Believe it or not I have dumped games with really nice graphics before,
simply because the gaming sucked.
Everyone has. But no one tried a game with horrid gfx in the first place.
Of course, what is horrid depends on when in time we are :)
So doing nice graphics will not make a game.
It will help. And I appreciate it very much. But a game consists of
engine and other code, graphics, sound, maps, ...
Just picking something out and telling everybody who works on something
else that he's harming the project or at least not contributing is ... -
bad!
We are in a dynamic where bit after bit gets rewritten with no gain for the
player. I don't see why or when it should or would stop.
Then I am afraid the game will die, because it will have the ultimate engine,
and no game.
Because we are forgetting the players with all this rewrite talk, are we
not?
Are we forgetting the coders when we talk about campaigns?
I don't think so. I can keep more than one subject in mind.
You miss the point. The _only_ interesting subject is the players. What you
do, everything you do, is ultimately for the players. If you do something
that will not, in any way, shape or form help the players, however indirectly
(making code more maintainable for example is in fact good) you are hurting
the project.
What are the issues they raise? what works not so well?
Everytime I looked into user wishes and thought this should be easy
to implement, I recognised that the code so tangled that I can't do it
without harming the whole game.
Example ?
What are the game balance issues?
Are you telling me that the blue globs are stronger than the red ones?
No, a game balance issue was for example the excessive power of the harvest
attacks.
All of those points are important, and not one requires a rewrite, only
tuning.
Ah, only tangling up the code some more.
Brilliant!
uhh To get rid of abovementioned issue, nct needed about 5 mins of code...
I an getting angry.
I know. So you try to insult everybody so that you feel better?
yes.
THE CODE NEEDS NO REWRITE. IT NEEDS REFACTORING.
Bigger letters but still fundamentally wrong - sorry.
look up rewrite vs refactoring. You might realise that the issues you raise
are solved by refactoring. In many case, this is what Brad does, and not
rewrite.
But you still call it a rewrite, which is insulting.
most of the work in making a game is not code, it is graphics and writing
and maps. Look at the number of each profession at Blizzard :)
And I really appreciate every commiter of graphics.
I tried to, and failed. Face it. Just because you would like more
graphics contributed, doesn't mean that this will happen.
I am sadly aware of that. It happens sometimes, though. But it is rare.
Once upon a time, a TODO was done which essentially said that the 1.0 is
the current state, debugged, with gfx and campaign finished.
Are we working in that direction? NO.
And we never should go in this direction again, because it
turns developers away.
versus turning other contributers away?
I pray that you won't succeed in scheming this nonsence back into
the project, because I don't think glob2 would survive it.
Scheme? what scheme, this is an open ML!
Actually, from Rama's drawing, I did ~90% of the graphics.
And you know what?
they need a redraw.
Huch? Ergo crap?
well, yeah. They are wayyyy worse than say, those of starcraft.
Your insulting Cyrille!
Wasn't that your reasoning?
Yes. Absolutely. The difference is that I don't care whether people criticise
my work. I actually appreciate it if the criticism is cogent. I am however
sensitive to the constant dragging in the mud of nuage and nct's work.
And unfortunately, you cannot refactor drawings. You can touch them up
however.