Quick question about Win KQ6 mouse pointers

General chat related to ScummVM, adventure gaming, and so on.

Moderator: ScummVM Team

Post Reply
BobbinT
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:26 pm

Post by BobbinT » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:34 pm

oh my goodness. This discussion's turning into children arguments.

I don't how old you guys were, but please stop this nonsense. Don't force your personal feelings any further. Just be glad this engine are finally supported and with extras. Plus, the dithering option were already included on the latest build. What more could you guys possibly wanted?

Other ppl like myself may be already getting tired reading these rants. Please do not add oil to flame. Don't make this efforts go to waste.

It's not fun anymore. :(

User avatar
m_kiewitz
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:09 am
Location: Daventry

Post by m_kiewitz » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:54 pm

LordHoto wrote:So either only a few SCI people were really focused on enabling it by default, while the otheres were more in the "I don't care" stance, or nowadays they just changed their views and think it's fine to disable it by default. And now since there's no logs of the discussion that is hard to find out.
If I remember correctly, originally walter actually wanted to get it enabled, but had of course issues with those view cases.
In any case all this very defensive position about changing the default now, ableit nobody seems to have a strong feeling for having it enabled by default just looks a bit odd, especially as every SCI developer agreed to enable it by default as you said.
I would have reacted the same, if someone just disabled the console w/o proper discussion, although I'm one of the developers that see reason in removing the console for users on default. For example my code for console hiding was commented out on commit.

Anyway, I didn't see any developer actually directly defending it here and even saw comments about the gate looking tacked on - which of course was true in those screenshots, so I clarified that.

And I personally love the undithered graphics. I love playing through the games especially Quest for Glory 1, Codename: Iceman and Larry 3. In my opinion the games look almost like VGA games and I don't want to hide this nice feature behind some obscure checkbox, that most users won't see at all. It has nothing actually to do with the code being mine, but with the graphics, that really look superb now (imo). I know users pretty much and almost noone reads READMEs nor manuals. Also most people wont wade through all the options, resulting in most users not even knowing about the option at all.

It reminds me of myself playing some PlayStation games on PlayStation 2. After a while, I finally found out that there is a hidden option called texture smoothing available, which is disabled on default (that decision actually makes real sense, because this feature breaks some games, while others look much better).

It would make a difference, if we just switched every enhancement off and introduced a new "enhanced mode" option. In that case I guess most people would stumble upon it, also the guideline from our perspective would be clear then. But this back and forth doesn't make sense to the user. Additionally there could also be a detailed enhanced mode options dialog, where the user could exactly specify which enhancement to enable.

The major problem with undithering is that it's a big change, where no similar case exists in any other engine - no other company saved the pictures that way. At least I see undithered mode as some sort of enhanced EGA. Defaulting to plain EGA in that case, is like defaulting to CGA in an EGA game.

Another way around this would be to show some picture part dithered, part undithered and then let the user decide at that time. Problem is that this isn't easy to do, especially because we can't just copy out sierra artwork into ScummVM and by using the game resources, we would have to dynamically choose a picture depending on the game. Additionally this would have to be asked for each added game once, which also could get on the users nerves and is also not compliant to anything else (normally games start directly).

Also I really can't take part of this thread seriously. Some people behave as if they paid for recreating the sci engine, then they got the product with undithered mode as the only way of playing those games and the employees even replied with a big "f*ck you", when asked about it. In fact noone paid, a small group of people worked hard on the engine to get everything working after so many years, added plenty of enhancements including undithering, added of course an option to turn those off and are now getting flamed and insulted for it, just because of a year-old decision about defaulting to one enhancement as if they burnt Mona Lisa. I for one will just leave it there and get to work that I actually get paid for. Simple as that.
Last edited by m_kiewitz on Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Flo
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:50 pm

Post by Flo » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:02 pm

m_kiewitz wrote:At least I see undithered mode as some sort of enhanced EGA. Defaulting to plain EGA in that case, is like defaulting to CGA in an EGA game.
I think that's a terrible analogy. These games already had both render modes available. Some people played them in CGA, some played them in EGA.

In the case of undithering, you're defaulting to a mode that did not even exist. Nobody played the game that way before.

User avatar
MusicallyInspired
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Contact:

Post by MusicallyInspired » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:11 pm

It doesn't matter one iota what Ken or Roberta thinks. They didn't draw the backgrounds, for one thing. The artists did. But even that is second to the fact that this is for the fans. The fans remember the games with dithered graphics. People keep labeling me as wanting my own way with everything and I keep saying that it's not just me. I'm just the one talking about it right now. I wrote a "wall of text" because m_kiewitz was attacking me. It's only fair to defend myself, is it not? I haven't flung one insult at anybody or became upset anywhere in this thread period. I'm defending my position, as clone said. Nothing more.

