Hasn't it been enough?! [Archive] - Armageddon Games Forums

DarkFlameWolf

10-23-2006, 09:47 AM

There has been a saying that unlike game maker or rpg maker, ZC is something the average person could understand and utilize. Well, it 'was' something the average person can understand. Now its gotten so complex to the point that its ridiculous.
Freeform combos, Z Scripting, New subscreen editor, Item editors, Enemy editors, custom sound fx/music mp3s, etc.
It seems the more new, 'cool' things you add, 15-20 bugs come along with it. When was the last time we had a 'real' stable ZC? Some would claim ver. 1.92 beta 183/184. But that still had some serious bug issues. So I'd say as far back as ver. 1.90 was our last stable ZC and that's bad.
Yes, these features are cool and all and I agree they add a lot to the game making scene and I also agree that it makes things like cutscenes, dialogue, custom bosses a whole lot easier. But my god, you can do practically anything in ZC that rpgmaker or game maker can do. (almost) And for the average quest maker, who is actually going to take advantage of all of these features and actually use them effectively and build a decent quest with it? Yes, there are some 'greats' out there that can rebuke this post and say all these changes were necessary and would greatly enhance their own quests. But half of those 'greats' haven't even released a quest themselves, only awesome looking SOTW. And the ones that do finish a quest, it will be so far into next year or even 2008 before a fully-realized quest with the latest features is released that is actually decent to look at and to play.
This exponentially lengthens the time it takes to make a quest. I remember back when I first started making quests with 1.90 and I could build a full-fledged quest in less than 4-6 days! And they were pretty good quality too! Now with the latest beta, I can't even build a quest within 8-15 months. That is a big change in production time.
What we need is not another beta with oodles more features, what we need is a new stable ZC. Stop adding more features and start fixing the bugs already present in the program itself right now. Make it a goal to stop accepting more ideas and start fixing what is broken. We cannot have bug-free quests if the program isn't bug-free itself. Finish what you start before you move onto other things. We need a stable ZC. Period.

koopa

10-23-2006, 10:20 AM

We need a stable ZC.

Yes. I agree that all these features won't be much use to anyone unless they can actually be used in quests ... and it's also pretty much inevitable that new features are buggy until tested and fixed.

Whether it's worth putting these features in or not is one question, how to do it is another. For good or for bad, what's here is here to stay I think. I'm quite in favour of new features but I can also see that people would like something that actually works.

I think one of the issues here that needs addressing is old bugs, that is should old bugs be fixed before new ones are added. I know from the logs on the developer server that a lot has been done, and I know from the number of threads in the bug forum a lot still needs to be done.

I also know that I personally should be doing a lot more, during my exam periods and the last month in general I've been pretty much idle. Ok, I have worked on ZC in between but not nearly as much as I'd like to. Now that term is starting again my daily life is going to take on a more organized form, and I'll see that I can fit in some more ZC work.

There's also the question of whether betas should be public or not. That decision was made before I became a developer, so I can sneak out of answering that one.
I can say this though:
ZC 2.11 is an unstable beta version. It's not meant for making quests yet.
I suggest to anyone that wants to make a quest, that you choose an older version and port it to 2.11 when a stable version is out.

My personal opinion is that we should every now and then have something more or less usable to release, that is as developers set times (once a year?) when we try and release something "stable".

And there's lots more I'd like to say, and no doubt will during the course of this discussion.

One thing most of all: Since I joined up to help develop, I've seen a bit of just how much work ZC is. Just to give some ideas of the scale involved: My ZC development folder is currently 480 MB and a bit over 130'000 lines of code in ZC/ZQ alone (excluding compiler of ZScript). And what I've done so far is nothing compared to what DN, for instance, has done. I don't want to give the impression that I'm unhappy with how ZC is being run. I'm not criticising anyone on the development team (except myself for being lazy). I do concede that DFW has a point here, however.

I'm helping DFW to betatest her newest quest and we've hit a point where she decided to convert it to 2.11, which pretty much rendered it unplayable (beta 14 is buggy, there's no denying it).
She has to add:

because my new quest, some of the ideas and concepts I have planned for it won't work with pre 2.11 releases because of lack of these features.
so yes, I do agree the features are helpful and needed for various things I want to do
but there should be a point we should stop

I've got a feeling she's not alone there.

