EDWARD, HAMMER OF THE SCOTS

Quote: Originally written by Thuryl: I must admit, though, I still duplicate my savefiles in roguelikes. Savescummer! You might as well just play in explore mode. :-p

Combat is much easier in Avernum. At least in the first two; I never played A3. Combat is also much quicker. Thuryl and I discussed this; Avernum doesn't have prolonged battles of attrition like Exile does.

Um, part of that decision is the decision whether REALbasic is sufficient. You said as much.

Not at all. It's simple to run for 5 miles up a mountain -- you point yourself and start pushing your legs. It's not easy at all.

The consensus has been the latter for a very long time. It's one of the major points of contention between the community and Vogel.

Yes, it is. If you said "I'm using INTERCAL to develop my new office suite!" anyone would be justified in saying "INTERCAL sucks, use a real language." Regarding tabbed controls -- I was working off what you said. I progressed beyond VB and its ilk in 1999, so I have no idea what RB supports except what you said. Why do you ask "Should I rewrite my tools in language X?" if you're not interested in hearing criticisms of that language? Are you the only person entitled to an opinion in the wide world of computer science?

Quote: Originally written by Arenaqs: Programming is not that hard a concept to grasp, and Avernumscript is a very simple scripting system. I would have preferred a Python derivative, but this is still a very, very easy script language. Spoken like a true programmer.

How does my belief that the BASIC family of languages are poor have anything to do with you? You yourself said that the REALbasic toolkit doesn't allow tabbed controls -- to me, that's a pretty major flaw. It's like if you said "I'm thinking of buying some nice Safeway brand cutlery," and I said "Buy something decent like Wusthof." The reasonable response would not be to shriek "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO OFFENSIVE? DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M DOING FOR YOU?" Kelandon is right. Your motives for posting this thread are not clear, since it seems that you're going to take any suggestions as insults.

Are you the type of person that, when tapped on the shoulder, spins around with a left hook in mid-air? Because that's how you're coming off. Extremely touchy and defensive. It hasn't been my intention to be "offensive" towards you in this or any other thread. In this thread, I just offered advice (which you requested via email as well); in the only other one in which we have had any contact, we had a disagreement and what I would characterize as a "lively debate" regarding the relative merits of different languages. You're the one who, immediately, accused me of being under the influence of drugs for holding a particular opinion on programming languages. Your baseless ad hominem attacks have only gotten worse. By the way, if you think that being around in '98 and having your "unbeatable monster" whipped by Thuryl makes you any more respectable than, say, TGM or anyone else, you're sadly mistaken. Perhaps if you had been around since then. Perhaps if you had made any real contribution since. Perhaps if, upon returning, you hadn't presented yourself as incredibly arrogant and irrational. Seniority requires presence. Even if you had that, it still wouldn't protect you from being seen as an ass if you act like an ass. A little bit of humility goes a long way, you know.

Quote: Originally written by Arenquacks: The more simplified something is, the less useful it can be. Other examples: alphabetic writing vs. ideographic, the wheel. Complex systems are simply what arises out of the interactions of simple components. Even your computer is, at its base, a series of aggregations of simple components. All of your software is composed out of a rather simple, limited set of hardware instructions. Complexity does not render utility; flexibility does. It is a fatal error (albeit common to programmers) to conflate the two.

By the way, Gizmo, it isn't difficult at all to make magic-less scenarios in Pygmalion. Rulesets #1 (Science Fiction) and #2 (Historical - Medieval) are magic-free, although #0 does include magic. Just letting you know.

Jesus. Do you have to be so defensive? In any case, wxWidgets doesn't require Gtk+ on Windows. As far as I can remember, wxWindows was out on Win32 before Gtk+ for Win32 existed. Regardless, even the Unix port doesn't make you do anything directly with Gtk+. That's why it's a cross-platform library. wxPython and XRCed together make a very fine rapid development platform. I see no reason why trivial applications like yours would take more than a week or two to implement with them.

Um, wxWidgets doesn't force you to do ANYTHING with Gtk+. It doesn't even USE Gtk+ on your target platforms, so I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. ( Ironic .) I thought you said you were a Python man. Use wxPython; it's extremely mature.

Well, the most important part would be to extract the scenario-saving parts of the editor and turn it into a good library. Then, you could write an editor for any platform with any language and any toolkit.

Why not use a cross-platform toolkit like wxWidgets that works in a decent language? Then you wouldn't have to port anything. (Don't make your software suck just to port it to the Mac.)

Not to mention that BoA is ugly, the Avernum games are not fun, and buying BoA would put more money in Jeff Vogel's pocket that he does not deserve.

It'd probably be easier to make the Windows version 3D than to port the Mac 3D editor, actually.

Imban: It's only the case if one reverse-engineers BoA itself. Developing a new engine based on the scenario file spec implicit in the editor source would be legal, but a derivative work; you'd need to license said work accordingly. Of course, then one would have to be careful not to use any Spiderweb trademarks or copyrighted material in the resulting program. However, what's being discussed in this thread is not a hack or crack, and it's not in violation of either the BoA EULA or the forums' code of conduct.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: It was actually quite tricky. I appreciated it. But then, I never played E3. "The Exile Trilogy (Moderated by: Drakefyre, Phenotypical, Kelandon)" Hmmm?

Sorry you're a spluttery neophile, then.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: No, he means that standards changed as technology improved, and by more recent standards, the game fares worse in a judging of its merits than it did by the standards when it was released. How would that prevent "decent play"? I don't see how that changes the experience at all. A person who enjoyed Exile in 1996 shouldn't be prevented from enjoying it in 2004. Perhaps the average or new gamer's expectations are different now, but Micael basically suggested that the game is actually worse now. I know Ultima 4 is as fun as ever, and it was released in 1987.

Quote: Originally written by Archmagi Micael: The Exiles are nice, I used to have them before I had Avernums, but the entire system is just too out-dated for decent play anymore. You mean that somehow as time went on, the game actually changed and became harder to play? Wow. Talk about bitrot.