You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page!
Support us on Patreon to keep GamingOnLinux alive. This ensures we have no timed articles and no paywalls. Just good, fresh content! Alternatively, you can donate through Paypal!
Latest Comments by Half-Shot
Virtual Programming have setup github issue trackers for their Saints Row Linux ports
23 April 2016 at 2:54 pm UTC Likes: 1

I've been playing SR2 and apart from a few issues probably spawned from i3, it's been great.

Open Game Benchmarks, a brand new benchmarking website for Linux games
30 January 2016 at 10:01 pm UTC

Apologies to anybody who actually reads this, the comment chain got fat fast.

dubigrasuSo why not using Phoronix test suite for this?
Is Linux/Windows, easy to install and can run tests in controlled conditions easy to reproduce.

It's stale for one thing, this looks like a really nice and I think given enough work I think it could be very nice as a community sourcing tool.

TheBossLike with anything that takes user input it can be gamed, but it won't be too hard to spot if there's more than one of each test done on a game.

Well, when you enter the region of 20 to 30 test cases you can see a pattern but we have to reach that first. Having a standard test makes it much harder to fake that half the people (say for example) building tiny cities and another bunch building huge cites in skylines.

JSalem
Half-Shot
Doc AngeloI'm kinda curious how it will turn out, that these will be benchmarks of random scenery or level of a game. Someone could benchmark looking 5 minutes at the sky box at lowest settings. Someone else could upload a benchmark result of 5 minutes in a complex level with highest settings in 4k resolution. If there will only be 1 single average value, it will be pointless. But it's a young project, we'll see where it will go.

This.

I'm not sure I follow the purpose of the site at all. I'm all for a benchmark consolidation site where we all throw scores of our tests at but there are quire a few problems.

I can't run other peoples tests, so I can't compare against them. Allowing users to run their own tests at all seems dangerous, since the scores vary wildly depending on what your doing in game/test. Finally, I've noticed the only way to disginguish users is by hardware, driver (though NOT version), and distro (again, not version). So I could run Mesa on Ubuntu Warty Warthog and then try to compare against a seemingly same user running Ubuntu Utopic Unicon and obviously the results would be absolutely massivly different.

The concept is cool, but I can't see how the implementation is useful.

If this seems like a rant, it's meant to be constructive critisizm. As someone who has been doing Mesa benchmarks for two years, I want to have tools that can reproduce results correctly.

Thanks for the fedback, I see where are you coming from.
As you know, having standardized tests is hard, if possible at all in this case, where the vast majority of games do not have a benchmark tool. One way could be having a set of hardware various enough, and doing all the tests in a controlled environment. The other way is letting the community accumulate data (surely noisy and less controlled) to a centralized place, and then try to make some sense of it: filtering, aggregating, normalizing, visualizing.

The idea here is I, random_linux_user_37, want to buy game X, and I want to know how with my settings (cpu, gpu, resolution) that game would run.
Another thing that I hope the site will provide is some sort of comparison grounds with Windows. Hopefully, with the accumulation of enough data, and possibly the development of automating tools (that for example can run a certain game at certain settings, certain stage, and then upload everything), we will have a solid ground to make informed decisions and try to push developers and porters to focus on better performance on Linux.

Finally, I could add even more fields like driver version and Linux distro; but on one hand I am a bit skeptical that that would be really that big of a difference (given same hardware and driver) between two Ubuntu versions (as in your example), and on the other hand adding variables can possibly complicate even more an already noisy situation.

QuoteIf there will only be 1 single average value, it will be pointless.
That should not be the case; each benchmark is stored with all of its data, and several statistical measures are computed. And then you can compare benchmarks, selecting which one do you want to see (ex. "let's see how game X performs on open source and proprietary drivers"

Thanks for clearing that and and dealing with pre-food me. I've done a lot of mesa testing and any change in the environment can have a massive difference (see this doc from my testing last year), however you are right that it could make it noisy so It would be the case of finding middle ground I think. I'll try to help out when it goes opensource.

Open Game Benchmarks, a brand new benchmarking website for Linux games
30 January 2016 at 8:40 pm UTC

Doc AngeloI'm kinda curious how it will turn out, that these will be benchmarks of random scenery or level of a game. Someone could benchmark looking 5 minutes at the sky box at lowest settings. Someone else could upload a benchmark result of 5 minutes in a complex level with highest settings in 4k resolution. If there will only be 1 single average value, it will be pointless. But it's a young project, we'll see where it will go.

This.

I'm not sure I follow the purpose of the site at all. I'm all for a benchmark consolidation site where we all throw scores of our tests at but there are quire a few problems.

I can't run other peoples tests, so I can't compare against them. Allowing users to run their own tests at all seems dangerous, since the scores vary wildly depending on what your doing in game/test. Finally, I've noticed the only way to disginguish users is by hardware, driver (though NOT version), and distro (again, not version). So I could run Mesa on Ubuntu Warty Warthog and then try to compare against a seemingly same user running Ubuntu Utopic Unicon and obviously the results would be absolutely massivly different.

The concept is cool, but I can't see how the implementation is [i]useful/i].

If this seems like a rant, it's meant to be constructive critisizm. As someone who has been doing Mesa benchmarks for two years, I want to have tools that can reproduce results correctly.

Double Fine has launched crowdfunding campaign to fund Psychonauts 2
4 December 2015 at 4:43 pm UTC

DrMcCoy
Half-ShotNo, when your asking for money you PLAN IT WELL

They did. They planned a tiny game, and a documentary around it. Then suddenly, they got tenfold the money they asked for, and the plan went POUF. There's only so much polishing you can do to that tiny planned game, and the backers clearly expected more at that point.

If you have seen the documentary they produced, the planning and budgeting of the $3.3m project then was relatively well done.

That's not the fault of the backers though. Stick to the plan. If you get tenfold of the money, don't then do something crazy which you have no plan for. If the difference was really that great, they needed to completely scrap the original project and rethink a new plan. Clearly this new plan wasn't as well thought out.

DrMcCoy
Half-Shotthey should seek out a publisher because they need the support so they DON'T go overbudget again.

If you look at their crowdfunding now, you will see that they have done exactly that. The $3.3m million they ask for is only a part. Another part will come from their own company, a part from outside investors. And a part from the Fig investors, i.e. people who pledge more than $1000, who will then get a part of the profit as a return on their investment. This last part, that's where Fig is different from Kickstarter.

The complete budget for Psychonauts 2 is $13.5m.

And it confuses me. Why do they need $3.3m from backers if they managed to get the huge bulk from publishers. I'm presuming it's so that they can still claim to be independent but I can only see this getting conflicted. It's not clear how much involvement the majority holders of the game will have.

It also still doesn't solve the issue that Double Fine need an independent entity to stop them from spending because I (and I am not alone on this) still don't trust them yet to do that properly.

Double Fine has launched crowdfunding campaign to fund Psychonauts 2
4 December 2015 at 4:24 pm UTC Likes: 2

Too many risks here.

* DF9 was a complete and total disaster. Any other company would have been murdered by it.
* I've not played Broken Age, but taking into account the budgeting issues (No, when your asking for money you PLAN IT WELL). And I've heard the much awaited Act 2 was a shadow of Act 1, so yeah. Not a positive.
* Personally, I've not enjoyed a double fine game since their first and even if it is Psychonauts, the risks are too great.

At this point, they should seek out a publisher because they need the support so they DON'T go overbudget again.

Opinion: Why We Want Native Ports Only
5 July 2015 at 4:01 pm UTC Likes: 4

Ideally for developers out there, you abstract as much as you can to functions which can be called by any operating system on the planet rather than taking the chance with your game and just saying "I will do it later". Even if you only plan to make the game for Window, Mac, Linux, Palm OS or whatever; Make sure your not mixing game (or interface level engine) code with anything platform specific.

You can thank me later. And buy me a beer during the time you would have been bug hunting or packaging it up for wine.

Review: Broken Age On Linux
3 May 2015 at 5:54 pm UTC

Good to see a fresh opinion on the game and I might end up buying it during the Summer Sale. However I've recently been playing Phoenix Wright and don't feel the need for any more wordy games right now. Don't want to start reviewing the reveiwer, but that was a very well laid out and clear review and I hope to see more

Editorial: A Conversation About Broken Age
29 April 2015 at 7:17 pm UTC Likes: 6

Just to leave some info that wasn't said in the article, both Cheeseness and Flesk are quite involved in the Double Fine community (a admin and moderator, no less) and thus comments made about Double Fine projects should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm disappointed that GOL didn't at LEAST leave this information at the header of the article since whether you think so or not, the article will inherently be biased. I'm surprised you couldn't at least have gotten a fresh person to Double Fine games to balance it out.

EDIT:
Turns out I missed it. However the wording was very misdirecting. Cheeseness is an administrator which is one step from having paychecks, so please make that more clear. Furthermore, putting two lines midway down the article in the same style as the rest of the text is the same stunt pulled by dirty terms and conditions. Bold it at the top to make it more clear where the sources are coming from.

GOL Survey Results: September
3 October 2014 at 5:31 pm UTC

Very interesting read .
I didn't know there were that many AMD users .

Borderlands 2 Released For Linux With A Sale
30 September 2014 at 4:40 pm UTC

paupavI've bought it altho I have seen that it isn't supported on AMD GPU's, should I file bug repport?

Depends on the drivers. If your on open drivers and you find odd things chuck it on the bug reporter.

  Go to:
Livestreams & Videos
Community Livestreams
See more!
Popular this week
View by Category
Contact
Latest Comments
Latest Forum Posts