Conversation
|
Hi! Thanks for the contribution, the tool indeed looks pretty interesting, and I've heard positively about it, so I am feeling positive towards its inclusion. One issue though: development of this tool looks like LLMs have been involved a lot, and I know we do not have a policy on awesome-gbdev inclusion but I feel that disclosure of projects we promote would follow the spirit of our contributing guidelines and their rationale. Would you be okay with adding such a note to your entry? (We can bikeshed the exact formatting after the note's text has been written, so don't sweat it ^^) Meta stuffSorry, this isn't strictly relevant to your PR, but this is a situation we hadn't anticipated, and I think it is a discussion that is better had in the open and you may want to voice your own opinion since it'll affect you. This is more of a RFC for people interacting with and/or contributing to GBDev, and if there's enough discussion about it we'll move it to a separate issue. Additionally (and independently), it feels to me like this PR's description was LLM-generated, but the commit contents are so trivial that I don't think we should require LLM disclosure for it (the same way that “trivial code snippets are not considered copyright-able” already). P.S.: I know that “do we want to promote tools majorly involving LLMs considering all that was said in the policy discussion” is a way to re-ignite that debate, but I think that our reliance on existing tools that have adopted them, such as the Linux kernel or pretty much any major browser, means that it's impractical / infeasible to draw the line beyond first-party projects, and we should follow a similar “discouraged + disclosure required” policy for third-party ones. |
|
Yes of course, sorry if it wasn't transparent as such (I'd marked AI assisted code on the Itch.io page). I've used coding agents for the bulk of it, along with some of my own front end work, UI design/CSS and then my own artwork. I believe it's a useful tool for GB developers/artists (being one myself) to create art with and who prefer the drawing directly to canvas and tile work flow approach. I had to create a new solution when PyxelEdit stopping working on MacOS so took the time to gear it to GB Studio and GB dev in general for my own use. Not a problem if this is something you don't want to include/promote and happy to start that discussion, I'm personally of the view disclosed code use fine providing it's not in general a low effort project, but I don't want to see graphics, artwork, or music created by AI. However I'm also not much of a coder, so that could be why I feel different about code! Happy for the issue to be closed/rejected if it's not suitable. |
|
I agree that Tessarium looks uniquely useful, with a clear and powerful UI; and if everything that's already in the "Graphics utilities" section still ought to be there, then this certainly should too. |
|
@ISSOtm how about something like –
|
|
That looks fine to me, though if awesome-gbdev adopts such third-party disclosures as its official repo-specific policy, then some entries already in README.md and EMULATORS.md will need to add AI disclosures. |
|
I won't block this submission anymore, though. We can get it merged as soon as the disclosure process is decided. |
This branch has not been deployed
4 participants
Adds Tessarium to the Graphics utilities section.
It's a tile-first pixel art level editor built around Game Boy and GB Studio work. Rather than converting art made elsewhere, you draw directly on the scene and turn pieces into reusable tiles, so editing one tile updates every placement of it. It tracks the unique tile count and flags tiles that exceed the colours-per-tile limit while you work, and checks scene dimensions against GB Studio's limits.
Runs in the browser as well as on macOS, Windows and Linux. Tessarium Lite is free; Pro is a paid upgrade. Disclosure: I'm the developer.
Checked against CONTRIBUTING.md:
[resource](link) - Description.format and "Game Boy" spelling