Will the Avernum games get a remake in the A6 engine?

[commie]

Also include Geneforge in this. I've only played A6 properly after dabbling in the others that for some reason I didn't have the patience for(no I'm not a graphic whore, but I don't have as much time as in my youth to learn the intricacies of a games' interface). I really like the smoother experience in A6 and, considering Spiderwebs history of remaking older games, I was was wondering if there were plans to remake the older Avernums and Geneforges into this engine?

[Triumph]

I don't think Geneforge is going anywhere in the remotely foreseeable future. Jeff went back through all the Geneforge to update them and make Universal for Macs not that long ago (a year or two?). I doubt he plans further updates there. He has indicated that he eventually hopes to remake the first Avernum trilogy in a new engine, but that is probably fairly distant still. I expect he'll be busy with Avadon for the time being.

[Randomizer]

Jeff will eventually remake all the games so they will run on newer computers. The remade Avernum 1 to 3 will have some features from the A6 game engine, but it will return to older dungeons aren't seamless part of the outdoors that you have in Avernum 4 to 6.

 

It will probably use a modified version of the Avadon game engine and graphics. There are lots of new features that Jeff will want to reuse beyond just the Avadon series.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Jeff will eventually remake all the games so they will run on newer computers. The remade Avernum 1 to 3 will have some features from the A6 game engine, but it will return to older dungeons aren't seamless part of the outdoors that you have in Avernum 4 to 6.

Regardless of how they're remade, the engine for all six games should have some degree of consistency, not switch to a new engine part of the way through the series. The style of engine used for A4-6, while I'll readily admit it has its good points, kind of threw me for a loop the first time I played A4.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Regardless of how they're remade, the engine for all six games should have some degree of consistency, not switch to a new engine part of the way through the series. The style of engine used for A4-6, while I'll readily admit it has its good points, kind of threw me for a loop the first time I played A4.

honestly if you try to use the same engine for 6 games in a row it's gonna look way dated

imagine what it'd be like if every game in the Ultima series still used the Ultima 1 engine, or even the Ultima 4 engine

[Randomizer]

When you see the Avadon engine it fixes plenty of criticisms of the older games. It still needs works since the auto move AI is from the older games and some of the paths taken when you move can be really bizarre.

 

There was nothing wrong with the Ultima I game engine except it would only work on DOS 1.0.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

There was nothing wrong with the Ultima I game engine except it would only work on DOS 1.0.

and the nes/snes

[Aoslare]

and other platforms. Ultima wasn't DOS-centric, and IIRC it was first written for the Apple II.

 

And, um, yes, there were other problems with it. Combat comes to mind.

[Android]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Jeff will eventually remake all the games so they will run on newer computers. The remade Avernum 1 to 3 will have some features from the A6 game engine, but it will return to older dungeons aren't seamless part of the outdoors that you have in Avernum 4 to 6.

I simply do not understand. Is there a word missing? If so what/where?

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Droid

I simply do not understand. Is there a word missing? If so what/where?

My guess:

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Jeff will eventually remake all the games so they will run on newer computers. The remade Avernum 1 to 3 will have some features from the A6 game engine, but it will return to older dungeons [which] aren't seamless part of the outdoors that you have in Avernum 4 to 6.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

honestly if you try to use the same engine for 6 games in a row it's gonna look way dated

I didn't say it had to be the same engine for all 6 games (that would get very boring, very fast), just implied they should be at least somewhat similar so there's not as big of a jump from one engine to another, like there was from A3 to A4.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

imagine what it'd be like if every game in the Ultima series still used the Ultima 1 engine, or even the Ultima 4 engine

I'll have to take your word on that. I've never seen, much less played, the Ultima series; however, I'm at least familiar with the name.

[Alorael at Large]

Actually, the missing word is "that." Discuss.

 

The Ultima series began in 1980 and the series proper ended in 1999. No engine can hold up for 19 years.

 

—Alorael, who actually thinks the the fourteen year spread from E1 to A6 isn't bad either. And would you want to play with the Exile 1 engine now?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Rentar vs. Ghaldring NO RUSH

And would you want to play with the Exile 1 engine now?

I miss recharging wands. That's pretty much all I miss from Exile 1.

[Tirien]

I miss the bashing weapons... alot... Bashing things was fun!!

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Notes on a Brief Uprising

Actually, the missing word is "that." Discuss.

Yes, I considered that too, but it doesn't really change the meaning. I almost put "[which/that]" in the quote instead of just "[which]", actually.

[A less presumptuous name.]