And regarding SQ3, no the sound blaster driver was not fan hacked. It was a driver missing from the original disks. If you copy the sndblast.drv file from another SCI0 game (one of the Hoyle's maybe? I don't remember which) you'll get the digital sounds. But the samples ARE included in the resource files of every single release of SQ3. I could send you the correct sndblast.drv and you can try it out in DOSBox and DOS and it would work. Hence, Sierra always intended it but forgot to add it or something. And you can't play back digital sound files from the MT-32. That's not how the MT-32 works. Other SCI0 games also have these sound effects like King's Quest I and Quest for Glory 2 (both are SCI01 games not SCI1).

I'm not going to argue about dithering anymore because nobody is seeing my point except the people who agree with me. Obviously there's no way to effectively relate to you guys my point of view in this instance. But this point still stands: whatever any of the original intentions of the artists or the programmers at Sierra had (personally, I still believe the artists worked with what they had and meant it that way. The difference between my assumption and your assumption is that you changed what the game looked like originally and I'm simply saying it should stay the same) it's second to the fact that a game's original default setting is what should be preserved and defaulted every time. And again, to prove I'm not being demanding about this or want my own way or some other childish remarks, I'd fight for the same reasoning about disabling feature enhancements that I DO prefer by default.

M_kiewitz stated that if there were VGA drivers back then that the games would be rendered in more colours. I disagree with that. Because the drivers that come with the games ARE VGA. Look at them yourself in the install program that comes with the game. They say "EGA/VGA". The games were always meant to have 16 colours. The dithering palettes were just easy ways to select colour dithering instead of doing it all manually (which would take forever without dithering tools). Look at the views. It takes a lot longer to make a dithered colour on a view resource than it does on a background. And the backgrounds were made in drawing steps rather than bitmaps because it creates a smaller file size and works in conjunction with the priority and control screens (ie- you can draw a line at the exact same spot in control as you can in priority and visual to make it easier, and smaller file size-wise, to draw an object that looks pleasing visually, allows the ego to walk behind it, and stops the ego from moving).

Regardless of my opinion on what the artists originally wanted (not Ken and Roberta), it doesn't matter because it's not the way the games appeared back then and would never appear. Whatever ScummVM decides on the matter of whether it should enable enhancements by default or not, I'll accept it. I'm just pleading my (and countless other Sierra fans') case before that happens. I'm done with this thread. I've said enough that makes valid points and I've not been rude to anybody here, even though I've been called a troll.

I'd also like to repeat (yes, repeat because I've said it before in this thread), that I appreciate all the hard work done on ScummVM. It does nothing but enhance the program which is what it should be doing. You guys are all ace. Even you, m_kiewitz. I only have a small grasp on programming, but you've obviously got major talent to be on the ScummVM team in any capacity. Props. & cheers to you all.

User avatar
LordHoto
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Germany

Post by LordHoto » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:18 pm

m_kiewitz wrote:It would make a difference, if we just switched every enhancement off and introduced a new "enhanced mode" option. In that case I guess most people would stumble upon it, also the guideline from our perspective would be clear then. But this back and forth doesn't make sense to the user. Additionally there could also be a detailed enhanced mode options dialog, where the user could exactly specify which enhancement to enable.

The major problem with undithering is that it's a big change, where no similar case exists in any other engine - no other company saved the pictures that way.
Well since as you say undithering is special in case that it is a huge change compared to the original, I think it is pretty obvious why we shouldn't enable it by default. And that is also no argument to now disable all the other small "enhancements" (also IMHO), but that has been stated over and over now.
m_kiewitz wrote: At least I see undithered mode as some sort of enhanced EGA. Defaulting to plain EGA in that case, is like defaulting to CGA in an EGA game.
I can just agree with Flo here, unlike the CGA vs EGA example the undithered mode didn't exist in the original, so it's not really something comparable.
m_kiewitz wrote:Another way around this would be to show some picture part dithered, part undithered and then let the user decide at that time. Problem is that this isn't easy to do, especially because we can't just copy out sierra artwork into ScummVM and by using the game resources, we would have to dynamically choose a picture depending on the game. Additionally this would have to be asked for each added game once, which also could get on the users nerves and is also not compliant to anything else (normally games start directly).
Well such things might be possible, we could even just ship some dithered vs undithered picture of a fanmade game as comparison and just use that as in the options dialog (or rather some sub-dialog explaining the undithering).

Of course this has a lot of problems for various ports, which are hard on the memory cap etc.

Anyway I don't think really that people ignoring the readme/manual is a valid argument for enabling undithering by default. Nor is that analogy with disabling all enhancements by default, so people would "stumble" upon it.

If people don't read the readme they won't get any graphics enhancement, too bad then, but that's their problem. Actually furthermore I think that people who don't read the readme/manual will just want to play the games and not want to enhance them.

