apparently doesn't support "superior graphics", and only does "old-school pixel games". Perhaps if we included a higher-res example in the demo we could show that AGS can be used for more advanced graphics as well.

This all begs the question: Is it time to upgrade the DemoQuest to 16-bit? For the majority of users there would be no speed issues by upgrading. And it could open many, many doors for the 'Quest...you know...the ones that don't lead anywhere...yet.

So...discuss!

[Galen]

Agreed, but who would do it?

[OneDollar]

I don't remember DemoQuest making use of any of the 256 colour features like pallet cycling etc (though I could be wrong), and that to my mind would be one of the main reasons of using 256 colours. An upgrade to 16-bit would make it easier to jump into (AGS's default is now 16-bit after all) and potentially easier to develop so I'd be for it.

Is there any particular reason for not suggesting going straight to 32-bit (and demoing alpha channel effects) if you're thinking of using it to demonstrate AGS's superior graphics?

As a side note, what's happening with DemoQuest development? Its something I'd be interesting in contributing towards, though I don't know if my programming ability/creativity is up to it, or if I have enough time...

[Ghost]

The original DemoQuest did a palette cycle effect in the intro screen if I'm not mistaken.

I have to say that I liked the "original" DQ better than the new one- teh version where you controlled that little guy in the short pants and where you had the museum with doors to different GUI rooms. It was a source of much information for me. The new one is, in my personal opinion, better organised but not as complete.

Okay, it's easy for me to say we need a complete overhaul. But I think I can safely recommend updating to 16bit at least. AGS has become a Porsche with all the extras in the five (?) years since I registered here. It makes no sense to create a demo on the lowest specifications.

I should also say that I have great respect for the maintainers of the DemoQuest game- without their effort I'd probably not have lasted very long here.

[monkey0506]

Yes of course I meant the port to 16-bit as a minimalistic jump; 32-bit would be more of an idealistic jump from the graphical standpoint.

I have personally been working with the existing DemoQuest files to try and provide a "more complete" version as currently much of the 'Quest is non-functional, or just plain missing.

RickJ is somewhat of the forum's devotee however and he has contributed a lot to what we now know as the DemoQuest.

From what I can tell Rick has had somewhat of a time trying to maintain the demo largely by himself, doing a lot (if perhaps not all) of the work in the port to 2.7, then 2.71, 2.72, and I believe he has been working to port the code to a more compatible 3.0 version.

Surely one of the things that has always made working on the DemoQuest difficult has been the matter of source control; but perhaps if we could accumulate a dedicated team (that's not to say a team devoted to putting 8 hours a day in; but perhaps at least a few hours each week) then using the new AGS 3.0 and its source control capabilities we could find ourselves much closer to realizing this goal.

However this is digressing somewhat from the purpose of this thread which was to discuss what, if any, change should be made to the colour-depth of the DemoQuest game.

P.S. Ghost, it will be 5 years for you (as a registered member) this April, congratulations. You can check this on your profile

[RickJ]

I should also say that I have great respect for the maintainers of the DemoQuest game- without their effort I'd probably not have lasted very long here.

Ghost, thanks for the kind words they are greatly appreciated ...

I don't remember DemoQuest making use of any of the 256 colour features like pallet cycling etc

The intro screen and the "advanced" room leading to the arcade both use pallette cycling.

As a side note, what's happening with DemoQuest development? Its something I'd be interesting in contributing towards, though I don't know if my programming ability/creativity is up to it, or if I have enough time...

The development has kind of stagnated because of lack of help and feedback.  lately it has consisted of mainly keeping it updated to the latest flavor of the AGS scripting language.   Maintaining it is a lonely thankless task.   What usually happens is that people enthusiastically offer to help, do a few things, and then quickly loose interest.    Anyone, regardless of skill level,  is welcome to contribute provided they make a commitment contribute a certain amount of effort.   I don't mind mentoring novice programmers or working with novice artists as long as they are willing to put in the time and effort.

If they tried importing any new graphics they would have to make sure the graphics were at 8-bit. They would also then have to work with the existing palette, which could definitely cause confusion: "Why are my graphics messed up?"

Or they could just change the game's color depth first and then import their background.

16-bit would also allow the possibility of showing the graphical capabilities of the engine. It's been discussed several times that one of the apparent "flaws" with AGS is that it apparently doesn't support "superior graphics", and only does "old-school pixel games". Perhaps if we included a higher-res example in the demo we could show that AGS can be used for more advanced graphics as well

I would think that to show off AGS's graphics capabilities it would be necessary to draw new backgrounds and characters.  Converting the existing graphics to 16bit color will have no visible effect; they will look excatly the same and so then what exactly is the point of doing it?  Curiously enough I proposed this change many moons ago when I first started working on this and was quickly shot down . 

