Arenax

I know, Djur. Sarcasm doesn't really transfer as well as I'd like.

Quote: Originally written by Imban: Dude. Undead Valley sucks because Micael seems to not have half an idea of what makes a scenario fun, not because he can't program worth a damn. Playable scenarios also don't require huge, shiny innovations of coding. Go back to RPG Maker 2003 and die there. 1) Never touched RPG Maker (thank God). 2) There's seriously an Undead Valley scenario? ...I was using that as a stereotypical example... ...Damn.

Quote: Originally written by Silence in Motion: Arenax, it's apparent that you won't be satisfied here unless you get the last word, so I'll write one more thing here, and then remain silent. If you want to continue to pick apart what I and others write line by line without looking at the meaning of what we write as a whole, so be it. You have points of view of coding, scenario creation, etc. I have different points of view on the subject. I believe that many people what to tell a story. Anything (in this case scripting) that gets in the way of telling that story reduces the chance they will be able to do so. You don't belive that. That's OK. There is NO right or wrong here. The best we can do is agree to disagree. Yeah, I like the last word (but mostly this is because I'm at school and have nothing better to do), but I'd like an answer to this one: Which is more important: a well-playing scenario or one with a good story? I have to say the former, myself.

Quote: Originally written by Lord Bob: Frankly, I think that if these tools make it easier for all the duncecaps who think that the dragons of Avernum are Motrax, Khoth, and Trogdor, so what? There are plenty of OMG LUK AT MEE!!!!!! scenarios out there for BoE, and the classical reaction has to been either to flame to bits/wait until they go away, or if the newbie shows any promise to let them work it out. These editors make it easier for the idiots, but it also makes it easier for the people who are learning like to get their feet wet before the plunge, and for the veterans who just want a quicker, less tedious way of doing things. This, to me, justifies the possibility that we'll have to ignore a couple more hunks of dreck than we do right now. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I think "a few" is understating it. BoA is a harder system to use than that of BoE. I think users are likely to be intimidated by it, and if much of what they see is garbage, they'll be scared off before they can even get into making their own scenarios. That happened to me soon after my parents bought me BoE; I saw a ton of crap, played some of it, and tossed it into my CD caddy it wasn't until a friend of mine sent me one of the better scenarios--Nephil's Gambit, I think--that I got into it. While there are probably going to be many good scenarios for BoA, bad ones have more of an impact early on.

Quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: Quote: Originally written by Dastal: KernelKnowledge, if it's such an easy process, and you have already figured it out, you should have no problem quickly converting the Mac 3D BoA editor to Windows. I never said it was easy. I screwed around with the original editor for a month over the summer and started working on a 3D editor using MFC/DirectX. (Before I started thinking cross-platform.) After a little I got an idea for a project that could potentially make me some money, so I dumped the editor. You said it was "simple." "Simple" and "easy" are interchangeable.

Quote: Originally written by Wilfred A. Spurts: [QB] Quote: Originally written by Arenaqs: As a designer: the former. As a player: the latter. I have fairly high standards on scenarios I'll play; I can't help that and would probably choose ten-centimeter spikes through the forehead rather than play Undead Valley by l33td00d. This is elitist and morally repugnant- are you somehow insinuating that if I don't know how to code, I shouldn't write scenarios? As in, if I don't know how to check a stuff-done-flag, I'm not worth being a writer? Maybe godawful scenarios are worse than none- I won't argue either which way on that point. But saying that a person who can't program can't tell a scenario-worthy story is obscene. They may be able to tell a story--but not write a quality scenario. Scenarios are more than story. Quote: I will simplify this for you. Your worst disadvantage is that some people who cling to the tools will not learn to do anything without the tools successfully. 1) This ain't 100% true, since many people will try to learn coding on their own. More creative designers who want to do more creative things will eventually figure out ways to do the stuff they wanna do. What I said has held true for most members of the communities of the GCKs I've used and worked on over the past few years (ZZT and Megazeux, among others). If you give people a crutch, the vast majority of them will keep it permanently. Quote: 2) This is not a disadvantage that harms any party involved- more people who would otherwise be unmotivated make scenarios. Scenarios that are lacking in playability, but might have a corking good story. Sorry, but I still want playability first. Games are not mediums first to tell a story--they are first games. Quote: The other disadvantage, of course, is no scenarios from those who would otherwise make 'em. You try to convince me that yours is worse. Fewer good scenarios > many bad scenarios. Elitist? Probably. Accurate? Said Boolean evaluates to True.

What was the question I asked, Djur? "Should I port my tools to the Mac?"

