The Dink Network

So, inspired by the recent poll, I began thinking, what could actually be done to Dink? What could make the original game better? What features could we add, what bugs could we fix? What can still be done to Dink Smallwood to improve the game?

So I have a proposition for everybody. I say, we all make suggestions as to what we would like to see in future versions of Dink. It hasn't been updated for quite a long time, and I think it's time to end this drought. And, perhaps in future, someone will get up the effort to modify the engine and provide us all with seedy pleasure... hopefully.

But even so, I think it would be fun to propose ideas as to what else we would like to see in Dink. Whether we've heard them before or they're completely unique.

What do you say?

No. Seth would never work on this anymore, nor would anyone on the Dink Network.

Wow, way to be negative. And besides "But even so, I think it would be fun to propose ideas as to what else we would like to see in Dink."

Even if you're incredibly pessimistic, would it not be interesting to see what ideas people have as to what they'd like to see in Dink?

Possibly. But I'm not sure an Engine Update would be so easy. What would we do with the updated DFArc?

Beuc

Haven't seen him in a while...

Okay, Skorn, quite being negative, this is simply an ideas thread. Now stop being such a wanker.

Yes, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

Now about this topic, how could we improve on this? There doesn't seem to be much else we CAN do.

EDIT: Still waiting on that Dink MMORPG. That would probably satisfy Dinkers who aren't happy with the current Engine.

Beuc is summoned when FreeDink is mentioned. So, he will probably come now.

Any update to Dink should probably be coordinated by Beuc, since he maintains FreeDink. If anyone wants v1.09, they should ask him. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't interested though, especially due to the massive underappreciation FreeDink has received from this community.

I'll kick off the ideas with: Strings. I would like to see the capability for string support in Dink. Wouldn't strings be cool? I love the word 'strings'.

Freedink is generally considered to be the replacement for the original Dink engine.

More datatype friendly and support more datatrypes other than void and integers.
Logical operators would be nice.
For, each and while loops.
Arrays
Database support as well.

Fix bugs such as the one where you can hit the ducks through the fence in Windemere. The mountain side walking bug is still there. It would be nice to throw unneeded items away. More spells, and more level ups allowed cause I know some people would like them. Then of course finish the unfinished areas. I don't really know, there are so many things that I would like to see still added/fixed for Dink that most likely ain't gonna happen, but still I feel the game is good enough the way it is.

I'd rather some of the remaining limitations are removed than adding new areas or whatever to the core game. I agree that FreeDink hasn't received much attention, but the reason for that is simple I think, for now it offers little that we don't already have in the original game, so why change over to FreeDink? I can see that change in the future though if Beuc continues to improve and perhaps add new things to it

As for a 1.09, I think we'll see this when Seth releases his Dink for iPhone. He did state the changes made to the iPhone code could easily be ported to PC.

If the game is still improved, it should be done from FreeDink, not 1.08. The codebase is a lot cleaner, and it's portable, which would it make a much better starting point.

If anything had to be added, I'd say I'd like to see better variable support before any other new feature. That is, being able to actually use things like strings and arrays.

You can also walk through a gap in the hardness at the bridge in the secret duck island, just like I did in the last part of my speedrun video.

I have an idea to change win dink edit +, 'cause I'm frustrated with scripting. I don't know will anyone here would like to change that, 'çouse eveyone around here moslty knows how to script.

Let's see. We could ask Seth for the original ideas and storyboard to have everything he wanted in. I remember something called 'port town' being mentioned in the game. Then if someone manages that, then TDN as a whole could contribute to it. Say that all of the people who are good at scripting could work together to get all of the actions needed for side quests and the like. Jobs could be added and a day/night sequence. So if Dink were to spend time earning money working for a (Blacksmith?) for (50 Gp). A few ideas that come to mind is a magical kingdom floating in the sky, A technologically advanced civilization ruled by a tyrant, and a few new races of sentient and primal creatures. To give the game something more. I'd personally make up a side quest where he goes back in time to find his father.

I had a quest pack made at one time, it sucked then, but the ideas were all there. Pretty much it added a bridge to the area west (or east...or something, it's been a while) of Windemere and put a city of wizards on it. Again, not much to the city because it was a long time ago. It also added the ability to buy Charlie's house, and there was a quest that went with it. That's pretty much all it did though. It would be pretty awesome if people that had much better scripting abilities than I do could create a bunch of new quests utilizing all the things that were never put to use in Dink.

No one could possibly hope to top the Isle of the Pigs.

I really think we need to start improving, stagnant open-source games are like old-guys who stop eating. They slowly die.