JayeM

10-23-2006, 10:34 AM

I agree completely, DFW. I have been worried for some time about ZC getting too complicated for new questmakers. Instead of being fun, questmaking has become a brain-buster. I suggested releasing a simpler, stable version (like beta 163) for those of us who have no desire to be a programmer and calling it ZC Basic. Then the next stable version could be ZC Deluxe. Two separate games, so that there would be no stigma attached to "not using the latest version".

Have also been preaching "stop with the new features and kill all the bugs" for longer than I can remember. Enough is enough!

koopa

10-23-2006, 10:40 AM

I'm personally against splitting ZC into two but only for the reason I find it unnecessary. As long as we don't remove any features AND the old ones still work, there's no reason why scripting, for instance, shouldn't be available as an option. It would also mean that any new features would as far as possible be made accessible to non-scripters.
Take my "disable items on dmaps" as an example. It' should actually work in one of the next betas. It's clear that you'll be able to disable items via scripts sooner or later, but I explicitly wanted that to be available without scripts too, which is why you see the tab in the dmap window as it is. (Yeah, it doesn't work yet. Think of it as a taste of things to come)
New features like the ice rod, ice combos etc. are quite ok with me - no scripts required - but I do concede they're no use unless they're part of a usable (read: stable) version.

Warlock

10-23-2006, 10:50 AM

I don't get it. If the new features are too complex, *don't use them*. They are not mandatory. You can still make a quest the same way you did with older versions.

ShadowTiger

10-23-2006, 10:59 AM

I really have nothing but complaints against those who start threads like this, but that's only because it's harder to see things from the point of a questmaker when I've never actually completed a quest. I just build what I feel like building with the new features that help us to do so.

My views, are that if you're serious about building a quest, then I don't really see why you shouldn't do your research beforehand about a beta that you can SEE everyone complaining about before upgrading. If you're designing a quest in an older version, and you're serious about it, you've probably already planned out your quest to not need the newer features. Why would you upgrade then? You know there are bugs, and you know what you're getting into.

Everyone is constantly making arguments like this. I personally hope that there's a steady decline in "new features" and an increase in the amount of bugs being analyzed AND TESTED FOR so that these features can be confirmed. Why not help test if you're so concerned about a new version?

If you're too busy building a quest in a previous version to test the newer version and to help the devs to fix those bugs by reporting them in a helpful fashion, (Which is really all that can be expected of any given tester; to be thorough.)

Something I would also like to point out is that everyone wants to build quests, but they don't really want to test for the bugs.

Read this (http://www.purezc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22899&st=10#) whenever you have the time. It's very informative as to the nature of the current situation, as well as the situation regarding most betas in general.

I don't get it. If the new features are too complex, *don't use them*. They are not mandatory. You can still make a quest the same way you did with older versions.I agree, very much. There's just one thing wrong here: Bugs. Bugs are preventing some older features from working correctly in some betas where applicable. You can't really control which beta people use to play your quests, as people have the most disturbing tendency to completely ignore everything from pinned threads, huge bold text, messages posted in the quest download area, verbal warnings, slaps on the wrist, "WET PAINT" signs, ... etc. They usually end up getting pretty scarred for it, and wonder why they end up so "wronged," and automatically accuse the quest designer. After all, the bug is in your quest, so you're responsible for them using the wrong version despite all your warnings. It's not the number of people who do heed those warnings, but the number of people who don't heed them despite their availablility TO BE HEEDED by some people after all.

Still though, if you don't want to use a new feature, why are you looking at it? All the old features are still there, and even streamlined. Wouldn't Dungeon Carving mode and Relational mode make your lives ten times easier? Combo aliases take time to set up, but they REALLY DO make your lives easier if you're organized with your usage of layers.

If you're not sure about a new feature, then either take the time to learn about it, or just ignore it. You don't have to worry about it being too complex for you if you can just ignore it and continue building your quest.

Honestly, there's like, ... some sort of barrier between both sides here. O.o'

C-Dawg

10-23-2006, 11:00 AM

Warlock's on the money. The new features are only additions, not replacements. Scripting technically removes the need for AttChg FFCs, but they stay because they're slightly easier to work with. Heck, animated combos technically remove the need for AttChg FFCs, but the tedium involved in making them is nuts. And direct warps remove the need for animated combos, but you burn up screens and dmaps like gangbusters.

ZC should be stable, sure. But losing stability in favor of innovation for the high-end only is fine; most people won't use them, and those who do will work around the stability issues.

Plus, DFW, you're overlooking how the new scripting engine allows the "great" questmakers you mention to create new scripts which can very easily be applied to a newbie's quest. Seriously. Lets say that you've scripted up a custom item or enemy. There are multiple steps to getting it working in someone else's game, but the steps are easy to list and easy for someone who has no idea what they're doing to follow.

Essentially, scripting lets people take advantage of the abilities of a few coders on a large scale. Heck, they're 90% of the way to a working Roc's Feather over in the scripting forum. Are you seriously not interested in this?

Ninja Edit - Even I find relational combos and dungeon carving to be a little cumbersome and I havn't used them, yet. But someone will, and will produce combo sets that are pre-designed to use relational drawing. And the plebes will REJOICE, I say.

ShadowTiger

10-23-2006, 11:12 AM

Doing that right now, actually. Feel free to rip anything you'd like from any version of NeoFirst that you happen across. I've got tons of 'em out there, and the basic design (For the Combo Page.) remains the same regardless of how it's listed on the tiles page. Rip in the tiles, and set up the combos on the combo page to match how I layed (laid?) them out on the tiles page, click on the upperleft-most combo, press "o" to toggle between Relational/Dungeon Carving(/And Alias) modes, and draw away. All you need is the combo page arrangement, and you're good to go to experiment on your own.

This (http://users.sephiroth.ws/ST/zc/neofirst/NeoFirstB13_9_19_06_CaveBuilding1.qst) is technically the latest version of NeoFirst, BTW. It's totally public-domain. Take whatever you'd like from it, as it's a community contributed quest.

(... aaaand your Koolaid avatar still scares others in the room, and endangers my very presence on the forums considering where I post from. :blah: )

BTW, NOBODY HERE can tell me that something like the new "Scroll to combo" feature is a feature the ZC can do without. It's improvements like THAT which the "Great quest authors" are looking for which I think all of us should be pining for and looking into. New combos are all well and good, but they're incompatible with older versions. General entities for convenience for ALL questmakers, like dungeon carving mode, Aliases, etc, will benefit ALL quest developers. Those alone are reasons to continue upgrading ZC in spite of bugs. There are gamestopping bugs, and there are quest-development stopping bugs. IMHO, it's the latter which should be addressed before the former, as quests wouldn't exist much without ZQuest working as it should.

Wow, I'm a whole big bundle of hypocrisy today, aren't I.

DarkFlameWolf

10-23-2006, 01:53 PM

Well, the other issue still remains, we should finish up with the current batch of new features and just leave it at that and start working on actual bug-busting and making a stable ZC with what we have. Furthermore, I am testing, by upgrading Lost Isle to the latest beta, Petoe and I are finding tons of bugs, some new, some old. So as a result of creating with/testing with/playing with beta 14, we are looking for bugs and we are in contact with DN about them as well. So we are doing our part. I simply think the developers need to finish up the features they have now before the add more which could only cause more problems.

Luigi

10-23-2006, 03:06 PM

The basics of ANY software development are as follows:

New program versions = new features = new bugs

(I think)

Petoe

10-23-2006, 03:16 PM

There's nothing wrong in adding new features because it enables us questmakers to make our quests so much better. But unlike C-Dawg, I want stabilty before revolution/innovation! i just cannot stand games or programs that are unstable, and currently ZC is very buggy and unstable and it just seems to get worse every time a new beta is released. :(

ZC needs to keep on developing, sure. But for christ's sake, let's just forget upgrading ZC for a while and just strictly concentrate on fixing bugs! Didn't jman say that right now the devs should be fixing bugs to prepare ZC for a full and stable release finally... but someone decided to rewamp the item code and whooops, now the items are screwed up. What happened to the plan to release a stable ZC during this year?

I know this is a stupid subject to be mad about since betas are called betas for a reason and I know you devs are doing great job and working your butts off, but IMO ZC is suffering because there hasn't been a stable ZC for ages. And since we were promised a stable ZC soon, people are obviously getting frustrated and impatient.

