🚀 go-pugleaf

Shot 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

Oh, please. This is accepted terminology/definition within the software 
industry.

> 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'

It's not limited to the graphic engine.

> 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

Perhaps one day it will. But that day isn't here yet. For the time 
being, part of the accepted definition of add-on is requiring a parent game.

> 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

Again, you're equating graphical engine with parent game. They are not 
necessarily one in the same.

> 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

No, wrong. Not once did I say that tweaking an engine makes it a 
stand-alone game. The fact that it doesn't require ANYTHING of the 
Prophecy game release in order to run makes it, technologically, a 
stand-alone.

> 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

The same "reputable" gaming magazines that can't even get the title of 
the game correct?

> 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!

Anything can be questioned. I can question whether 1 + 1 really equals 
2, even though logically I know it does.

You're turning the definition of "stand-alone" into an emotional 
response. I've recognized from the get-go that some people may FEEL when 
playing WCSO as though the game is an add-on. But that doesn't make it 
technologically so.

> 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

No, 'fraid not. I may "feel" that driving 90 miles per hour on the 
Interstate is safe, but the defined speed limit says it's not, 
regardless of how I "feel".

> 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..

Actually, I rather think it's you that might make a good lawyer, 
particularly a defense lawyer. After all, defense lawyers tend to 
dismiss logic and skew the facts. :)

-- 

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
  Kevin Scholl                http://www.ksscholl.com/
  kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
  Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
  We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
  the dreams...
======================================================