Quote: Originally written by Lemon-Flavoured Oracle: Thank you for your support. .NET is incredibly evil. And in other news, the sky is blue! Quote: I might be somewhere in the middle; I don't believe in using RAD tools like realBASIC or .NET, but I don't want to waste my time in ASM either. C/C++ tends to be the industry standard for a reason. For important work, I use C++. For something that I'm trying to kick out the door and get into circulation, RAD tools have a place. Quote: P.S. The older you are, the harder it is to learn. Old people are not neccesarily bad at making stories, while find it hard to learn obscure series of characters. Which is part of the reason behind my CallWizard concept (which was a fairly large concession in the direction of what they want, but because you *GASP!* must actually read code and understand it to use them, people hated it.)

Quote: Originally written by Wilfred A. Spurts: Good coding helps, but it is not everything. Question- would you rather have a decent, unremarkable scenario made by a non-programmer, or no scenario by a non-programmer? As a designer: the former. As a player: the latter. I have fairly high standards on scenarios I'll play; I can't help that and would probably choose ten-centimeter spikes through the forehead rather than play Undead Valley by l33td00d. Quote: But even more than that, since I myself am being thrown around as an example here, people don't start off at the top- but that doesn't mean they have to stay on the bottom. Capitalism is not a meritocracy, but programming for BoA in many ways is. Maybe hard work isn't the whole pie, but if a designer wants to design, don't hold something against a tool. For instance, when learning calculus, one can assume that a limit exists and determine the methods to reach it. Some people need to see it- I sure did. Without graphing calculators, there would be less than half of the people in the classroom who would grasp calculus as quickly as the others, but those other people now know how to do calculus (or at least that aspect of it- god knows I'm floundering with other portions) just as well as everyone else. Invalid analogy, I'd say--because a graphing calculator visually shows you the results while you must put in the raw data. A scripting tool takes in visual input and puts out the raw data--which, for many people, leads to the "black box" mentality, where they don't want to know how something works because it does. Quote: Similarly, if you make a took that lets people see how it's done, they will be able to make scenarios now, and they will be able to do so in the future without the tool. How did I learn BoE? Same way I learned BoA (except with not as much time taken up in-between): I fumbled, I experimented, but even moreso, I looked at scenarios in the editor and figured out how they did that which they did. How did one-times work? I checked. How did special encounters work? I checked. If I had an intuitive manual or a device, though, I wouldn't have required half of the time and could have done it much quicker than I would have been able to otherwise. TM, that's the best way to do it. Tools to write your code for you are not, which is the ONLY THING I'VE ARGUED AGAINST FROM THE BEGINNING. A visual representation of dialogue trees might help some people. I've simply said that I'd not use it for a host of reasons and that I probably wouldn't add it to AVD2 because of that and technical issues. Quote: God. I can't believe you're really arguing that you shouldn't be making a tool. Tools for data entry and that sort of thing? Fine. Eliminates tedium. Tools to do your work for you? No. You don't learn that way.

Quote: Originally written by Lemon-Flavoured Oracle: Heh. If people are so determined to make things less easy for them, they shouldn't use a text editor. Instead, get a very small magnet and move it in patterns over a floppy disk. Then again, it's not like I'm not against things like .NET. .NET is bad. That is all. (I've never touched it and never will.)

