The Dink Network

I know that I really sound stupid for asking this, but are there any D-MODS that just continue your original Dink game. Other that the o=patch of course

All D-Mods are a continuation of the original game. I don't really understand what you mean, really, but I guess there are a few D-Mods that starts with a cutscene saying stuff like "X ammount of years since Dink defeated Seth" and so on, but it's still jsut a regular D-Mod. As for characters used in the original games, I guess there are a few, but nothing signifant enough to be called a Dink 2 game.

Just my two cents.

I think he wants to keep the progress he has made in the main game... Like a dmod that is an update on the main game with more quests.

I don't think that exists, but there are dmods that are better then the main game, don't worry.
Check out the dmod top list: Top-list!

thanks just wanted to see if i could keep my stats and what not

The closest thing that could probably happen with that is a d-mod series where the author gives higher starting stats and difficulty with each d-mod. The whole excuse of "Dink forgot magic and went out of shape" is getting old.

Look into The Catacombs. This one lets you use your savegame from the original game in some weird way. Probably the only one at that.

In my opinion, stats are in the game for balance. It has nothing to do with the story, nothing to do with the game other then making it more fun leveling up and get better in a certain attribute. As I see it, the only thing that could make less sense is why Dink can't cast Hellfire as he learned in the main game. Then again, if this must be an annoying thing, maybe the spells only are temporary.

Just my two pennies.

Im thinking that if someone/ I could be bothered you could make something that makes the monsters level relative to the PC as seen in TES: Oblivion.

hey look!

futchmack
fu-tch-ma-ck
fu-ck-ma-tch

you naughty devil you!

thanks to you for that

Ok but the Transfer it will not load the saved game

Are you using windows? Because anything else hates .exe stuff.

Windows fails at life and Dink runs better and linux anyway

Wrong.

Dink runs better on Windows than Linux, even there are not massive differences. And it's only your problem if you think Windows fails at life.

I'd say that computer programs in general fail at life.

Computers don't have a life to speak of anyway, so therefore it is impossible to say that they 'fail' at it, as you cannot fail at something you can't attempt/don't have.

So, I do not fail for not having a life!?

Well, I guess you can't fail at life if you don't have one or attempt to have one, if you try and make something of yourself but can't then it's a fail.

Linux is better than Windows just because of the fact that it's just as good (if not better) and it's free.

Says a guy who probably had never the original Windows. Dude, you should be thanking Windows for even having Linux. Windows is what brought the modern style of computers to live. Linux is just a free system modified of UniX.

Believe me, Linux is created by a finnish-swedish guy and I am proud of that fact because I am a finn myself, but Windows is just simply better.

Have you tried linux? And I mean really tried?

They both have their advantages and their disadvantages. I must say I really like the latest versions of Ubuntu, though I still remain loyal to my trusty Windows XP.

The only reason I would really have Windows on my computer is that Wine isn't very stable, otherwise I would just sit here with my fully working free software, laughing at those who spend several hundred dollars on a mediocre OS and it's office programs.

Free is bad, unless the "free" is illegal. You'll find it out eventually.

Have you tried linux? And I mean really tried?

They both have their advantages and their disadvantages. I must say I really like the latest versions of Ubuntu, though I still remain loyal to my trusty Windows XP.

Yes, in fact, my dad used to have Linux on his PC, but not anymore though. And sure, I never said Linux doesn't have it's own advantages, but all in all, Windows is better. But I guess it depends on which one you are used to use, really.

My opinion:

Mac: For professional editing of media, even though windows can do it too, Mac seems better. Very shoot for gaming though, very few games have been ported. The most rediculously priced computer you can get, much more expensive than a sinilarly powered PC. Also basically non-customisable.

Windows: For gamers or casual use, can do everything that a Mac can with varying results. Also an alright development platyform, with many SDKs and IDEs available for Windows. A sensibly priced computer will allow you to do pretty much more than any Mac can do, while the more expensive models (still cheaper than a Mac in most cases) will allow you to do preety much anything. Largely customisable.

Linux: I would say that this is the 'hackers' OS, but the word hacker has been brought bad attention. What I mean by this, is that people who like to change their OS and make it their own, edit every last thing possible, they are the true 'hackers'. Moving on, this is probably the cheapest option out there with many free programs. Linux is good at doing a lot of things, but it is specifically good as a development platform. It obviously isn't too good with the latest games, but I had varying success with Wine, so it is much better than the Mac. Fully customisable, more-so than windoes (You can even change the OS) it may be 'too complex' for some, but their are some very user freindly 'distros' out there for people who don't want to fiddle with anything.

