Bahss Rated...

Pages

AuthorTopic: Bahss Rated...
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #0
Some choice quotes that illustrate my ire:

"Combat is also very well done, I started with a level 45 party and ended with level 65 so one may observe the sheer amount of hacking required."
Hacking == Good Combat

"Dialogue is very well done and in many ways akin to Jeff Vogels."
JV == Good Dialogue

"I have yet to see any better implemented tek."
Canopy == Non-Existant

"Bahssikava is purely an Avernum Scenario there are no outside philosophical influences clouding game play. It is about Avernum for Avernum."
'Philosophy' == Bad

"In addition, the storyline behind Bahssikava is much more developed than any other storyline so far, including the ones that came with BoA. By building on the Avernum trilogy storyline, Bahssikava gets around what so far has been BoA's greatest deficiency relative to the previous Avernum games."
Demons == Development
(Nevermind that I still don't know what this deficiency is)

"Out of the scenairos that haven't been reviewed, Bahssikava feels real close to the Avernum storyline (a lot of A1 connection with the towns & names of certain characters) and was the most deep plot-wise."
Demons == Depth
Avernum == Good Storyline

"Playing this scenairo was enjoyable and fun to me as it reminded me of the Slith quest you had to do in Avernum 1, so it was a good flashback to come back to."
Kitchy Remeniscence == Fun

"Well use of cutscenes and parts of the story in Avernum 1."
Avernum == Good Storyline

"there are many really interesting cut-scenes and additional missions which make the storyline of scenario more complex (which is good)"
Sidequests == Complexity

"it's quite hard, it has tough enemies (Galthrax, Demon Lord)"
Crazy-High HP == Challenging Combat

"and some good laser-puzzles to solve"
Laser-Puzzles == Interesting

"It was designed by someone who has played the Avernum trilogy and this story is a flawless continuation of the earlier Avernum stories."
Flawless Continuation == Flawless Storyline

"I especially like the puzzles that I found in various places, especially the energy beams."
Laser-Puzzles == Interesting

"The plot begins following the Avernum series. It is true to the spirit and stories of the originals."
Avernum == Good Storyline

"It is huge. I would say it is comparable to one of the Avernum series."
Larger == Better
( 8=========D )

"The story is well thought out and well put together. There is a lot of attention to detail."
Avernum == Good Storyline

"The puzzles are pretty good."
Laser-Puzzles == Interesting

...

And of course, there are four 4.5+ reviews that aren't qualified in the slightest...

...

...

Pardon me. Continue celebrating as you will. But at least try and give this some thought and ask yourself if you want the community to go in this direction.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #1
Jeff Vogel does write pretty good dialogue. (Well, he did in the Exile/Avernum series. He got lazy in BoX.)

Also, I really don't see how you can complain about people wanting to build their plot on the Avernum storyline. I mean, it is called Blades of Avernum. The playing audience is mostly going to be people who played and enjoyed the Avernum series.

But more importantly, this is starting to look awfully like a one-sided vendetta on your part. Nobody else wants to pick a fight about this, so quit being a prick already.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 04:05: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5201
Profile #2
I think that I missed a context here...

I don't follow what the 'this' is to have a fight picked about. Anyone care to clue me in? :confused:

--------------------
------------------------------
Daniel C. Stillwaggon
Posts: 13 | Registered: Monday, November 15 2004 08:00
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
Profile Homepage #3
It seems like a lot of people thought they enjoyed the laser puzzles. Since nobody likes laser puzzles, those people must have been wrong.

Or something...

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

New Mac BoE
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #4
TM, as usual, go to hell.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #5
(Cleared due to redundancy, somebody delete this!)

EDIT: Crud... double posted. Didn't mean to, sorry...

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 05:52: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally written by dstillwa:

I think that I missed a context here...

I don't follow what the 'this' is to have a fight picked about. Anyone care to clue me in? :confused:

I believe it boils down to which is better... Bahssikava or Canopy. They're duking it out on the ratings, thus the argument and the anger.

What bothers me about this is that both scenarios are actually very good. Both have their good points, along with very annoying bits. Everyone will prefer something different, however, so there's no reason to get so mad about it.

Example: While laser puzzles (particularly the kind that can get irrevocably screwed up) are freakishly annoying, it's amazing how Bahss continued a genuine Avernum storyline while making it believable.

