Creating New Editors for BoA
Pages
| Author | Topic: Creating New Editors for BoA |
|---|---|
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, November 21 2004 18:48
Profile
Homepage
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? 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. 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. God. I can't believe you're really arguing that you shouldn't be making a tool. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4942
|
written Sunday, November 21 2004 19:30
Profile
For me, I would really like to design with BoA, and earn some respect out there, and most importantly, to make a good scenario. I am having some problems getting my copy of BoA, but it will (hopefully) come soon. I kind of got the BoE-node thing down, but I have not had the time to throw a scenario out there... maybe sometime in the future. I really want to design for BoA when it is still new and fresh. I am not really programming-savvy, so I have a feeling I will have a hard time with this scripting thing. Newbs like me will need some help to make scenarios, and like TM said, how can you debate NOT making a tool? -------------------- Wham Bam Shizam Posts: 247 | Registered: Monday, September 6 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, November 21 2004 20:17
Profile
Homepage
In the absence of tools, use text editors. Look at the BoA editor to identify a place where something happened, and then look it up with a text editor. Then read the manual (the appendices are worth more than the normal docs) to understand the calls. Then do it some more. Eventually, you'll be knowledgeable enough to make a fearsome goblin dungeon. And you can build up from there. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 643
|
written Sunday, November 21 2004 21:12
Profile
Well, I have learned C++ and Visual Basic, I haven't caught got the hang of C++ yet but still more experience then the average person. Yet I would still prefer a visual tool for creating BoA script. I suppose I could teach myself, but who really wants to spend all their time learning with what is essentially supposed to be a game? -------------------- Fine Meal is people!!! Posts: 289 | Registered: Saturday, February 16 2002 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 01:17
Profile
Homepage
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. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 15
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 05:31
Profile
Homepage
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. BoA's current scripting system will never allow them to express those stories. Tools that translate a visual metaphor into script would help them. What we have now only allows a small subset of the population to create a scenario. I'm not critizing anyone for not developing these tools - it would require a tremendous effort to do so. 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. 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. -------------------- All that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream. Visit the Louvre, the BoA Graphics Database at http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/boa/louvre/ Visit Alexandria, the BoE Scenario Database at http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/boe/alexandriajs/ Posts: 653 | Registered: Thursday, September 27 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:23
Profile
Homepage
quote: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). Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 154
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:33
Profile
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. -------------------- Apparently still annoying. Posts: 612 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:33
Profile
Homepage
quote: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: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: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:The subset who want to put effort in and actually work at making a scenario, sure. quote: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: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: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. Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:.NET is bad. That is all. (I've never touched it and never will.) Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 154
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:36
Profile
Thank you for your support. .NET is incredibly evil. 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. 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. [ Monday, November 22, 2004 06:37: Message edited by: Lemon-Flavoured Oracle ] -------------------- Apparently still annoying. Posts: 612 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:40
Profile
Homepage
quote: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: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: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: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. Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 06:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:And in other news, the sky is blue! quote: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: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.) [ Monday, November 22, 2004 06:42: Message edited by: Arenaqs ] Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 07:37
Profile
Homepage
Arenax, our discussions on AIM and your posts here do not match up. No one — except apparently m's avatar over PM — has suggested a tool that would simplify scripting to the point that it would no longer have the power of writing raw script. You're arguing against people when you don't actually disagree with them. Also, no one has suggested making such a tool mandatory for making a scenario; if someone makes it and you don't like it, don't use it. To make a simple analogy: you write code, not assembly language. Code covers up how the computer actually thinks. Would you say that people should learn assembly language and never C? Furthermore, would you say that people should learn machine language and write code in hexadecimal rather than learning C? After all, C hardly resembles machine language, but the computer works in the machine language and C just covers it up. You are starting to sound elitist. "People should SUFFER in order to write scenarios! If they don't understand the Appendices, they are WEAK OF SPIRIT and DON'T DESERVE TO BE DESIGNERS! If I can do it, then SO CAN THEY!" Arenax, stop arguing against people with whom you don't actually disagree. -------------------- 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
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 08:37
Profile
Homepage
quote: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. 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. 2) This is not a disadvantage that harms any party involved- more people who would otherwise be unmotivated make scenarios. The other disadvantage, of course, is no scenarios from those who would otherwise make 'em. You try to convince me that yours is worse. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 08:39
Profile
quote:Spoken like a true programmer. Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:They may be able to tell a story--but not write a quality scenario. Scenarios are more than story. quote: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: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:Fewer good scenarios > many bad scenarios. Elitist? Probably. Accurate? Said Boolean evaluates to True. :P Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 55
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:06
Profile
Homepage
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. Posts: 236 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:18
Profile
Homepage
quote: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. Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 15
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:18
Profile
Homepage
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. -------------------- All that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream. Visit the Louvre, the BoA Graphics Database at http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/boa/louvre/ Visit Alexandria, the BoE Scenario Database at http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/boe/alexandriajs/ Posts: 653 | Registered: Thursday, September 27 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:20
Profile
Homepage
quote: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. Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:22
Profile
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. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:1) Never touched RPG Maker (thank God). 2) There's seriously an Undead Valley scenario? ...I was using that as a stereotypical example... ...Damn. Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:23
Profile
The consensus has been the latter for a very long time. It's one of the major points of contention between the community and Vogel. Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 55
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 09:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think that the amount of really, really horrible BoA scenarios out there, even with some editing help, will never rival the volume of blindingly agonizing BoE scenarios, because even with an easier editor, there's some serious thinking to be done there. I just think the gains in utility and ease for everybody outweigh the fact that there will be more BoA scenarios and yes, quite a few of them will suck. Posts: 236 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |