Creating New Editors for BoA

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Creating New Editors for BoA
Silent Motion BoE Posse Member # 15	written Thursday, November 18 2004 05:14 Profile Homepage #0 First, let me applaud everyone who is working in this area. I think it's a great thing. I'd also like to share some thoughts with you of what these editors could be, if a great deal more effort is invested in their development. When Jeff first started releasing snippets of what BoA was to be, I suggested he needed some good dialog tools that would translate some of the more common tasks (door settings, etc.) into script. He agreed this was a good idea, but it didn't happen. If we want to include a larger developer base in BoA, we need tools that make it easy to develop scenarios. Tools that I'm seeing now are a small step in that direction, but they still require one to understand the underlying scripting paradigm they are based upon. What would be great is a tool that used a different paradigm for the interface, then translated the user's input into scripting. For example, imagine a dialog generator that used a graphical interface, where boxs of text could be inserted and then arrows could tie dialog chunks together. The boxes could be dragged about on the screen and rearranged to visually represent flow. With this tool, you are free to concentrate on the dialog interactions themselves. The code is then generated for you. Just as in Windows or a Mac, dragging an icon is translated into code behind the scenes. There are many benefits to this approach, but the main one here are a larger developer base. That translates to more scenarios, more growth, etc. Now I'm sure some will argure that not all aspects of BoA scripting could be covered by this approach, and you are right. If we make as many things as simple as possible, well, that's a good goal to shoot for. Just some thoughts. IMO, BoE succeeded because it was dialog based - even if those dialogs were primitive. -------------------- 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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Friday, November 19 2004 17:27 Profile Homepage #1 BoA has too much orthogonality for this to really be effective. After AvDialogue is done I'm going to toy with the idea of creating a node-based system, but no guarantees. Oh, and BTW--you wouldn't be able to "drag around" parts of a dialog box. For the most part, they're fixed in place by code. EDIT: My CallWizards idea does what you're talking about, but you have to know how to script. And frankly, I don't want people who can't script making scenarios. If you don't know what you're doing, it's counterproductive to put out slop. [ Friday, November 19, 2004 17:30: Message edited by: Arenax ] Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Friday, November 19 2004 17:31 Profile #2 With an editor though it should be able to work like that. The interface would change the code that fixes the dialogue in place. I suppose that would be rather complicated but it is just an example.... Hmmm would you restrict it to just 100 nodes? or maybe 1000, or much bigger? -------------------- "Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are false'." Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Friday, November 19 2004 17:50 Profile Homepage #3 quote: Originally written by m's avatar: With an editor though it should be able to work like that. The interface would change the code that fixes the dialogue in place. I suppose that would be rather complicated but it is just an example.... Hmmm would you restrict it to just 100 nodes? or maybe 1000, or much bigger? Unlimited nodes, but I'm still limited to 10-99 as states. Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Friday, November 19 2004 23:00 Profile Homepage #4 Arenax, you missed Brett's point rather badly. The idea is that one could create a visually-oriented program that would then write script. The "state =" and "nextstate =" could be represented by lines connecting dialogue text. People who don't know how to script aren't necessarily identical to people who don't know how to write stories and develop interesting scenarios. The idea is that the process of scripting could be made easier, not that people would create scenarios without scripting. -------------------- 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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Saturday, November 20 2004 06:47 Profile Homepage #5 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Arenax, you missed Brett's point rather badly. The idea is that one could create a visually-oriented program that would then write script. The "state =" and "nextstate =" could be represented by lines connecting dialogue text. I caught it, Kel (though I was half-asleep and the "dialog box" part sort of confused me). I was explaining from a technical standpoint why that wouldn't work for most scripts. Dialogue scripts, yes--but even those, not to the extent he's talking about, simply because of the way they're structured. You'd have to restructure them in your own code in order to deal with it, which is possible but unlikely. For instance, try to come up with a way to "visualize" a town script. The only way I can see to do it is with nodes, and that wouldn't work for a host of reasons, most of them dealing with the fact that Avernumscript is not always a linear language. quote: People who don't know how to script aren't necessarily identical to people who don't know how to write stories and develop interesting scenarios. The idea is that the process of scripting could be made easier, not that people would create scenarios without scripting. Anything that removes control from the user will cause problems, especially if the user is not conversant in the ways to solve the problems. Avernumscript is excellent BECAUSE you have control, and abstracting that control will do little but cause problems. EDIT: I can't remember who to credit this saying to, but IIRC, it went something like this: The more simplified something is, the less useful it can be. [ Saturday, November 20, 2004 09:50: Message edited by: Arenax ] Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Morgan Shaper Member # 22	written Saturday, November 20 2004 09:55 Profile #6 That quote presumes you're working with a system that is of sufficient complexity that simplicity would limit its abilities. The dialogue system for BoA is no such thing. It's like saying the invention of the typewriter limited the usefulness of words. [ Saturday, November 20, 2004 09:59: Message edited by: Morgan ] Posts: 2862 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Saturday, November 20 2004 09:59 Profile Homepage #7 quote: Originally written by Morgan: That statement presumes you're working with a system that is of sufficient complexity that simplicity would limit its abilities. The dialogue system for BoA is no such thing. Its like saying the invention of the typewriter limited the usefulness of words. To be frank, if you can't do dialogue by hand, it's unlikely that you grasp the most basic principles of Avernumscript. I made AvDialogue to eliminate the tedium, not to remove the functionality. Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, November 20 2004 15:37 Profile Homepage #8 Let me put it another way: we're not seeking to simplify the system, but rather to represent it in a different way. One could represent the "state =" and "nextstate =" as line connecting text boxes. Those text boxes could be the "text1 =" and "text2 =" and so on. I suppose one could have a "personality =" box above the text boxes. I suppose one could then put an "action =" menu right below the boxes with all of the possible action calls as menu choices. Then underneath that, one could put a "code =" box that could be filled in with optional code. Oh, and above those two, a "condition =" box, which, if not set to 1, would change the color of the connecting lines. After all of this was filled in, one could press a button that says, "Generate script," and it would create a text file with the appropriate code. With enough features (being able to import an already-made script, not creating a code line if nothing was in it so that if the "condition =" box had nothing in it then no condition line would show up in that node, etc), this program could replace scripting dialogue by hand. There's no point in arguing about it, really. I don't have the technical skill to make such a program, so obviously I'm not going to. If Arenax doesn't want to, then he's not going to, either. Someone else may or may not. -------------------- 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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Saturday, November 20 2004 17:37 Profile Homepage #9 If someone provides a document detailed down to the most minute level, I'll take a crack at it. But it's an idea that strikes me as wholly unnecessary and the creation of a floodgate for "kewl i can make a scenario w00t" types. Maybe I'm wrong--but that's what BoE had for a long time. EDIT: And you're still seeking to simplify it. :-P [ Saturday, November 20, 2004 17:39: Message edited by: Arenaqs ] Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Saturday, November 20 2004 22:22 Profile #10 Seems that some people would like no scenarios rather than ones that aren't "made the right way". -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
EDWARD, HAMMER OF THE SCOTS Warrior Member # 5091	written Saturday, November 20 2004 22:32 Profile #11 quote: Originally written by Arenquacks: *The more simplified something is, the less useful it can be.* Other examples: alphabetic writing vs. ideographic, the wheel. Complex systems are simply what arises out of the interactions of simple components. Even your computer is, at its base, a series of aggregations of simple components. All of your software is composed out of a rather simple, limited set of hardware instructions. Complexity does not render utility; flexibility does. It is a fatal error (albeit common to programmers) to conflate the two. Posts: 180 \| Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00
Drakefyre Triad Mage Member # 7	written Sunday, November 21 2004 03:39 Profile Homepage #12 IMO, what would be the best would be something exactly like the BoE dialogue editor but for BoA. And a lot of people would probably use a monster/item/terrain editor like BoE's too. -------------------- "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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Sunday, November 21 2004 06:32 Profile Homepage #13 quote: Originally written by Drakefyre: IMO, what would be the best would be something exactly like the BoE dialogue editor but for BoA. This is something I feel safe in calling impossible. The two operate on entirely different principles. BoE's dialogue editor was kludge and relied upon a system incompatible with BoA's. quote: And a lot of people would probably use a monster/item/terrain editor like BoE's too. ...Oh teh nos, something slightly complex that can be done with but a very simply program! o.O Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but the current system works well and is considerably more powerful than BoE's. Dumbing it down is a bad idea. Oh, and Walker: Computers are not levers. Complexity in a programming language or scripting language almost always confers flexibility. The removal of a language's complexity almost always reduces utility. I can come up with examples to prove the opposite and I'm sure you can too--but they're few and far between. Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Sunday, November 21 2004 07:45 Profile Homepage #14 Representing a system in a different way is not dumbing it down. I myself understand dialogue pretty well, but it would be easier if it were represented visually. For two years in high school physics, my teacher forced us to draw diagrams for every physics problem that we got. Was that dumbing down the problem? It's not removing complexity. All of the components are still there. It's a matter of changing the representation. Simplifying something only becomes a problem when you lose utility, and the program that I'm imagining would not erase any components. Programs have been made that do individual parts of a custom objects script already, but they aren't very good, not because they dumb down the system — they're actually easier to use than writing raw code — but because they don't have enough features. They can't handle more than one object at a time, and they can each only do one type of object, for instance. Arenax, I recommend you look at the description that I posted above and tell me exactly what would be missing from such a program. What could one do writing raw code that one could not do with the program that I described above? Similarly, take a look at an editor for custom objects scripts that has already been made and tell me what one could do writing raw code that one could not do with such a program. This creature editor and its cousins need more features, certainly, but I challenge you to tell me how they are less powerful than scripting directly. -------------------- 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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Sunday, November 21 2004 07:57 Profile Homepage #15 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Representing a system in a different way is not dumbing it down. I myself understand dialogue pretty well, but it would be easier if it were represented visually. For two years in high school physics, my teacher forced us to draw diagrams for every physics problem that we got. Was that dumbing down the problem? Don't get me started on physics and diagrams. quote: It's not removing complexity. All of the components are still there. It's a matter of changing the representation. Simplifying something only becomes a problem when you lose utility, and the program that I'm imagining would not erase any components. Now we come to something of a slippery-slope argument. On its own, this design is acceptable (but not one I'd personally use, as I dislike the entire idea of visualizing it because I don't find it necessary). But once you simplify dialogue--what must now be done is simplify script editing, which is where the real problem lies. The only real issue with your design is that coding it would be awfully difficult and probably out of my league if I wanted it to be cross-platform. I'm not saying it's not possible for others--but the benefits are outweighed by the inherent issues. I wrote AvDialogue because I needed something to speed up writing dialogue, not to idiot-proof it for me or make it more "understandable," because as it stands Avernumscript is perfectly understandable. quote: Programs have been made that do individual parts of a custom objects script already, but they aren't very good, not because they dumb down the system — they're actually easier to use than writing raw code — but because they don't have enough features. They can't handle more than one object at a time, and they can each only do one type of object, for instance. Gimme a week after I release AvDialogue2, okay? I'll fix that little problem. (And once I do that, kick me so I remember.) quote: Arenax, I recommend you look at the description that I posted above and tell me exactly what would be missing from such a program. What could one do writing raw code that one could not do with the program that I described above? Nothing. However, the GUI-based complexity of such a design makes it very prohibitive. quote: Similarly, take a look at an editor for custom objects scripts that has already been made and tell me what one could do writing raw code that one could not do with such a program. This creature editor and its cousins need more features, certainly, but I challenge you to tell me how they are less powerful than scripting directly.[/QB] I can't, because I can't get to the website. :P Besides, this sort of thing is not actual scripting so much as it is data entry. These don't bother me nearly so much as the people who want a BoE-style node editor (which I've explained as somewhere between unlikely and impossible). I make programs that I would use, and the visualization stuff isn't something I'd use, so I probably wouldn't make it. That's just how I am. Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Sunday, November 21 2004 08:42 Profile Homepage #16 quote: Originally written by Arenax: Now we come to something of a slippery-slope argument. On its own, this design is acceptable (but not one I'd personally use, as I dislike the entire idea of visualizing it because I don't find it necessary). But once you simplify dialogue--what must now be done is simplify script editing, which is where the real problem lies. Again, you're taking this to a different place than I am. I agree with Brett, who said, "Now I'm sure some will argure that not all aspects of BoA scripting could be covered by this approach, and you are right. If we make as many things as simple as possible, well, that's a good goal to shoot for." Let's make dialogue and custom objects script editors now, because making good editors for those scripts is far easier than for town scripts and no such editors exist, and we can worry about town script editors later. They may not use the same ideas at all. However, if a town script editor included all of the same capabilities as writing raw script — and I'm not sure I would make the distinction that you make between "data entry" and "real scripting," because what I'm suggesting may be "data entry" — then I couldn't argue with it. The goal is not to dumb this down so that we have BoE all over again; the goal is to make the system more user-friendly so that people who can write good stories won't have to worry about learning how to program in order to make scenarios. BoA has the inherent problem that the people who are capable of writing good stories and therefore plots that we would want to role-play are usually not the same people as the ones who can code very well. To put it another way, math/science/computer people are usually different from humanities people. But ultimately we would like to attract writers as well as technical innovators, because the writers are the ones who will make good scenarios. Any editor aid that will make it easier for humanities people to write a scenario — and has the same abilities as writing raw script — seems like a good thing. The only real issue with your design is that coding it would be awfully difficult and probably out of my league if I wanted it to be cross-platform. I'm not saying it's not possible for others--but the benefits are outweighed by the inherent issues. Inherent issues? It seems like you're saying that my idea is bad because it would be hard for you personally to program. I'm not asking you to program it, and you are not the only programmer out there. I'm going to learn C and C++ one of these days — over Winter Break I'll start, probably — and I may make this program myself. To be more explicit: I'm not really talking in your direction, Arenax. Not everything is about you. I wrote AvDialogue because I needed something to speed up writing dialogue, not to idiot-proof it for me or make it more "understandable," because as it stands Avernumscript is perfectly understandable. That's great. However, you know multiple programming languages. Other people don't. One shouldn't have to learn C in order to make a scenario, at least in my opinion. We want people who can write good stories. Also, certain people around here think that it's important to work for the community and not just for one's self. My favorite thread on any message board ever has entire paragraphs relating to this. To quote Alcritas: "I believe it is the responsibility of every member of any community, including the BOE community, to contribute to the community's strength and well being.... I find the view that individuals do not bear any ethical or moral responsibilty to contribute to a community they receive benefits from nothing short of pathetic." One can replace everything he says about "fun" with "useful to me" and the same argument would apply (probably better) to this situation. Besides, I don't really understand what the problem is with the "kewl i can make a scenario w00t" mentality. BoE has almost 250 scenarios. Roughly a third of those are garbage that no one would want to play anymore. However, you of all people should understand this, Arenax, because you were around for the early years of BoE: activity in a community is good. A bad scenario released is better than no scenario at all. Where would BoE be if the only scenarios released during the first year were Tatterdemalion, Nephil's Gambit, Requelle's Nightmare, RotS and DotS, and Islands of the Wheel? BoE had dozens of scenarios released over the first year, and it was better for that flurry of activity, even though for every Nephil's Gambit there was a Compositus. I think that the day when Micael releases Undead Valley will be a good day for the community, because it's a new scenario. Never mind that it's bad; it's still a scenario that people can play. We have people who like fighting in the arena in the HLPM, for crying out loud. We as designers should give the players what they want, and the overwhelming consensus is they want new scenarios, regardless of quality. Wow, this turned into a long rant. I'll be coming back to these points repeatedly over the next few months, probably. -------------------- 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
Morgan Shaper Member # 22	written Sunday, November 21 2004 09:47 Profile #17 Let me try and evaluate your position here, Arenax. You're being so unbelievably elitist that you can't even begin to comprehend that there are different disciplines involved in designing a scenario, of which the actual programming is probably the least important. And yet you maintain such an enormous ego that obviously believes that if somebody wants something that makes their job a little easier it must therefore follow that they are guilty of "dumbing down". Like Kelandon said, I fail to see the problem with newbies creating scenarios. The very notion that you woulod hold such an idea as being undesirably is indicative of your incomprehensible elitism. Case in point - TM came to this community with Streila Spies, a pretty horrible scenario, yet his latest effort for BoE, NTH, is considered to be one of BoE's