Another example: Boss battles every five minutes are incredibly annoying, but the amount of custom scripting (and good scripting at that) found in Canopy is astounding (particularly the spells & cutscenes).

In the end, both of these scenarios are still amazing compared to what most of us could assemble, so stop feuding about whose is better!

Can't we all just get along? (Don't answer that. Don't even think about it.)

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #7
Oh, heck. I'll actually give some semblance of a response.

I design scenarios so that people will play and enjoy them. People, not some ideal elite intelligentsia. If a person plays my scenario and likes it, that's a good thing, even if that person doesn't meet some sort of arbitrary standard.

I'm talking about what might be called "popular success" here, as opposed to "critical success." Popular success means that the masses who play it enjoy it; critical success means that the Lyceum crowd, the message board crowd, the BoE crowd, those types of people, the critics if you will, enjoy it.

I think that popular success is at least as important as critical success. Bahssikava has had significant popular success, and LP has had significant critical success, and I like Bahs more, despite the fact that LP is sitting atop CSR right now.

If someone plays and enjoys my scenario, I'm not going to give him an IQ test before I say that I'm glad that he enjoyed it. And the people who say "omg canopy roxxorx because of the uber-kewl weponz" are meaningful, too, if not in quite the same way as a Thuryl or an Imban. We should not ignore this; it's evidence the someone's enjoying the scenario, which is a good thing.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with TM's characterization of Bahssikava and think that he missed most of the point, and really, I could say almost all the same things about Canopy as TM has said about Bahssikava, but I'm not going to. I didn't enjoy Canopy, but I recognize that some did, and therefore it has its place.

I make scenarios the way that I want to, and I entirely deny that my scenarios have anything to do with leading the community in one direction or another. So all I can say is that if people (any people, regardless of who they may be) enjoyed my scenario, then that's a good thing. They don't have to fit some sort of criteria or qualify by some means; they just have to have enjoyed it.

All I want is to make scenarios that other people like.

EDIT: Many times to try to get the meaning across clearer.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 07:33: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #8
This is tertiary, but the "TM only cares about ratings" inanity is also getting on my nerves. It's almost as if my patience isn't being tested by this degradation. I'm not trying to inflate any scores, especially mine- although don’t confuse me, I still think that the score ratios are off- I'm here to deflate scores and prevent a deflation of a community I've been working for roughly 4-5 years in.

quote:
I design scenarios so that people will play and enjoy them. People, not some ideal elite intelligentsia. If a person plays my scenario and likes it, that's a good thing, even if that person doesn't meet some sort of arbitrary standard.
Populism is the worst excuse to use for anything. If people like your scenario and populism is the raison d'etre, then the designers are neutered, the community slowly McCarthyizes itself into a circle-jerk mindset, and quality becomes a non-issue overall. The audience becomes less and less of an active observer, and you're left with nothing but action-packed, sex-central TV dramas with catch phrases and cliches.

quote:
I think that popular success is at least as important as critical success. Bahssikava has had significant popular success, and LP has had significant critical success, and I like Bahs more, despite the fact that LP is sitting atop CSR right now.
LP is also a serious victim of the CSR slowly steeping itself in populism as well, but never mind that. Popular success is only a non-harm at its best when the populus is a conscious entity that is itself critical- which is why the BoE renaissance of the fourth through sixth contests occurred after the majority of players had already abandoned the medium. BoE was not popular when it was at its best- and BoA will continue to degrade while it is popular due to the same phenomenon.

quote:
I have been described as a leader or an influencer of future designers, mostly by people who are trying to say that my scenarios are bad, and not only bad but also dangerous. If I leave any legacy in the community after this past year and the coming few, I want it to be this: innovation is great, but only insofar as it contributes to the bottom line, which is fun...

...And if people want to design other scenarios that present scenario design in another way, that's great. The more different kinds of scenarios, the better, as far as I'm concerned. But I just hope that we all remember that we're trying to make scenarios that are fun for many people to play, above anything else.
Fun is nebulous and changes with the times- the so-called excitement of hacking through a legion of enemies described by Bahss' reviewers is a surefire recipe for disaster in any modern BoE scenario because the whole standard-combat deal has become second-nature. Special spells are clichéd in BoE as well- which is why you see so many overwhelming innovations, especially from the two Shark scenarios, Areni and NTH. (Alas, BoE was being put towards its limits, and future permutations of tactical variances would have run the course of the engine, so having BoA was an improvement, but that's neither here nor there.)
Point is, if you set the way for change, people will come to adapt to it. There are many stories of people not liking An Apology when it was released, but the renaissance-era CSR tables tell a different tale entirely, and I think the BoE community is good for that reason alone- innovation. Fun is good, but adapting to redefine fun is far more important, which is why I think Bahss is only at its best at the altar and with the chitraches. The rest of Bahss is AtG big and AtG buff with Streila Spies elegance. The combat in LP deserves a chiding of its own, but that's not relevant to this quote.

