Reply to Re: Some self-indulgence
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Hmmm... Perhaps a late reaction, but still my 2 cents:
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.
I'm not sure I really lost that. Like I said I think that a demonstration can be held against even higher functionality standards than if it where a 'normal' development file since demonstrations aren't meant to be fixed up and used like a 'normal' development file. So what I simply tried to say is that the point scratcher made doesn't become any less valid because mousedink is a demonstration file. And, having read the readme file myself I don't think it is all that clear from the readme that MouseDink is meant to be a collection of mouse control technologies rather than an actual working control system. I think the other reviews see things the same way. (Or am I now misreading your posts by calling MouseDink 'a collection of mouse control technologies'?)
Perhaps you can say that there is a lack of appreciation for what has been achieved, but I think this is a personal preference. Some people love crazy new gameplay ideas while others always look for a well working project no matter how revolutionary the concept is. Most people (I think (and hope)) are somewhere in the middle of this but you'll always have some tendency to think one way or the other. You can also see that in the other reviews mousedink got, those people really loved the revolutionary gameplay aspect. Personally I'm more leaning towards actual usability of a file, so if I where to ever write a review for MouseDink I'd probably also be more critical about usability...
Now one thing that has been hanging over this discussion a bit is something I really loathe: The idea that MouseDink was developed to patent mouse control so that everybody who uses mouse control must credit you. As if you can release a file without complete functionality (Just a demonstration, not a file for actual implementation) to claim a certain technology so that everybody using that technology in the future must credit you. That's something I hate because it isn't helping anybody if you can just release a file to patent a DMOD-making technique. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't credit someone when you used a lot of his ideas to make your own variety, it's just the fact that I don't think any file should ever be released just for this purpose. Should every cheat file that allows you to unlock a screen credit this file?
I think this discussion about Paul's enemy shoot is a good example. I finished my own version of enemy shoot for my contest entry just two days ago. Now I took a look at Paul's script and decided that it was needlessly complex for what I was trying to do. The demands I had for my enemy where very different, I think it would perhaps have been more work to get it to work exactly as I wanted then to rewrite it from scratch. So obviously I decided to rewrite it from scratch. This also meant I developed a quite different algorithm. For a large part this was because I had different demands for functionality but for another large part this was simply because I happen to be a different programmer. I think an algorithm closer to mine could have worked for enemy shoot as well, and I think an algorithm closer to Paul's could have worked for me.
Now should I credit Paul for his enemy shoot system? Not in my opinion, I have looked at his file to get some general ideas about how aiming works but fundamentally I have developed my own system which has its own distinct algorithm. I'd only credit someone for being the spiritual ancestor if he has had a major contribution to the ideas for (a distinct part of) my own work.
And if I happen to reinvent something that has been used before? Should I still credit that person even if his work hasn't at all contributed to my own? I think everybody should just be honest about whose work they have used so nobody can resort to release development files just for patenting a technique.
EDIT: Actually, reading through some of the posts on this thread I see that I perhaps should have looked at your enemy shoot as one of the things I did differently was to have more angles at which the enemy could shoot. Having said that, I honestly haven't looked at your file, so in line with what I said I don't think I have to credit you for your enemy shoot when it hasn't had any influence on my own. Even though I might have reinvented some things.
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.
I'm not sure I really lost that. Like I said I think that a demonstration can be held against even higher functionality standards than if it where a 'normal' development file since demonstrations aren't meant to be fixed up and used like a 'normal' development file. So what I simply tried to say is that the point scratcher made doesn't become any less valid because mousedink is a demonstration file. And, having read the readme file myself I don't think it is all that clear from the readme that MouseDink is meant to be a collection of mouse control technologies rather than an actual working control system. I think the other reviews see things the same way. (Or am I now misreading your posts by calling MouseDink 'a collection of mouse control technologies'?)
Perhaps you can say that there is a lack of appreciation for what has been achieved, but I think this is a personal preference. Some people love crazy new gameplay ideas while others always look for a well working project no matter how revolutionary the concept is. Most people (I think (and hope)) are somewhere in the middle of this but you'll always have some tendency to think one way or the other. You can also see that in the other reviews mousedink got, those people really loved the revolutionary gameplay aspect. Personally I'm more leaning towards actual usability of a file, so if I where to ever write a review for MouseDink I'd probably also be more critical about usability...
Now one thing that has been hanging over this discussion a bit is something I really loathe: The idea that MouseDink was developed to patent mouse control so that everybody who uses mouse control must credit you. As if you can release a file without complete functionality (Just a demonstration, not a file for actual implementation) to claim a certain technology so that everybody using that technology in the future must credit you. That's something I hate because it isn't helping anybody if you can just release a file to patent a DMOD-making technique. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't credit someone when you used a lot of his ideas to make your own variety, it's just the fact that I don't think any file should ever be released just for this purpose. Should every cheat file that allows you to unlock a screen credit this file?
I think this discussion about Paul's enemy shoot is a good example. I finished my own version of enemy shoot for my contest entry just two days ago. Now I took a look at Paul's script and decided that it was needlessly complex for what I was trying to do. The demands I had for my enemy where very different, I think it would perhaps have been more work to get it to work exactly as I wanted then to rewrite it from scratch. So obviously I decided to rewrite it from scratch. This also meant I developed a quite different algorithm. For a large part this was because I had different demands for functionality but for another large part this was simply because I happen to be a different programmer. I think an algorithm closer to mine could have worked for enemy shoot as well, and I think an algorithm closer to Paul's could have worked for me.
Now should I credit Paul for his enemy shoot system? Not in my opinion, I have looked at his file to get some general ideas about how aiming works but fundamentally I have developed my own system which has its own distinct algorithm. I'd only credit someone for being the spiritual ancestor if he has had a major contribution to the ideas for (a distinct part of) my own work.
And if I happen to reinvent something that has been used before? Should I still credit that person even if his work hasn't at all contributed to my own? I think everybody should just be honest about whose work they have used so nobody can resort to release development files just for patenting a technique.
EDIT: Actually, reading through some of the posts on this thread I see that I perhaps should have looked at your enemy shoot as one of the things I did differently was to have more angles at which the enemy could shoot. Having said that, I honestly haven't looked at your file, so in line with what I said I don't think I have to credit you for your enemy shoot when it hasn't had any influence on my own. Even though I might have reinvented some things.
