FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

I noticed that Minetest is still slightly biased towards minetest_game.

Just look:

1. The only thing creative mode always does is disabling tool wear. The rest is done by minetest_game (or by whatever_game). This sucks in my opinion since when you write a subgame from scratch you would have to reinvent the creative inventory and you are forced to put it into the subgame. Besides, the name is also misleading unless all subgames implement the creative inventory/creative mode (which is not the case).
2. The option “fancy trees” only really makes sense if your subgame has trees, like in minetest_game. Not all subgames neccessarily must hace trees in it.
3. The option “opaque water” only makes sense if you subgame has water, like in minetest_game. Not all subgames must neccessarily have water.

I think all these biases should and can be removed. Here’s what I suggest:

1. I think the best thing would be to remove or deprecate this setting altogether and implement creative inventory as a mod which resides outside of the subgame. This makes it possible for players to write their own variants of creative inventories/creative “modes” and multiple creative inventory for the same subgame can peacefully co-exist on the disk (as long you only use one of these at the same time, of course). So the mod “creative” would reside in the “mods” directory, but also a mod called “creative_wuzzy”, “whatever” etc. which all make different variations of the creative inventory.
   
   Catchphrase: Get rid of creative mode in order to allow more creative mods. :-)
2. I don’t know what exactly this option does and if it really applies to only to trees. Whatever it does, it should be generalized both in name and function.
3. same as for 2.

It applies to anything that has leaves group I think. The fancy trees I mean.

1.) Its perfectly fine to let the implementation of the creative mode up to the game. The reason why the engine offers a creative mode checkbox is that most games currently have a creative mode.
The only thing that needs to be changed is that the tool wear shouldnt change in the engine, but rather in the game.
2.) It applies to all nodes with the drawtype "allfaces_optional".

1. I don't think that there should be a creative mode setting. Instead, I think that there should be separate subgames/games/whatever for different modes of playing.

3. Maybe the wording could be generalized so it reads "Opaque Liquids". I think that is what it does anyway.

Menche wrote:3. Maybe the wording could be generalized so it reads "Opaque Liquids". I think that is what it does anyway.

That makes no sense because lava is liquid but not opaque. So "Opaque Water" is fine.

IMO all 3 suggestions of wuzzy are kinda senseless

BlockMen wrote:IMO all 3 suggestions of wuzzy are kinda senseless

They make sense. Not all subgames will have trees, water, or creative mode, so why should these settings be coded into the engine itself?

Imagine writing a swarm simulation with entities flying in singlenode mapgen. You don't need nodes then, so why should we have nodes in the engine?
The engine is about what you would do, not what you would not do.

Menche wrote:

BlockMen wrote:IMO all 3 suggestions of wuzzy are kinda senseless

They make sense. Not all subgames will have trees, water, or creative mode, so why should these settings be coded into the engine itself?

Well I think what would placate Wuzzy is actually changing the names of fancy trees and opaque water. Though i do agree with adding a creative/survival thing into minetest. Or you could do like me and make your own as in overcraft_origins. Though the only thing i thinl should be added is a way to define multiple hands so you can have a gamemode system.

PilzAdam wrote:2.) It applies to all nodes with the drawtype "allfaces_optional".

Well, this makes the labels “Fancy Trees” and “new_style_leaves” even more misleading since you can use it with basically any node definition you like.

Is “Use transparent nodes” or “Use transparent blocks” or “Use transparent cubes” (whatever term you prefer) a sensible replacement for this description? Is “use_transparent_nodes” (…) a sensible replacement for the minetest.conf setting?

BlockMen wrote:

Menche wrote:3. Maybe the wording could be generalized so it reads "Opaque Liquids". I think that is what it does anyway.

That makes no sense because lava is liquid but not opaque.

True. Also PilzAdam said that it is not “what it does anyway”. We have to come up with a better term. But I can’t come up with a better term yet because I don’t know what this setting really does at the moment.

BlockMen wrote:So "Opaque Water" is fine.

This does not follow.

BlockMen wrote:IMO all 3 suggestions of wuzzy are kinda senseless

Because this is just an opinion which is not backed by any reasoning, it is safe to ignore it.

jojoa1997 wrote:Well I think what would placate Wuzzy is actually changing the names of fancy trees and opaque water.

True. But first I have to know the true meaning of “opaque water”.