finest. Ok, so for every person like TM you have a lost_king or Vince Fizz. But I'd rather make things easier for newbies in the hope of one shining designer to break the mould than shut the doors completely to new blood, leaving a community to completely stagnate. Posts: 2862 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Sunday, November 21 2004 10:19 Profile Homepage #18 quote: Originally written by Morgan: [b]Let me try and evaluate your position here, Arenax. You're being so unbelievably elitist that you can't even begin to comprehend that there are different disciplines involved in designing a scenario, of which the actual programming is probably the least important. Show me a well-written scenario in which the writer was not a capable programmer. I seriously doubt that you can, with perhaps one or two exceptions. quote: [qb] And yet you maintain such an enormous ego that obviously believes that if somebody wants something that makes their job a little easier it must therefore follow that they are guilty of "dumbing down".[/b] Tell me--who's making the tools to make things easier for people? Seems like I'm the main one on the Windows side right now, and I'm working on going multiplatform. What I am against are tools that abstract things to too great a degree. Dialogue editors are fine; my only problem with Kelandon's suggestion is one of programming complexity, not usefulness (well, that and my personal aesthetics, which don't involve that sort of thing). quote: Like Kelandon said, I fail to see the problem with newbies creating scenarios. The very notion that you woulod hold such an idea as being undesirably is indicative of your incomprehensible elitism. I played BoE a long time ago, and very nearly stopped playing shortly afterwards, primarily because of lousy scenarios. I beat Nephil's Gambit, Tatterdemalion, and the others good ones; what more was there to do besides make my own scenarios (which I did)? Not much, considering the pure agony most of the early scenarios were. I have nothing against newbies making scenarios--but I've been around long enough not to have a problem with it. Others may. quote: Case in point - TM came to this community with Streila Spies, a pretty horrible scenario, yet his latest effort for BoE, NTH, is considered to be one of BoE's finest. Wouldn't know, I don't have BoE anymore. However, from what I've seen, I agree with you so far. quote: Ok, so for every person like TM you have a lost_king or Vince Fizz. Or four of them. quote: But I'd rather make things easier for newbies in the hope of one shining designer to break the mould than shut the doors completely to new blood, leaving a community to completely stagnate. As would I--but creating dumbed-down tools isn't the answer. More effective methods of teaching how to use the software--better tutorials, etc--are. Editors to remove tedium? Sure. That's what AvDialogue2 is for. But editors that simply do things for a user who doesn't understand the principles behind them? No. Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Morgan Shaper Member # 22	written Sunday, November 21 2004 12:35 Profile #19 quote: Show me a well-written scenario in which the writer was not a capable programmer. I seriously doubt that you can, with perhaps one or two exceptions. And of course, you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that you can do without programming. But I think we should be aiming for allowing people who are good writers but not necessarily excellent programmers to create scenarios as well as those who do both. quote: Tell me--who's making the tools to make things easier for people? Seems like I'm the main one on the Windows side right now, and I'm working on going multiplatform. What I am against are tools that abstract things to too great a degree. Dialogue editors are fine; my only problem with Kelandon's suggestion is one of programming complexity, not usefulness (well, that and my personal aesthetics, which don't involve that sort of thing). The whole point of BoA full stop is to simplify programming for the less able. Are you actually suggesting that because BoA is simpler to use than say, C++, it has no right to exist? If we're using that logic, then we are already far, far down the supposed slippery slope. quote: I played BoE a long time ago, and very nearly stopped playing shortly afterwards, primarily because of lousy scenarios. What you are describing is exactly the same for every artistic medium you care to mention. But was the invention of the printing press a good or a bad thing for literature? Sure, you had a lot more crap seeping through, but you also had a lot more good. quote: Editors to remove tedium? Sure. That's what AvDialogue2 is for. But editors that simply do things for a user who doesn't understand the principles behind them? No. I don't even begin to understand the principles behind BoA, does that mean that I'm not qualified to make a scenario? Again with the elitism. Posts: 2862 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Khoth Post Navel Trauma ^_^ Member # 67	written Sunday, November 21 2004 12:40 Profile Homepage #20 I notice that you are writing your things in Basic, rather than assembler. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 \| Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Sunday, November 21 2004 13:50 Profile Homepage #21 What I don't understand, Arenax, is against whom or what you're arguing. No one wants dumbed-down tools. The question is how to create tools that have the same power as handling raw script and are easier to handle. I don't know how you manage to start bickering on every thread that you enter. I think Imban's characterization fits well: "You clearly do not play well with others." EDIT: For instance, you may notice that no one on this thread has suggested a node-based town script editor. Why you would discuss a town script editor when you haven't finished porting your dialogue script editor or even made your custom objects script editor yet, I don't know. One thing at a time, dude! [ Sunday, November 21, 2004 13:51: 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