Engine updates would be cool, and I think what we need is a more malleable system that allows a wider spectrum of D-mod ideas. For those who say it's going to take too long, it will take even longer if we don't stop.

And eventually, hardware and software development will outpace us and we will collapse.

The easiest way to fix hardness bugs would just be to replace the original hard.dat with redink1's hard.dat.

I believe you're right in only one thing, it would be cool to have a bigger area possibility in D-Mods.

However, judging by the passed years, Dink won't die for a looong time. Old ones go, new ones come.

DinkC isn't that limiting, with some imagination you can do almost anything; even if it would be easier and smoother with a better language. Some things that I would like to see is variables that can handle arrays and strings as mentioned above but also ways to handle multiple statements with "or", "and" etc.
Oh and of course, it would be nice to be able to use PNGs with transparent background.

(thanks for the beep Someone )

It sounds difficult to write any moderately complex enhancement to the engine.

- It's easy to break compatibility with existing D-Mods

- While I cleaned-up the "senses" of the engine (screen, keyboard, sound, etc.), the "brains" (DinkC parser, sprite management, etc.) are still much messy; and cleaning-up while preserving backward-compatibility takes an insane amount of time.

(FreeDink still brings Ogg Vorbis/MODs audio support, a translations system, and mainly portability )

I'm contemplating the idea of rewriting the engine with more solid foundations, keeping the current graphics, but no playing of previous D-Mods. The original game could be ported to this new engine. I've experimented a bit with Python/Pygame/OpenGL in that regard. I'm currently busy on another project but I could spend more time on it if there's interest.

Backward compatibility is an interesting topic and I'm still unsure about what's best:
- continue playing old games, but complexify your engine, to the point of making it unmaintainable
- request users to update their games regularly for newer versions of the engine. But often authors disappeared shortly after releasing their D-Mod; in any case I think it's good that authors allow other people to update their D-Mods if they don't do it themselves, like we did for v1.08.
What do you think?

I don't think it's worth making a MMORPG Dink, because there're already several similar Free 2D mmorpg around (Stendhal, The Mana World, Deliantra). What I like in Dink is the ability to tell a story. MMORPG is a different beast.

MMORPG = bad idea that will never be finished.

Rewrite of the engine without backwards compatibility but more features (transparency! unlimited variables!) and support for the original graphics = Yes please

I looked at the code of the original Dink. Forget trying to update that, it's a huge waste of time and will likely just mess stuff up you didn't expect.

FreeDink. (There I buzzed Beuc back in case he forgets about this, let's be tenacious^^)

Beuc++;

Adding new DinkC functions is easy (I run a custom freedink version with some functions added, just to see if I could), but adding completely new language constructs (strings, arrays, for/while loops, etc...) is an entirely different thing

(note: only applicable to freedink, since I still can't get the original Dink to compile... hopefully this'll become possible once the iPhone Dink exists, which doesn't have the annoying DirectX dependency)

Features, hellfire, not ideas for Dmods.

I'm certainly all for the idea of your rewriting the engine, Beuc. Inability to play previous D-Mods with the new version is a minor setback compared to how insanely awesome a rewrite would be. Besides, how difficult is it to just keep a separate copy of 1.08 for the old stuff?

I'm sure the majority of the community would back you up if you go for this.

Beuc+++. But only after completing the PSP-Dink

The idea to create a new engine is thrilling. That it is not compatible with the old versions would be a small issue. In my opinion not worth to think about. The bad thing with the new engine is that it is a hugh investment in time and testing. And afterwards to get the additional tools around will take time as well.

I would be happy with the freedink version as well. Unfortunately it has a lot of issues as the original Dink. E.g. in Freedink the get_next_sprite_with_this_brain is not working properly (that was the reason when I gave freedink up for Forest of Doom).
+ In both engines the init("load_sequence_now..."); does not work as expected.
+ The sp_frame_delay works if you want to increase the delay time. If you decrease it nothing happens (e.g. sp_frame_delay(10000); -> animations 'stops' -> sp_frame_delay(33); -> animation still not moving).
+ In the dink engine the issue with the exact writing of statements: If you write if(&a==1) it will not work you have to write if(&a == 1)
+ In the dink engine its strange that animations on slots other than ..6 (e.g. 806) will run forever if you start them for a one time reverse animation: e.g. sp_reverse(&arg1, 0); sp_seq(&arg1, &cur_seq); sp_frame(&arg1, 1);
+ sp_script called twice for one sprite kills the calling script

If there is support for arrays, strings, logical operations then I would be happy with either original Dink or Freedink.