DarkFlameWolf

10-23-2006, 03:57 PM

The basics of ANY software development are as follows:

New program versions = new features = new bugs

(I think)

yes, but does new versions always have to dictate new features? Maybe new versions can merely be improves on the old and bug-fixes. I'd accept that.

jman2050

10-23-2006, 04:23 PM

I haven't touched ZC in a month due to personal issues. TBH, a stable ZC was SUPPOSED to be released a while ago, but things haven't gone in our favor (and DD leaving hasn't helped at all). However, I guaranteed a stable version of ZC before the end of the year, and DN and I will make absolutely sure that happens. As for new features, I dunno bout what DN is doing, but I have a list of features that i want to add before the stable version, and that would be it.

In other words, be patient. This is partly my fault, so blame me for the lack of updates and the bugginess you've had to deal with for a while now.

cbailey78

10-23-2006, 04:56 PM

If you use combo aliases, it will randomly crash Zquest and that needs to be fixed!

Dlbrooks33

10-23-2006, 06:50 PM

The onlyI problem I really have is that the stable release complaints. Other than that I really have no problems. But please do these befoer the next release so some of us and mostly me can stop asking for them:

Quest Rule:1st Freame return(cmon all you have to do if C and P the code in the Z-3 Style Animation(Not Movement) that made link stop at the first frame and turn it into a quest rule.

Readd Ice: just make sure you do solid detection, and make things that you push slide all the way across the ice.

Finish Enhanced Music: yeah, we need to be able to set the volume of MP3's where it starts, loops, and ends.

ShadowTiger

10-23-2006, 09:43 PM

...

but things haven't gone in our favor (and DD leaving hasn't helped at all)... hold the phone. ... ... What?

_L_

10-23-2006, 11:05 PM

From what I've heard, he's gone to study abroad for awhile, which is crimping his effectiveness as a developer.

zeldafan500

10-24-2006, 07:43 AM

that right there is the exact opposite of my opinion.

Nicholas Steel

10-24-2006, 08:29 AM

what you said makes no sense zeldafan500... what are you on about? what was your opinion on about?

DarkDragon

10-24-2006, 10:27 AM

I guess zeldafan doesn't like me :cry:

I'm in France right now studying abroad until late January, and unfortunately have neither the time nor equipment to develop. (this message for instance was typed on a really ghetto French keyboard with �*, 0, @, and * all on the same key (yes, there are three different kinds of shift keys. wtf.))

My leaving couldn't have come at a worse time; the ZScripting is still in a nascent state and though I fixed all the bugs I knew about before leaving it remains plenty buggy, and moreover needs extensive redesign of some parts. Same story for the new item code. And the server hosting our code repository has been down for two weeks now and trying to get the repository back up from abroad has been a nightmare, though there has finally been progress.

As for the stable release question, this complaint has been brought up many times before, and I'm not sure what I can add to this thread that hasn't been mentioned before.

What we need is not another beta with oodles more features, what we need is a new stable ZC. Stop adding more features and start fixing the bugs already present in the program itself right now.
I was hired as a bug-fixer and, with the very large exception of the ZScript copiler, that is what I've done. True, I could have spend more time on ZC this summer, but I had an actual job that demanded a lot of my time, and I did the best I could manage :shrug:
I encourage you to glance at the Quarantined Bugs forum, where 185 fixed bugs are waiting to be confirmed dead. By comparison there are only ~130 active reported bugs right now. That is, there are more bugs we've fixed that beta testers haven't bothered checking back up on, than bugs waiting to be fixed. For those wanting a stable release which, unlike 2.10, isn't full of old bugs, emptying the Quarantine forum would be a great start.

This exponentially lengthens the time it takes to make a quest. I remember back when I first started making quests with 1.90 and I could build a full-fledged quest in less than 4-6 days! Unfortunately this is a very sticky phenomenon and I'm not sure it's something we developers can (or should) address. When a quest author spends extra time polishing his quest by pushing new features to the max, he raises the bar for future quests, which will thus demand more time from the author. What's happening with ZC parallels what happened with computer games in general: back in the '80s a lone developer could sit down and create, over the course of a few weeks, a professional and successful computer game. Nowadays that's thoroughly impossible; game development is a huge affair, with mutiple programmers, artists, musicians, etc; the length of the credits of major games these days rivals that of movies.

