Jump to content

Home

Revolution soft and their policy on fangames


GregD

Recommended Posts

I only want to answer Greg's question, but it seemed like he ignored my previous reply.

 

If Roger Foodbelly is so great, how come you don't even have a website about it? In defense of Greg, it's pretty hard to take someone seriously when there isn't even a website about their game!

 

So anyway, I hunted down Roger Foodbelly and I can honestly say...

it's the BEST looking fangame I have EVER seen (from the three samples, anyway! :)). Who did ther graphics?? WOW!!!

 

 

Everyone else can see for themselves here:

 

http://www.justadventure.com/Upcoming_Releases/RogerFoodbelly/RogerFoodbelly.shtm

 

~ Johnny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Foodbelly looks great - let's hope it plays great too; can't wait for a demo of sorts. Brilliant example of how fan-games are improving, I'm definitely looking forward to it.

 

However, in terms of sheer beauty, it's second to Project Joe.

 

However, looks are definitely not everything, as Pleughburg (aka the best fangame evar) has proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a brand-new Trailer for Broken Sword 3 (Germany: "Baphomets Fluch 3") available for download (also check out this page from publisher THQ). I wasn't able to watch it on a PC with sound board. So I was restricted to the visuals:

 

What bothered me slightly was that George was seen moving a crate in one scene. I hope this isn't a sign for an action-adventure approach á la Tomb Raider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was originally intended for Gamecube, but Revolution decided to discriminate against Nintendo like a bunch of game-making-Nazis would. If you look here, the official Broken Sword 3 site can be found, and there is no sign of the Gamecube anyway. Revolution are still the good-guys though, look, they even released Lure of the Temptress for free. Another policy I like.

 

Saying that, even if Broken Sword 3 was released on Gamecube, that version wouldn't have run as well as the PC version.

 

George is really pushing that crate like Lara, and there's a big line down the middle too, almost to tell him how far he can push it... But it's not as if Georgie hasn't moved his fair share of crates already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They never officially announced it, but the interview hinted that it was gonna come to the cube. I hope it does, but a lot of games companies are avoiding it at the moment. After Zelda it'll be back on track, so thats good.

 

Lure of the Temptress is really good, I didn't know you could get it free! I have it anyway, so it didn't make a difference.

 

And yes, George has moved crates before. I hope you don't need that bloody hydraulic lift though, that was a pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask on their website? They're usually pretty active and answer people's questions and will openly discuss things with you (unlike another adventure game company I could mention --cough cough--). Just look at their "In Cold Blood" page: "ICB got mixed reviews" -- that's THEIR website being so honest! They're even giving the Beneath A Steel Sky SOURCE CODE out to fan developers to see if they can do anything with it (they actually gave it to the ScummVM team without them even asking!) Cool or what?? Man, I really love those guys!

 

Rare are still the good-guys though, look, they even released Lure of the Temptress for free

 

You mean Revolution, not Rare, I presume? Are Rare still doing stuff for Nintendo?

 

~ Johnny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been confirmed that BS3 will not be available on the GC. The decision was made by the publisher rather than the developer. There's an interview or webchat or something about it over at BrokenSword.net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001

You mean Revolution, not Rare, I presume? Are Rare still doing stuff for Nintendo?

 

Erm, yes, Revolution, of course. And no, Rare don't associate with filthy Nintendo types anymore, they live the glamorous Microsoft lifestyle, with jewel encrusted kittens as pets, and constant partying round the clock with Tim Schafer and pals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by scabb

Revolution are still the good-guys though

 

Revolution are a bunch of really cool people. They've even given ScummVM the source code to Beneath a Steel Sky so we can add support for it.

 

On the other hand, LucasArt's are going to be first against the wall when the Revolution comes. Apologies to the late Douglas Adams. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Ender, I've been trying to email you for ages but for some reason I can't get through :/ The reason is an old post I found on VOGONS, not sure if you've read it, or even if it will of any help to you, but! here it is anyway! :)

 

It's all about Beneath A Steel Sky and why it won't work under XP (and other recent OS's):

 

"I have recently examined BASS, looking for the reasons why it doesn't work at all under XP. The problem is Flashtek/DosX/X-32 Dos Extender and ****ty implementation of DPMI host in XP. Flashtek uses nasty hack to allow client program to access low 1MB of memory and it's simply not compatible with XP DPMI. it works this way: the client program code is not relocatable and it starts at address 0 (the same for data section), so the base address of code and data descriptors isn't 0 (like in 99% of other dos extenders) but points to the actual beginning of the code. If the descriptor base is let's say 2000000h, you cannot access dos memory which is located at base address 0. So the client program uses negative offset to reach that memory. Let's say we want to access video buffer so we need to write to address 0A0000h-2000000h = FE0A0000h. Unfortunately this requires the descriptor limit to be 4GB and XP's DPMI host won't allow it. Only descriptors with base address equal to 0 are allowed to have limit of 4GB, all the others are automatically limited, so any attempt to read/write to such negative address results in page fault. XP DPMI host isn't also 1.0 compatible so there's no way to map lower 1MB somewhere in the address space of the client program. And that's it.

 

Having the game's source code, it should be pretty easy to make the game compatible with Windows XP (at least as compatible as in Win9x, I'm not sure about the possible crashes/problems later in the game). You'd just need to use another dos extender and replace all the flashtek-specific code with normal, dpmi-compatible system calls. As an exercise I wrote a simple wrapper for the flashtek syscalls using standard PMODE/W dos extender which I normally use for my own code. It took me 2 hours so it's really easy. I haven't emulated everything (I was too lazy to emulate realmode->protected mode callbacks) but the game started, showed me the whole intro and allowed to enter the 1st room. There was no sound or mouse support (due to lack of RM->PM callbacks) so I was able to press F5 to get into the options but nothing else as I couldn't use the mouse to quit the game Unfortunately it's still incompatible with XP due to the memory addressing problem (I couldn't relocate the code). It is surely possible to change the whole game code to use different way to access low 1MB without having the sources (using special selector provided by the extender) but it's plenty of work

 

-Mok"

 

Like I said not sure if this is remotely any help to you or not! But it sure sounds useful to somebody!

 

Thanks,

 

~ John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ThunderPeel2001

Hey, Ender, I've been trying to email you for ages but for some reason I can't get through :/ The reason is an old post I found on VOGONS, not sure if you've read it, or even if it will of any help to you, but! here it is anyway! :)

 

(*Snip* - ed.)

 

Like I said not sure if this is remotely any help to you or not! But it sure sounds useful to somebody!

 

Yeah, I read that post - and thanks, but it's useless :)

In theory it might make the game work, but in reality the thing is a lot more broken.

 

The original BASS code is assembly, so memory stuff is littered throughout the thing. And doing this would only make it DMPI-compatible anyway, it wouldn't make it run on Linux, Mac, or likely even Windows XP (due to many other things in the code).. and that's pretty useless to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...