If you are going to rewrite the engine, at least keep the cusyomisability that D-Mods have! That way people could convert classics into the new format or make new adventures.

That it is not compatible with the old versions would be a small issue.

We have 319 DMODs, saying that it's nothing more than a small issue sounds like the understatement of the century.

"That it is not compatible with the old versions would be a small issue.

We have 319 DMODs, saying that it's nothing more than a small issue sounds like the understatement of the century."

The old DMods are to be played on 1.08. So where's the problem?
Make a clean cut and you can have both: old and new DMods

Yeah I also don't really see the problem with no backwards compatibility. It's not like it would be a litereal 1.09 patch that everyone upgrades too. It's a seperate engine, it doesn't even have to be called d-mod (but I suggest it would be)

Could be interesting to see Dink capable of running custom made "movies" or the like for intros and cut scenes etc., that could leave more scope for imagination maybe...

But it would also lag pretty bad. I'm not sure it would be easy to make animated cutscenes in the Dink Engine.

Pretty much every other game I have ever played that has animated cutscenes doesn't lag that much.

I remember they worked on movie playing for Dink years back, but due to a really big security issue or something that could compromise your computer, the development was stopped.

Aural+ can play AVI's using playmidi... I played around with it a while ago and I think it comes up in a seperate window which you then need to close manually to get back to Dink.

Why would it lag? First of all, it's an old game requiring little resources to run, so it would be able to play those animations just fine, and secondly, AVI support is already implemented because the original commercial version of the game had it. It just needs to be revived to be used.

* No, let's focus on other things

Comment?

Let's focus on other things.

* Yes, there are still some bugs to fix.

I don't really know why people want more features so bad. If it had much more features, at least I would have the feeling that it wasn't Dink anymore.

They don't have to be game-changing feature additions. Just there for convenience, to help improve the scripting experience, for example. Loops would be nice.

As long as it supports the same set of resources, I don't see how it wouldn't feel like Dink anymore That's like saying a car's no longer a car if it has 4 doors instead of 2. It still does the same stuff, only better

But it's not a car if it has two doors!!

- Double the map size.
- Infinite globals.
- Make stand-alone downloads possible. i.e - Not needing to download the original game before playing Ogre Story.
- Various other tweaks that others have mentioned.

Stuff backwards compatibility. We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling!

I think if we want to update Dink, we need to know what elements we want to keep and what to toss out. Backwards compatibility would have to be forgotten for any substantial additions as Beuc said. If we suppose the essence of Dink is free & open source (GNU), powerful scripting language, rpg, rendering/sound/etc. done for us internally in the engine (intentionally out of our control), then how to make a better Dink is obvious. But I've often wondered that, if this is the essence of Dink, then is there already a better Dink? If so, the project would be pointless.

If we are comfortable with tossing aside backwards compatibility then we should do the wholesale replacement of DinkC with some other language. Beuc mentioned to me a couple of years ago that there are pre-existent languages that can be added, which would probably be easier than writing an entire new language. Then we would have infinite globals, loops, full logic, etc. Also, it would seem relatively easy to make the map size indefinite if we can write a new map format. Most of the suggestions in this thread seem to be pretty smallfry relative to what can be done (if we let go of backwards compatibility).

I also think that, if a 'better' Dink doesn't already exist, then such a project would be a significant contribution to the gaming community as a whole, and much more important than Dink ever was.

Wouldn't novashell technically be a better choice if you don't value backwards compatibility? I think Seth already made a test game using Dink's original map, so it wouldn't be impossible to import Dink's graphics...

I think most of us have some feeling with the game itself and everything that surrounds it rather than just with a good RPG engine. So we'd have to think about what makes this game 'Dink'. To me the DMODs that have been made up to this date are a valuable part of this, so backwards compatibility is important to me.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think making DMODs relatively easy has always been an important part of Dink so replacing DinkC by a complex to learn language would get to an important part of Dink I think. Though maybe that's just me...

Maybe novashell is a better Dink is the way I defined the essence of Dink, but it's lack of support by anyone besides Seth isn't inspiring. I also don't think that the new language necessarily has to be more complex than DinkC. Perhaps we can add to the essence of Dink the properties of being screen-based (as opposed to most RPGs where the visible area is always centred on the player), and having sprites with "attached" scripts, and the scripts having main/hit/attack/etc functions. All of this would restrict the power of the engine, but retain the relative easiness to create DMODs. And it would mean novashell is not a better Dink because it is more powerful and complex (as far as I can tell).

Valuing backwards compatibility means that any improvement to Dink might be retricted to just a new function or something like that, because it seems to be hard not to break old DMODs by replacing features..

