spear of destiny

[Simon McVittie]

On 06/01/15 06:38, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> However, I don't like how inconsistent the package naming is. Take for
> example wolf3d-data-wl1 vs. spear-of-destiny-demo-data. Both contain
> nearly the same kind of data for the same game engine. I think either
> the former should be renamed to wolfenstein3d-demo-data or the latter be
> renamed to sod-data-sdm.

I personally prefer games to have package names that say what the
package is, and have some reasonable relationship with the "marketing
name" for the game - so I'd personally say
wolf(enstein)?3d-(demo|shareware)-data. This is why I packaged the Quake
mission packs as quake-armagon and quake-dissolution, not using their
internal names hipnotic and rogue; similarly, Quake III Team Arena is
quake3-team-arena-data, not quake3-missionpack-data.

When I say "game" my rule of thumb is that I really mean "thing that was
published/distributed/sold as a game" rather than making users think
about implementation details - so in my view, Doom and Doom 2 are
distinct games (even though, behind the scenes, they share an engine),
and so are Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy (which run on minor variants of
the same engine). I suggested this split because if Spear of Destiny was
a standalone release that got its own mission-pack expansions, then it
sounds as though Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of Destiny deserve to be
treated as distinct games too.

On the other hand, I think a base game and expansions/addon packs that
are part of a new edition of the base game (Ultimate Doom) or
distributed/sold separately but require the base game (Unreal Tournament
and its free Bonus Packs, Quake 3 and its paid-for Team Arena), or
separate engines that are sold as part of the base game (RTCW's separate
single-player and multiplayer codebases), deserve to be treated as one
big game. Similarly, the demo/shareware version of a game is
conceptually part of that game, I think.

    S