quote:
I don't really mind if people like one scenario better than another or a third better than either of them; I just hope that people enjoyed the scenario that I made and let it go at that.
Then why BoA? Why BoA, when there are a dozen other media to use? Why not Warcraft III (which I have, I must admit, considered going to- it has a surprisingly versatile campaign editor), Neverwinter Nights or RPGMaker 2000? The only reason I, and likely many others, stay in the BoX community and design for it is because of the openness to new and radical ideas. This sort of “return to tradition” that JV started with the four prefabs is bad enough- having it extend to the designing community as well is a good way to purge all previous designers from the community, though.

Games exist for entertainment, sure. But if there is no intellectual or imaginative aspect towards gameplay and storyline, then fun stagnates and you're left playing your tenth D&D campaign with orcs and goblins, whereafter you settle into a mode of munchkining and getting into the nitty-gritty of the status quo without moving forwards, whereas if you think outside of the box and start doing things new and interesting, you advance the genre to something it wasn’t before and begin creating new and interesting fun, not just boring and sedentary fun. Fun is what I'm after as well- I just think that the "age-old recipes" for fun are defunct, and reverting back to them after the artistic flare of the BoE greats is a tragedy worse than the transition from Heian to Edo or Pax Romana to Byzantium.

Actually, the Roman analogy is appropriate- since the Eastern Romans eventually did muster up a great deal of culture in a different shape. Unfortunately, by the time BoA will reach maturation, you and me and everyone else will have likely passed on- I'd rather skip the inflation and preserve what we have now. I'd rather people stop pretending that BoE didn’t exist. (And if people don't like 2d graphics and thus don't play BoE, I'm not sure that the anachronistic interface of BoA is the best place for them either.)

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 07:48: Message edited by: Kirk Johnson ]

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #9
The entire rest of that post is not worth my time responding to — I'm sure that others will do my work here for me — but this one part deserves mention.
quote:
Originally written by Kirk Johnson:

Then why BoA? Why BoA, when there are a dozen other media to use? Why not Warcraft III (which I have, I must admit, considered going to- it has a surprisingly versatile campaign editor), Neverwinter Nights or RPGMaker 2000? The only reason I, and likely many others, stay in the BoX community and design for it is because of the openness to new and radical ideas.
Because I liked the Avernum Trilogy and wanted to work within the Avernum universe. I don't much like Forgotten Realms, so NWN is out, and I didn't like Warcraft at all. I don't know much about any other design systems, and I don't really care: BoA is good enough for me.

EDIT: And heck, as Alcritas might point out if he read that post, what good is it to make spectacularly good, advanced, amazing scenarios if no one ever sees them? A designing community with no player base is a sad thing indeed.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 08:18: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5576
Profile Homepage #10
TM, your analysis of Kelandon's goal of popular success seems to be flawed, in that what you describe is a process in which the designer solely seeks popular approval and attention. From what I have seen the vast majority of the people around this forum are ones who share both interest in the entertainment provided by BoA, and also imagination and desire to create something of their own. They do not create and share scenarios merely to get the highest ratings, but because they are proud of what they have made and want other people to get to enjoy it as well. This in no way leads to stagnation or repetition of ideas overall, because while ideas may be reused many times and some boring scenarios may be made, most designers are looking for new things to do to keep themselves and everyone else interested. If this comes in the form of large quantities of straight forward combat, it is perfectly reasonable because even in this case there is variation and interest value in the combat itself. furthermore, if many scenarios are made this way and the designers in general get tired of playing such scenarios, they will tend to make different ones, perhaps with more puzzles or more intricate interaction with the characters in the scenario through more complex dialog.

I find very problematic the way in which you seem to assume that the attention of most of a large community will cause stagnation and suggest that the quality of material will improve with decrease in the size of the community. The community involved is already fairly small, with 5000 odd members of the boards (including unknown numbers of repeat accounts), and at any given time only a small fraction of these people participate actively. Also, almost all of the members of the community are designers making their own scenarios (many may never finish, but that is not really significant), and almost all think critically about their own work and that of other community members.

