-
Posts
15,163 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Punctuation rains from the heavens
-
If you're talking about the original Avernum 2 and Avernum 3 (that's the forum you're posting in) this is the opposite of what is usually said! Avernum 3 felt very muted and constrained to many people, compared to Exile 3. Exile 3 was probably the brightest and most colorful Spiderweb game there's been, so the difference was easy to feel if you played both. If you're talking about the recent remakes (A2:CS and A3:RW), different story.
-
Old graphics for Exile I & II
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to popnfloss's topic in The Exile Trilogy
I thought I remembered that, but couldn't find it anywhere on the web! Good catch. -
Song from exile One
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to kingchipmunk1112's topic in The Exile Trilogy
I think this has come up in other threads in the intervening 13 years (!), but that's a pretty great track, isn't it? Great soundtrack altogether, Picq is really something. -
The whole trope that "everything you do must be formulated as a quest, which is explicitly stated by a single person, who you can also report your success to, usually for a reward" wasn't even remotely universal in 1994. Very little of what you can do in the game follows that formula. Luck: one point can be worth adding early. The first point gives you a 40% chance to lower damage sustained by 1, and a 30% chance to not die when you otherwise should. After that the increase is not as steep.
-
There's a lot of interspecies slavery casually referred to over the course of the First Trilogy: - Sliths enslaving humans (noted above) - Nepharim enslaving Nephilim - Ogres enslaving Nephils - Nephils enslaving Goblins - Ursagi enslaving Goblins - Human bandits "enslaving" slimes (under Jordan Bojar in X3) The Morrow's Isle example is probably the thing that most closely resembles modern slavery -- i.e., a lifestyle of brutal servitude enforced by an economic system. As the bandit/slime example suggests, I don't think Jeff intended to be very narrow in using this term. This may explain someone in X3 saying Sulfras and Khoth were "enslaved" by the Empire in X2, while X2 clearly depicts Sulfras as a prisoner, not a slave, and Khoth as being forced into collaborating with them -- still not quite the same thing. (Athron, of course, they never touched.) It's also a stretch to say that Motrax was enslaved by Avernum. Whether Motrax or Avernum initiated the "have the mages protect him" scheme, Motrax clearly describes it as an exchange -- they protect him, he provides information. There's no forced labor and his wounds restricted his movements, not Avernum. He didn't enjoy it, but that still leaves it a far cry from slavery.
-
That's mostly not possible, unfortunately. The majority of the strengths and weaknesses of the classes -- including skill point costs, and HP/SP/essence formulas -- are all hardcoded. There are a few things you can change, like inherent resistances -- but changing those will also change the resistances of all NPCs and enemies of that type. That cannot be avoided. The closest you could come would be to create a dialogue script that gives out bonus skills (or takes them away) depending on what class you put in. But that would be a wonky approximation and probably wouldn't "feel" like you're playing an "average" class, with comparable skill point costs and such.
-
ADoS, please try and cut down on the double posting. It's not a huge deal, but you've been doing it a lot lately. Yes, if the sibling posts have substantially different things to say, we get it. But when it's been a couple hours and one of your posts is three words long, please use the edit button. The boards are not a chat room and it really shouldn't be coming up this frequently. Thanks.
-
There are no instructions. The game was not actually designed with modding in mind. Luckily, some of the labels in the file are clear from the outset and others can be sussed out with some trial and error. - Removing animations should mostly be simple, but there are some abilities and effects where there could be complications. - Re-balancing spells and abilities numerically without changing anything else about them is one of the easier things you can do. I no longer have easy access to all the notes I made developing that... a decade ago?... but if you have specific questions, feel free to PM me. A ground-up tutorial is beyond the scope of what I can offer right now, timewise.