I think CJ's comments are reflective of the fact that the current demo looks outdated.  To remedy this situation, would require all new graphics, sounds, music, etc done with high color, high resolution, high quality mp3 music, etc.    Form there other technical requirements can be discussed.  For example we could limit the main demo to say 5 or 6  rooms and then the rest could be done as  mini-games.  The main demo could be easily distributed with the editor and the min-games could be maintained by different individuals.    Anyway, just a penney's worth of my thoughts

[edit]

I have personally been working with the existing DemoQuest files to try and provide a "more complete" version as currently much of the 'Quest is non-functional, or just plain missing.

monkey,  we should communicate about what you're doing.  I believe I have all the backgrounds and graphics either extracted or in a photoshop or other source format.  I also have new hosting space to support a development effort.   Also anyone else that is interested in helping out please send me a PM.

From what I can tell Rick has had somewhat of a time trying to maintain the demo largely by himself, doing a lot (if perhaps not all) of the work in the port to 2.7, then 2.71, 2.72, and I believe he has been working to port the code to a more compatible 3.0 version.

Just for historical perspetive, the biggest and most difficult task was conversion from the original DemoQuest II code base to the current form of DemoQuest III.  The two arcade games and all the GUI examples shared the same global script file which made it a tangled mess to organize.   This is not to disparage those who contributed to DemoQuest II.  When that version was produced there was no such things as modules or mini-games and so the only choice was to include everything into one global script.   

The second most difficult aspect of porting involved the conversion from old style strings to new style strings.  this affected the GUI example mini-games.  Litteral code translation just wasn't adequate in many cases and several of the gui examples just plain broke.  I was left with broken code that I couldn't determine what it was meant to do in the first place so the only other option was to remove  the unknown functionality.  I believe that much of what was removed were features from out of date game templates  that are not usebale with recent versions of AGS. 

I don't anticipate much difficulty in getting the current DemoQuest version to work with AGS 3.0.   However, adding code to demonstrate all the new features is another matter because they are many and I am not.     Seriously though, this is where a little feedback and some help could go a long way.

Surely one of the things that has always made working on the DemoQuest difficult has been the matter of source control; but perhaps if we could accumulate a dedicated team (that's not to say a team devoted to putting 8 hours a day in; but perhaps at least a few hours each week) then using the new AGS 3.0 and its source control capabilities we could find ourselves much closer to realizing this goal.

The difficulty here is that fact that AGS likes to keep everything in "one big file" and that makes it difficult for multiple to work simultaneously on the game.  With 3.0 things have gotten much better, with only the sprite being the one remaining bottleneck.  Mini-games and modules help out this situation quite a bit as well.  A manual source control system is in place where files are given revision numbers and ZIP archives are made for every major and minor release.  It's not  difficult to keep track of at all.   I suppose if there were 100s of developers I would be singing a different tune. 
=======

Again, my opinion is that the current demoquest should be made compatible with AGS 3.0.  Further I think we should be thinking about it's replacement with a more modern looking version some time in the near future.  When the current demoquest is retired we should make one last effort to make it as complete as possible and make one final release for posterity. 

[Dualnames]

The development has kind of stagnated because of lack of help and feedback.  lately it has consisted of mainly keeping it updated to the latest flavor of the AGS scripting language.   Maintaining it is a lonely thankless task.   What usually happens is that people enthusiastically offer to help, do a few things, and then quickly loose interest.    Anyone, regardless of skill level,  is welcome to contribute provided they make a commitment contribute a certain amount of effort.   I don't mind mentoring novice programmers or working with novice artists as long as they are willing to put in the time and effort.



I recall PMing you and I recall never getting a reply..

[Ghost]

This is late-night caffeine talk, but I just remembered how much I liked Inform in the early years and how impressed I was with its documentation...

What I wonder is if... something like "Museum of Inform" could be done as a revamp of DemoQuest. MoI is an IF game that showcases certain basic and advances features of the scripting language Inform, and it really is just a museum with rooms that house "code examples" as exhibits. Players can start the game and test out the features, and then can browse the game code and see how these features are scripted.

This is very boisterous and far-fetched, but a "Museum of AGS" could be made as a group effort. It could have rooms showing off different GUIs, certain puzzles, and players could be given a "guided tour"...

I like the sound of that. But of course it would be quite an effort. Just wanted to put down an idea- the original DQ basically was something similar to the "Museum", and I cannot help wondering if this was the best approach.

[monkey0506]

If they tried importing any new graphics they would have to make sure the graphics were at 8-bit. They would also then have to work with the existing palette, which could definitely cause confusion: "Why are my graphics messed up?"

Or they could just change the game's color depth first and then import their background.

The point was that many new users will probably be unfamiliar with the way 8-bit vs. 16-bit works so they probably won't understand the need to change the color depth first.