Quote: Originally written by Silence in Motion: Wow - I never expected this to go on this long! I simply feel there are people out there with minimal programming skills that have great stories to tell. So...they can develop programming skills? Sorry, Brett, but here I disagree fully. 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. If a non-programming friend of mine (and not a computer/math geek at all) can sit down in front of BoA, with its documentation, and pick up a working knowledge of Avernumscript--enough to write workable town scripts and such, I'm not saying he could do a creature script off the bat--in a couple of hours, I can't say that I believe it's that hard. Quote: BoA's current scripting system will never allow them to express those stories. Not if they don't want to put in the effort, no. I for one am not a natural programmer; I don't think that way. I have to put in a fairly large amount of effort to work at it--but I recognize the value of flexibility and utility over glossing over the important parts of a language. Quote: Tools that translate a visual metaphor into script would help them. Hiding the scripting language so they don't learn it doesn't help; it exacerbates the problem. If you do not understand the language, you don't know what it can and cannot do. Quote: What we have now only allows a small subset of the population to create a scenario. The subset who want to put effort in and actually work at making a scenario, sure. Quote: I'm not critizing anyone for not developing these tools - it would require a tremendous effort to do so. Less than you'd think--I've already more or less completed what you outlined for a dialogue editor, minus the pwetty pictures. A custom item editor will be forthcoming, too. I have one problem with these tool ideas, however, and it's a very simple one. Simplified tools lose functionality. If functionality is lost, then they aren't worth a damn. Quote: The Creator is right about me - I'm not the best coder in the world, but I am stubborn. It took me three attempts to get the Missionary and Cannibals code in Quintessence working correctly. Not many people are as stubborn as I am. And your determination shows through in your scenarios (I haven't played Quintessence--no BoE anymore--but I played your older ones). You may not have an intuitive grasp of it, but you're willing to work at it, and it makes for a better outcome. Quote: Because of that, I'll add one very controversial statement: BoA will never achieve the level of success BoE enjoys, because it's too hard to script. Time will prove me right or wrong. I agree. BoA's scripting takes a modicum of effort--hell, making towns and dungeons alone does now, even without the addition of scripting. BoE's is simple but very limited and requires ridiculous workarounds. BoA's is slightly more difficult (and I'm not understating it when I say "slightly"--I apologize if I sound arrogant, but it's really very easy in comparison to most scripting languages), but far more powerful. So people who want the utility of a useful program will go to BoA. People who want to make scenarios quickly and not worry about what they're missing will stick with BoE. I'm not saying that's wrong; I am saying that trying to make BoA like BoE isn't going to work.

Quote: Originally written by Drakefyre: The things that I suggested are not dumbing down in any way - they're just putting a GUI onto the coding. I don't see what's so bad about that - I could whip something like that up in Java in about an hour and wouldn't lose any functionality. Just because you can't do it without sacrificing functionality, it doesn't mean that someone else can't. The GUI is what people want more than anything - they want a face on the code. There doesn't have to be anything lost by including it, and I don't see why think that there is any compromise of scripting power. A BoE-style dialogue question in an hour? (That begs the question, why bother?) I was not specific enough in what I said. The BoE dialogue editor idea wouldn't work; the other would work fine and it's something I've already done (I'm just hammering out bugs before releasing that, too).

Quote: Originally written by Walker, Texas Corpse: 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. 1) The program was already written in VB; all that was necessary was porting. I have stated that previously. The only thing I asked was whether I should port to Mac, given the problems. 2) It actually does support tabs; you've just got to look around. I hadn't found that in the system's controls. 3) "Use a decent language" is not a form of criticism that assists development of a better program, especially considering how I had said that I was using RB for reasons already outlined. But of course--Djur must be right. How dare I question him.

Quote: Originally written by Morgan: Quote: Show me a well-written scenario in which the writer was not a capable programmer. I seriously doubt that you can, with perhaps one or two exceptions. And of course, you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that you can do without programming. But I think we should be aiming for allowing people who are good writers but not necessarily excellent programmers to create scenarios as well as those who do both. Certainly. Why else would I have conceived of the CallWizard idea for AvScript? Morgan, I never once said that a degree of simplification isn't good. But too great of an extent results in a nice wide stream of crap. Code assistants make sense--they reduce time and also provide a reference for people looking to improve upon their knowledge. Something that codes FOR you, which is the primary thing I'm against (a node-editor script system, which has been mentioned previously), doesn't teach you. Quote: Quote: Tell me--who's making the tools to make things easier for people? Seems like I'm the main one on the Windows side right now, and I'm working on going multiplatform. What I am against are tools that abstract things to too great a degree. Dialogue editors are fine; my only problem with Kelandon's suggestion is one of programming complexity, not usefulness (well, that and my personal aesthetics, which don't involve that sort of thing). The whole point of BoA full stop is to simplify programming for the less able. Are you actually suggesting that because BoA is simpler to use than say, C++, it has no right to exist? If we're using that logic, then we are already far, far down the supposed slippery slope. Avernumscript is a scripting language. C++ is a programming language. It only makes sense that there is a level of simplification. In this case, it makes it manageable. In the concept that you folks seem to be arguing for, it makes it unmanageable. Quote: Quote: I played BoE a long time ago, and very nearly stopped playing shortly afterwards, primarily because of lousy scenarios. What you are describing is exactly the same for every artistic medium you care to mention. But was the invention of the printing press a good or a bad thing for literature? Sure, you had a lot more crap seeping through, but you also had a lot more good. We've gone over this before. "Good" work comes from people who are both good writers/designers and good programmers. If the writing, designing, or programming are lacking, so is the scenario. A program can't make your scenario for you, no matter how much you might wish it could. Quote: Quote: Editors to remove tedium? Sure. That's what AvDialogue2 is for. But editors that simply do things for a user who doesn't understand the principles behind them? No. I don't even begin to understand the principles behind BoA, does that mean that I'm not qualified to make a scenario? Again with the elitism. Frankly, yes, it does. If you cannot understand the scripting system, I don't see how you can grasp what possibilities it provides--and so the likelihood of you making any sort of scenario that's more than just playable is remote at best.

Quote: Originally written by Morgan: Let me try and evaluate your position here, Arenax. You're being so unbelievably elitist that you can't even begin to comprehend that there are different disciplines involved in designing a scenario, of which the actual programming is probably the least important. Show me a well-written scenario in which the writer was not a capable programmer. I seriously doubt that you can, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Quote: [qb] And yet you maintain such an enormous ego that obviously believes that if somebody wants something that makes their job a little easier it must therefore follow that they are guilty of "dumbing down". Tell me--who's making the tools to make things easier for people? Seems like I'm the main one on the Windows side right now, and I'm working on going multiplatform. What I am against are tools that abstract things to too great a degree. Dialogue editors are fine; my only problem with Kelandon's suggestion is one of programming complexity, not usefulness (well, that and my personal aesthetics, which don't involve that sort of thing). Quote: Like Kelandon said, I fail to see the problem with newbies creating scenarios. The very notion that you woulod hold such an idea as being undesirably is indicative of your incomprehensible elitism. I played BoE a long time ago, and very nearly stopped playing shortly afterwards, primarily because of lousy scenarios. I beat Nephil's Gambit, Tatterdemalion, and the others good ones; what more was there to do besides make my own scenarios (which I did)? Not much, considering the pure agony most of the early scenarios were. I have nothing against newbies making scenarios--but I've been around long enough not to have a problem with it. Others may. Quote: Case in point - TM came to this community with Streila Spies, a pretty horrible scenario, yet his latest effort for BoE, NTH, is considered to be one of BoE's finest. Wouldn't know, I don't have BoE anymore. However, from what I've seen, I agree with you so far. Quote: Ok, so for every person like TM you have a lost_king or Vince Fizz. Or four of them. Quote: But I'd rather make things easier for newbies in the hope of one shining designer to break the mould than shut the doors completely to new blood, leaving a community to completely stagnate. As would I--but creating dumbed-down tools isn't the answer. More effective methods of teaching how to use the software--better tutorials, etc--are. Editors to remove tedium? Sure. That's what AvDialogue2 is for. But editors that simply do things for a user who doesn't understand the principles behind them? No.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Representing a system in a different way is not dumbing it down. I myself understand dialogue pretty well, but it would be easier if it were represented visually. For two years in high school physics, my teacher forced us to draw diagrams for every physics problem that we got. Was that dumbing down the problem? Don't get me started on physics and diagrams. Quote: It's not removing complexity. All of the components are still there. It's a matter of changing the representation. Simplifying something only becomes a problem when you lose utility, and the program that I'm imagining would not erase any components. Now we come to something of a slippery-slope argument. On its own, this design is acceptable (but not one I'd personally use, as I dislike the entire idea of visualizing it because I don't find it necessary). But once you simplify dialogue--what must now be done is simplify script editing, which is where the real problem lies. The only real issue with your design is that coding it would be awfully difficult and probably out of my league if I wanted it to be cross-platform. I'm not saying it's not possible for others--but the benefits are outweighed by the inherent issues. I wrote AvDialogue because I needed something to speed up writing dialogue, not to idiot-proof it for me or make it more "understandable," because as it stands Avernumscript is perfectly understandable. Quote: Programs have been made that do individual parts of a custom objects script already, but they aren't very good, not because they dumb down the system — they're actually easier to use than writing raw code — but because they don't have enough features. They can't handle more than one object at a time, and they can each only do one type of object, for instance. Gimme a week after I release AvDialogue2, okay? I'll fix that little problem. (And once I do that, kick me so I remember.) Quote: Arenax, I recommend you look at the description that I posted above and tell me exactly what would be missing from such a program. What could one do writing raw code that one could not do with the program that I described above? Nothing. However, the GUI-based complexity of such a design makes it very prohibitive. Quote: Similarly, take a look at an editor for custom objects scripts that has already been made and tell me what one could do writing raw code that one could not do with such a program. This creature editor and its cousins need more features, certainly, but I challenge you to tell me how they are less powerful than scripting directly.[/QB] I can't, because I can't get to the website. Besides, this sort of thing is not actual scripting so much as it is data entry. These don't bother me nearly so much as the people who want a BoE-style node editor (which I've explained as somewhere between unlikely and impossible). I make programs that I would use, and the visualization stuff isn't something I'd use, so I probably wouldn't make it. That's just how I am.