-
Exile fix for x64 Windows
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Ivan [Redacted]'s topic in The Exile Trilogy
The talking system is the same in all three games. (I also think the window is identical in the Mac versions of E1 and E2, fwiw.) Appearance is a different question. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
Well put, Ess. You and I clash over argument styles and definitely did here. In this case we each brought some different assumptions to the discussion, on a number of levels. "Argument styles" doesn't describe every sort of disagreement, of course. Honestly, ADoS, I can't think of any time we've really done that, or have had that kind of personal clash, really. We've had some arguments, but my involvement in those has usually been with my mod hat on, not as somebody else participating in a debate. Speaking of mod hats, I'm going to lock this thread. As Ess noted, the debate became far more about argument styles than actually about Geneforge, and it's now veered off into interpersonal interactions. The Geneforge forum probably isn't the right place for this. If anyone wants to continue the original topic, feel free to start a new thread. (If anyone wants to continue the topic from the last few posts, I suggest moving to PMs.) -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
You've been arguing against View B literally in response to me. While quoting me. While responding to specific things I said. Arguing in one breath against View B and (apparently, based on what you've written here) against my rebuttal of View A. This is really emblematic of what's been going on here. We keep repeating new iterations of the same arguments and there does not appear to be any greater understanding developing. I respectfully dissent and depart the debate. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
As I explained, ADoS, the "phrasing" that you called into question (you said "This seems to be phrased as a positive assertion") relied on interpreting part of my sentence without the rest of it (which you omitted when quoting it). Scraped together evidence is still evidence. Scraped together speculation is not. If Ess thinks his view is different from what I've understood, he can say so. Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to declare what I mean and what Ess means. Precision of phrasing has not been your friend in this thread. What you state here is completely different from what his last post says. If you want to declare what you think and argue for it, great. But right now it kind of feels like you're spitting from the peanut gallery. It's nonsense to suggest that there is a difference between a global principle about how to do something, and a specific action? Um. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
Again, View B is not what I am arguing for. In this case the actual views are: View A: Information about a creation’s mind may survive absorption by a Shaper, and be passed on to a new creation made by that Shaper. View A-: View A is not supported by evidence. "Shapers can fly" is implausible, for the reasons you describe above, whether or not someone is proposing "Shapers cannot fly" as an alternative argument. The same thing is true (albeit less strongly) for your View A. Let's use the flying analogy. You wrote: "Flying is a method of movement, and the game does talk about how Shapers move about. It shows Shapers walking, and running, and riding on boats, and so on. Since the game shows these means of locomotion, but doesn't show flying, it seems fair to say that the latter methods of locomotion follow from the game, but that flying does not." (In fact, we could state this much more strongly -- it doesn't simply not follow, it's truly implausible, as there are so many situations where flying would be an easy and obvious solution to something, e.g., the 30 different bridge blockades that the PC and various NPCs have to deal with, rather than simply flying across 100 feet down the river.*) Well, your view A is -- actually, let's clarify your view A. You have not simply been arguing, as you state above, that this thing is theoretically possible under the laws of physics/magic of Geneforge. You have been arguing that shapers, in Geneforge, at least some of them, can actually do this thing. The capability View A suggests is one way Shapers can utilize their creations effectively and shape them as they desire. The game does talk about other ways that Shapers do these things.** It shows Shapers putting essence into their creations' stats; using techniques to shape creations in combat, or to shape creations that don't permatap the shaper's essence; creating new generations, varieties, and species of creations; using behavioral techniques, leadership, mental magic, and/or shaping to control or influence the way creations act; absorbing essence directly from creations; creating nutrients that nourish a creation's mind; creating canisters that reshape whoever uses them; creating Geneforges... the list goes on. Since the game shows these means of utilizing & shaping creations to fit shapers' needs, but doesn't show View A, it seems fair to say that the latter methods of doing so follow from are explicitly depicted in the game, but that View A isn't even suggested by anything that is depicted -- it doesn't follow from the game. *There are a lot of bridge blockades. **This is, in fact, pretty much 90% of what the game shows us shapers doing, period. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
