Locmaar

Ah, the fickle beast that is coding. I suppose that is what Jeff is asking himself right now. Have you mailed him this directly?

Ordering from spidweb.com forwards you to Humble Bundle plus you get a free Steam key. So I guess that means the spidweb store is no longer working as a store but rather as a humble hub. Still, that's where I ordered from.

Are you sure about this? Seeing that he's working on both games simultaneously, maybe we won't have to wait another year. I hope.

I'm curious: what exactly couldn't you fix with the character editor?

I've never cared too much about Avernum I and II in particular and I can't really explain why. It was probably a wild mixture of enigine, esthetics and Exile being still fesh in my memory. What I do recall though is that when playing A:EFTP, from the first night I thought: this is great, I'm really excited about the very thought of playing A:CS with this rendering. This time round I'm hoping for said sentiments and I have an inkling it's gonna happen.

Perhaps because after spending time and effort to produce innovative stories they didn't like Jeff's more guided approach to story-telling too much. This and some flaws in A4's originality.

Thanks for all your efforts poured into this, Slarty. I appreciate it a lot.

Took me a couple of seconds (and reading past the first three entries) to discover that this was actually about pie and not another one of those polls you shouldn't partake in. Yay, Pecan!

Originally Posted By: Dantius I love how the economics options are "Capitalist", "Conservative", "Socialist", and "Communist". I mean, would it really be that difficult to toss in a "Moderate" or a "liberal" option? Because I'm willing to bet that would describe most people here... This!

I suspect that of all the people really burning for this game to be released on Windows, Jeff is by far the one who wants it out the door most. Porting a rewrite is probably no faster than a new game since porting the content isn't what eats up the most time. Porting the code is and the code is new. I also suspect that Jeff is already working on Avadon 2 in order to get it released by the end of the year and maybe the time usually set aside for porting this time simply isn't enough. Perhaps the original code base has changed significantly due to the use of new coding tools - the Mac OS certainly has changed. Who knows? But I'm sure he's giving it is best. PS: Welcome to the boards

Welcome to the boards. Have you tried redownloading GF and start it again? Sometimes files get corrupted. Otherwise you might want to email Jeff Vogel directly.

I believe Jeff did it to restore the feeling of this huge, vast underground world instead of feeling like going caving in your neighbourhood. Many people seem to like it, myself included.

Sorry to be blunt, but trying to drag people deeper into your story with a plot device you don't believe in has DON'T DO IT written all over it.

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega Eh, isolation discourages rebellion. Also group think and bandwagonry. The latter seems to be a potential issue. But it's never been a problem to find out a couple of the others and dm them if need be. I ran into the need only once and that turned out something I should have mentioned to Jeff in the first place. He needs to know what issues people are having. If you discuss this past him it might get lost.

Congratulations. Well deserved, Jeff.

Nice work. In the the second menu appearance requests is spelled requsts.

no matter what others might say: congratulations,

I am somewhat relieved that this is still going on. And it is a lot more interesting to read through the different conversations going on than I had feared. Well done. What I'd like to comment on is the sense-of-self-, or rather being-me-debate. I would argue that we are all humans, no matter what we believe or don't. I would also argue that I find it still confusing to be attributed a field that says belief where apparently one cannot enter none but has to enter atheist as if that were just another religion. But that's beside the point. What I simply don't get is what we are trying to convince one another of. While I absolutely adore rapier sharp battles of wits I always feel a bit brought down when it comes to convincing others of who's right, especially when it boils down to nitpicking every word that's been sent around. The boundaries between believing, knowing, believing to know or even hoping to believe to know are shallow at best. What it always boils down to is whence your belief system stems from: is it what somebody told you or is it something you distilled by critically thinking through what others told you? In the first case the outcome is always dangerous, no matter what you believe in or what you believe to know. In the latter case, it could be argued, you are bent towards constantly checking what you think and believe. That's a good thing, if you ask me. And if that thinking somewhere down the road leads to your personal conviction that there is no god ( or God for that matter) I think that's just as well. On the other hand, if all this critical thinking leads to your personal conviction that there has to be a god (see above) that's cool, too. And neither conviction ought to be set in stone. We have to change during our lifetimes, probably as often as every moment. I'd be really appalled if my newborn (3rd child) wouldn't. I guess this means we are always the sum of our past at any given moment, And as our past flies by with every thought or turn of the hand this certainly means we are prone to change of our behaviour and, in essence, what we are. And you know what? What matters is not what we jot down as our religion in a questionnaire - it's what we want to do with our future. With everybody's future.

