MININIM 0.9.2

A free software implementation of Prince of Persia 1.

Moderator: English Moderator Team

User avatar
oitofelix
Sultan
Sultan
Posts: 186
Joined: February 17th, 2016, 1:59 pm
Contact:

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby oitofelix » March 4th, 2016, 9:03 pm

Norbert wrote:I think it's easy to avoid terminology such as "insane?"...


Just to clarify, I intended this as a pun on the quite common computing term "sane defaults". I wasn't, in any way, suggesting that people who disagree with me are insane.

Code: Select all

 88888  FFFFF Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
 8   8  F     http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/mininim/
 88888  FFFF  mailto:oitofelix@gnu.org
 8   8  F     irc://chat.freenode.org/oitofelix
 88888  F     Please, support my work: http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/funding.html

Andrew
Wise Scribe
Wise Scribe
Posts: 313
Joined: July 16th, 2009, 4:39 pm

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby Andrew » March 5th, 2016, 3:18 am

oitofelix wrote:Are you trying to give me a moral lesson? Are you trying to say how should I feel and behave about the game I developed? How arrogant of you.

Dude, seriously? I was talking about giving PoP1's design choices the necessary amount of respect. I don't give a rat's ass about how you should feel about Mininim itself, but there's absolutely no reason you can't feel proud about it without in any way disparaging the original. IMO it would be extremely presumptuous and arrogant of any of us to call the gameplay defaults of a proven game, popular the world over, progenitor of an awesome franchise and a real classic in its own right, as "unfit" and "insane".

Speaking of which...

oitofelix wrote:It's fit and sane for the original game. That's not the case for MININIM.

Ah, so you simply meant those defaults would be unfit and insane for Mininim and not for PoP1, because they would be antithetical to your vision? It seems that with those words you were referring to PoP1 and being dismissive of what Mechner accomplished back in the day. If that was the case then I stand by what I said. OTOH if that wasn't the case then it would seem we've had an unfortunate misunderstanding here (I'm assuming English isn't your first language).

oitofelix wrote:You seem to be trying to provoke me. How childish (not in the same good sense of a "childhood dream" ;)).

Seems to me from your comment about people treating the original game "as a deity of sorts" that you have some sort of love/hate relationship with it. Clearly you like it enough to go to such lengths to recreate it, but seem to hate (perhaps that's too strong a word?) certain aspects of it with a passion and believe you can and have done better. Thus when someone suggests that the original might have a better implementation in certain cases (such as the resurrect_time period), you get angry and retaliate with such comments. I gain nothing from and thus have zero interest in provoking you, believe it or not. If you don't want to modify your implementation then just say so clearly and politely, without taking offence where none was ever intended and getting provoked unnecessarily over minor issues.

As stated previously I'm now treating Mininim as a different game altogether (not necessarily better or worse than PoP1, just different), and thus won't be requesting any legacy mode options again, including the resurrect_time period. Will certainly be interesting though to see what "new and nice features" (which they hopefully are) are implemented over time.

[The rest of my comment below is not directed at you.]

---

Approximately 8.5 years ago...

FWIW I have never made any grandiose claims about any contribution I've made here or elsewhere (that admittedly silly name of the package notwithstanding), but clearly this was just an opportunity to make snide remarks and pass judgment. Others might like to loudly trumpet about what they've done irrespective of the actual importance of their work, but when it comes to offering one's opinion about stuff then we're all in the same boat, lest some people conveniently forget and think they deserve to be placed on a pedestal and accorded some sort of special treatment.

I think Andrew's 'ultimate truths' about certain things are what make reading some of his contributions exhausting, and they will give you the feeling he's telling you how to feel and behave.

And therein lies the rub, because unlike the entitled generation of today I know not to make insane demands or behave petulantly and throw tantrums when polite requests for features aren't met. Perhaps people have grown so accustomed to such behavior that they think by default that's what's happening, which is sad really. Yeah, I do have outspoken opinions and prefer to be frank, but there's a clear difference between proclaiming one's (strong) preference for a certain feature versus demanding its implementation. If only more people had the good sense to understand that distinction, instead of mis-characterizing plainspeak as so-called 'ultimate truths'.

The "standing on the shoulders of giants" metaphor; yes, I do think at times Andrew fancies himself some kind of teacher.

Into amateur psychoanalysis now, are we? Plus given you have no clue about my profession, how do you know I'm not actually an educator IRL? Anyway, it certainly comes as news to me that using a common metaphor is looked upon nowadays as some sort of preachifying. The reason I rose to PoP1's defence was that it sounds presumptuous to me if someone today were to blithely criticize Mechner's choices, especially given the state of gaming back then and the limitations he faced when coding the original game. Hindsight is always 20-20 (wait, is this phrase also a "teacher indicator" now?) and it's very easy and even cool amongst many nowadays to talk trash about the classics, but I have immense admiration and regard for what Mechner and others of his ilk accomplished. It's not about blindly deifying him or his works but about giving respect where it's due. Or is that also a lost concept nowadays?
Last edited by Andrew on March 5th, 2016, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
oitofelix
Sultan
Sultan
Posts: 186
Joined: February 17th, 2016, 1:59 pm
Contact:

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby oitofelix » March 5th, 2016, 4:55 am

Andrew wrote:...


I don't have time, need or willingness to respond to you on such irrelevant and artificial matters. This is not the place for this kind of discussion. This is a thread for people to talk about technical questions concerning a particular version of MININIM.

Code: Select all

 88888  FFFFF Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
 8   8  F     http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/mininim/
 88888  FFFF  mailto:oitofelix@gnu.org
 8   8  F     irc://chat.freenode.org/oitofelix
 88888  F     Please, support my work: http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/funding.html

User avatar
Norbert
The Prince of Persia
The Prince of Persia
Posts: 2935
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 10:58 pm
Contact:

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby Norbert » March 5th, 2016, 12:40 pm

I'm not going to waste my time replying to Andrew's post.

Andrew
Wise Scribe
Wise Scribe
Posts: 313
Joined: July 16th, 2009, 4:39 pm

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby Andrew » March 5th, 2016, 2:34 pm

I've said what I wanted to say here. It's your prerogative what you choose to waste time on Norbert; couldn't care less.

User avatar
doppelganger
Vizier
Vizier
Posts: 111
Joined: April 24th, 2015, 9:04 am
Location: India

Re: MININIM 0.9.2

Postby doppelganger » March 5th, 2016, 3:52 pm

Someone will POP here if things go this way.

By the way, does Andrew have such high-class vocabulary? His speech is nearly incomprehensible to me.
Doppelgänger
Hmm.. These mortals know about me.. :evil:

Download 'Hell of A Palace' now from Popot!


Return to “MININIM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest