The Dimentio and Anarchy Show

[Shane]

I don't care about anyone else's enjoyment apart from my own when it comes to spending my precious time making quests.

Yet you care enough to make several long winded posts rambling like an armchair critic about this "type a" and "type b" nonsense as an attempt to perform mental gymnastics to avoid criticism. Sounds a lot like you care that others didn't enjoy it as you claim they're "misunderstanding" something here.

The thing is that I'm ballsy enough to say such a thing whereas most other quest makers will pretend - "oh yes I care about the community and I love their feedback" - but deep down they will do the same thing as I do.

Explain DX versions of quests. Explain why quests get updates in response to some feedback. Explain why people get beta testers to get bug reports and feedback. And if they don't listen, they most certainly do not make several threads for several years about made up stuff. They just go on with their lives.

[ZoriaRPG]

Zoria - how is anyone supposed to know whether something is a bug or not in Zelda Classic especially if something is an edge case? That is why I will forever play AQ in 1.92 Beta, The Hero Without A Name in 2.10. Can't trust backwards compatibility for exactly the reasons you specify.

You report playability issues, and we address them when we work on the upcoming builds. When people fail to report problems, or they discover something that is obviously unintended and exploit it, that is what causes incompatibility issues in future versions. We are trying to address most of these for 2.53 and 2.54, but no-one is bothering to take the time to work with us on that subject, so if it is not important to the users, then we are not going to overly worry about it.

My comment was a quasi-trollish way of saying that, if people have enough time to discuss something this esoteric (and inherently non-quantifiable) at length, then they probably have an hour or ten to kill testing their quests and reporting problems.

2.10 tuff should all be fine, as far as I am aware. 1.92bXXX is where ZC begins to take it in the arse, because there were so many changes in 1.92 that were never documented, and we do not have the 1.92 sources at all (nor the 1.80, 1.84, and 1.90 sources). I do have all of the 2.10 stuff, though.

Stuff though, like precision timing on how many i-frames a leever that is descending into the ground has, should probably not be a merit-worthy thing around which to base a game mechanic. There is also a required decorum when presenting these cases to us, for inclusion (support), as it basically requires us to implement, and to maintain an engine hack for one specific case at a time.

In general, I try not to implement any changes without a rule or version-based exception, but nothing is fool-proof. I think that 2.53 has the greatest compatibility across old versions of any recent ZC build (2.10 or newer). If you know where there are copies of the 1.92 sources, then we could probably use that to add greater compatibility, later; but when we patch stuff now, we generally need to do it by observing the old behaviour and emulating it. Given that we cant run 1.80->1.92 on modern systems, that is a rather large problem with no ideal solution.

[Gleeok]

You guys are way, way, way off course about type A and type B. Type A and type B are so much more than just difficulty and graphics - its a way of thinking, a culture, a way of defining your personality traits.

...

I think I get what you mean now. Type A = Project Runway; Type B = Predator. 8:^D



.

Honestly, I do have to agree that the A+B classification scheme is too generic. Let's leave the Project Runway stuff to the screen design Nazis and just go back to calling some quests "niche" or "challenge" just like the good ol' days of ZC and be done with it.

This is why I started putting up big warnings on some of my quest downloads that warrant it. Most people see the warning and avoid a headache from playing it; some others may see the warning and want to check it out based on their preferences for that sort of thing. In the end I think it works well because people are reading a completely honest description of the quest and not an advert trying to get people to play it.

[Chris Miller]

But I'm type O-. What do?

EDIT: Never mind, I figured it out!

[Dimentio]

Nice job downvoting all our videos. I bet you feel real proud of yourself and your contribution to society.

[James24]

Shane - people like to talk, bitch and gossip about each other since the beginning of time. Its a fun pass-time and its cheap and free. I know that the things I'm saying will have next to 0% chance of convincing anyone but I like to say them anyway. Most people saying things to me likewise have 0% chance of convincing me especially when they aren't backed up with any evidence. My type A/type B theory comes from many years of observing many games and their interactions with the fanbase and aren't going to change because a few people here say otherwise.

The only thing that you can be 100% absolutely sure about is that I don't care about whether or not anyone else enjoys my quests. They were made for the sole purpose of my own enjoyment and I don't see anything wrong with that motivation. And also I'm 100% sure that this policy apples to every other quest maker out there type A AND type B - but you'll never hear them say it directly. The only way you'll find out from them is through their actions in quest-making.

As for DX, quest makers will listen if what the audience is suggesting enhances their own enjoyment and isn't too time-costly to implement. My own LoH and LoH:IE for example I did listen to Yloh when he suggested that I use the wooden sword instead of the white sword in the room of 10 blue darknuts. I did listen when Yowza said that tough battles should be made like the level 5 death-knight fights. I did listen when Evan said that the beginning part of level 8 suxed. And they were remade into LoH:IE which is a deluxe form of LoH. But I don't listen to type A players when they say, oh but the fights are too unfair and there aren't enough puzzles.

And I think that a similar process goes on for type A players when they are making their quests too. Type A players listen to the feedback of other type A players because type A players share the same enjoyment and culture. But I'm pretty sure that I barge in and say that their quests are too easy and they need to get rid of some puzzles that I will get a flat rejection. How about if I start telling you these criticisms about Rite of Storm? Are you going to do as I ask and make a DX version for type B?

[TheDarkOne]

This is probably totally the wrong place, but does anyone remember Warlock's 210quest? I don't know any other title for it, but it came bundled with older versions of ZC. It was basically an enhanced version of the first quest, featuring updated graphics and some tougher puzzles, as well as a few new enemies and items. If that quest still exists. I can't find it in the QDB.

I mainly bring it up for two reasons: if there is such a thing as a type A or B, this would probably count as type B. Secondly. Megan (aka Pink Fairy) really wanted to try it after I told her about it, but I can't find it anywhere.

[Shane]

And I think that a similar process goes on for type A players when they are making their quests too. Type A players listen to the feedback of other type A players because type A players share the same enjoyment and culture. But I'm pretty sure that I barge in and say that their quests are too easy and they need to get rid of some puzzles that I will get a flat rejection. How about if I start telling you these criticisms about Rite of Storm? Are you going to do as I ask and make a DX version for type B?

We already had this discussion elsewhere. But I think I was being too generous then, as maybe I shouldn't be listening to a guy who can't get the name of my quest right twice (maybe more). The only thing I will say to this is that I do not intend on making a DX version simply because I don't see the reason for making one. The majority seem to like my quest and I feel I have nothing to improve on that's fundamentally flawed. I've used constructive criticism to make two updates and that's where I feel I move onto my next project. You're overly misconstruing valid points people make and putting words into people's mouths to feel like you any chance of convincing anyone that you're a victim of a tirade of "type a" players attacking your quest when (based on LoH:IE especially) no one seems to care for your quests so (from what I'm gathering is that) you're trying to bait "type a" players to play your quest to criticize your quest for these aspects and claim you have any idea what you're talking about. Clever, but not quite.

One last thing I'm going to say after this is that the fact that you've been on the defense and offense over like... 2-3 negative reviews by reviewers who no longer care about your quests specifically for over half a decade shows that you do care. That's all I need to say really, don't have to take my word for it. I'll let other rational people decide for themselves.

[ZoriaRPG]

We need to get Puzzledude in here to defend maddeningly difficult Z3 challenge hack puzzles as Type B.

[Gleeok]

Is everybody involved in this stupidity kissing and making up yet?