The difference between "that" and "which" in this case is just technical. "That" is to be used when the following clause is necessary for the identification of the object taking the modification; "which" is used after a comma when the clause is not necessary. Am I right, Slarty?

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Notes on a Brief Uprising

—Alorael, who actually thinks the the fourteen year spread from E1 to A6 isn't bad either. And would you want to play with the Exile 1 engine now?

I never cared for the Exile 1 engine all that much to begin with. Compared to the BoE engine (the first Spiderweb engine I encountered), the Exile 1 engine is downright primitive.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

I miss recharging wands.

I miss that too. I especially miss having the wand blow up when you try recharging it, and discovering I didn't save the game beforehand.

Originally Posted By: Tirien

I miss the bashing weapons... alot... Bashing things was fun!!

Yeah, bashing weapons were a nice alternative to swords, axes, spears, etc.

[Aoslare]

I wouldn't call the distinction "just technical." It isn't critical to basic comprehension, and most native English speakers probably wouldn't label either one as "wrong." However, if you asked them if one version sounded slightly more correct, I expect most people would choose the one with "that", for similar reasons to what Master1 found on google above.

 

Basically, "that" functions as a quantifier -- it tells you which subset of a type of thing you are talking about. "Which" does not tell you that. Confusion arises, however, because the adjective form of "which" points to a quantifier and corresponds to the conjunction form of "that", NOT the conjunction form of "which": "Which house is it?" "It's the house that Alorael built." Conjunction "which" offers the same opportunities for description (because it is syntactically similar), but does not quantify: "That house, which Alorael built, was destroyed by Alec."

 

This is not an artificial grammatical distinction like not ending sentences with prepositions. It is really how people talk.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

what Master1 found on google above.

I actually (and surprisingly) learned that in school. I may not have had all the technical jargon in my understanding, but I'm pretty sure an English teacher taught me the difference. That, and MS Word.

[Alorael at Large]

Word is not very good at grammar. It might even be based on the general "which if there's a comma, that if there isn't" rule that's helpful but not ironclad.

 

—Alorael, who worries that generations of computer-users will turn into Microsoft prescriptivists. Grammar isn't right because it's used, or because the arbiters of the English language say so. The proper grammar will be the grammar that doesn't get green underlines. And, anti-prescriptivism aside, which's a shame.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

It might even be based on the general "which if there's a comma, that if there isn't" rule that's helpful but not ironclad.

I do believe that is what it uses, and I have noticed it to be wrong many times. I use spelling and grammar checks as tools, not bibles.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Master1

The difference between "that" and "which" in this case is just technical. "That" is to be used when the following clause is necessary for the identification of the object taking the modification; "which" is used after a comma when the clause is not necessary. Am I right, Slarty?

Something like this. There's a subtle difference that I've never quite understood, though. Apparently Slarty understands it, though I don't quite understand his explanation...

[Aoslare]

To try and put it more simply:

 

In this context ONLY:

 

THAT answers the question "which one(s)?"

WHICH on the other hand does not answer that question, it just provides more information.

 

Examples:

 

He went to the house. Which house? The house THAT Alorael built.

He went to the house THAT Alorael built. (as opposed to the other houses)

 

Also possible:

He went to the house, WHICH Alorael built.

This is also possible, but unlikely. In this case the information about Alorael building the house is not necessary to determine which house. You could use this if there was only one house being discussed. If there were two houses side by side, one built by Alorael and one built by TM, you'd need to use THAT to distinguish which one you meant.

 

What may add to the confusion is the following:

 

* Parallel pronouns for animate persons

He went to the doctor. Which doctor? The doctor WHO cured cancer.

He went to the doctor WHO cured cancer. (as opposed to the other doctors)

He went to the doctor, WHO cured cancer.

 

* Different use of WHICH in the same place:

He went to the doctor, WHICH upset him.

[Erebus the Black]

If wishes were horses

Beggars would ride:

If turnips were watches

I would wear one by my side.

And if ifs and ands were pots and pans,

there'd be no work for tinkers!

[A less presumptuous name.]

Hah! I understood what Slarty said!

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

He went to the doctor. Which doctor? The doctor WHO cured cancer.
He went to the doctor WHO cured cancer. (as opposed to the other doctors)
He went to the doctor, WHO cured cancer.

Doctor Who cures cancer? Maybe I should start watching the series again.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

* Parallel pronouns for animate persons
He went to the doctor WHO cured cancer. (as opposed to the other doctors)
He went to the doctor, WHO cured cancer.

shouldn't it be WHOM as the doctor is the object?

[Aoslare]

Good question! In fact, not quite. The sentences above (both of them) have 2 different clauses:

 

(1) He went to the doctor

(2) ...who cured cancer.