I dislike that discussion of the future BoA often includes bases in the history of BoE, since while this history can potentially provide some information about how use of BoA may evolve, it is pointless to assume that BoA must be restricted to following the path that BoE followed. Would that even be desirable? I don't really know as I have never played BoE and only know about its history what I have read at this forum, but it doesn't sound as though it was truly a glorious example to aspire to, merely an example of something which could be done.

--------------------
Überraschung des Dosenöffners!
"On guard, you musty sofa!"
Posts: 627 | Registered: Monday, March 7 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #11
I'm glad someone already asked what the heck this is all about, since I have no idea either. Ditto on liking and disliking parts of both designers scenarios.

That said, I have NEVER played BoE, and never will. So stop comparing scenarios or referring to some higher ideal of design. This is a G A M E. I play it to enjoy myself, relax, and escape from reality. I am also trying to make a scenario, but will likely never finish, as I don't have the skillset in scripting to make it a satisfying experience for ME. I appreciate every designers attempts at scenarios, and play each and every one (several times).

Without having a leg to stand on here, I'll say one more thing. I read time and again that getting the scenario out to the public is ten times more important than a superb, yet unfinished masterpiece.

I certainly didn't expect to find designers sniping at each other over philosophy or direction of a community. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to tell me how to act, think, or design.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 22
Profile #12
It interests me that a newbie has made the most sense in an otherwise utterly senseless and useless topic.

And TM, to echo the sentiments of everyone else, quit being a prick.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:19: Message edited by: Morgan ]
Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Populism is the worst excuse to use for anything. If people like your scenario and populism is the raison d'etre, then the designers are neutered, the community slowly McCarthyizes itself into a circle-jerk mindset, and quality becomes a non-issue overall. The audience becomes less and less of an active observer, and you're left with nothing but action-packed, sex-central TV dramas with catch phrases and cliches.
Populism alone may be a poor reason to design, but "because I want to" is the best possible reason. Kelandon is designing the scenarios he wants to design, just like you. If the scenarios he were designing weren't scenarios he wanted to design, he wouldn't design scenarios at all. Is that the result you want?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #14
Jealousy is a stinky cologne.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:04: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #15
To defend my quotes which TM seems to have picked out, Jeff Vogel does write excellent dialogue, better than any of us. I simply meant that Kelandon worked very hard on dialogue and it came across at a very high level of interest.

Now the first quote I probably should have put a period after "done" . As I meant combat was good. But I wanted a player to realise how many levels they might gain. The two ideas were not necessarily linked.

Tek, yes Kelandon's is better. The cut scenes were easily some of the best I've seen. Canopy, Nothing wrong there either.

On philosophy, I simply meant that Bahss is an Avernum scenario not some tirade about social issues. Not that philosophy is bad. But when it is painfully obvious it is not enjoyable. Good philosophy should force the audience to think not simply read over anthers obvious biases.

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Cartographer
Member # 995
Profile #16
TM is a great marketer.

I'd tell you why I have come to this conclusion, but I decided that my rant had some mean spiritedness to go with the complement, so I'll leave at this: He's actually a good marketer.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 13:08: Message edited by: silver harloe ]
Posts: 206 | Registered: Thursday, April 18 2002 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #17
"The entire rest of that post is not worth my time responding to"

(Edited out) How about this- when you've spent as much time and effort into this medium as people you address, then try being that arrogant. Not before.

"EDIT: And heck, as Alcritas might point out if he read that post, what good is it to make spectacularly good, advanced, amazing scenarios if no one ever sees them? A designing community with no player base is a sad thing indeed."
We were never starving for a player base and never will be. The most ambitious and spirited design existed when there was no player base- Tatter in BoE's later era would be a solid work but not very ambitious. Those flippant neophytes like myself are evidence of this. A player base only counts when you are selling something, and if BoA involves selling anything, then there is nothing but loss for all parties involved except for the adventurerX007s and attention magnets out there.