Free is bad, unless the "free" is illegal. You'll find it out eventually.

I'm not much of a fighter "for" or "against" different OSes (though I admit I'm a mostly Linux user for its speed and development possibilities), but this is just plain bogus. Depending on your product and the amount of support it gets from developers and users all over, a free product can be just as good if not better than some commercial ones.

Plus you're forgetting something really important: Linux is a free system developed by a LOT of full-time working, paid developers.

How did people start this Windows-vs-Linux flamewar in the first place? The question is about Dink and Dmods, and Dink works fine under both systems.

Plus you're forgetting something really important: Linux is a free system developed by a LOT of full-time working, paid developers.

Ummm... so yeah?

Really? I suggest you research a bit more, then.

Even it may be developed by faggot ass full-time working, paid developers, so is Windows. And Windows is better.

Let's say Linux has about 50% bad things in it and 50% good things in it, while Windows has about 80% good things in it and 20% bad things in it.

And that's my honest opinion and nobody can change it.

If you don't intend to back your opinion up with anything sensible, why keep arguing? You've established you don't like Linux, we get it. Refuting well-thought posts with "its mah opiniah" crap just makes you look stupid.

Two years from now you will look at the bullshoot you're spilling out now, and feel terribly, terribly embarrassed.

And that's my honest opinion and nobody can change it.

Why do you even care to post your opinion then? Really posting opinions without listening to others is pointless.

EDIT: Bleh, why does sir Scratcher always beat me to it?

So, you're once again saying I don't have the right to say my opinion? You can say your opinion aswell but you still don't listen to other peoples' opinions. The only difference beetwen us is, you can't admit it. You are at the exactly same position as I am, so just shut up.

but you still don't listen to other peoples' opinions.

???

I'm prepared to change my opinion if you come with convincing arguments. Personally I prefer windows most of the time as I'm more used to that system and I can get things done more quickly. But I wouldn't say linux is worse then windows, if you have any convincing arguments I'm ready to change my opinion.

Why don't YOU try to convince ME on why Linux is as good as Windows. Seriously, it has more bugs than... I don't know, anything.

I disagree with you Skull... In my opinion - Windows XP / Windows 7 are both great OS but Linux is better if you're used to it, I'd say Linux is the best OS for developers of various sorts, but Windows is best for people like me, who have no interest in anything other than a user-friendly interface.

Unless you write a whole page about why Windows is better then Linux, I won't take you srsly.

Unless you write a whole page about why Windows is better then Linux, I won't take you srsly.

What did I tell ya?

hi im skull, i like my opinion you like to or i hate. bye

lol.

No, actually I told you, that nothing changes your opinions either. And Marpro just proved it.

Ubuntu takes some time to get used to. I don't think you have given it a fair chance as learning how to use it optimally would require months (maybe years) of active use. It's the same thing with windows, but most of us are raised with windows and therefore know it by now.

So before judging Ubuntu you should try it (for a long period of time) and if you don't just shut up.

Why don't YOU try to convince ME on why Linux is as good as Windows. Seriously, it has more bugs than... I don't know, anything.

I'm not trying to convince everyone, I'm stating my personal preference which is based on the fact that I have been working with windows for longer. And since most people I work with use windows I tend to use windows too for easy communication between projects. Also, because you literally stated that your opinion won't be changed by anything I say arguing seems pointless. This simply means you won't listen, why would I say anything then? If you like to know my opinion about windows vs. linux I'm prepared to give a little comparison from my experience, but it has little use if you simply don't plan to listen.

In my opinion it's all about five major considerations: compatability, stability, posibilities, price and what you're used to.

You make the decision on what you think is important.

Also, because you literally stated that your opinion won't be changed by anything I say arguing seems pointless. This simply means you won't listen, why would I say anything then? If you like to know my opinion about windows vs. linux I'm prepared to give a little comparison from my experience, but it has little use if you simply don't plan to listen.

Same goes to you! Only thing is, you are scared of admitting it.

No, I'm prepared to listen. I'm just not prepared to talk to deaf ears, it seems pointless. What point do you want clarification on? I gave my opinion about what considerations are important to me.

I do listen, but it seems like all you others don't.