Lambonius
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Post by Lambonius » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:36 pm

LordHoto wrote:
Well since as you say undithering is special in case that it is a huge change compared to the original, I think it is pretty obvious why we shouldn't enable it by default. And that is also no argument to now disable all the other small "enhancements" (also IMHO), but that has been stated over and over now.

Anyway I don't think really that people ignoring the readme/manual is a valid argument for enabling undithering by default. Nor is that analogy with disabling all enhancements by default, so people would "stumble" upon it.

If people don't read the readme they won't get any graphics enhancement, too bad then, but that's their problem. Actually furthermore I think that people who don't read the readme/manual will just want to play the games and not want to enhance them.
Quoted for truth.

User avatar
Red_Breast
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Bar Of Gold, Upper Swandam Lane.

Post by Red_Breast » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Serious Callers Only wrote:MusicallyInspired is obviously trolling.

What's the part of "it's a config option" don't you understand.

Grow up. You are not the coder that did the work, you have a option to permanently disable it, you created walls of text about the "original intention" of Sierra.
Let me just say something that I do feel strongly about in this thread.
I feel you owe Musically an apology Serious.
From all the posts I've read from Musically, a number on the Wii sub-forum which we're both familiar with, he's always came across as a great person and trolling is not his style.

This thread is about something that all the posters feel strongly about. Some people seem to mistake such threads as childish arguements. It's got nothing to do with that. Adults don't argue... they discuss. If you're tired of the thread then isn't it best to just leave it unless you want to comment on the main point.

Off-topic... but I seem to have 65535 unread PMs!

cesarbittar
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:59 pm

Post by cesarbittar » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:09 pm

I have to agree with Ken W here. The games look phenomenal without the dithering. Great job, m_kiewitz.

MI, Lamb, c'mon, guys, you don't have to turn every Sierra related forum out there into a debating nightmare ;) It gets extremely impossible and frustrating to deal with you guys sometimes, and this whole Sierra Police is tiresome. You already offered your feedback, move on. Live and let live.

Cesar Bittar
Phoenix Online
Last edited by cesarbittar on Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MusicallyInspired
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Contact:

Post by MusicallyInspired » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:14 pm

Show me what I did wrong in this thread. Please. I was as polite and cordial as I could be. I wasn't even upset. Did you even read this thread, Cez? Obviously not if you think I haven't dropped it by now.

cesarbittar
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:59 pm

Post by cesarbittar » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:16 pm

I did. I don't disagree with you giving your opinion. You were very cordial, yes --you always are!. But you kept going and going and going. That's what I mean.

It's just an observation. I've experienced it first hand so that's why I make the observation. That's all.

Collector
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:58 pm
Contact:

Post by Collector » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:18 pm

Serious Callers Only wrote:MusicallyInspired is obviously trolling.

What's the part of "it's a config option" don't you understand.

Grow up. You are not the coder that did the work, you have a option to permanently disable it, you created walls of text about the "original intention" of Sierra.
As others here have said, totally uncalled for. Just because in an argument someone holds to a different view than you does not make him a "troll". Your comments are just throwing fuel on the flames. MI has not said one single thing that was demeaning to anyone else. MI, like most in the Sierra community, is passionate about these games. This has become a heated thread, but I would like to see something productive come from a good debate. Your uncalled for name calling is not helpful.

User avatar
MusicallyInspired
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Contact:

Post by MusicallyInspired » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:18 pm

I keep going when people attack me. That's what I do to defend myself. If someone's got me or my opinions wrong I'm going to correct them. I don't like to be misrepresented or have incorrect rumours spread about me.

Lambonius
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Post by Lambonius » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:33 pm

cesarbittar wrote:I have to agree with Ken W here. The games look phenomenal without the dithering. Great job, m_kiewitz.

MI, Lamb, c'mon, guys, you don't have to turn every Sierra related forum out there into a debating nightmare ;) It gets extremely impossible and frustrating to deal with you guys sometimes, and this whole Sierra Police is tiresome. You already offered your feedback, move on. Live and let live.

Cesar Bittar
Phoenix Online
Thanks for registering just to point out how annoying and frustrating we are. It's very much appreciated.
Last edited by Lambonius on Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lambonius
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Post by Lambonius » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:53 pm

I don't want people to get me wrong, I actually think the undithering is a neat effect, BUT it just doesn't look right on a lot of the games, and in some cases, actually breaks the graphics (walk down the alleyways in QFG2 for a perfect example.) And like all filters that look good sometimes, but not others, it shouldn't be the default option for every game. It's just that simple. I'm not trying to be disrespectful about it.

User avatar
m_kiewitz
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:09 am
Location: Daventry

Post by m_kiewitz » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:34 pm

Lambonius wrote:in some cases, actually breaks the graphics (walk down the alleyways in QFG2 for a perfect example.) And like all filters that
First of all, undithered mode is not a filter at all.
And for the QfG2 issue, that should be considered as bug. Although I just tried it and walking back in alleyways worked like it should. What do you mean exactly?

Post Reply