"TM, your analysis of Kelandon's goal of popular success seems to be flawed, in that what you describe is a process in which the designer solely seeks popular approval and attention...
...They do not create and share scenarios merely to get the highest ratings, but because they are proud of what they have made and want other people to get to enjoy it as well."
I never said Kel's goal was this- but it WILL affect designers in some way or another. I'm not sure how people think designers are stoic icons of permanency who will keep on pumping out scenarios to an ingrateful audience regardless. The thrill of creation is one thing- and of course, there should be people to read it. But just as good writers can be popularized out of publishing, so too does a BoA community without Ezra Pound's poetry collections resemble the dry literature of the Age of Reason. Designers may hold convictions, but people can be swayed, and when the people grow more and more ingrateful, a designer has to consider why she or he is designing. Seriously. With the intent of leaving.

"From what I have seen the vast majority of the people around this forum are ones who share both interest in the entertainment provided by BoA, and also imagination and desire to create something of their own...
...This in no way leads to stagnation or repetition of ideas overall, because while ideas may be reused many times and some boring scenarios may be made, most designers are looking for new things to do to keep themselves and everyone else interested...
...furthermore, if many scenarios are made this way and the designers in general get tired of playing such scenarios, they will tend to make different ones, perhaps with more puzzles or more intricate interaction with the characters in the scenario through more complex dialog."
The majority of design up until the Fourth Contest was plagued with anachronisms from later perspectives. Hell, even Redemption has some problems at points with poorly imagined combat. There will inevitably be another Alcritas who wanders about and reshapes everything- but even his changes will be delayed, and his changes most definitely will not be as progressive as the prospect of never hadding needed the changes in the first place.
Blades of Exile existed, exists, and will continue to exist. Even if you do not play it, you would do well to learn its lessons.

"If this comes in the form of large quantities of straight forward combat, it is perfectly reasonable because even in this case there is variation and interest value in the combat itself."
I and most oldbies (although not Kelandon!) have well and truly done this over and over again. If that sort of thing is interesting to you, then plenty of newbies who join later on will have to do this by default. Trust me, you are in no threat of being deprived in this (or any) medium.

"I find very problematic the way in which you seem to assume that the attention of most of a large community will cause stagnation and suggest that the quality of material will improve with decrease in the size of the community."
I did not say that- I insinuated it pretty strongly, though. And within good reason! After the third contest, the community whittled down dramatically, and the designers devoted to quality formed a close-knit cabal devoted to producing the best works I have ever seen. Ever. The technique development I saw as I was entering the community (although certainly not because of that fact) was incredible. When people are around, though, designers who listen to criticisms and try to adapt their style will have a tendency to accept paleophilic or backwards notions. This is not a given, but an influx of people more often than not results in an influx of people used to and thirsting for RPG cliches.

"The community involved is already fairly small, with 5000 odd members of the boards (including unknown numbers of repeat accounts), and at any given time only a small fraction of these people participate actively. Also, almost all of the members of the community are designers making their own scenarios (many may never finish, but that is not really significant), and almost all think critically about their own work and that of other community members."

Although I doubt what you say about designing, it doesn't help that almost all of these people are not experienced in BoE. It's a strange situation- BoE designers are making the BoA scenarios, not BoA-only designers.
Unfortunately, the experienced BoE designers (except for myself and Stareye) are all well and gone. Zxquez is terrible, Kel is inexperienced, and Khoth is even more inexperienced (but he wasn't when he entered).

" dislike that discussion of the future BoA often includes bases in the history of BoE, since while this history can potentially provide some information about how use of BoA may evolve, it is pointless to assume that BoA must be restricted to following the path that BoE followed."

Restricted? BoE was defined by a lack of restrictions. It's like saying that cavemen should not be deprived to follow the path of making irrigation instead of hunting and gathering.

"Would that even be desirable? I don't really know as I have never played BoE and only know about its history what I have read at this forum, but it doesn't sound as though it was truly a glorious example to aspire to, merely an example of something which could be done."

It is a glorious example and then some.

"Without having a leg to stand on here, I'll say one more thing. I read time and again that getting the scenario out to the public is ten times more important than a superb, yet unfinished masterpiece."

Irrelevant. If there's one thing BoA is better at than BoE (oddly enough), it's scenario production.

"I certainly didn't expect to find designers sniping at each other over philosophy or direction of a community. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to tell me how to act, think, or design."

This is starting to dawn on me more and more as my memories of good design are fading. BoA has not been good news for good design- good possibilities absolutely, but not good design.
As for the second bit- hence my comments on populism, although you may be coming at it from a different angle... Honestly, a call for more imagination, less homogenizing tradition and not going back to the stone age shouldn't fall on deaf ears.

