Jump to content

Intentionally Left Bank

Global Moderator
  • Content Count

    15,118
  • Joined

About Intentionally Left Bank

  • Rank
    The Demon of Good Taste
  • Birthday December 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You don't necessarily need a license in order to have permission to use someone's work, absolutely. If there's no license, and they give you permission, that's just fine. (You can't use a license unless the license actually applies. That means the requirements for the license need to be met. This depends on the license but might include things like the original release stating the license and including the full text of the license.) Finally, if we're talking about modifying and distributing somebody else's creative work as a new version of that work, please operate b
  2. ADoS, given the immense confusion in this thread, I'm just going to go ahead and make a clear proclamation about what you need to do for anything you are linking to off the forums. I think this is uncontroversial but if you'd like to it to work differently, just say so and the mods can have a discussion and get back to you. - If you have email permission to use somebody's work as-is, and there's no evidence suggesting otherwise (or that there are license issues), that's fine. - If you have email permission to distribute a modified version of somebody's work, and there'
  3. ...this is exactly why licenses are stated with the release. An offhand comment in an email does not a license create.
  4. Milu hasn't released their work under GNU GPL 3.0 if all they've done is say that in an email. At the very least there needs to be a notice included with the released file that spells out the license. It looks like you are also supposed to include the text of the license itself, which makes sense. There's a whole list of requirements if you look up the license itself: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt Note there's a section there on the requirements for releasing modified versions as well. But the original release has to meet the license req
  5. I would just add that if it actually is GNU GPL 3.0, permission to distribute derivatives is conditional based on using the same license, which you don't seem to have done here. (Unless this is the original, I can't tell.) And -- as I exhorted in the other thread -- if you're distributing a modified version of something and not the original, THAT NEEDS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. Where you link it for download, and in the downloaded item itself. I genuinely can't tell if what you've linked here is your modified version or the original.
  6. Because they could be referenced -- by your family, or by the Nisse, who will presumably both appear in some form, and who would both have some access to most of this information. What the heck would be the point of transferring the PC's reactions to the Queen and to Sutter if the PC isn't also in the second game? I'm also just trying to imagine a QW style game, with it's clear-areas-set-up-forts-acquire-resources gameplay, on the same map as QW. That would be an immense rehash, in a way that did not apply to an Exile II style game. Finally, the endgame cod
  7. I don't know if I buy that. I feel like if Sacramentum were intended to be a multi-game location, more attention would have been paid to individual characters. Randomizer, you say "Based on how Jeff likes to reuse previous work" but that isn't actually how he operates at all. Outside of Exile/Avernum, which was designed as an enduring game location way back in 1994, he's never reused previous locations en masse. Geneforge and Avadon never do.
  8. That was a joke about the difference between old Shadowrun and modern wirrless Shadowrun. It did not occur to me that those letters might be an actual independent acronym... As it turns out, they were, though I don't think I've ever seen it actually used. Congratulations, ADoS, thou hast slain the joke.
  9. Or may just affect one piece of text at the end of the second game. Who knows.
  10. IIRC, I had attempted to completely change the way consumable items worked. That worked, but it wasn't really a great experience, and I was stuck on what to do with that.
  11. I did, and that one also stalled out -- you may be noticing an embarrassing pattern here. IIRC that one made it to testing -- maybe you were one of the testers?
  12. Additionally, SW did use another indie dev (Fantasoft, known for Realmz) as a publisher for a year or two in the very early days.
  13. Lol, so it's a rereremix... I actually did most of one for A2CS, but stalled out before finishing it. It's a lot of work. I'm a little leery about someone simply transposing the changes from an AEFTP mod onto A2CS, because the game balance is somewhat different in A2CS. I suspect that with only those changes, you'll still end up with a game where there's really no reason to have any physical attackers whatsoever.
  14. Ok, now we're both confused I thought you were saying that you installed the reremix and were playing with that... but were you talking about A2:CS and just meant that you installed the graphics portion only? As far as the specific changes... this was a long time ago, but basically, there was just a different approach to game balance. I put together a carefully constructed balance with battle disciplines, for example, that provided reason to go deep into some of the otherwise suboptimal skills the game offered; this was replaced with much looser requirements, with som
×
×
  • Create New...