 

In the first clause, "doctor" is the object of the preposition "to." If we used WHO there it would indeed change case and be WHOM: "To whom did he go?"

 

However, in the second clause, "who" is the subject. "Who" indeed _refers_ to the doctor, but that is irrelevant to its case (which determines whether you use "who" or "whom") -- case is just based on how it fits into its OWN clause.

[Erebus the Black]

Your answer reminded me of this, so I tried to put it in my autograph, but it was too long, so I'll just post it here:

 

 

When your college lecturer says : He means

It's true to a constant : I've got a mistake somewhere

Let epsilon be : You can go to sleep, this will be over in a hour

It's trivial : I couldn't care less that you don't understand

It's easy to see that... : I can't be bothered to explain...

It's by definition : I haven't the darndest why its like that

That's a good question : You got me there

That's an excellent question : You might have got me there, but incidentally I know the answer

That's an important question : Great scotts! You just reminded me of something I forgot to teach

That'll be in the test : I'm tired of speaking to myself

This won't be on the test : I've got a few minutes to kill until the end of class

WLOG : I'll solve it for a sphere in vacuum, you'll solve it on the test for a multi-singular hexagon in a magnetic field

[Erebus the Black]

If we're already on this subject, I have another question:

When you say gnaw (as in gnaw on a bone) is the g silent as in gnome, soft as in gentle or hard as in get?

[Lilith]

it's gsilent

[Alorael at Large]

It's from Old English (gnagan), and in Old English the g wasn't silent. The same is true of words beginning with a silent k, like know (Old English "cnawan") and knight ("cniht"). If I had to guess, I'd hazard that the influence of French after the Norman conquest of England caused some consonants to be dropped from speech, but am not a historical linguist.

 

—Alorael, who hopes that now you know hwæt's hwæt.

[Erebus the Black]

thanks

[Dintiradan]

The 'g' is silent. I think almost all words starting with 'gn' have the first 'g' be silent. The only exception I can think of is 'gnu', which is pronounced 'wildebeest'.

 

EDIT: Oh, hey, I should really check if there's a second page before I post.

[Student of Trinity]

If 'wildebeest' is an exception to the rule that 'g' is silent, I have to ask how you pronounce 'wildebeest'.

[Alorael at Large]

It's pronounced "GWILL-duh-beest."

 

—Alorael, who is already on page five. You and your excessive posts per page!

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Treddalske

—Alorael, who is already on page five. You and your excessive posts per page!

Page one. I always miss when there are more pages, so I set it to a large number of posts per page.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Treddalske

—Alorael, who is already on page five. You and your excessive posts per page!

The Mystic, who's still on page one, since he set the number of posts per page to 50.

[jecowa]

You guys are crazy. This is the second page.

[Erebus the Black]

apparently you can modulate the number of posts you will see on each page, in order to improve surfing times. So if you set the setting to 500 posts per page you'll see all posts on page #1 ,if you set it to 7 posts like alorel you'll find yourself on page #5.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

apparently you can modulate the number of posts you will see on each page, in order to improve surfing times. So if you set the setting to 500 posts per page you'll see all posts on page #1 ,if you set it to 7 posts like alorel you'll find yourself on page #5.

this is more useful on forums where threads are likely to be image-heavy. here there really isn't much of a reason not to put as many posts as possible on one page

unless you're on dialup or something in which case you should probably just go outside instead of posting because life is too short for dialup

[keira]

I have 99 p/p and 99 t/p. It'd be nice if the UBB would let me go up to an even 100, but pooey

[Alorael at Large]

Actually, this is page 2 for me. I weigh the convenience of having all the posts on one page against the inconvenience of trying to find, say, post 48 in a massive pile of posts and having trouble getting back to the quick reply box. After consideration, nostalgia for the older UBB won and I set it to 25 posts per page.

 

—Alorael, who tends to open a thread in two pages if he's making a quote-heavy reply, one for writing the post and one for finding posts that need to be referenced.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

After consideration, nostalgia for the older UBB won and I set it to 25 posts per page.

Nostalgia implies a fondness for something. Are you honestly saying you liked the old UBB?

[Dikiyoba]

Well, it was rather nice not to constantly have discussions about what one's post-per-page setting is.

 

Oh, and karma threads. Dikiyoba misses the karma threads.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Oh, and karma threads. Dikiyoba misses the karma threads.

Shame on you. I'd give you one star if I could know.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Oh, and karma threads. Dikiyoba misses the karma threads.

Shame on you. I'd give you one star if I could know.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

:'(