The % is estimated based on the number of functions that still need to be recompiled. It is already possible to play and even create mods! As other recomp projects, you need to provide your own ROM.
Nice. Haven't played this since the N64. It was one of the best games of the system, and I think OB64 in particular gets overlooked next to Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics due to the lack of Matsuno's involvement. But it's head and shoulders better than the original Ogre Battle, and can stand toe-to-toe with Matsuno's best.
I'd love to play it again some day, since my first playthrough was without a guide and despite 60+ hours logged into the game, I ended up getting the worst ending thanks to the completely unexplained mechanic that your ending was determined by how many forts you "liberate" vs "conquer" (basically was your character of a higher or lower alignment than the fort when you captured it).
Next time, try a walkthrough from GameFAQs. Printed that bad boy out at school and played into the wee hours when I was a teen. Still my absolute favorite RPG, but I needed all to get all the secrets, all the birthday items, all the unique characters that only existed in so-and-so town after the campaign ended, etc. To this day, all I'd want in a modern RPG is something like Ogre Battle 64, and instead all I get is the SNES/PS1 version (my current copy is the latter, since the SNES yielded me a very nice aftermarket price about a decade ago), which is great, but definitely rougher in comparison.
It's sad that we even have to think about this. Ogre Battle 64 is 27 years old now. Under the law that preceded the Copyright Act of 1976, it would be entering the public domain right about now.
It's absurd how long we've made copyright terms, and it's really endangering preservation.
It's basically the same as emulation as long as the recompiled code doesn't get distributed (which this project doesn't do AFAIK). Functionally the only difference between a "recomp" and traditional console emulation is that the assembly code that the CPU runs is translated to C then compiled to native code, rather than being interpreted or JIT compiled at runtime. Traditionally recompilation was mainly used when porting games to platforms where the emulation overhead would have been too much, like if you were making a GBA port of a Sega Genesis game. With these enhanced ports, I guess the idea is that if you're making a game specific "emulator" anyway, you might as well recompile the code and get rid of the overhead of interpretation.
Note that this isn't the same as a "decomp" where the goal is to make readable source code that resembles something that the original developers would have worked with. A "recomp" simply translates the assembly instructions to C. You end up with "assembly code but in C" rather than idiomatic C code.
IIRC, EU have some laws protecting "interoperability", i.e. making a program work on other platforms. I suspect decompiling is considered as "interoperability".
More infringing than emulators. De/recompilation projects are pretty clearly 'derivative works' of the original copyrighted program code, even if they require the original ROM in order to extract other assets necessary to compile a fully playable artifact.
The closer analogy would be fan-translation patches, which are also pretty clearly copyright-infringing derivative works though generally tolerated by rights holders.
Companies often encourage (or at least turn a blind eye to) creative derivative works from fan communities, especially if they're non-commercial and aren't cutting into the market share of their own official products enough for them to take notice.
This is a recomp project, not a decomp project; the original binary is supplied by the user, mechanically translated into source code at an architecture level (rather than a human-readable level), and patched. It’s AOT dynamic recompilation and the original IP isn’t distributed.
I do agree that decompilation projects are obviously not transformative (the only fair use feet they really have to stand on are purpose and market effect), but recomp projects are a little more interesting and might live on much less shaky footing.
I'm not aware of legal trouble involving the the Zelda 64 recomp project, which would have a much higher chance of attracting the attention of big N (especially now that a new version of OoT is coming out).
At least in the way that I see it, a recomp is like building your own turntable to play your vinyl records, after stydying their grooves and infering how they would sound (so I guess that it would be less gray than an emulator).
No one can say anything, no game rom is ever bundled in the official releases of these recomps. We always have to provide the roms. Where from, it's another story.
Never heard of this game. Looking it up on Wikipedia it seems to have decent but not outstanding reviews. Does it have some kind of cult following? Or this notable for some other reason?
The N64 SDK (Libultra) was leaked a while ago and is all proprietary, owned by Nintendo. Portal 64 was issued a DMCA by Valve partly on account of them not wanting to get on the bad side of Nintendo because it used Libultra.
It's not only possible but I would argue highly likely that any LLM has absorbed that proprietary code into its training data making effectively any decomp not a clean room effort if they incorporate assistance from LLMs or coding agents into their tooling. If Nintendo wanted to be particularly onerous they could easily claim that their codebase makes use of proprietary tooling/knowledge and there would be zero recourse for the devs.
The % is estimated based on the number of functions that still need to be recompiled. It is already possible to play and even create mods! As other recomp projects, you need to provide your own ROM.
A bit of trivia, since the start of the project I ordered the AI agents to produce a handoff for the next agent, so we have the whole timeline for the project as handoff docs: https://github.com/lfarroco/ogre-battle-64-recomp/tree/main/...
Remember debugging that last weird edge case? These guys are almost there on a whole N64 game. Incredible effort!
