I'm the one who added UFO2000 and OpenTTD...

Although it's true that UFO2000 can only use the original graphical and sound assets but doesn't follow the original campaign gameplay (I didn't read the project description carefully enough), I think OpenTTD should be included in the first table as it «attempts to mimic the original game as closely as possible while extending it with new features.» (sic)

So you could say it's still not clear enough for me. :P What's the essential difference between the two categories then? Must the first one need the original assets to be able to play and not provide any fan-made alternatives? Or must the first one replicate exactly the original gameplay and not add anything to it?

The first category is for open source engines so like the open source id engines, openxcom etc.

Second list for things like FreeCiv as it's a clone and not an open source engine for Civ 1 for example.

Muntdefem, which parts did you want help on? I actually created an account here so I could help with the wiki, but normally by the time I check up on projects I back, they are already added (good work!)

I'm sorry, I totally forgot!

As I said on the comments to the crowdfunding column, I think I can cope quite well with managing new projects and ending campaigns (i.e. the Ongoing table is accurate and up-to-date almost all the time). What I don't have time to do however is keeping the other tables as up-to-date as the Ongoing one. I'm thinking especially about the Funding Completed ---> In Development, the Funding Failed ---> In Development / Still Possible and the Funding Failed ---> Abandoned / Uncertain tables.

The first one I only check once at the beginning of the month, and only the projects that where supposed to be released during the recently ended month (as well as taking a quick look to all the overdue releases, marked as Uncertain). The other ones I never check at all. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of games in the Abandoned / Uncertain table that are not abandoned at all, and they're in this table merely because when I removed them from the Ongoing one the creators still hadn't announced any plans for the future.

So I'd really appreciate some help with those 3 tables. I know it can be a tiresome job most of the time (that's why I quickly ceased to do it :P) but it can also be a rewarding one if/when you find out a failed project that seemed abandoned has actually been completed and released. And it's just occurred to me that such a discovery could also be worth mentioning in the crowdfunding column! :)

That sounds like something I could help with, put a little duckduckgo-fu/google-fu in action...

Who the hey is that orange-haired Simpsons character?? I keep having to retry the submissions when he comes up as anti-spam question.

Looks like it's Fry, a Futurama character and not a Simpsons one. ;)

Have you really never watched Futurama? :P

Right. Live with another gamer, and we don't even have cable TV; the TV is for watching DVDs/blurays and playing on console.


Think of all the money we save for pledging Linux games on kickstarter!

Edit:  Redundant info removed (must remember to reload before posting) :P

Hey all. I wasn't aware of this thread before I made a major edit to the WIKI, so first, an apology!

I'm one of the guys that Speedster is putting together to take over Munt's crowdfunding page. I've made one big change already and I'd like to propose another.

My change was to merge "Linux with Stretch Goal" and "Stretch Goal Amount" into one new column "Stretch Required?". This will either say "no" for those games that support Linux directly, or will feature the amount of the stretch if a stretch is required. Hopefully this is okay! It took ages... so hopefully it's not reverted.

My other proposal (not yet done) is to start a new column for "Appeared in" which will link to the number of the article where each game is covered. So #18 or #19, whatever, as links to the article in question. This will help the team keep track of which games are covered, and when. And help us target which games we'd like to cover next. As a two-weekly article, chances are this will only be "live" in the Ongoing section for two articles worth, but I still think it's worthwhile and will work nicely as a historical reference.

Neil.