Fledgling Fyora commie Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk Android Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Tirien Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I miss the bashing weapons... alot... Bashing things was fun!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Celtic Minstrel Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Hah! I understood what Slarty said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Mea Tulpa Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 it's gsilent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 If 'wildebeest' is an exception to the rule that 'g' is silent, I have to ask how you pronounce 'wildebeest'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 It's pronounced "GWILL-duh-beest." —Alorael, who is already on page five. You and your excessive posts per page! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug jecowa Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 You guys are crazy. This is the second page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 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. :'( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.