I don't think backwards compatibility is so much of a big deal with a frontend like DFArc where you can choose which engine to use, like now with 1.08, Aural+ and FreeDink. Of course the game would need to keep the same style and probably graphics though, otherwise it would just be a different game with the same name.

I agree with Meta about the language though. If DinkC could be kept but updated and fixed somehow that would be a lot better than changing to Lua or something for example.
DinkC is very intuitive and easy to pick up the basics of, plus you don't actually need to know any of the more advanced stuff to make good D-Mods. Many D-Mods don't use anything more advanced than using global variables to keep track of changes... but having more tools would be great for those who can use them.

This is a matter about time investment. There's no doubt writing a new engine takes time. LOTS of time. And truth be told, there are dozens of free engines out there that would probably be better than what our community could come up with without using a large team. However, I have tried 90% of those and came back to Dink The truth is, making a game with an engine is a daunting task, nigh impossible for a single purpose. You're left with a new scripting language to learn and completely new assets to create.

That's why I think Someone's on the right track when he's looking to define what Dink's essence really consists of. I think it would be possible to have "screens" without having a screen based engine though. It's simply a matter of moving the camera on the render area. That way, both "persistent" and screen based worlds could be created, and obviously the editor would only have rudimentary screen indiciations. That would indeed eliminate scripts attached to screens, yes, but it would vastly simplify altering the game world dynamically (just think about the trees burning on one screen but not the other).

Scripts attached to sprites. Yes, we should keep this, it's a basic part of Dink development and I actually quite like it. Game editors like for Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, ... also use this and it works well.

We need to keep the resources we have to seperate us from the advanced engines out there. At the same time, we should have a much easier time importing new resources without the current restrictions holding us back. This means transparency and possibly better collission detection (simple or pixel). Animation might have to be looked at in more detail too.

So, looking back at the time investment required, I think we can cut it down immensily if we deal with the fact we would be going for an upgraded, yet new Dink engine. Yes, this would mean that we won't be making a "great" contribution to the development community as a whole, but it would be able to fill a certain niche between the hard team based engines and the slightly too simple and restricted engines like our own Dink engine. All in all, I think making this would not only be a dreamy present for this community, but will also lure completely Dink unrelated people to the project. It would be great to witness this evolution take place

I think it is faster to implement the current engine anew, rather than clean-up the current one to a satisfying point (I may be wrong).

Centering the camera on a screen w/ script would be possible, though the camera need to block its view and display it at the last moment, because the script may build the screen's appearance. Or we manage the screen's script differently.

What is more difficult is managing an entire world not limited by screens: should the DMod author manage a sprite that is 10 screens away? For example a bunch of angry bonca that will kill each others long before the player arrives? I didn't gave this much thought.

About languages, using an existing language is probably faster to implement, but providing a DinkC-like language would help us Dinkers. Supporting many languages will be time-consuming to maintain, though.

Novashell is interesting indeed, and the editor is built-in.
But it looks more complex indeed, and the binary crashes under Linux (and I didn't manage to compile it) :/
I didn't look in detail, but I think it's more aimed at game programmers than "moders".

Dink Smallwood for iPhone (which may very well have version number v1.09) is probably going to be released for PC:

"I also plan to release this for PC (this new version is ultra portable) after I add gamepad support. I know, it had it in before but I sort of killed all things DirectX when I made it GL optimized."

http://www.codedojo.com/?p=679

Agreed, let's wait for the iPhone version to come out. It'd be much easier to enhance that version of the engine than the current one.

I wouldn't expect too much from the iPhone version for us PC users though. It might have faster script processing, but not much else that will excite us

And, let's first see it pass Apple's approvement. I'm not sure Seth will get it through there with d-mod support intact.

I don't think it's a question of backwards compatibility, but rather a question of wether it is going to be 1.09 or 2.00?

If we retain backwards compatibility and just add a few small features, we can still consider it 1.xx but if we completely re-write the engine adn remove all backwards compatibilty, then we can no longer say it is the same game, and must either change it's name or call it Dink 2.

Wait, what!? Christiaan is back now?

...And Redink1

Mr.Ink was never gone. Just... on vacation. And now he'll go back there.

Christiaan's slowly turning into RedInk1

If you go through the Novashell source code, there's a file containing data structures for dink.dat and map.dat. It looks like Seth was/is planning to implement a map importation system.

Seth won't release this new version's source code due to App store restrictions, hence it's not "enhanceable".

but it is lack of support by anyone besides Seth isn't inspiring.