Nothing stops you from developing a 1st.qst-style quest in 4-6 days, as you did before. Is it really our fault if other authors have raised the bar by using more features in their quests? Although I fully understand the complaint that new features take away time from bugfixing, I don't quite understand this line of argument.

beefster09

10-26-2006, 10:30 AM

I know exactly how to fix this problem!!! All we need is Basic/Advanced mode in the preferences menu. The Basic mode contains only the things that are absolutely necessary for questbuilding (just like 1.84/1.90). The Advanced mode contains every single feature that we have now. All the new rules, new items and init. data, etc. would remain in Basic mode. Just the newer stuff that can still leave a resemblance of the 1st quest.

If somebody beat me to it, you can whack me with a dull spoon. :P

ShadowTiger

10-26-2006, 11:00 AM

The_Amaster

10-26-2006, 02:04 PM

Scripting and FFCs would definatly be advanced. However, multiwarps should be basic, beause they're not that complicated, and they add soooo much to ZQuest(When I i first saw them in the beta, I literally cried) I'd say subscreen editors and the rudimentery item editor are advance, not due to complexity, but just because the casual maker isn' going to get too much use out of them.

koopa

10-26-2006, 02:32 PM

I like the idea but we could just pop all the new stuff in an "advanced" or "custom" menu and if you don't need it, you don't need to use it ... speaking of which, does having "load ZScript" in a menu really matter? I mean, even if we don't have a "basic" mode you don't have to click the "script" menu items.

We'd of course have to have basic and advanced tutorials, some for making quests without scripts (like the ones we already have) and others for learning zscript (like the one I've started writing).

Sam Atoms

10-26-2006, 09:01 PM

Here's an idea based on JayeM's post above. We pretty much already have ZC Basic. Take v1.92 beta 183 without the overworld map bug (and whatever other little things are wrong) and release that as an official version. Alternatively, use v1.92 beta 184 with the bugfix for the Gleeok necks being stuck on the left side of the screen (and whatever other little things are wrong). I think the features in beta 183/184 provide just the right mix. Beta 163 doesn't have boss keys, which most people need. Take a good, solid stage of the project and give it some authority. ZC Advanced/Deluxe will be ready whenever it's done.

beefster09

10-26-2006, 10:33 PM

That's .. actually .. a very interesting idea. o.o' You could probably have a toggle area under the File Menu. The question is, what would it block off? What's considered "advanced" and what isn't?

Would multiwarps be too advanced? Timed Tic Warps? The swimming toggle quest rule? The rule about combining potions? Flickering?

The question goes so far in depth, it's too complex to answer, IMHO. Having such a disable feature wouldn't allow the person to practice the new features if they're not available to use. Something to consider. Just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them, but if they're not there AT ALL, how can you be expected to learn?

Actually, I meant that the basic mode just wouldn't include FFC's, Scripting, Subscreen editor, Item editor, and other things (other than 8-bit tiles) that people are complaining about. All of the quest rules will remain the same. Keep timed tic warps, but add something saying that there are 60 tics in a second. Perhaps you could have an extra column on the top bar thing, where in Basic mode, it says advanced, and you can scroll down to get all of the features "excluded" in basic mode. But if you've ever checked out game maker, there is a basic mode (without scripts, paths, fonts, or timelines) And an expert mode.
BTW: This would just be an editor preference, so it won't affect the quest whatsoever.
PS: We should wait, so that we don't get a buggy, crappy version of ZC. And if you're this anxious to wait for a "crap" free, bug free version, just use 1.84 or 1.90!

Nicholas Steel

10-27-2006, 02:21 AM

also... basic mode only hides options and features... it doesn't make them redundant... so you can go in advanced mode change something then switch back to basic mode... as you may just like menus that are cleaner and don't have what you don't use... better yet have the option to fully customize whats "visible" and whats not... and allow us to change this whenever we want with no adverse effects...

microsoft office for instance lets us pretty much do what i suggest aswell... but only for toolbars...

DarkDragon

10-27-2006, 07:40 AM

beefster09

10-27-2006, 04:29 PM

You wouldn't need different skins, its just that Basic mode is a little cleaner, like what franpa said. You should be able to do this without forking the code by just not showing the option on the list.

