232 replies to this topic

[Kulyok]

Unfortunately, if everyone is a 'non-decent writer', then you also say that journal entry titles have to go. This means all journals must be placed in the INFO section to avoid the spacing bug when you place journal entries without titles into the DONE_QUEST and QUEST sections...and when QUEST/DONE_QUEST entries are incorporated as an optional component all ~950 dialogue files in BG1 need to be recompiled (and the package needs to include ~950 new D files) if you don't want rigorous and dodgy hex offset patching.

What is it going to be, then?

1) Make it optional. G3 Tweaks re-compiles a great amount of files, and it is not that slow.

2) Use the first line from each quest description as a title.

3) (clumsy) Use the name of the NPC: "Oublek's quest".

4) Use someone who is a journalist/an editor/a published writer/is simply accurate (i.e. the Rec Room rules thread is a BAD example), _AND_ EFL.


By the way, I didn't say that everyone is not a decent writer - I am paranoid, not sneering. I said that opinions vary. I would say that every PPG NPC-related mod had a decent editor, while COM mods didn't; would you agree? It's a matter of personal preference.



And... um, sorry if it is off-topic, but why does Tutorial section has to go? I actually play it from time to time...

[Ascension64]

4) Use someone who is a journalist/an editor/a published writer/is simply accurate (i.e. the Rec Room rules thread is a BAD example), _AND_ EFL.

Having two sets of Ds is yucky. This sounds good. When this is done, you might be able to help proof-read to make sure the purest of purists is satisfied.

By the way, I didn't say that everyone is not a decent writer - I am paranoid, not sneering. I said that opinions vary. I would say that every PPG NPC-related mod had a decent editor, while COM mods didn't; would you agree? It's a matter of personal preference.

No inferences were intended. I always try to draw out the opinions in order to make the best discussion/decision. I apologise if I'm erring on the harsh side of things.

And... um, sorry if it is off-topic, but why does Tutorial section has to go? I actually play it from time to time...

It can always be made that starting an SoA game forces you into the tutorial, but a dialogue option is present to skip it. Would three extra clicks of the mouse to skip it be OK for you? Others?

[Kulyok]

I'll happily test it all for you, of course, if I can. I am very interested in a nice, easy and accurate way to play BG1 and BG2.

It can always be made that starting an SoA game forces you into the tutorial, but a dialogue option is present to skip it. Would three extra clicks of the mouse to skip it be OK for you? Others?

So, every time I press an SoA menu there'll be: "Would you like to play the tutorial, or the normal game?" Mmmm.... that _can_ be annoying, I guess.

(There's no opportunity for a short menu with "BG1", "SoA", "Tutorial", and "ToB" options, is there?)

[Grim Squeaker]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Not dialogue based decisions!

[Hety]

Best menu ot there - TutuGUI's one. Background pictures can be replaced i suppose but all other elements own. Other(out-of-box BGT-Weidu and BP one's are far behind tbh. No offense.

[Salk]

I second Hety. TuTuGUI might actually be the GUI, with some modifications, for the Merger as well. It's complete, functional, in perfect BG1 style and quite customizable...Perhaps we should contact LadeJarl ?

Edited by Salk, 16 January 2006 - 11:58 PM.

[NiGHTMARE]

TutuGUI should be optional too. After all, don't forget that it would affect the SoA and ToB portions.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 17 January 2006 - 12:09 AM.

[SimDing0]

The New SoA game button takes you to ToB

But the problem is that this would require baldur.bcs to run in ToB rather than baldur25.bcs. That's obviously not desirable.

Can you just relabel the buttons so they take you to different parts of the game (not just renaming the buttons and porting the resources across), without having to (in this example) convert all of SoA into the tutorial?

Not that I'm aware of, unless it's possible to hack hex addresses for buttons into different CHUs.

1) Make it optional. G3 Tweaks re-compiles a great amount of files, and it is not that slow.

We pay a price for making it optional, however, in that it's hard for mods to be consistent. Should mods introduce strings with or without titles, sorted or unsorted, or should there be some obscure ACTION_IF complexity? There's really no reason the sorting should be controversial, because you'd really have to be trying extremely hard to write a bad journal entry title. Compiling 950 D files once is bad enough. Doing it optionally a second time is outright horrific.

I will not let anything near Tutu which I don't think is acceptably written. If you don't trust my checking then tough. Find someone better willing to do it.

It can always be made that starting an SoA game forces you into the tutorial, but a dialogue option is present to skip it. Would three extra clicks of the mouse to skip it be OK for you? Others?

I don't think that'd be a good idea. I have to say, I think losing the tutorial is the least of our worries, especially given that in return we gain the good old Wall-Breaking Candlekeep Monks ™. If their text needs updating to account for BG2 then so be it.

TutuGUI should be optional too. After all, don't forget that it would affect the SoA and ToB portions.

Right. And it's a sufficiently big download that it's worth keeping separate.