Seth is always very happy to help in the RTSoft forums if you ask nicely. Considering that Dink has NO official support, and FreeDink doesn't even have a forum (or an easily navigable site) to ask for support, NS has the upper hand.

v2.00 would obviously be Dink 2. Which he is working on.

I respect Seth, but I doubt he's working on a Dink 2 in a way where we'll see it released with a decade

And Novashell doesn't come with any resources, it's an engine. As such, it's worthless for 98% of the hobbyist development community.

Just something for the sake of argument here: If someone would take the effort to port the original game to novashell along with all the graphics, would novashell then be a better dink?

I mean, then all it takes would be someone to make an 'official' first release to make up for the remaining 98%...

I don't really know if it would be any better. Kinda similar without the screens. And you also need glasses to see the tiny graphics (no, not really for those who lack the sense of humor). The only major change would be... I don't really know.

I don't understand the new poll It's not like a new version of Dink will remove all existing d-mods and the original game from the internet

?

I don't understand your misunderstanding. What part of the poll would suggest that a new version of Dink will remove existing DMODs?

There must be a joke included in that comment somewhere. *Skull starts the black humor search engine inside his head*

I assume the new poll was placed in reaction to the discussion in this thread. As such, it seems to imply that a new version of Dink not having backwards compatibility would mean we can't ever play the old ones again (as per the "Does anyone still play last year's dmods")

The whole debate about backwards compatibility is silly If I have a Playstation 2 and a Playstation 3 set up next to each other, why would I want my PS3 to have backwards compatibility at the cost of having to leave out features for the PS3? Just an example, I hope it makes sense now xD

As such, it seems to imply that a new version of Dink not having backwards compatibility would mean we can't ever play the old ones again

I still don't see that. The 'Huh? Does anyone still play last year's DMODs!?' option was chosen because if you think backwards compatibility is even less than a minor consideration than it's no consideration at all. Not important enough to even leave a choice of engine in DFArc (as that would suggest you do find it a minor consideration). To use your example of the PS3: You find the price for backward compatibility to high. It's not like you don't care about it, you think it's not worth the cost of having to leave out features. As such you do see backward compatibility as a minor consideration. If you wouldn't care at all you wouldn't care for backward compatibility even if it doesn't cost anything, otherwise it's a matter of balance.

Oh, and I think the whole debate about backwards compatibility is not silly at all. From your point of view it may be, but judging from both the poll results and the comments in this thread people definitely have (differing) opinions on this.

See, that's where I can't agree with you and where my problem (wouldn't call it that, it's not a big deal and I didn't want to make it sound like a huge issue to me xD), I don't think the poll options represent the full range of options available and makes it sound like we might as well delete old d-mods from the site when a new version of Dink would be created.

First option reads as: If it doesn't have backwards compatibility, I won't care about the new Dink, I need it, because... well... I need it since running 2 Dinks is too hard

Second option reads: I'd really like that in so I can still play older d-mods But I guess I'd still rather have some new features over backwards compatibility.

Third option reads: Would be nice, don't really care either way if I can still play older d-mods, done with those anyway.

Fourth option reads: Why would I want backwards compatibility? Does anyone still want to play those old and decrepit d-mods? It's okay that those will be left in the dust and become unplayable for all eternity.

Fifth option reads: BANANA! Yum

I'm not saying everyone will read it like that, but I'm pretty sure people who DIDN'T read this topic or went along with the discussion will walk away with that impression and vote accordingly

EDIT: if a "new version of Dink" is supposed to imply a regular upgrade everyone goes through and not a seperate engine, then of course the poll is very valid and I would vote for the first option

What I mean by backward incompatibility is that we'd also maintain the current FreeDink so we can still play old D-Mods for the next few years at least.

Yes, there we go, excellent idea

if a "new version of Dink" is supposed to imply a regular upgrade everyone goes through and not a seperate engine, then of course the poll is very valid and I would vote for the first option

Is there a significant difference? You can still use the old version to play the old dmods.

I'm not very fond of the no backwards compatibility idea... That's just what I like about FreeDink, the last thing I want to see is a new megalomaniac Dink 2 project. I'd rather just see FreeDink becoming as good as it can. It's not there yet to outright replace Windows Dink, IMO, but it's getting there. I would be bummed to see it getting neglected in favour of a different project (with a new scripting language and whatnot) that would probably see 2 or 3 dmods released by the current DN community.

Freedink's not going away if a new engine would be created as Beuc already said though. Plus, Scratcher, it's true that it would take time for this community to adapt to a (potentially) new scripting language, but the point is that such an engine and toolset would also attract many, many new people to it. There's a hunger for easy to use game creators out there and not many good ones to still that hunger (I can count them on one hand).

