|
On December 21 2016 03:58 thezanursic wrote:
For models, I'd just like them retraced and made less pixelated, the valk model is a bit too much, it doesn't need to look like that, it looks a bit uncanny.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'd just sharpen out all the main units models and try to make them look as close as possible as they did in the original except sharper, essentially keeping the same art style
Upscaling is possible, but it usually looks ugly  It will just add pixels in between the current ones, estimating the color of that new pixel to be a mixture of the pixels surrounding it (roughly said) and thus leading to a blurry image with no real sharp edges.
The bigger problem of this approach would be copyright infringement. The current art is copyrighted by Blizzard, and taking this art and upscaling it does not remove the copyright of the upscaled version.
To obtain a really free and open source Starcraft Broodwar, we need recreated assets, which get released under a free culture license. (I'd suggest CC-BY-SA license for all assets)
In the end, I agree with you having "most possible similar looks" to the original. Since thats the looks what we are used to since 1998. BossPurple explains it quite well though in his post. There might be a lot of details in the original Blizzard 3D models but you can't see them now because they rendered it to this tiny images. Referring to original concept art, cinematics or what else is out there is the best way to go. 
On December 21 2016 05:45 BossPurple wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 03:58 thezanursic wrote:
For models, I'd just like them retraced and made less pixelated, the valk model is a bit too much, it doesn't need to look like that, it looks a bit uncanny.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'd just sharpen out all the main units models and try to make them look as close as possible as they did in the original except sharper, essentially keeping the same art style Sounds like you want to double the size of the original sprites and put some filter on them, which you could just use some upscale algorithm for. They're going in the right direction, remodelling the asset while keeping the vanilla silhouette intact. If they feel the need to add detail, they could use official renders and concept art for inspiration. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vme78oD.jpg)
Totally agree! Do you have a good resource of such art?
|
On December 21 2016 16:23 PhilipJayFry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 03:58 thezanursic wrote:
For models, I'd just like them retraced and made less pixelated, the valk model is a bit too much, it doesn't need to look like that, it looks a bit uncanny.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'd just sharpen out all the main units models and try to make them look as close as possible as they did in the original except sharper, essentially keeping the same art style Upscaling is possible, but it usually looks ugly It will just add pixels in between the current ones, estimating the color of that new pixel to be a mixture of the pixels surrounding it (roughly said) and thus leading to a blurry image with no real sharp edges. The bigger problem of this approach would be copyright infringement. The current art is copyrighted by Blizzard, and taking this art and upscaling it does not remove the copyright of the upscaled version. To obtain a really free and open source Starcraft Broodwar, we need recreated assets, which get released under a free culture license. (I'd suggest CC-BY-SA license for all assets) In the end, I agree with you having "most possible similar looks" to the original. Since thats the looks what we are used to since 1998. BossPurple explains it quite well though in his post. There might be a lot of details in the original Blizzard 3D models but you can't see them now because they rendered it to this tiny images. Referring to original concept art, cinematics or what else is out there is the best way to go.
That's why I suggested pixel art scaling algorithms as popularised by emulators. Those don't result in a blurry look but of course typically give pretty cartoony results. Matter of taste but I think the original pixel art of BW doesn't totally go against that look.
The emus obviously use them real-time as well because they're not tailored for each title they support, I guess that might not be so easy if this is supposed to run in the browser.
|
I bet Blizzard still has the original 3D-models they used for all units somewhere on their servers.
Although even if we could use them, I doubt the game would look better - to the contrary.
Part of the magic of pixelated and thus blurry graphics is that it lets our brain and imagination fill in the details almost automatically. If you'd just capture higher res images of the same Marine 3D-model, it would look way too "clean", "cartoony" and like a "rendering of a Marine" (which it is ^_^) instead of an actual Marine.
So in order to make it look good again you actually have to fill in the details. And doing that in a way that doesn't look cheesy is a lot of work. There's a good reason todays high-end 3D-models take months of man-hours to create while a 3D-model in the 90's could've been done in a day.
And then there's the animation and rotation problem: In many sophisticated "HD-Remakes" of sprite-based games, in particular fighting games (but Brood War is sprite-based as well), it has been observed that our human brain is far less forgiving to accept choppy animations and limited body-rotation on high-resolution sprites than on low-resolution sprites - again dating back to the "brain filling in the details" part of fuzzy graphics. You simply can't add those to BW without substantially changing the game and gameplay itself.