16-bit would also allow the possibility of showing the graphical capabilities of the engine. It's been discussed several times that one of the apparent "flaws" with AGS is that it apparently doesn't support "superior graphics", and only does "old-school pixel games". Perhaps if we included a higher-res example in the demo we could show that AGS can be used for more advanced graphics as well

I would think that to show off AGS's graphics capabilities it would be necessary to draw new backgrounds and characters.  Converting the existing graphics to 16bit color will have no visible effect; they will look excatly the same and so then what exactly is the point of doing it?  Curiously enough I proposed this change many moons ago when I first started working on this and was quickly shot down .

I understand that converting 8-bit to 16-bit won't automagically make the existing graphics look instantly better; the point was that if the game was upgraded to 16-bit we could then have the option of using higher quality graphics whereas if we stick to 8-bit then this isn't a possibility.

I'm not saying that all the graphics should be reworked; I actually think there should be a range of graphics to demonstrate the capabilities of AGS. After all, isn't this what the "demo" is for?

I think CJ's comments are reflective of the fact that the current demo looks outdated.  To remedy this situation, would require all new graphics, sounds, music, etc done with high color, high resolution, high quality mp3 music, etc.    Form there other technical requirements can be discussed.  For example we could limit the main demo to say 5 or 6  rooms and then the rest could be done as  mini-games.  The main demo could be easily distributed with the editor and the min-games could be maintained by different individuals.    Anyway, just a penney's worth of my thought

Again, we needn't replace all the graphics, but staying with 8-bit means we don't even have the possibility of using high color graphics. I think the DemoQuest primary distribution should be representative of some of the most common features, while still displaying the capabilities of the engine. Too much focus on features and we lose the graphics battle, but the inverse is also true. There is, IMO, a need for a compromise which isn't currently being met by the 8-bit version. I feel that 16-bit could provide a more equal balance.

@Ghost who beat me to the post:

The current version of the DemoQuest does feature somewhat of a museum within its bowels, unfortunately most of the example code has gone missing out of the distribution of the 'Quest. Again, I think that the DemoQuest should probably be distributed with the source for the most commonly used example rooms (perhaps with compiled versions in the DQ's Compiled folder and then compressed versions of the source in the primary DQ archive?).

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well, I tried helping with the visual improvement side of things in my own way with the Alien Roger template I made that prettied up the basic Sierra gui and Roger but CJ has not added it to the ags 3.0 templates (I'm not sure if/when he will).  I'm also pretty sure I offered to help update DemoQuest in one of the old discussion threads ages ago and no one took me up on the offer so I assumed the developers were happy with it the way it was.  I think graphically it could use a makeover, yeah, but I also don't think the graphics are awful or will turn people away from using ags.  The minigames and such show off some of the engine features quite well, in fact, and aside from some bug fixes it's probably fine as it is.

[Pumaman]

Again, my opinion is that the current demoquest should be made compatible with AGS 3.0

I'm a bit worried by this statement -- AGS 3.0 already includes the latest DemoQuest and it seems to run ok. Is there anything you're aware of that's not compatible with AGS 3?

Further I think we should be thinking about it's replacement with a more modern looking version some time in the near future.

This is a good idea, but I guess the question is whether we have the people and dedication to do so...

Also, while I liked the idea of splitting it into the mini-games, I wonder if in reality that has made it too confusing for people trying to run the demo? Maybe we should try and merge the mini-games back in, but keep them in separate script modules such that they are properly separated out?
This is why I haven't included the mini-games in the AGS 3 distribution, because the instructions on how to hook it all up would have been too convoluted and potentially put people off.

Well, I tried helping with the visual improvement side of things in my own way with the Alien Roger template I made that prettied up the basic Sierra gui and Roger but CJ has not added it to the ags 3.0 templates (I'm not sure if/when he will). 

Sorry, I must have missed that. For 3.01, we'll have a review of what templates are included and whether we should add extra ones.

[ildu]

If you need new high-res bgs and/or characters, why don't we have an extra Background Blitz and/or Sprite Jam, restricted to only high-res entries? Competition is always a good thing and it'd be nice to have the extra motivation of your art actually going to use at some point.

I don't know if I've ever played the demo games, but you don't really need a whole lot of art assets for one, do you?

[Ghost]

The main problem I see with replacing the whole DemoQuest is that having some time, art skill and scripting abilities seems not to be enough. The poeple who make the "new DemoQuest" will create *the* showcase for AGS. That's great responsibility...

What ildu suggests makes a lot of sense- a group effort. Maybe a sort of rulebook could be compiled, setting in stone what needs to be included into the "New DemoQuest", and then... well, time'll tell the tale, no?

[monkey0506]

I also don't think the graphics are awful or will turn people away from using ags

You would be surprised by how much graphics can actually mean to some people. For some it's not a "nice addition," it's a requirement. It may seem silly, but some people actually would be very turned off by the low resolution and 8-bit graphics shown by the current demo; even to the point of choosing another engine.

