Reply to Re: Some self-indulgence
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
This is all reasonable. I admit I haven't always been that clear and I conflated separate issues somewhat. I don't think scripting is exempt from gameplay issues. And I think your earlier point that negative reviews shouldn't need to hold up to a more strigent criteria than positive reviews is a good point [although personally I think we should be encouraging as a community]. There are tons of poorly articulated positive reviews so I guess there can be some poor negative ones too.
I guess what got lost is what really irritates me 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.
because I don't think it recognises scripts as a product and doesn't recognise that it is impossible to re-invent something. With all intellectual property, the first person get credit. Another mouse controlled game with a fake brain 1 [fake Dink] would be 90% MouseDink and it would be 10x easier for someone to make that than it was for me to do it first. Maybe Scratcher doesn't think that is the case but if he spent as much time thinking and coding as I did about these issues it would be obvious, and I don't think it's my responsibility to have to spend an enormous amount of time having to walk him through it.
That comment from the review bothers me much more than the score. I thought maybe I had misunderstood Scratcher on what he meant by that but he is yet to correct me so I guess not.
So to be clear, that is what bothers me the most. What bothers me slightly is that, as it should be clear from the MouseDink readme, I always intended that MouseDink is a demonstration of the scripts and I'd optimise the gameplay on interest. So reviewing MouseDink with gameplay as the primary criterion is, I think, somewhat foolish because if someone wanted to use it I could have optimised the gameplay for them. The main reason I didn't when I made it is because I didn't put in the thought on what optimal gameplay would look like. If someone else did, I would implement it. [And if it needs to be said, no one has displayed interest to me in using MouseDink.] [And finally, I think even if I made the gameplay identical to Diablo or Nox or something people would still say it's crap, because I don't think many people realise it's all the little things like spells, sound effects, graphics, item collecting etc. which give illusions of better gameplay. So without them... Honestly look at the video of the Diablo warrior I posted. Horrible gameplay, yet I like Diablo.]
I guess what got lost is what really irritates me 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.
because I don't think it recognises scripts as a product and doesn't recognise that it is impossible to re-invent something. With all intellectual property, the first person get credit. Another mouse controlled game with a fake brain 1 [fake Dink] would be 90% MouseDink and it would be 10x easier for someone to make that than it was for me to do it first. Maybe Scratcher doesn't think that is the case but if he spent as much time thinking and coding as I did about these issues it would be obvious, and I don't think it's my responsibility to have to spend an enormous amount of time having to walk him through it.
That comment from the review bothers me much more than the score. I thought maybe I had misunderstood Scratcher on what he meant by that but he is yet to correct me so I guess not.
So to be clear, that is what bothers me the most. What bothers me slightly is that, as it should be clear from the MouseDink readme, I always intended that MouseDink is a demonstration of the scripts and I'd optimise the gameplay on interest. So reviewing MouseDink with gameplay as the primary criterion is, I think, somewhat foolish because if someone wanted to use it I could have optimised the gameplay for them. The main reason I didn't when I made it is because I didn't put in the thought on what optimal gameplay would look like. If someone else did, I would implement it. [And if it needs to be said, no one has displayed interest to me in using MouseDink.] [And finally, I think even if I made the gameplay identical to Diablo or Nox or something people would still say it's crap, because I don't think many people realise it's all the little things like spells, sound effects, graphics, item collecting etc. which give illusions of better gameplay. So without them... Honestly look at the video of the Diablo warrior I posted. Horrible gameplay, yet I like Diablo.]