Sam Atoms

10-27-2006, 07:26 PM

I can understand what you're saying, but the release of ZC Basic would not cause a serious forking problem because that branch would end there. In addition, ZC Basic would inherently be bug-free, so programmers' resources could be entirely directed to ZC Advanced/Deluxe. Right now we effectively do have a branching problem because quests have been released for about 5 different versions and they often have to be played in the right one. ZC Basic could handle all the quests released for v1.92 beta 184 and before. As for quests released for v2.10, some beta of unknown stability would have to do for now.

Saffith

10-28-2006, 11:11 PM

We'd of course have to have basic and advanced tutorials, some for making quests without scripts (like the ones we already have) and others for learning zscript (like the one I've started writing).So you are doing one after all? I started on one, but it's not too far along yet (only up to mathematical operators). I'll let you have what there is, if it'll help.

mikepjr2

10-29-2006, 07:25 AM

It sounds to me like.... maybe their are just some things people like and want and some things people don't like and want.

I for one hate to script, god.. no scripting, i loved ZC because you did not have things like that.

What should have been done is someone should have looked at RPG maker 2000 or 2003, scripting was done by way of events, events were triggered when you A touched it B got right over it or C walked up against it and pressed a button.

And their was no typing needed to do scripting that way, it was all point and click.

I loved that.

I do not want to script... BUT... and this is a BIG BUT, this way others who do know about scripting can share their scripts, and that would be cool.

As for bugs, only time i have any major bugs is.... WHEN i import a quest from and older version.

If i start one fresh in the newer version i don't get a bunch of bugs popping up.
Only bug im still having is really odd and i have no idea what may be causing it, Zelda classic itself turns reds and the pallets go all wacko, but the colors are actually still the same colors they are supposed to be when you save and play the quest... it is really bizarre.

I love the sub screen editor, i almost pooped my pants when i seen that was added lol.

Oh and more then one warp, that awesome to.
Link being bigger and taller is awesome, but his sword sits wrong with the big link.

My thing is this, IF you do not like a feature, DON'T use it.
I mean, i hate scripting, so guess what.
.................................................. ... I WONT USE IT.

Thank you for your time everyone have a good day, i need some sleep, im sitting her all night the last few nights looking for bugs, but i can not find one that someone has not already beat me to reporting.

Shoelace

10-29-2006, 05:25 PM

I think the main point of this thread is basically not hating on ZC's new features, but concentrating on bugs. I welcome all of these ZC features, even if I don't use things like scripts. Why? Because, someone would be able to use them and make great games with these features.

The developer's have said that they are going to add a few more features like the dialogue editor, however, focus on bugs and make sure that there is a stable release in December. The thing is I think people are getting freaked out that there is basically 2 months left, and beta 14, the last beta, was very buggy. They haven't released beta 15 yet, and if there are those new features, bugs will come in. Will they be able to make the deadline? I am not so sure since we don't know a lot of what is going on behind closed doors. I say once we get beta 15, we can figure if they will or not.

But yeah, my exceptations of ZC are high; I want all of the 2.10 games to play perfectly. I want my quest HoD to be able to played all of the way through with no bugs. The reason is, I want people to be able to play it on 2.11, without that midi bug. I was so mad that there was no fix for 2.10. Please just make sure you release a near-perfect beta, and I will play through HoD, in it to see if it plays perfectly. Don't release the version just to make the deadline, kill all of the bugs first. It is better to have a stable, non-buggy release then a month early version.

zyoss2000

10-29-2006, 07:33 PM

It is better to have a stable, non-buggy release then a month early version.

you couldn't of said it better. I want a stable version, not some buggy stuff.

Which reminds me, is that stupid map bug and that heart container bug fixed yet? I have heard no word on that yet.

koopa

10-30-2006, 06:24 AM

So you are doing one after all? I started on one, but it's not too far along yet (only up to mathematical operators). I'll let you have what there is, if it'll help.
By popular demand I've started writing a tutorial based on "C in 21 days" that should allow non-programmers to get into scripting a bit. I might have something to release around the end of the year, but it's an ambitious idea.

The manual is a separate piece of work that should be done a lot sooner.

Regarding making Zquest Basic/Advanced, that won't solve the problem of bugs in the actual ZC player. A stable version means to me one you can play without it bugging up, and if there's a bug in, say, the item system that'll need to be fixed whether scripts come into it or not.