But you know, each to their own - there's probably an audience that would enjoy "clean" high-res Brood War graphics. Although I bet for most, while it sounds cool on paper, the first reaction of seeing the final result would be similar to that of the first SC2 gameplay trailer back in 2007: 1. "it's kinda 'cartoony'"; 2. "doesn't look 'like' Brood War".
I, for one, would rather like to see the inherent fuzziness/blurryness of Brood War to be enhanced either with real-time rescaling filters or retouching the original sprites (which could be done seperatly for every client with a script so there are no copyright infringements). A nice and subtle CRT filter would already go a long way because those are the devices Brood War was made for and not modern LCDs.
|
On December 21 2016 18:51 nighcol wrote:
That's why I suggested pixel art scaling algorithms as popularised by emulators. Those don't result in a blurry look but of course typically give pretty cartoony results[...]
nighcol: we have played around a bit with upscaling. It does indeed look cartoony. Maybe some people would like it and we could provide an option at some point in the future, to use original graphics up-scaled real-time.
Personally, I don't like the cartoony look too much, but that's individual taste and shouldn't keep us from providing it if there is demand.
The more important issue here is the copyright, which you didn't address in your reply to PhilipJayFry.
The upscaled version requires you to provide the graphics yourself, since we won't host / distribute any material that is IP of Blizzard. In practice, this makes it more cumbersome to e.g. watch replays on a mobile device etc.
Also new players would have to buy the original game first, which is a bit pointless.
On December 21 2016 21:10 shin ken wrote:
Part of the magic of pixelated and thus blurry graphics is that it lets our brain and imagination fill in the details almost automatically. If you'd just capture higher res images of the same Marine 3D-model, it would look way too "clean", "cartoony" and like a "rendering of a Marine" (which it is ^_^) instead of an actual Marine.
So in order to make it look good again you actually have to fill in the details. And doing that in a way that doesn't look cheesy is a lot of work. There's a good reason todays high-end 3D-models take months of man-hours to create while a 3D-model in the 90's could've been done in a day.
And then there's the animation and rotation problem: In many sophisticated "HD-Remakes" of sprite-based games, in particular fighting games (but Brood War is sprite-based as well), it has been observed that our human brain is far less forgiving to accept choppy animations and limited body-rotation on high-resolution sprites than on low-resolution sprites - again dating back to the "brain filling in the details" part of fuzzy graphics. You simply can't add those to BW without substantially changing the game and gameplay itself.
But you know, each to their own - there's probably an audience that would enjoy "clean" high-res Brood War graphics. Although I bet for most, while it sounds cool on paper, the first reaction of seeing the final result would be similar to that of the first SC2 gameplay trailer back in 2007: 1. "it's kinda 'cartoony'"; 2. "doesn't look 'like' Brood War".
I, for one, would rather like to see the inherent fuzziness/blurryness of Brood War to be enhanced either with real-time rescaling filters or retouching the original sprites (which could be done seperatly for every client with a script so there are no copyright infringements). A nice and subtle CRT filter would already go a long way because those are the devices Brood War was made for and not modern LCDs.
shin ken: you bring up a couple of very good points. Regarding the animation and rotation problem there might be a solution. We can make animations smoother without altering the original game play in any way.
But we will keep your points in mind. If you want to develop the CRT filter idea further we could take this to PM or chat. Of course the same practical issues apply, as pointed out in the reply to nighcol above.
|
On December 21 2016 16:23 PhilipJayFry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 05:45 BossPurple wrote:On December 21 2016 03:58 thezanursic wrote:
For models, I'd just like them retraced and made less pixelated, the valk model is a bit too much, it doesn't need to look like that, it looks a bit uncanny.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'd just sharpen out all the main units models and try to make them look as close as possible as they did in the original except sharper, essentially keeping the same art style Sounds like you want to double the size of the original sprites and put some filter on them, which you could just use some upscale algorithm for. They're going in the right direction, remodelling the asset while keeping the vanilla silhouette intact. If they feel the need to add detail, they could use official renders and concept art for inspiration. Totally agree! Do you have a good resource of such art?
Unfortunately no, you can find some of it on starcraft.wikia.com though.
|
On December 21 2016 23:32 imp42 wrote:
The more important issue here is the copyright, which you didn't address in your reply to PhilipJayFry.
The upscaled version requires you to provide the graphics yourself, since we won't host / distribute any material that is IP of Blizzard. In practice, this makes it more cumbersome to e.g. watch replays on a mobile device etc.