I wouldn't object to starting a new version of DemoQuest 4 from scratch. We could even include all sorts of easter eggs about the barely-ever-released-and-even-then-in-a-crippled-state DemoQuest III.

No offense to RickJ, in fact major kudos to him for all he's done trying to keep the DemoQuest going. But if we do successfully spark a new 'Quest from scratch, I would really like to put as many in-jokes as possible.

The question then becomes: Who's serious? Who would be willing to start a new DemoTeam? As I said before, no one in their right mind could expect us to all make this a personal full-time job and spend 8-10 hours a day on it; however if we could get a sort of "dedicated team" who could devote at least a few hours each week, we could definitely get something going here.

I'm all-for this idea if anyone else wants to join me. I could take the part of lead scripter. I don't do graphics or music, my forte is with brutally forcing the computer to do as I wish. If anyone is seriously interested and thinks they could devote at least part of their day-to-day to either a new or the current DemoQuest, I would be interested in hearing from you.

[OneDollar]

If the idea is to build something from scratch then I'm certainly interested. I'd count myself as a fairly competent AGS scripter, especially with the basics, and its the part I most enjoy, but I can also do sprites and backgrounds, though anything half decent takes me quite a while to do. I'm also willing to contribute towards writing story, dialogue and puzzles.

The two potential problems are...

1) I'm by no means the best in any area. There are several of the more advanced scripting techniques that I'm a little shaky on (I've not had the time to figure out the drawing options yet, for example), I'm not the best artist if you're looking to produce stunning artwork that will inspire people to download AGS and make their own games, and I've not got a huge amount of past experience (though I have made a game and been playing around with the engine for a year or two)

2) I'm unsure on the time I'll have. My uni semester starts next week so I don't have an idea of how busy I'll be at the moment. I can't (at the moment ) see a problem with the "few hours a week", but I will get projects to write up and exams to sit (and judging by today, at least one to resit :'(), so there will certainly be times I can't contribute at all.

By all means count me in for further discussion though, DemoQuest was really helpful and inspiring when I first downloaded AGS, and its a project I'd love to contribute towards.

And by the way, I'll add my thanks for the work that Rick and others have already done on the project

[monkey0506]

there will certainly be times I can't contribute at all.

Yes I do believe we will have to allow for any team members to still live their lives...we won't lock you in a cage and force you to perform for the viewers...much. :

But the point is that we don't need a team who will start, work for two weeks and then all quit. Which is why I keep coining the phrase "dedicated team".

Not to imply that we "dedicate all possible spare time to the project," but rather that we're "devoted to finishing the project."

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

The problem then becomes who do you (or we) as a community consider to be the best artists/musicians, and do you think they have the time and/or interest for it?  I'm guessing that the reason why DemoQuest exists at all is because rather than waiting and being consistently disappointed by a lack of 'great' artists having time/interest the people involved wanted to get something done.  Talented artists are typically quite unreliable in free projects, and there are a lot of reasons why that I won't go into.  If you can get excellent artists (and this would be purely based on opinion, since everyone has different tastes) then obviously there's potential.  I just think you need to be realistic about the whole 'making it look professional' goal.

[monkey0506]

This is a good point, but I don't think we necessarily need "the best artists/musicians"/etc. to pull it off. The DemoQuest doesn't have to be "t3h bestestest game evar made!!!11111pwntâ,,¢". I think so long as we can pull of "decent" graphics, music, etc. and provide a "decent" example of what AGS can do and how it's done then the project will be a success.

The idea isn't that we have to make it the same quality as a commercial game completely through start to finish. I just think that providing some higher quality examples would be beneficial to the demo as a whole whether that means starting the whole thing from scratch or just implementing them into the existing 'Quest. I'm open to the possibilities if anyone's interested in joining efforts ($1's interest being considered of course ).

[ildu]

Am I misinterpreting this? Is this Demo Quest game supposed to be a long game, or just a quick tech demo of the engine? I mean, isn't it enough to have perhaps two bgs (for showing walk-ins and -outs), one protagonist character, one NPC and perhaps GUI graphics included? If you don't have a need for a lot of art assets, you will be able to keep them pretty separate from the other elements (art not bound by gameplay). This way you can just commission two bgs from the same artist, and that would already be enough to deliver consistency on that front. If the artist then becomes unavailable, you can have another artist handle the two characters, GUI, etc. separately. I don't really see an issue with this.

[monkey0506]

Well in its current implementation, in addition to showing off the editor, the 'Quest is also designed to show how to implement certain GUI systems, things like arcade sequences, looping rooms, etc.

It isn't necessarily required to be a "long and engaging game", but it's intended to be more than "just a quick tech demo" as well. Which is where an "issue" could arise.