[Hety]

Optional - definitely. It looks better than BG2 gui(imo).
BTW forgot that BGT-Weidu now has BG2 style menus that perfectly fit into "traditional" style(no Elminster etc etc). They are good way to go. I actually like em as they are.

Edited by Hety, 17 January 2006 - 02:18 AM.

[Kulyok]

I will not let anything near Tutu which I don't think is acceptably written.

That's all I wanted in the first place.

[Grim Squeaker]

The New SoA game button takes you to ToB

But the problem is that this would require baldur.bcs to run in ToB rather than baldur25.bcs. That's obviously not desirable.

Can you just relabel the buttons so they take you to different parts of the game (not just renaming the buttons and porting the resources across), without having to (in this example) convert all of SoA into the tutorial?

Not that I'm aware of, unless it's possible to hack hex addresses for buttons into different CHUs.

Well, the first part of that did kind of require the second part. The idea was that the New SoA button when clicked takes you to the ToB game itself (baldur25) rather than to a version of SoA with all of ToB's resources i.e. you're effectively moving the original ToB button and placing it where the SoA button was.

[Andyr]

Thought I'd mention that, regardless of how good you think they may be, we do have a set of journal entry titles (in English, anyway) for Tutu which I wrote.

[Vlad]

Well, it' seems to me a very strange and useless project. Why should the both be combined? BGT in its present from fulfils all the needs of BGT . It works excellent on a BG2 platform and allows any kind of modding. *TuTu* is a paralell project, basically does the same taking into account that transition now is aslo scripted within *TuTu*. In my humble opinion, people who originally have been addicted to *TuTu*, strongly criticized Bardez's project should continue enjoying and developing their *TuTu*.

[horred the plague]

Well, the first part of that did kind of require the second part. The idea was that the New SoA button when clicked takes you to the ToB game itself (baldur25) rather than to a version of SoA with all of ToB's resources i.e. you're effectively moving the original ToB button and placing it where the SoA button was.

No, I'm sure Sim understood you. But he is right; there is more hardcoded into the interfaces than the STARTAREA. Not all of this can be switched around from a .CHU or a .2DA

SIDE NOTE: Despite this, I still propose the theory that it is 'possible' (not painless) to merge ToB with SoA (i.e., and put an entirely different game in the ToB slot). It is not unfeasible, especially with an XP-reducer like DEFJAM. Just fuel for modder's minds.

[ScuD]

Fully agree with Vlad.
IMHO it's better to have at least one finished and more or less bugless project (I mean BGT). Only after that the merging and combining should take place.

[King Diamond]

Agree with Vlad, Horred and ScuD.
I don't see any real valuable dividents that could be earned by both "sides" taking in account an amount of required work, except gaining an additional pain in the ass for everybody with a necessity of re-working a load of mods (not stable even in the current state) to suit the new platform.

But as a separate project for intusiasts it definitely has a right to exist.

Edited by King Diamond, 17 January 2006 - 05:49 AM.

[Salk]

I stronly disagree with Vald,ScuD and KD. I think even too much time had been wasted when it's obvious that a single project would have lead to better results thatn two parallel ones.

I find running two parallel project like TuTu and BGT a real waste of modding efforts and capacity. To mantein the status quo is to deny the possibility to deliver something that can combine the best aspect of the two.

If we want just to make it a question of individualism, okay we can do it...But I like to see a little more further ahead than a stadium where a derby is played. Luckily the decision is taken by people that reason with a pratical mind and that can see the immediate benefits of a common project.

I also doubt that Mods that are compatible now with TuTu and BGT-WeiDu (the most) would have major problems being ported to a new platform which, obviously, will probably mantain the structure of one of the already two exisiting projects in each single element...At least that's what I would think, in my ignorance...

Edited by Salk, 17 January 2006 - 06:19 AM.

[ScuD]

Salk, it could have been great if we were a software development team with regular salaries and project deadlines. Unfortulately, we are not We are just gamers and BG is our hobby
Both projects right now are lacking the perfection. Can you guarantee that the combined project will be less buggy? Can you estimate the time expenses for coming to the agreement which features it will include, code them and fix all appeared bugs? And also rewriting some existing mods, test and fix them?
This is a good idea to combine 2 projects, but the idealistic approach usually suffers in the real life

[sadun]

Agree with Vlad, Horred, ScuD and KD.

On the other hand it is true that avoiding duplicate effort is a must. The best solution is let Tutu modders joins BGT team.

[King Diamond]

to deliver something that can combine the best aspect of the two.

I'm absolutely ignorant here 'coz I never tried TuTu. And I'm just waiting, searching, looking for the list of "the best aspects" that everybody want to obtain with this project. Please tell me - may be I'm missing something very important here.... I'm not sarcastic, I just want to be reasonable....

Talking about "chapter numeration" or "smart spawn points" and knowing that to make that it's necessary to revamp the entire BGT/TuTu mod in the tenth time ('coz it's just a part of merging and one of the "best aspects") receiving another 1000 bugs in a process seems to me as a "waste of modding efforts" exactly.