"And TM, to echo the sentiments of everyone else, quit being a prick."
I'm rubber and you're glue...

"Populism alone may be a poor reason to design, but "because I want to" is the best possible reason. Kelandon is designing the scenarios he wants to design, just like you. If the scenarios he were designing weren't scenarios he wanted to design, he wouldn't design scenarios at all. Is that the result you want?"

I'm tempted to say yes, but...
I am not that pissed off at Kelandon. He's not helping the situation at all, but if it weren't for the nameless masses of idiots making life hard all around, then all of this could be avoided.

"Jealousy is a stinky cologne."

...how dare you. I want you to join a company and devote tons of hours to it, contributing ideas, time, and even money into it. And then, when management changes, watch all of your hard-built improvements get torn down. Then, when you are mad that about what's going on and try and raise hell, let someone say something this flippant and absent-mindedly boorish to you. I swear, I have had it with people attacking my motives.

"Now the first quote I probably should have put a period after "done" . As I meant combat was good. But I wanted a player to realise how many levels they might gain. The two ideas were not necessarily linked."

Be that as it may, I know that many players share the same ideas that I read your sentence as promoting.

" On philosophy, I simply meant that Bahss is an Avernum scenario not some tirade about social issues."

...must... resist... quoting hegel...

I could go on for a while about philosophy, but that ain't the span of the discussion and shouldn't be. (My style has never been particularly "popular" in any period of time.)

Eh, I may end up designing in BoE again. There's a high probability, at any rate. My interest is hitting a low regardless. I feel like I'm stretching myself, trying to restart a fiery and impassioned wedding- and it was a good one too. But it might just be time to let it die.

EDIT:

"Tek, yes Kelandon's is better."

This is outright wrong on a factual level. But don't feel obligated to pursue that.

And Silver, are you saying that I'm being cogent with BS? If so, then by all means, expound on that.

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 13:22: Message edited by: Kirk Johnson ]

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #18
TM, it will be a dark day for me if you stop designing for BoA.

Why not just say, in, like, two lines, that Bahssikava's entire storyline is antecedent action, and that it had a ton of filler combat? Why not, then, quickly follow that criticism by remarking on LP's great present-tense plot? Kel's not designing for slobbering masses here; LP is intellectual, whether you agree with it or not.

I wish I'd gotten here before silver edited his stuff away...

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 14:14: Message edited by: PoD person ]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Cartographer
Member # 995
Profile #19
quote:
Originally written by Kirk Johnson:

Eh, I may end up designing in BoE again. There's a high probability, at any rate. My interest is hitting a low regardless. I feel like I'm stretching myself, trying to restart a fiery and impassioned wedding- and it was a good one too. But it might just be time to let it die.
Perhaps you should.

From some of your quotes, you seem to hate JV and everything his world and scenarios and games stand for. You only seemed to enjoy what some people did with one of his games once, some years ago.

quote:
And Silver, are you saying that I'm being cogent with BS? If so, then by all means, expound on that.
The original message said (something like) that because other people besides yourself called the stuff in Canopy 'philosophy', you must be good at marketing.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Thursday, April 18 2002 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #20
That's a valid line of discussion- just not a relevant one.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 5415
Profile #21
While I think Bahss is vastly overrated, TM is the last one who should complain about it. I've never seen anyone so egotistical with so little reason to be. If he hates everything about Jeff's games he really needs to get the heck away from using Jeff's products. If he thinks he'll be more appreciated developing scenarios for other game engines, he should put up or shut up.
Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #22
Ah, ye of the game-design successes whose magnitude is eclipsed only by your vagueness when asked to describe them. Put up or shut up, indeed!

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 15:34: Message edited by: PoD person ]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Guardian
Member # 2238
Profile Homepage #23
I still don't see the point.

You hate Bahss and wish for progress?

I respect (and agree with, to a degree) the decision, but something a little more constructive couldn't have hurt.

But you live for pain, no?

--------------------
DEMON PLAY,
DEMON OUT!
Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 5005
Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by Kirk Johnson:

"Tek, yes Kelandon's is better."

This is outright wrong on a factual level. But don't feel obligated to pursue that.

How can an opinion be factually wrong?

[ Wednesday, May 18, 2005 16:02: Message edited by: Wizcozski ]

--------------------
Beware the Were-Rabbit!
Posts: 45 | Registered: Tuesday, September 21 2004 07:00

Pages