🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kevin Scholl" <kscholl@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ea6dnU68KMWu-EWi4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> Stephen R. Marsh wrote:
>
> >>Doubtful. Not that it matters anyway, since the only "professionals in
> >>the game industry" that matter are those that developed the game. And
> >>they say stand-alone.
> >
> >
> > Whatever.  Check Gamesutra or similar collections of designers.
> >
> > Just saying something is so, doesn't make it so.  Cheshire cats not
> > withstanding.
>
> Perhaps. But I think I've presented enough evidence to back the
> stand-alone viewpoint. On the other hand, the only "proof" for the
> add-on side has been based on unsupported conjecture and feelings.
>
> > What if I got one of the designers to say otherwise?  Would that change
your
> > mind?
>
> I would re-evaluate perhaps. But the overriding aspect here remains that
> by definition an add-on requires the parent game in order to run. This
> is a clear, technical requirement (not a subjective "feeling" or belief)
> which, in this case, cannot be argued.
>
> --
That too is subjective. There is no dictionary that states an add on
requires the game engine of the parent game. There is no such dictionary. If
there was it wouldn't even matter. Times change. The idea that an add on
required the same graphic engine is as subjective as the idea that it doesn'
t. It is ALL subjective. Definitions change over time. There is NO "forever"
in a definition. What is a definition? Its assigning other words to a word
to describe how a society feels about the word. In 100 years goodbye could
very well mean hello if people started using "goodbye" as hello. As times
change, definitions change. What was once true 10 years ago in computer
gaming is no longer true. 10 years ago it took awhile to make a new game
engine. You could not just "tweak" everything and make it technically
different. If you were going to change it you took lots of time to do it. An
add on back then would of course have meant it had the same game engine.now.
that may no longer be true. Technology changes monthly not yearly. Soon
weekly, maybe one day daily. You CANNOT keep the same "OLD" definitions to a
changing industry. Resist it all you want, ONE DAY I believe your definition
for "add on" will be re thought of. In this computer world today it is not
that hard to change the gaming engine around a little and tweak it here and
tweak it there. It is not. It is time you re-think your beliefs. The times
are changing, but you seem to be standing still. That game may have a
different engine, but it is NOT a stand-alone game. That game is good, but I
can't see why you would give it the honor of the name "stand alone". But
then again times change. and maybe "stand alone" doesn't mean what it once
meant. to not bear a shadow, to be unique in so many ways. your definition
of stand alone is tweaking this so you can present a case that its unique. I
have already presented ALL the facts I need to show my view. People doubt
it, people doubt it. It may not be everyone's but people do doubt it.
Reputable gaming magazines DOUBT IT! That is a fact that people doubt that
game being stand alone. That's all the case I need. Stand alone. what on
Earth do you think 'stand alone" means? Anything that was that special that
unique.something that 'stands alone" would not be questioned.THIS IS THOUGH!
The times they are a changing, if you don't change with it you may be left
behind. If it "feels" like an add-on. it probably is. There need be no facts
to make an add-on an add-on, it is ALL subjective. Hide behind your little
facts all you want, how they tweaked that and this, the game engine is not
the same oh wow. You'd make a great lawyer..