Nice. Haven't played this since the N64. It was one of the best games of the system, and I think OB64 in particular gets overlooked next to Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics due to the lack of Matsuno's involvement. But it's head and shoulders better than the original Ogre Battle, and can stand toe-to-toe with Matsuno's best.
I'd love to play it again some day, since my first playthrough was without a guide and despite 60+ hours logged into the game, I ended up getting the worst ending thanks to the completely unexplained mechanic that your ending was determined by how many forts you "liberate" vs "conquer" (basically was your character of a higher or lower alignment than the fort when you captured it).
Next time, try a walkthrough from GameFAQs. Printed that bad boy out at school and played into the wee hours when I was a teen. Still my absolute favorite RPG, but I needed all to get all the secrets, all the birthday items, all the unique characters that only existed in so-and-so town after the campaign ended, etc. To this day, all I'd want in a modern RPG is something like Ogre Battle 64, and instead all I get is the SNES/PS1 version (my current copy is the latter, since the SNES yielded me a very nice aftermarket price about a decade ago), which is great, but definitely rougher in comparison.
Nothing since has come close.
What is the legal status of recompilation projects like these? Greyer or less grey than emulators?
It's sad that we even have to think about this. Ogre Battle 64 is 27 years old now. Under the law that preceded the Copyright Act of 1976, it would be entering the public domain right about now.
It's absurd how long we've made copyright terms, and it's really endangering preservation.
It's basically the same as emulation as long as the recompiled code doesn't get distributed (which this project doesn't do AFAIK). Functionally the only difference between a "recomp" and traditional console emulation is that the assembly code that the CPU runs is translated to C then compiled to native code, rather than being interpreted or JIT compiled at runtime. Traditionally recompilation was mainly used when porting games to platforms where the emulation overhead would have been too much, like if you were making a GBA port of a Sega Genesis game. With these enhanced ports, I guess the idea is that if you're making a game specific "emulator" anyway, you might as well recompile the code and get rid of the overhead of interpretation.
Note that this isn't the same as a "decomp" where the goal is to make readable source code that resembles something that the original developers would have worked with. A "recomp" simply translates the assembly instructions to C. You end up with "assembly code but in C" rather than idiomatic C code.
IIRC, EU have some laws protecting "interoperability", i.e. making a program work on other platforms. I suspect decompiling is considered as "interoperability".
More infringing than emulators. De/recompilation projects are pretty clearly 'derivative works' of the original copyrighted program code, even if they require the original ROM in order to extract other assets necessary to compile a fully playable artifact.
The closer analogy would be fan-translation patches, which are also pretty clearly copyright-infringing derivative works though generally tolerated by rights holders.
Companies often encourage (or at least turn a blind eye to) creative derivative works from fan communities, especially if they're non-commercial and aren't cutting into the market share of their own official products enough for them to take notice.
This is a recomp project, not a decomp project; the original binary is supplied by the user, mechanically translated into source code at an architecture level (rather than a human-readable level), and patched. It’s AOT dynamic recompilation and the original IP isn’t distributed.
I do agree that decompilation projects are obviously not transformative (the only fair use feet they really have to stand on are purpose and market effect), but recomp projects are a little more interesting and might live on much less shaky footing.
I'm not aware of legal trouble involving the the Zelda 64 recomp project, which would have a much higher chance of attracting the attention of big N (especially now that a new version of OoT is coming out).
At least in the way that I see it, a recomp is like building your own turntable to play your vinyl records, after stydying their grooves and infering how they would sound (so I guess that it would be less gray than an emulator).
No one can say anything, no game rom is ever bundled in the official releases of these recomps. We always have to provide the roms. Where from, it's another story.
Nice I have not thought about this game in years.
Never heard of this game. Looking it up on Wikipedia it seems to have decent but not outstanding reviews. Does it have some kind of cult following? Or this notable for some other reason?
This is not a true recomp as it is being done by DeepSeek. Do not touch this.
All AI recomps are not to be used, nor considered true recomps. They likely contain stolen or copyrighted code.
What is a "true recomp"? If it works as the original did, then it's a recompilation no matter the author.
You may not like that the author is mostly an LLM, but the output clearly works.
>They likely contain stolen or copyrighted code.
How would that be possible when it's trying to byte-match the original binaries
The term for that is byte-matching decompilation. This is not such project.
The N64 SDK (Libultra) was leaked a while ago and is all proprietary, owned by Nintendo. Portal 64 was issued a DMCA by Valve partly on account of them not wanting to get on the bad side of Nintendo because it used Libultra.
It's not only possible but I would argue highly likely that any LLM has absorbed that proprietary code into its training data making effectively any decomp not a clean room effort if they incorporate assistance from LLMs or coding agents into their tooling. If Nintendo wanted to be particularly onerous they could easily claim that their codebase makes use of proprietary tooling/knowledge and there would be zero recourse for the devs.