Reply to Re: Some self-indulgence
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
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'?)
I don't know what you mean that to imply. This is what I say in the readme
Just to make it clear: this is a demonstration of functionality. So, the graphics are just placeholders, and some gameplay things haven't been considered.
It is meant to be a working control system, but not in an optimised state. If it wasn't a working control system it wouldn't be a full demonstration. It should be clear from the inventory screen how I intended MouseDink. The inventory screen is fully functional, the graphics are done enough to demonstrate its function, but it's not optimised any further [e.g., I didn't even bother to label the 6 equipment slots].
I think both Kyle's description of MouseDink as a tech demo and iplaydink's description of MouseDink as an exploration of DinkC are accurate [and I thank them for their kind comments]. Kyle's description is more accurate to how I presented MouseDink, but iplaydink's description is more accurate to why I wrote MouseDink. I have been focusing on the former because focusing on the latter and denying gameplay issues were relevant at all seemed lame and I hoped to seek middle ground. I'm happy for people to comment on gameplay issues. I just think focusing primarily on them devalues the worth of scripts/tech demos. If everyone judged MouseDink primarily on the gameplay or how easily it is adopted into other DMODs, I wouldn't have optimised MouseDink for those things; I would have simply not released it.
The idea that MouseDink was developed to patent mouse control so that everybody who uses mouse control must credit you.
"Patent"? First, I didn't "patent" anything. The code is freely used by anyone. Second, I didn't release MouseDink for credit. I wrote MouseDink for the challenge. Not that why I developed MouseDink has any relevance to anyone but me.
That's something I hate because it isn't helping anybody if you can just release a file to patent a DMOD-making technique
How is releasing MouseDink not helping in any way? Any way?
Should every cheat file that allows you to unlock a screen credit this file?
No, because that file has no novel scripting, unlike MouseDink. Even Scratcher accepts that it would be 10x easier to write a mouse controlled Dink using MouseDink as a guide. That is a product in itself, something that is worth releasing for that reason alone, and something that is worth being recognised as a valid contribution to the website even if only for that reason. That is where my 'credit' comes in. It is not to limit or control ["patent"] scripting, it is to recognise that scripts is a product in itself and a valid and welcome contribution.
...resort to release development files just for patenting a technique
Why is their motivation relevant? If they released a developmental file with novel scripting that enabled authors to better their DMODs, then why haven't they made a contribution? [Or even if their novel scripting is merely an interest to people like iplaydink and me for the sake of scripting itself?]
Should I still credit that person even if his work hasn't at all contributed to my own?
If you claim to invent something, you should mention you weren't first
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
Really. How does it work?
I don't know what you mean that to imply. This is what I say in the readme
Just to make it clear: this is a demonstration of functionality. So, the graphics are just placeholders, and some gameplay things haven't been considered.
It is meant to be a working control system, but not in an optimised state. If it wasn't a working control system it wouldn't be a full demonstration. It should be clear from the inventory screen how I intended MouseDink. The inventory screen is fully functional, the graphics are done enough to demonstrate its function, but it's not optimised any further [e.g., I didn't even bother to label the 6 equipment slots].
I think both Kyle's description of MouseDink as a tech demo and iplaydink's description of MouseDink as an exploration of DinkC are accurate [and I thank them for their kind comments]. Kyle's description is more accurate to how I presented MouseDink, but iplaydink's description is more accurate to why I wrote MouseDink. I have been focusing on the former because focusing on the latter and denying gameplay issues were relevant at all seemed lame and I hoped to seek middle ground. I'm happy for people to comment on gameplay issues. I just think focusing primarily on them devalues the worth of scripts/tech demos. If everyone judged MouseDink primarily on the gameplay or how easily it is adopted into other DMODs, I wouldn't have optimised MouseDink for those things; I would have simply not released it.
The idea that MouseDink was developed to patent mouse control so that everybody who uses mouse control must credit you.
"Patent"? First, I didn't "patent" anything. The code is freely used by anyone. Second, I didn't release MouseDink for credit. I wrote MouseDink for the challenge. Not that why I developed MouseDink has any relevance to anyone but me.
That's something I hate because it isn't helping anybody if you can just release a file to patent a DMOD-making technique
How is releasing MouseDink not helping in any way? Any way?
Should every cheat file that allows you to unlock a screen credit this file?
No, because that file has no novel scripting, unlike MouseDink. Even Scratcher accepts that it would be 10x easier to write a mouse controlled Dink using MouseDink as a guide. That is a product in itself, something that is worth releasing for that reason alone, and something that is worth being recognised as a valid contribution to the website even if only for that reason. That is where my 'credit' comes in. It is not to limit or control ["patent"] scripting, it is to recognise that scripts is a product in itself and a valid and welcome contribution.
...resort to release development files just for patenting a technique
Why is their motivation relevant? If they released a developmental file with novel scripting that enabled authors to better their DMODs, then why haven't they made a contribution? [Or even if their novel scripting is merely an interest to people like iplaydink and me for the sake of scripting itself?]
Should I still credit that person even if his work hasn't at all contributed to my own?
If you claim to invent something, you should mention you weren't first
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
Really. How does it work?