Also new players would have to buy the original game first, which is a bit pointless.
I addressed it in a way but with the caveat of it maybe being a problem when creating something that runs in a browser. The emulators (and things like ScummVM) do the scaling of the original on the fly based on the original art assets so they don't have to distribute any of the scaled versions. Even in the best case that means more loading time...
Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art.
|
Didnt read whole threat but FFS! SC2 race icons?!
![[image loading]](http://www.openbw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/replay_viewer_screenshot.jpg)
|
On December 21 2016 23:48 aFF]ZuluNAtion[ wrote:
Didnt read whole threat but FFS! SC2 race icons?!
haha, sorry about that. If you point me to some free-to-use BW race emblems, I will have it switched in no time.
edit:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UTv6xeD.png)
|
On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 23:32 imp42 wrote:
The more important issue here is the copyright, which you didn't address in your reply to PhilipJayFry.
The upscaled version requires you to provide the graphics yourself, since we won't host / distribute any material that is IP of Blizzard. In practice, this makes it more cumbersome to e.g. watch replays on a mobile device etc.
Also new players would have to buy the original game first, which is a bit pointless.
[..] Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art.
A valid point. However, if a judge looks at the following image. Could he establish whether a high-res HD model really is a derivative?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eLHPBUW.png)
I am not so sure
Edit: edited out an image. Changed sentence to refer to only one image.
|
On December 22 2016 00:10 imp42 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:On December 21 2016 23:32 imp42 wrote:
The more important issue here is the copyright, which you didn't address in your reply to PhilipJayFry.
The upscaled version requires you to provide the graphics yourself, since we won't host / distribute any material that is IP of Blizzard. In practice, this makes it more cumbersome to e.g. watch replays on a mobile device etc.
Also new players would have to buy the original game first, which is a bit pointless.
[..] Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art. A valid point. However, if a judge looks at the following two images. Would he say the first is a derivative of the second? + Show Spoiler +I am not so sure
You can also compare to the original concept art / render that was posted earlier in the thread, though and while it isn't identical all these designs have many elements in common. Also, even if a single unit isn't an obvious derived work, a judge would consider all the art as a whole and then the similarities start to become more numerous.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really a fan of this project and that Valkyrie is awesome but I wouldn't want to see anyone get into trouble with Blizzard after they've worked on something a long time like these things tend to go.
Some game developers are more accepting of these things than others even when they have a case for shutting something down. Not quite sure where Blizzard stands these days but I imagine one thing they might not like is something that doesn't require licensing their product at all while staying close to the original.
|
On December 22 2016 00:55 nighcol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 00:10 imp42 wrote:On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:On December 21 2016 23:32 imp42 wrote:
The more important issue here is the copyright, which you didn't address in your reply to PhilipJayFry.
The upscaled version requires you to provide the graphics yourself, since we won't host / distribute any material that is IP of Blizzard. In practice, this makes it more cumbersome to e.g. watch replays on a mobile device etc.
Also new players would have to buy the original game first, which is a bit pointless.
[..] Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art. A valid point. However, if a judge looks at the following two images. Would he say the first is a derivative of the second? + Show Spoiler +I am not so sure You can also compare to the original concept art / render that was posted earlier in the thread, though and while it isn't identical all these designs have many elements in common. Also, even if a single unit isn't an obvious derived work, a judge would consider all the art as a whole and then the similarities start to become more numerous. Don't get me wrong, I'm really a fan of this project and that Valkyrie is awesome but I wouldn't want to see anyone get into trouble with Blizzard after they've worked on something a long time like these things tend to go. Some game developers are more accepting of these things than others even when they have a case for shutting something down. Not quite sure where Blizzard stands these days but I imagine one thing they might not like is something that doesn't require licensing their product at all while staying close to the original.
I appreciate that you raise these concerns. It's a topic worth discussing and we need to get it a 100% right.
As pointed out before and in the FAQ, we are serious about respecting others IP. One measure is to completely separate the game engine from the artwork. This is the path that we're going already by just providing JavaScript to be used with the original MPQ files. The protected material has to be provided by the user. Whether a user owns a license is not our problem, though we strongly encourage it.
We could continue to use this approach for our own artwork. That is, complete separation down to hosting on separate servers. We also need to consider international law more than just U.S. law. Currently we host in a country where download of copyright material for personal use is not illegal. Yet another point: we are not an organization that constitutes a legal entity, just a group of individuals working for free and residing in many different countries all over the world. This further minimizes attack surface.
|
On December 21 2016 23:41 BossPurple wrote:Unfortunately no, you can find some of it on starcraft.wikia.com though.