Beuc already said that adding new functionality to Dink's scripting in Freedink is too much hard work, so if we want to have a chance at a full Dink ressurection, it's going to have to take the form of something new. Nobody said you can't still release normal d-mods after the new one's released either.

I think we should all just leave stupid backwards ideas and go behead some ducks.

I just can't see the current community move over to (or learn on the side) a new and different game engine in any kind of major way. It would attract new people, but enough so that the new engine would get hundreds of new modules seems a bit optimistic.

If it was the most awesome game creator ever, sure, but that's a lot to ask.

This is how I see it, without a community to build on it, it would be pointless, so a potentially new engine would be built around being familiar, meaning scripts attached to objects(sprites), but with much greater functionality.

Having it use lua or python would be a great step up from dinkc, since it's widely known languages, and very fitting ones too.

Simple functionality like leveling and attributes could be pre-made script package with a simple layer that most users would not have to understand, but still so that the core of the engine isn't as un-dynamic as dink pretty much is.

Having things like AI's also move from being hardcoded to being scripts and the ability to pack together scripts and resources as packages that a DMOD could import, and the script packages act like simple libraries to use, so that the core mechanics of a dmod could be written from scratch.

I wholeheartedly agree with Eldron

Having it use lua or python would be a great step up from dinkc, since it's widely known languages, and very fitting ones too.

Lua moreso than Python, but if at all possible, JavaScript could be a decent candidate too. It's the closest syntax-wise.

But that doesn't make any sense. We only make D-Mods because we want to make games but we suck too much ass to understand other scripting languages.

"I don't think it's worth making a MMORPG Dink, because there're already several similar Free 2D mmorpg around (Stendhal, The Mana World, Deliantra). What I like in Dink is the ability to tell a story. MMORPG is a different beast."

Let's not give the idea up too soon. Our contribution to MMORPG could be modular development, in the same way that Dink's stories are being told in separate D-Mods. Now, a D-Mod tells a story but we could also create a Dink universe where each D-Mod adds a new town, dungeon or valley to it. We would need to develop a way on how to hook quests into that and how quests can make use of existing areas ("Deliver the amulet to town X").

Each town would have its own people and quests. Developers can focus on creating a town with many details, dialogues and so on. Anyone could submit a D-Mod which would be checked for rudimentary quality and then added to the main universe. Game clients would present a list of areas that are available for download. So it could still be a single player experience.

The game balance would be an issue that needs to be tackled: we don't want some places to be really easy for killing monsters as that could circumvent the difficult quests in other places.

We only make D-Mods because we want to make games but we suck too much ass to understand other scripting languages.

Speak for yourself. I know other scripting and programming languages (if not too many) and am well able and willing to learn more. I make D-Mods because I like Dink, not because it's the only thing I can do.

I'd like to see you create Day of the Carcass with other scripting languages than DinkC, then.

EDIT: And to be honest, I was talking for myself, and probably to quite a many other Dinkers too.

I'd like to see you create Day of the Carcass with other scripting languages than DinkC, then.

I was actually considering that since DinkC can barely handle my ideas. It's probably easier to use another scripting language anyway as long as it's not as limited as DinkC.

And to be honest, I was talking for myself, and probably to quite a many other Dinkers too.

Well you could have mentioned that before instead of letting people guess whatever you mean by 'we'. I guessed you meant the whole community.

That sounds exactly like Novashell.

Maybe Novashell could be used as a platform to create dmods with more functionality? If someone created a good base game on that so people could start dabbling with the engine slowly instead of being instantly overwhelmed, maybe a few dinkers would attempt it, who knows.

EDIT: Meta already said pretty much the same thing. Stupid long threads.

The idea has merit, more than creating another engine from scratch which' success seems uncertain at best, in my opinion.

So if the dink resources and basics were ported over to novashell, and a small guide to help people over, I wouldn't mind some reinvigoration of the dink community stuff.

There's exactly one series of tutorials on Novashell, good luck with handling that if you're not a programmer

However, I think you could exactly port over Dink to Novashell and keep it's functionality while adding new stuff. But it wouldn't even remotely be simiilar to how Dink works for the people who are going to use the editor "add-on". It wouldn't use the same AI, not the same way to call scripts, not the same way to map, ...

Still if anyone wants to try and get a basic layout going, I might be interested in checking out if I can help But you know, even if it would happen, it's debatable if it wouldn't be better to choose another engine to work with altogether. Sigh, I just don't see it work for this community to adapt to a completely new engine. It would have to be custom made to be similar to how Dink works now, but upgraded. And open to other people outside our community looking for such a less than advanced editor to make games with. Like how RPGMaker has always done it. Simple and clean.