I'm not trying to prove anything at all, Skull. I've been using Windows since my first computer. It's great because it's supportive to games and useful utilities. I also like the interface. I'm just saying that Linux is better than Windows in other aspects... Some of your arguments so far seem to be based on zero facts - like Windows is better because Linux is a freeware. It doesn't make sense at all.

As I said, I'm not trying to prove anything at all; I'm just saying I think Linux is better than Windows in certain ways and the other way around. I can't see why you're so against it.

Edit: I made joke also. If you noticed it before.

I never said Linux is bad. I just said that in MY opinion Windows is better than Linux. But you guys don't seem to be able to live with that fact.

I am able to live with that fact. Let's be friends again.

I was never a non-friend of yours, y'know. But fine, I'm more than ready to forget about this.

I like Windows XP, most stable version of Windows currently, and compatible. Linux however I can give a few bad points of it to help you on this arguement.

1. Linux used to (not sure about now) forced you to have partitions on your drive, I prefer only 1 or 2 partitions not more than that. It gets confusing and you run out of space quick if you dont know how to set it up properly and balanced. Sure you can get away with partitioning on a 100 Gb Hard Drive. But anything less than that will make Linux run out of hard drive space quickly. I had Red Hat Liniux and switch back to XP for that reason and many others. Linux would have over 5 or 5 partitions on your drive, one for the OS, one for your backups, 1 for your files, one for your bootup, one for your drivers, and so on.... it was scary, and I thought I might mess up my hard drive formatting it and reinstalling Windows.

2. Linux at the time of me having it, had no compatibility with games I had, only a few... It was also made out to be complicated, I had to use commands like in DOS to do stuff and setup stuff, worse than I do in Windows. If I wanted to type commands all day I would just stick to DOS rather than Windows. And the only way they was compatible is if you downloaded the "Linux" version of it.

3. Drivers was another Issue, you have to have pre-downloaded all your drivers for Linux version. When I first installed Linux I did not know this, I figured it would of been smarter than that... which proved another point, Linux is not always WYSIWYG. Now I am sure Linux has changed to fix this issue, but back when I instaled Red Hat... it was a pain. At least Windows XP came with all the drivers you needed and generics, so I could get online instantly. Since I did not have any 56k modem drivers when I installed Linux, I could not go online and download other drivers I needed for Linux to run properly.

4. Linux has some strange games, like kill bill gates, or the Linux and Windows battle thing. They was not that fun, I maybe played them for 5 mins then got tired of them that quickly.

5. If you unintall Linux from your Hard Drive, and try to install Windows again it can and has damaged hard drives. I seen it, and my Dad was surprised I could even format it and still make 1 partition and install Windows again. He has had many customers who Hard drives failed when doing this! BTW, after a year my HD did fail, but I figured it might of been conincendent.

6. I was used to Windows more than Linux anyways! Why fix something that was not broken? I am sorry guys, but alot of people who hate Windows just dont have enough experience of Windows, same with Linux, if you hate Linux in most but not all cases you are not experienced with it. But still, I started with Windows 3.11 If you think XP is bad, try to run Windows 3.11 better yet DOS... then come back, you will be happier trust me!

Don't wanna raise this up again or anything, but one bad thing to say about Linux that it's not very good in downloading stuff imo.

And NOW let's forget about this.

I didn't say it was not good, I said since Linux had no Generic drivers, I could not install other drivers online that I needed to run stuff in Linux.

"I've never seen anyone change his mind because of the power of a superior argument or the acquisition of new facts, but I've seen plenty of people change behavior to avoid being mocked." - Scott Adams

I just summed up this whole debate and why *certain* people will get angry at the other side instead of listening.

Windows. Original. Best - it has Bill Gates.

Linux is great, and if you want windows you can always dual-boot or use the Virtual Box program that creates a false environment in Linux that you can run Windows on. I'm probably gonna get Windows anyway because I have some old games that were made for '98.

I just got Windows 7 yesterday - it's awesome! Even though it's only Home Premium, how many Mac users can make their title bars and windows orange? Hmm? Yeah take THAT Apple! Stupid metallic grey GUI!

Windows is great for gaming and everything. Mac is great when it comes to movie editing and multimedia thingies. I prefer Windows over Mac.

I was used to Windows more than Linux anyways! Why fix something that was not broken?

Wait, you're saying Windows is not broken?

By the way, most of your arguments suffer from the idea that Linux is like a free Windows. It's not and you should read this document if you haven't already.

Didn't you read the quote I put on my third-to-last post? These guys don't care. Facts don't matter as much as their small field of view on this topic.