Deviance

11-08-2006, 01:34 PM

beefster09

11-08-2006, 06:44 PM

Well imo I think it hasn't got complicated at all. If you are just new to zc. You can still use the basic features to make a decent quest. But if you want to be more advanced then you can make use of the newer things.

Exactly. The idea of ZC is that you can make a quest without all of these features. They're just there so you have the option to make a cooler quest. You can still make a quest in 3 days. It's just that the expectations now are higher.

The_Amaster

11-08-2006, 10:26 PM

Yeah, which means that few people will make one in 3 days, because the expectations are high. When everyone else is making quests with the features, youll use them too even if you dont want to, because everyone else is doing it, and you feel you have to compare. Peer pressure.

beefster09

11-09-2006, 08:43 PM

Why not just make it for an earilier version then?

ShadowTiger

11-09-2006, 09:07 PM

People loooove their multiwarps. ;-p

Dark Nation

11-10-2006, 12:58 PM

Well, we could always have contests for this sort of thing.

"You have 72 hours to make a quest with 3 dungeons that uses the following items and the included tileset."

"Make a quest with 4 dungeons using only overworld-type dmaps."

"Make a quest with as many strange elements as you can think of (such as zoras appearing on land or not getting any weapons until you beat a dungeon)."

etc.

There's still life left in 2.10. Which is why I'm fixing bugs in it now.

Lotus_Eater

12-06-2006, 07:21 PM

Maybe the time has come for a whole new Zelda Classic, like Zelda LttP Classic, one that is more suited to higher quality tiles and is able to support an overall larger and more potent game, perhaps something along the lines of Zelda Classic meets RPG Maker, having essentially unlimited colors so you don't have palette issues, being able to add as many enemies and such as you want, scrolling screens.

Basically get this version of ZC completely stable, then instead of upgrading an outdated engine, begin a new one with much more power.

Gerudo

12-06-2006, 10:21 PM

If the new features are too complex, *don't use them*. They are not mandatory. You can still make a quest the same way you did with older versions.I'll have to object to this saying. I compare it to the way the DS works. If a game doesn't use the DS's touch screen or use the top screen for whatever full reason, you'll see that there are people who will always complain about it.

Now, I always see that if a quest uses classic graphics, people are turned off. If a quest doesn't make use of <insert new awesome feature here>, people won't play it. The program has really evolved into something spectacular, I fully agree. Some features are too complex for the normal user to use, and their aspiring quests are snubbed because they don't make full use of all the resources.

Long story short, if you don't use the great features, your quest basically gets shit on.

The_Amaster

12-06-2006, 10:45 PM

That's exactly what I said. People will use features they don't want because they know that everyone else is, and they feel they have to keep up.

Radien ZC

12-07-2006, 09:10 PM

I disagree with the statement that 1.90 was more stable than 1.92 beta 183/184. Version 1.90 had plenty of problems. And if we start talking about non-fatal bugs, like broken enemy movement patterns, 1.90 was just full of 'em.

2.11 Beta 14 and 15 are certainly problematic, but beta 11 is actually pretty darn stable for an "unstable release."

Also, I say the subscreen editor IS user-friendly. I don't even want to touch scripting and FFCs at this point, but I was able to pick up the subscreen editor and run with it. If you want to criticize how "crashy" it is, you would be correct, but don't list it among the non-user-friendly features, because I appreciate it greatly as a feature that can be learned as you go.

And as others have pointed out before, it is completely optional. If you find yourself unable to resist using new features, it's not the programmers fault if you take the time to learn them. It's only a problem if learning them in an unavoidable requirement for using the program.

Sam Atoms

12-11-2006, 05:09 AM

Now, I always see that if a quest uses classic graphics, people are turned off. If a quest doesn't make use of <insert new awesome feature here>, people won't play it. The program has really evolved into something spectacular, I fully agree. Some features are too complex for the normal user to use, and their aspiring quests are snubbed because they don't make full use of all the resources.

Long story short, if you don't use the great features, your quest basically gets shit on.
My my. If this is the prevailing attitude here, I can only hope that people like FlakyHedgehog and many others never happen upon these forums.

Otherwise, there's always romhacking.