Which is still why I'm a bit for making a new branch out of freedink, with some rework which would break backwards compatibility but make it way more flexible.

Kinda off-topic, but now that we're talking about the future of Dink and all that... I think it would be extremely awesome if we got the good ol' DinkWorld to work. That's impossible I know, but just thought I would point that out.

Dink World? What's that?

As far as I know, eons and yonks ago there were two Dink fan sites. Dink World and The Dink Network. DW was run by WC I think. Then it just stopped happening and stuff and I really don't see the point in it now. DN is the (only) major fan site, and it's well supported. There isn't enough support for another fan site.

DinkWorld

DinkWorld was before The Dink Network. It was around Dink SmallWeb's times before it turned into TDN. It holds many great member's first Dinking moments. Technically, it should be at the position where TDN is now, imho. So yeah DinkDude, almost correct.

Dinkworld was developed so d-mod authors could have their own sub-site to showcase their projects. It was more aimed at d-mod/file development than anything else, and was to run side-by-side with the DN. It certainly wasn't around before the Dink Network.

Only "proven" developers were allowed a sub-site, IIRC.

Wasn't around before TDN? I thought it was around the times of SmallWeb, which was the former name of TDN? I must've mixed it with some other Dink fansite then.

When was the era of DinkWorld? I'm here for quite a while and I don't seem to remember it.

Mid-late 2004, I believe.

All very interesting =) Thanks for the info.

Congrats on 100th pots of the thread Schnapper.

This is a very interesting topic, with lots of great ideas actually. In my opinion, Novashell is an excellent engine and I would personally like to see a Dink-Smallwood-like game in it. Actually, I think that if someone created a game in it, others would follow. It just need a sparkle to light up the fire...

I've been looking into blender for some time now, and I've learned all the basics and some more advanced modeling and animating. It would be cool to use all that combined with the Novashell engine. I can imagine that it would be like a Diablo styled game play.

I think Novashell has a great potential.

Only problem I have with Novashell basically, is that it's kinda complicated.

I've imported all static Dink graphics into a Novashell game and recreated Stonebrook (minus the people, savebot, and grain). That's about the limits of my Novashell skills. Though I did manage to make Dink talk to stuff (single lines only so far) and I made the golden heart animate. It looks kinda wonky because it plays the sequence and then reverses it in the main game. Haven't figured that one out yet. Oh, and I can't get him to pick it up.. even though the script I used for it is mostly copied from a similar thing

I haven't done the inside of the houses yet because I haven't played with the warps, but I did look at the warps provided by the sample games and it looks rather easy. Getting doors to animate when you enter the house is another story as there's no sample code for me to borrow. I'll try to post screenshots soon.

http://img690.imageshack.us/i/stonebrooknovashell02.png/
http://img243.imageshack.us/i/stonebrooknovashell01.png/

Put quackers in there just for fun

Oh and obviously it isn't 'perfect' but I took a considerable amount of time making sure every detail was included an relatively in the same place as it was in the original. I even paid special attention to what frame was used on the grasses and rocks.

I should also note that I have no intention for replicating the whole game, this was just a small excercise for me to get used to using the editor.

Wow, Dink is tiny!

...Wait, that came out wrong.

I'm going to ignore this line and pretend I have something to look forward to

"I should also note that I have no intention for replicating the whole game, this was just a small excercise for me to get used to using the editor."

As I suspected, making warps is a cakewalk. Don't even need to script for that. Maybe I'll get to the houses and see if I can handle putting in the npcs. But before that, I need to figure out how to fix the camera for inside screens.

I found the code to make the camera static, but I can't seem to figure out how to make it follow the player again afterwards. Well that's halfway true I should say. I think I found the correct command, I just can't figure out how to set it to the player.

Maybe you can upload the file here later, after making the houses and npc so we can study it and build on it

Indeed

I have a hunch somebody is going to be making a full conversion of the original Dink Smallwood with this Novashell engine before this 1.09 patch even gets made...

Well aside from the fact that the probability that I'm doing everything the wrong way, it wouldn't be much use until I can implement stats, weapons, enemies, and other necessities for a playable dink-like game.

And since I haven't figured out the basics yet, that could take months assuming I can get all that stuff down. But a basic dink-like rpg template is my main goal for novashell.

ok
what i want

3D

and a sky

Hell7fire1, you're completely clueless.

Maybe you can upload the file here later, after making the houses and npc so we can study it and build on it

Seth has already imported a lot of Dink stuff in a Novashell game, just download the engine and study that... It should be the same thing, basically.

