Battlezone Forums

Ultraken wrote:BZE makes some gameplay changes and (at Activision's request) excludes the original single-player campaign.

Ahh.. where did you get that info Ken, it's completely wrong. (I never had any requests from Activision)

I must have misunderstood the explanation in email. It wasn't relevant to the comparison anyway, so I'll just remove it and note the edit.

As i recall, that was one of the things Spock made up about BzE, along with his fake BzE installer that didn't work by design and BzE board where he claims BzE was canceled.

The explanation I remember involved checking with Activision if it was okay to release a modified version and them being fine with that as long as it didn't include the original single-player campaign (since it's copyrighted material). Everything seemed perfectly reasonable and understandable and certainly wasn't Activision demanding it be removed after the fact. I wish I could find the original message since this is going to bother me until I do...

(I do remember thinking at the time that checking with Activision was a great idea and something I should have done shortly after starting 1.5 in earnest. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get in contact with anyone at Activision since their website is decidedly unhelpful in that regard. If I did, I would definitely ask them about retrieving the original art assets...)

In any case, I apologize for giving anyone the wrong impression.

Actually, I think that's the line we went with at BZU too.

Ken when you make a new game are you allowed to keep the source code after the game has been released or do you have to return it to the company? how exactly does it work?

Let's clear something up if I may ask.

I keep seeing these descriptions of the altered BZ as a "mod" or "patch".

From my understanding, a "patch" is the changing of the code to correct or repair the design intentions of the original game. Whereas a "mod" is changing/adding code for design elements the individual or group involved in the changes may find more appealing or entertaining.

If that is the case BZ1.5 certainly falls into the 'mod' category and BZE is somewhat a hybrid since it offers the complete MP stock game with "patch-like" qualities, i.e., fixing the timing bug, locking visual distance, increasing resolution, etc. But also offers maps where BZ2-type ship can co-exist with the original ships.

How do you two. . .Apollo and Ultraken. . . arrive at the definition of these two categories?

I know, personally, I see 1.5 as a mod. BzE is also a mod - a partial conversion mod. Actually both could be considered partial conversion mods since by definitioni PC mods add new content to the underlying game.

I think that adding the dx9 support to BZ 1.5 necessitated some of those mod-like changes.

Zeno would be happy with a plush Czar. Pitschy would love it. Battlezone 1.5 and Battlezone accessories.

@ Z

people can call it whatever they like if it makes it better

^Agreed.

By the way. Zeno'd appreciate it if the plushy Czar had an optional Christmas Hat attachment. :3

SnakeEye wrote:Ken when you make a new game are you allowed to keep the source code after the game has been released or do you have to return it to the company? how exactly does it work?

With the exception of open-source projects, source code isn't supposed to leave the company without special dispensation. Pandemic brought a copy of the Battlezone source code from Activision to start Battlezone 2. I had access to it the entire time I was at Pandemic until we took the Visual Source Safe repository offline, and ended up keeping a copy after I left. The unofficial Battlezone and Battlezone 2 patches are technically a grey area but the games are long out of print, not making Activision any income, and unlikely to be used for any other project. In the case of Battlezone 2, at least, we did get Activision's approval.

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:How do you two. . .Apollo and Ultraken. . . arrive at the definition of these two categories?

The boundary between a mod an an unofficial patch is definitely blurry, but I think the distinction comes down to how much it adds or changes. The way I see it, 1.5 is a mod-like patch and BZE is a patch-like mod.

My intent has been for 1.5 to be a successor to 1.4 the same way BZ2 1.3 is a successor to 1.2, and I tried to stay close to the original design intent as much as possible. The main thing that pushes it into "mod" territory is the maximum-skill AI in multiplayer. (I would have made that a host setting like BZ2 if the shell wasn't so hard to work with.)

I think the distinction between a mod and patch is quite simple. A mod works within the real of what is available and a path works with modifications to the base code. I take as example the "Rock Patch" for Red Alert 2 which makes it easier to mod (mods use this patch as part of their structure to altered the game EXE, thus, it becomes a mod that relies on a patch that is a side work, not part of the primary version chain). In fact, for that patch IIRC it is a decompilation hackjob, but it is still a patch because it alters core data/code was was never designed to be altered.

I also think that a mod that includes a patch is still a mod, but a patch which includes new assets that if alone would be a mod is in fact still a patch, as the key component is the code change and the new assets are minor additions in comparison.


KEN, my recollection of BZE is that in the request for permission it was stated that the campaign would not be included as a preemptive measure and it might be very well one of the reasons they were able to get permission. IIRC, there was a time not too long ago where free multiplayer versions of games were far more common, this probably fit that nitch.

I think a "mod" is clearly defined as something that changes the retail installation of a game and requires the retail game in order to function. As stated in wiki "mods are not standalone software and require the user to have the original release in order to run." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(computer_gaming)

I don't believe a patch is clearly defined but i would have certain criteria/expectations for a patch.

If the item being patched is a commercial product, then the patch comes from the Publisher, this means the Pubisher has made the decisions about what gets changed, it would go through QA testing, it would also be legally made, distributed, marketed and supported by the copyright holder.

Nielk1, there was no such requirement for anyone.

Activision gave unofficial permission, which i believe applies to everyone in Bz and Bz2 as it all falls within the contract between Activision and Atari. NO ONE has official permission as Activision stated the rights are with Atari since 2006 so Activision can not give Official permission to anyone.