Thank you for the suggested change to my word order. That would actually distort what I was saying, which is that the default is "no", not that we don't default to that particular theory. As I said in the next sentence: "we assume not Y." Anyway, back to the actual discussion, I hope. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
ADoS, you're quoting out of context. "by default it's not how things work" is not the same as "it's not how things work". You can call the global principle an assertion if you want to, but even then it's an assertion about how to approach making determinations about any fictional world, not an assertion about the substance of the world in question. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
You're collapsing a continuum into a binary. My phrasing all along has been "follows from the game", not "is explicitly spelled out in the game". In this situation, the game says X. You have theorized Y. We both agree that Y is not part of the game lore; and, I think, that there are plenty of other possible theories that are not part of the game lore (whether or not they have been enumerated here). You prefer Y to the other theories you've considered based on factors that are not part of the game lore. "Y makes sense, so let's take that to be the truth" and "Y does not follow from X any more than other theories, so let's not" are simply not parallel assertions. You can keep straw manning my "there's nothing to suggest it works like that" into positive assertions if you want, but that's not what they are. Here's that straw man in the flesh. View A is not based on evidence from the game world. View B is literally just saying "there's no reason to assume that stuff can happen without evidence." It's not saying View A is impossible, it's saying there's no reason to think it's true. Absence of the evidence critical to theory Y does not mean we throw up our hands and say "every theory is equal"! Basically, I'm saying that the default position is "if it's not part of Geneforge lore, by default it's not how things work in Geneforge." If Y doesn't follow from the lore, we assume not Y. This is a global principle, not a positive assertion made independently in response to a given Y. I mean, the games never explicitly address whether or not shapers can fly. By your logic here, "shapers can fly" and "shapers can't fly" are equally valid. I'm going to keep on assuming they can't (at least until Jeff remakes the series as Drakonball G). -
More sprites are fine. Sprite options that happen to look conventionally male or female, are also fine. (Particularly if there are multiple options, but even GF's one agent sprite was an OK situation.) Forcing the player to explicitly choose a gender doesn't add anything, and comes with some real negatives depending on how it's done. Forcing the player to choose a specific gender in order to play a specific class doesn't add anything either, and comes with a lot of negatives.
-
There are some assumptions about our world here: 1) You have to be larger and more muscular in order to be an effective melee fighter (hugely false) 2) You have to be larger and more muscular in order to have effective physical prowess in general (also false) 3) Men are consistently larger and more muscular than women (definitely false) This is the reasoning that game designers used in 1980. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now. Beyond that, there are positive reasons that games today are more likely to offer choices about your character's appearance than actually asking you to specify their gender (let alone anything about sex). Having this be open-ended still works fine for people who like the old view -- they can pick an appropriate image for their soldier and decide that he's a dude. Nothing is lost. But people want to play different kinds of characters. People often want to play a character who looks like them. And not everyone is a dude. "Male" and "female" don't cover everyone, either.
-
It makes basically zero sense that the shapers do, either. These were bad design decisions transparently made to accommodate limited art assets. See also: Avadon 1, where both physical classes were male only and both magical classes were female only. The Guardian and Agent sprites could be universal-gender almost as easily as the Shaper sprite. There's no reason not to do this. I sincerely hope the remakes fix this.