Skull said: "Congrats on 100th pots of the thread Schnapper."

Woowoo! Yeaaah, she doges! Wait... you counted them?!

@ Rabidwolf: Did you learn a bit of Lua first? I believe that's what Novashell Scripting Language is based on....

3Dink, anyone? Would be epic.

I can't even begin to say how much a dink like engine would benefit from 3d content, it would make variations, colorations, sizes and rotations save so much time for people wanting to use the content, it could support paperdolling to make it possible for people to create their new monsters or characters by just switching around items in hands or color the clothes.

And the game could even stay isometric like the old dink!

And terrain could be heightmapped and with textureblending it would be a hundred times easier for someone to make a piece of texture compared to a ton of tiles that would need transitions.

And who would create the 1000+ art assets needed to make a game in 3D? (even isometric) xD

Lua? What's that? Nah I'm just kidding. Though I haven't had any previous experience I'm hoping I'll catch on. It depends how stuck I get as to if I'll actually go and research Lua itself. I'm taking baby steps here. Still learning how NovaShell itself works before I go full blast into the overwhelming scripting aspect of it. If you think about it, once I grasp dialogue and variables, then I can make a crappy game

I'm currently getting everything in order to put the first few NPCs in game. Then I can experiment with variables and dialogue all over again.

Edit:
I've got a hold on variables now and Dink's mother is in the game. Now that I've got a good template, the other NPCs should be much easier to implement.

I know it's wrong, but sometimes I just can't resist!

http://a.imageshack.us/img828/9308/motherbeater.png
http://a.imageshack.us/img185/1981/duckkiller.png

Changing colors doesn't really work all that great on people. It would be a neat for a cold or poison effect, but for normal NPCs it just looks dumb.

What's wrong with killing ducks?

If someone develops the proper dink 3d engine, I'll supply a base of 3d art assets to prove its use.

So Rabid, are you handling NPCs on a case by case basis or are you writing/using a script library you can work with to easily create more of the same kind of object (NPC, item, ...)?

Well, I'm starting off making the Stonebrook NPCs myself using the examples provided. That should give me the basis for all simple NPCs I need. Dink's mother has a simple choice menu paired with some diaogue, while Ethel and Smilestein have multiple choice menus (still don't get how to make this work atm). Once I do those and experiment with moving an entity, I'll have the everything I need for pretty much any NPC to make from here on.

There's only a slight problem as I'm having trouble grasping the goal manager system. But I've been bugging Seth with my problems in addition to all the experimentation and research I've been doing, so all in good time..

I've also got my foundation for bonus items. Dink can pick up hearts and they won't come back. When he does so I can make them grow/shrink or fade out. I've even got it so the barrels that give hearts are working.

That's impressive for such a short amount of time (relatively). You convinced me to give Novashell another go

Do you have an idea about how you'll handle map scripts/music changes on the map? Novashell doesn't use per screen scrolling so I suspect you'd have to make use of point defined areas to trigger scripts. Even 600*400 rectangular script triggers could work to simulate screens. But tbh I wouldn't bother TOO much with trying to emulate the screens of the original game and instead try to redesign the system to work with a scrolling map like Novashell offers

Keep it up, and give more screenz!

I haven't really put much thought into it yet, but what you said sounds like a good idea. The camera could be freezed in position I suppose and when Dink touches the trigger it could center the camera on that trigger to simulate screenchange. That sounds like a pain though

It would seem simpler to use a constantly running check with math to figure out Dink's position relative to the camera and shift the screen over 'x' amount of pixels when he's too far away (there's even a camera setting that you can adjust how fast the camera moves). Of course I'm just popping out ideas, I don't know how to do that yet. But to trigger an event or change the music, it would seem as you would need to do as you said. Of course, the music changer could be dragged over just the borders I think.

I managed to get a better idea of the goal manager now so things are coming together. The making of the dreadful status is coming up. I suppose I should start looking into how the topdown RPG worked it's stats and items.

Are the items/spells/anything data related linked to a database or XML? Or does it have to be hardcoded?

You could potentially make a seperate thread for this btw

warning
kyle and rabidwolf are trying to take over this thread

everyone wants 3d

I prefer my movies non 3D thank you very much

As well.

Baldurs Gate! Baldurs Gate! Baldurs Ga... *dodges swordfish*

Well Kyle, if we're talking about 3d in games, that discussion ended about 10 years ago, 3d has been accepted into every form of game genre.

Yes of course xD I've been playing games for 18 years, I've seen the evolution