Please note that there was and is a good deal of Christianity involved in refusing to believe what scientists found out about our macroscopic and microscopic world. You make it sound as though scientists halted progress due to disbelief. That's twisting what happened quite a bit. Furthermore, believing in a god is not about proving its existence but believing in it. That's what belief is about. Having faith in absence of evidence. This is far down this road as I am willing to go. No good tends to come out of discussions science vs. religion.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES That's exactly what I'm talking about. The pure atheism Alorael was discussing would say there's no need for a god. But when you say there's no room for a god, that's going quite a bit further. Please note I said: In my appreciation of the beauty of what religious people call creation there is simply neither need nor room for a god. If in your appreciation of the world's beauty there'd be something missing without a god, be my guest. I am also adamant that lacking a different label I would have to call myself an atheist when in fact I am just not religious (I am not talking agnostic here either).

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES Originally Posted By: Assistant Deputy Ambassador to Å That, really, is the issue. Religion, at base, requires you to believe in something. You may have personal evidence or revelation, but that by nature cannot convince anyone else. Atheism requires no belief in anything without evidence, and evidence is indeed often the requirement. I dispute this. On a pure, philosophical level, atheism requires no belief in anything without evidence. In practice, things don't often work out that way. Atheism, like all beliefs significant enough to civilization to be christened (hah) with an "ism", means different things to different people. Some people define it in opposition to theism, and essentially require a belief that all religious arguments are false, even the ones that you point out above there is no conclusive evidence for or against (e.g., Deism). Other times there may be a social component. In the same way that people who belong to a particular religious community, a sect or even an individual church, may feel the need to believe or say they believe certain things that, in theory, are not requisite to their religion, this can (and I argue, almost universally does) occur with social groups where atheism is predominant. Edit: That was an embarassingly long range snipe. I can see where you're coming from. We've more or less all grown up with a religious paradigm, meaning that we all have cultural and historical religious backgrounds, one way or another. I myself am convinced there is no supernatural (as opposed to what we have come to understand nature is) being that created the universe. According to our religious paradigm this makes me an atheist because we simply can't accept that people are without religion so even those who say they are are flocked together into a religious community of non-believers. It's silly and wrong but understandable seeing where we are all coming from. I am certain that we are currently experiencing a mind-shift where people will come to accept that having no religion does not make you a madman lacking empathy for all things beautiful in this world. In my appreciation of the beauty of what religious people call creation there is simply neither need nor room for a god.

Posted as a comment on Blogspot a couple of weeks ago: Quote: Jeff Vogel said... @Skip: The registration codes are cross-platform between Mac and Windows, but NOT iPad. IPad games have to be sold through Apple's own private system, and I can't affect it. - Jeff Vogel

Originally Posted By: Dantius I dislike the concept of a "like" button without the existence of an equally weighted "dislike" button. Delivering meaningless praise without equal avenue to criticize is just hollow and pointless. Besides, I've always found it far more useful to be unnecessarily harsh on mediocre work than overly praiseworthy- it tends to motivate more, and a superior product thought to be horrifyingly bad by its author is better than over complacent mediocrity thought to be brilliant by its author. That is your valid opinion, but I don't think it works for many people in this way. Encouraging people or giving them attention (that's what a 'like' button is for btw) works well as a motivator. Openly disliking their contributions to anything tends to be very intimidating, especially in semi-anonymous environments, and will just stop people from posting. I can imagine an environment though, where a culture of harsh criticism would work. Some of my Creative Writing classes or theater workshops come to mind...

In absence of a "like"-button I wish to state my explicit "like" towards SoT's posting.

Apart from this major spindrift that seems innate to everything Spiderweb Software (as a business) related, I was thinking in terms of "Wow, this is mighty good PR for Jeff!"