Reply to Re: Some self-indulgence
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Uh... So you should only ever review files you like?
I didn't say like, I didn't say no intention of using, I said no interest.
Fine, 6, whatever. It is this comment
Therefore, Someone hasn't created a mouse-controlled gameplay system for use in dmods: What he has done is show that a mouse-controlled dmod with actual gameplay can be done! Now you just need to do it yourself, with this file as a handy reference on how you might tackle certain problems involved with such a conversion, and what works and what doesn't.
I clearly describe MouseDink in the readme as:
This is a demonstration and public beta test of a bunch of scripts under the working title "MouseDink" which allow a mouse controlled Dink. [...] this is a demonstration of functionality.
and the file description
A demonstration of a set of scripts that enable a mouse controlled Dink interface akin to more modern RPGs.
The scripts do enable a mouse controlled Dink interface. Yet Stratcher has no interest in that achievement, no interest in the scripts, only in the gameplay. "gameplay is of foremost concern" So he has no interest in MouseDink. And the implication that the whole thing should be rewritten to make superficial [in terms of scripting] changes and this somehow makes it a new product despite that the majority of the scripting would have to be the same again frustrates me with lack of respect for scripts to be a product and a property in themselves just like graphics or music etc.
The readme also says I would help people interested in using MouseDink, implying that I would make the gameplay optimisations according to their preferences. It's not that there is a one correct way like proper hardboxes. There are many optimisations compatible with MouseDink and what is optimal would also depend on stuff like the number, speed, size etc of enemies, subjective preference and other stuff. So comparing it to a faulty hardbox is a crude comparison because gameplay optimisation is something that needs a lot of thought and to work with the developer who wants to use MouseDink. And in all honesty, I like the way MouseDink works now anyway and think it's no worse than Diablo [that is, no more crap. It's the other stuff in Diablo that distracts you from how simple the gameplay actually is]. Anyway, this is secondary.
To clarify, I was annoyed that I have to defend my scripts in the sense supposedly people can make statements such as "I'm also not convinced it's that simple, that there aren't fundamental problems with improving many things in the gameplay.", and expect me to convince them there aren't, and if I don't, apparently assume there are fundamental problems. The responsibility should be on the one wanting to make the assertions to confirm they are true, not me having to confirm they are false.
more akin to criticizing someone for the dodgy hardboxes that go with his graphics
More like releasing graphics without hardbox information and having comments on it rather than the graphics, with little concern for the quality of the graphics. And one comment suggesting someone should release the file with hardbox info and call it their own
I didn't say like, I didn't say no intention of using, I said no interest.
Fine, 6, whatever. It is this comment
Therefore, Someone hasn't created a mouse-controlled gameplay system for use in dmods: What he has done is show that a mouse-controlled dmod with actual gameplay can be done! Now you just need to do it yourself, with this file as a handy reference on how you might tackle certain problems involved with such a conversion, and what works and what doesn't.
I clearly describe MouseDink in the readme as:
This is a demonstration and public beta test of a bunch of scripts under the working title "MouseDink" which allow a mouse controlled Dink. [...] this is a demonstration of functionality.
and the file description
A demonstration of a set of scripts that enable a mouse controlled Dink interface akin to more modern RPGs.
The scripts do enable a mouse controlled Dink interface. Yet Stratcher has no interest in that achievement, no interest in the scripts, only in the gameplay. "gameplay is of foremost concern" So he has no interest in MouseDink. And the implication that the whole thing should be rewritten to make superficial [in terms of scripting] changes and this somehow makes it a new product despite that the majority of the scripting would have to be the same again frustrates me with lack of respect for scripts to be a product and a property in themselves just like graphics or music etc.
The readme also says I would help people interested in using MouseDink, implying that I would make the gameplay optimisations according to their preferences. It's not that there is a one correct way like proper hardboxes. There are many optimisations compatible with MouseDink and what is optimal would also depend on stuff like the number, speed, size etc of enemies, subjective preference and other stuff. So comparing it to a faulty hardbox is a crude comparison because gameplay optimisation is something that needs a lot of thought and to work with the developer who wants to use MouseDink. And in all honesty, I like the way MouseDink works now anyway and think it's no worse than Diablo [that is, no more crap. It's the other stuff in Diablo that distracts you from how simple the gameplay actually is]. Anyway, this is secondary.
To clarify, I was annoyed that I have to defend my scripts in the sense supposedly people can make statements such as "I'm also not convinced it's that simple, that there aren't fundamental problems with improving many things in the gameplay.", and expect me to convince them there aren't, and if I don't, apparently assume there are fundamental problems. The responsibility should be on the one wanting to make the assertions to confirm they are true, not me having to confirm they are false.
more akin to criticizing someone for the dodgy hardboxes that go with his graphics
More like releasing graphics without hardbox information and having comments on it rather than the graphics, with little concern for the quality of the graphics. And one comment suggesting someone should release the file with hardbox info and call it their own