Arenax Shock Trooper Member # 5181	written Sunday, November 21 2004 13:55 Profile Homepage #22 quote: Originally written by Morgan: quote: Show me a well-written scenario in which the writer was not a capable programmer. I seriously doubt that you can, with perhaps one or two exceptions. And of course, you missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that you can do without programming. But I think we should be aiming for allowing people who are good writers but not necessarily excellent programmers to create scenarios as well as those who do both. Certainly. Why else would I have conceived of the CallWizard idea for AvScript? Morgan, I never once said that a degree of simplification isn't good. But too great of an extent results in a nice wide stream of crap. Code assistants make sense--they reduce time and also provide a reference for people looking to improve upon their knowledge. Something that codes FOR you, which is the primary thing I'm against (a node-editor script system, which has been mentioned previously), doesn't teach you. quote: quote: Tell me--who's making the tools to make things easier for people? Seems like I'm the main one on the Windows side right now, and I'm working on going multiplatform. What I am against are tools that abstract things to too great a degree. Dialogue editors are fine; my only problem with Kelandon's suggestion is one of programming complexity, not usefulness (well, that and my personal aesthetics, which don't involve that sort of thing). The whole point of BoA full stop is to simplify programming for the less able. Are you actually suggesting that because BoA is simpler to use than say, C++, it has no right to exist? If we're using that logic, then we are already far, far down the supposed slippery slope. Avernumscript is a scripting language. C++ is a programming language. It only makes sense that there is a level of simplification. In this case, it makes it manageable. In the concept that you folks seem to be arguing for, it makes it unmanageable. quote: quote: I played BoE a long time ago, and very nearly stopped playing shortly afterwards, primarily because of lousy scenarios. What you are describing is exactly the same for every artistic medium you care to mention. But was the invention of the printing press a good or a bad thing for literature? Sure, you had a lot more crap seeping through, but you also had a lot more good. We've gone over this before. "Good" work comes from people who are both good writers/designers and good programmers. If the writing, designing, or programming are lacking, so is the scenario. A program can't make your scenario for you, no matter how much you might wish it could. quote: quote: Editors to remove tedium? Sure. That's what AvDialogue2 is for. But editors that simply do things for a user who doesn't understand the principles behind them? No. I don't even begin to understand the principles behind BoA, does that mean that I'm not qualified to make a scenario? Again with the elitism. Frankly, yes, it does. If you cannot understand the scripting system, I don't see how you can grasp what possibilities it provides--and so the likelihood of you making any sort of scenario that's more than just playable is remote at best. [ Sunday, November 21, 2004 13:57: Message edited by: Arenaqs ] Posts: 262 \| Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00
Dastal Warrior Member # 3610	written Sunday, November 21 2004 17:52 Profile #23 You want me to show you an amazing scenario written by someone who can't program? Pick your favorite commercial game. [All games in a series are included]: · Baldur's Gate · Neverwinter Nights · Ultima · Kings Quest · Diablo And that's just RPG's. All of them were written, designed, and produced by and large by people who had very little knowledge of programming. The coders were essentially just drones. In the broader world, why should you be able to eat if you can't grow your own grains, fruits, and vegies, and raise your own cows. Can you do all of the number crunching required to figure out how to display your commands? Heck, can you convery your programming commands into ons and offs? If your premise is "we should not have mechanisms to simplify coding into a more accessable interface," aren't you a bit of a hypocrite in using Blades of Avernum's editor instead of making your own game, or even using a computer instead of creating your own custom single-game console? [ Sunday, November 21, 2004 17:54: Message edited by: Dastal ] Posts: 129 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Sunday, November 21 2004 18:43 Profile #24 The Leaving is a good scenario that has very little technical complexity. Also, I thought Malkriss was pretty good, despite being quite simplistic and buggy. Brett Bixler has a decent grasp of BoE's nodes, but that's more through determination than natural aptitude. Most of his stuff is pretty simple. More exotic sequences, like the animation in Quintessence, end up a bit clumsy. All of these would be improved by a visual-based system to help make scripting easier. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00