Quote: Originally written by but babey u make me so sad: So you missed the "Why not use a cross-platform toolkit like wxWidgets that works in a decent language?" and "Then you wouldn't have to port anything." parts of his post? Not at all. But I explained why that didn't work and he continued in the same vein. The program was already mostly done, and is about 60% done after two days of work (whereas in C++ or Python it'd be somewhere around 5%, but that's another story), and he continued along the lines of "use a decent language."

"Use a decent language" is just a wee bit of an attack in my book, especially considering I've explained why I didn't want to use C/C++ or Java. EDIT: Oh, and BTW--the entire issue is rather moot. I've offered to do something for the community that will not benefit me in the slightest and it seems a number of people are looking a gift horse in the mouth. Criticism is fine--if it's constructive criticism that can be leveraged into something useful. "Use a decent language" when the project is already mostly completed is not constructive, now, is it?

This looks extremely awesome. I might have to actually go through the hassle of getting a replacement of BoE from JV to play this.

And people laughed at me when I said I wasn't going to switch to XP. Well--WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?! HUH?! /me waves his stick triumphantly

I'd like a straight answer to a question, if I may. Last I checked, I have offered to port my stuff to the Mac. This is a chore that brings me no personal benefit whatsoever. I'm also considering making it open-source, an ideology to which I do not hold, for the benefit of all of you people. So why, exactly, did you begin by piling on me because I "wasn't doing it right"? I fully expect all of those who have complained not to use my software--they're insisting it's done badly sight unseen, so obviously they won't try it--but I want to know--why? Why are you attacking me for doing y'all a service that I personally could do well without?

Quote: Originally written by -08: Lol. Sorry but i dont got them on this comp anymore. I deleted them cause they dont work well with this windows xp, althought they do work well with the other one. However, i have noticed that some of the graphics come with the game when you download it, but they arent used. I dont know why, but this applies only to exile 1. I just might have to track down the old Exile 1 installer, then. I think I even know where to get it. And if not, I can probably dig up my old computer.

Quote: Originally written by Walker, Texas Corpse: 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. And I quote: "Why not use a cross-platform toolkit like wxWidgets that works in a decent language?" Sounds rather offensive to me. Oh, wait--I don't always use the Holy Grail of computer languages, so I must be wrong. Quote: 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. I held no issue with you in the other thread; that was one I enjoyed. But attacking me for daring to use a language you find fault with (which is what that previous quote was, in case you didn't notice) is reason enough for me to bring it up a few levels. Oh, and IIRC, the e-mail I sent pertained to an inquiry as to features and other user-centric facets of a program--not the code itself. I'm not a person who believes in turning the other cheek. So sue me. Quote: 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. Strange, I wasn't attempting to be arrogant--I've simply stated facts as I see them and refused to put up with crap. People who remember me from then will probably tell you that I was always this way. I listen to reasoned opinions; I ignore those who aren't. Quote: 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. "Those who can, do." I do what I can, and I don't put up with crap from people who I don't respect. You're okay, I'll give you that. I respect you to a degree, probably moreso than most because you know what you're talking about. There's no way in hell I'm going to be anything remotely close to polite with those who beg for tools to make BoA scripting easier and then whine when they get the tools "because they're not done right" in some indefinable way. I get along fine with TM, Kelandon, Khoth, and a number of others--because they can do things (and do do things) and have earned my respect. And were you anyone else, I'd tell you to get a clue--but I do think you have one and simply can't quite find it at the moment.

Quote: Originally written by Drakefyre: IMO, what would be the best would be something exactly like the BoE dialogue editor but for BoA. This is something I feel safe in calling impossible. The two operate on entirely different principles. BoE's dialogue editor was kludge and relied upon a system incompatible with BoA's. Quote: And a lot of people would probably use a monster/item/terrain editor like BoE's too. ...Oh teh nos, something slightly complex that can be done with but a very simply program! o.O Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but the current system works well and is considerably more powerful than BoE's. Dumbing it down is a bad idea. Oh, and Walker: Computers are not levers. Complexity in a programming language or scripting language almost always confers flexibility. The removal of a language's complexity almost always reduces utility. I can come up with examples to prove the opposite and I'm sure you can too--but they're few and far between.

Quote: Originally written by -08: Wait. Once i downloaded them from a different site, and the graphics were weird, but also the sounds were different. I can't really remember what they looked like, but sorta like a comic book characters i guess. Are these the ones you're talking about? Screens/actual explanations are nice.