-
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
I certainly see the scientific standpoint. I'm not sure where philosophical comes into things. Definitional or textualist, maybe. I'm not philosophizing; as you complain later, I'm not putting forward "solutions"; I'm just cleaving to the game world. SLARTY: But starting with the journals describing the "tiny scrolls" and Heustess's stories, from G1 on, it's been very clear: shaping combines the brute force manipulation of genetic material with the synthesis of organic matter from essence. ESS: an example... generate an adult version of Wesley Crusher from nothing more than his genetic material... genetic material only includes information about the base structure of a being, not any information that such a being would have learned through interactions with its environment having been born and gone through a conventional childhood. The genes tell you how to make a living brain, but they can’t put much more than the most simple information in it, nor can they teach a brain how to interact with the world – it seems to me that such information arises through a learning process... SLARTY: ...breathing is not a learned behavior... The ability to exert muscles isn't learned either, but, as you point out, coordinating those movements is definitely learned. ESS: ...breathing... As you point out, it is indeed an instinctive behaviour, not a learned one. Of course, this is an excellent demonstration that knowledge can arise in a brain solely from genetic information. SLARTY: "Brainstem operation of muscles that is totally divorced from consciousness" and "knowledge" are definitely not the same thing. ESS: I doubt I am suitably equipped to argue you on an epistemological point, so let me at least explain my thinking to you... could it not be argued that the brain ‘knows’ how the breathe, in the sense that... To recap: 1) I asserted that the game presents shaping as basically just genetic manipulation plus some synthesis/growth action. 2) You said this could not explain shaped creations being able to function in any way without having to learn first - bringing up the speculatory Wesley experiment 3) I agreed in part but brought up breathing as an example of things that genes _are_ enough to "teach a brain" how to do. 4) You said this demonstrates that genes can create "knowledge" in a brain (clearly pointing towards your original thesis, that shaping can duplicate a brain complete with acquired knowledge) 5) I said that those are two different things 6) You said, essentially, why can't we just call them both "knowing" how to do something and thus treat them the same way In this case, you suggested the change in vocabulary explicitly. I thought this was silly -- deciding to refer to two distinct things with the same word does not in any way change the fact that they are distinct. But you suggested it specifically in response to my saying they were different -- the difference in usage was explicitly acknowledged here, not something you missed. And my speculation was that this may have been happening previously, without explicitly having attention called to it. If you want a theory based on speculation + the physical laws of our own universe, yours can absolutely be on equal footing with other suggestions. If you want one that follows from the games, well, yours simply isn't in that category. This is exactly the distinction I brought up in my last post. I will add one point, though -- there isn't even agreement that this "odd behaviour" is a "problem" in need of an explanation. If you're me, this "problem" is simply part of the world of Geneforge as it is defined. It's not in any way internally inconsistent. Geneforge doesn't provide all the details of how it might or might not fit with "the physical laws of our own universe", but shaping is literally magic. So I see no reason to assume that it does, or that it should. -- I think the precision of vocabulary you impute to the thahd is bonkers, but I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss on that thread of argument. -
What do you name your creations?
Punctuation rains from the heavens replied to Wizardman468's topic in Geneforge Series
No. It cannot. This isn't epistemology, this is you choosing to use words in completely different senses than they are clearly being used in when you respond to them. I'm now wondering if this is what has been happening all along, and you just haven't been saying so. That could explain all the disagreements. For the love of Shanti, don't do this. Yeah, this is where we are living in completely different universes of argument. You want a detailed, mechanical explanation of how this could work, but don't care if it follows from the games, or is supposition. I want an explanation that follows from the games, but don't care if it's mechanically detailed. That difference is completely fine. If it's acknowledged, and assertions about one aren't stated as if they apply to the other. (Because they don't.) If you're employing supposition, own it -- being mechanically detailed doesn't make a supposition follow from the games. It's still a supposition. Yes, that's not evidence at all. Ambiguity is evidence of ambiguity, not something you can use to justify one of many possible meanings. I feel like a lot of your arguments have run like that first paragraph there, with supposition and chosen meaning being used as if they are game-reality fact. I don't care about the thahd. The point here was that you are using two very different standards for how loosely you are willing to interpret dialogue from the game. That's inconsistent. It doesn't matter if example B is a broken-English thahd or Khyryk -- it's inconsistent, and it's inconsistent in a way that conveniently lines up with your arguments. (You could make an argument based on reliability, maybe, if you were taking the shaper's words closely and the thahd's loosely, but it's the opposite.) I feel like there have been some steps backwards here.