Ok, thanks BossPurple!
On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:
Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art.
You are right. I think this question must be cleared before fully working on the assets. If there is no information available about this topic, we maybe can contact creativecommons.
|
On December 22 2016 04:33 PhilipJayFry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:
Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art. You are right. I think this question must be cleared before fully working on the assets. If there is no information available about this topic, we maybe can contact creativecommons.
If you browse through court rulings and copyright literature you will find that laws distinguish between "derivative work" and "transformative work".
In both variations courts had to settle cases where the derivative or transformation contained pieces of the original art work. I have yet to find an example where a court ruled against graphical artwork that was created from scratch and was merely inspired by protected material.
Check e.g. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html
Also check the section on Transformative fair use as applied to the visual arts in http://theenemyreader.org/what-is-transformative/
It is always about altering existing material. Creating your own from scratch is not even an issue.
IMO high-res models created from scratch are well beyond the threshold required for transformative-ness an fair-use.
Edit: btw: I want to stress that this discussion is very valuable and this is not about "winning an argument in a TL thread". I welcome any input, objections, and concerns on this topic. It helps us set up things the right way - and hopefully "air-tight"
|
Zerg is live!
On December 21 2016 07:05 tscmoo wrote:
All zerg units except devourers should now work, so the replay viewer can now play TvT, TvZ and ZvZ.
There might still be some special cases that are not implemented, or desyncs. Also haven’t tested guardians (hopefully they work).
Some graphical glitches should be fixed too, like the tank muzzle flash going off in the wrong direction.
If you get any errors or desyncs then please report them in the comments 😀
from www.openbw.com/zerg-is-live/
|
I loaded a TvZ replay (this one), and while it started fine when I tried to advance to the middle of the replay I got a fatal error. screenshot
|
Was doing a little digging, found the full screenshot of the mock up of BW HD that is teased in the OP:
![[image loading]](http://i68.tinypic.com/6r32b8.jpg)
Looks amazing; that Muta model is awesome! I think the Valkyrie could use a bit of a resize though, especially in the middle part of the model. It's not as chibi/cartoony looking as broodwar and its a bit offputting.
Edit: You can also see a tidbit of the UI in the bottom left corner, looking great as well so far!
Mad respect and props to the development team of this - It's amazing to see the community taking the matter into their own hands and doing it themselves since Blizzard shows no definitive signs of doing anything. I pray Open BW does not get shut down, it deserves to see the light of day!
|
It's a mockup, not a screenshot. But yes indeed, looks great!
|
The mockup looks awesome :D
|
On December 22 2016 05:47 imp42 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 04:33 PhilipJayFry wrote:On December 21 2016 23:46 nighcol wrote:
Of course it would be great if you're able to create something that doesn't need the original assets at all... but I think there's a very big chance of that running into copyright issues as well if you just model everything in BW very close to the original but with a higher resolution. This kind of a work would be considered derivative of the original game's art. You are right. I think this question must be cleared before fully working on the assets. If there is no information available about this topic, we maybe can contact creativecommons. If you browse through court rulings and copyright literature you will find that laws distinguish between "derivative work" and "transformative work". In both variations courts had to settle cases where the derivative or transformation contained pieces of the original art work. I have yet to find an example where a court ruled against graphical artwork that was created from scratch and was merely inspired by protected material. Check e.g. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.htmlAlso check the section on Transformative fair use as applied to the visual arts in http://theenemyreader.org/what-is-transformative/It is always about altering existing material. Creating your own from scratch is not even an issue. IMO high-res models created from scratch are well beyond the threshold required for transformative-ness an fair-use.
I think for example this one mentioned in your first link is an example of a case where the new photo did not directly use the original. While it was found not to be infringing because it was considered a parody, the court says nothing about not using the original art being a factor in the decision. Also the examples about original books & stories that use characters from another work such as the well known Catcher in the Rye case don't really use the original in a direct way.
This video of a presentation by a lawyer at Comic-con about fan art embedded in the blog post also seems relevant: http://chrisoatley.com/fan-art/
I don't know if Starcraft units are something that you could consider to be "characters" but they might, especially since they have some backstory, concept art/renders etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://pre08.deviantart.net/e366/th/pre/f/2014/284/e/e/starcraft_valkyrie_3d_model_by_xiaorobear-d82exmd.jpg)
