What about "Discworld"

All the inane chatter goes in here. If you're curious about whether we will support a game, post HERE not in General Discussion :)

Moderator: ScummVM Team

whodatfever
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:29 pm

What about "Discworld"

Post by whodatfever »

Any plans to support it? Also: The Dark Eye?

clem
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:14 am

Post by clem »

wrong forum - from the forum index:

The Junkyard
All the inane chatter goes in here. If you're curious about whether we will support a game, post HERE not in General Discussion :)

and searching the forums for "discworld" will give you 43 results... and then there's also http://wiki.scummvm.org/index.php/Discworld

hope that helps,
clem

edit: and the dark eye (DSA?) appears to be an RPG and not a "2D point-and-click adventure game"

whodatfever
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:29 pm

Post by whodatfever »

Sorry. :wink: Thanks for the info.

User avatar
DrMcCoy
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:33 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: What about "Discworld"

Post by DrMcCoy »

whodatfever wrote:Also: The Dark Eye?
I'd like to see that running on my system too. But it was made with some sort of authoring system and consists mainly of Quicktime movies. I don't think the chances of ScummVM supporting that are high...

User avatar
exofreeze
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:06 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by exofreeze »

I got dark eye running on my pc (XPsp2) with a little elbow grease.

Granted - I used my original copy to create the game folders on my hard drive.

One day I tried to see if one of the versions floating around on the net worked and I had no luck.

No emulator was needed, just a strategic placement of data folders on your c:\

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO »

exofreeze wrote:One day I tried to see if one of the versions floating around on the net worked and I had no luck.
its freeware?

Monolith
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:04 pm

Post by Monolith »

YES please! Please give us Discworld i'm beggin' you! i'll even post nude picture of my wife or my neighbors daughter :!:

User avatar
john_doe
ScummVM Developer
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Post by john_doe »

Is that a threat?

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO »

Monolith wrote:YES please! Please give us Discworld i'm beggin' you! i'll even post nude picture of my wife or my neighbors daughter :!:
while theres no rule against it in these forums, i dont think the mods would be 2 happy about it...

clem
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:14 am

Post by clem »

PsYcO wrote:
Monolith wrote:YES please! Please give us Discworld i'm beggin' you! i'll even post nude picture of my wife or my neighbors daughter :!:
while theres no rule against it in these forums, i dont think the mods would be 2 happy about it...
haha, you're right - that's a bit of a loophole right now :lol:

forum rule #3 (keep the focus on questions) doesn't apply because it's not a question

forum rule #4 (no profanity) - I wonder if that applies to pictures as well or only text?

forum rule #6 (keep the size of personal images down) - doesn't per se forbid you to post "personal" images :)

I just hope I'm not putting fleas in anyone's ears here...

clem

fingolfin
Retired
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:12 pm

Post by fingolfin »

OK, I know you guys are only kidding, but still, just to make this crystal clear: The forum rules are not like a law text with "loop holes". We act on the spirit of them -- if somebody thinks (s)he could argue against a ban because of a "loophole in the forum rules", that person is gravely mistaken. :twisted:

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO »

fingolfin wrote:OK, I know you guys are only kidding, but still, just to make this crystal clear: The forum rules are not like a law text with "loop holes". We act on the spirit of them -- if somebody thinks (s)he could argue against a ban because of a "loophole in the forum rules", that person is gravely mistaken. :twisted:
so porn is aloud then? :P

clem
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:14 am

Post by clem »

fingolfin wrote:OK, I know you guys are only kidding, but still, just to make this crystal clear: The forum rules are not like a law text with "loop holes". We act on the spirit of them -- if somebody thinks (s)he could argue against a ban because of a "loophole in the forum rules", that person is gravely mistaken. :twisted:
it just is a lot easier saying "banned for violation of forum rule <unsigned char>" than writing "banned for violating common sense" - from what I've seen on the net so far, common sense does not seem to exist :)

just kidding, of course!

clem

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO »

clem wrote:forum rule #4 (no profanity) - I wonder if that applies to pictures as well or only text?

forum rule #6 (keep the size of personal images down) - doesn't per se forbid you to post "personal" images :)
Wikipedia wrote:Profanity is “the quality or state of being profane”. It can also relate to using profane language, or desecration or disrespect toward an object of religious veneration.[1] It can be a word, expression, gesture, or other social behavior which is socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, or vulgar.
in most case's naked people arn't vulgar

you could always use thumbnails and host them on a image hosting site

User avatar
PsYcO
Got 2 warnings
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: UK, Enfield
Contact:

Post by PsYcO »

clem wrote:
fingolfin wrote:OK, I know you guys are only kidding, but still, just to make this crystal clear: The forum rules are not like a law text with "loop holes". We act on the spirit of them -- if somebody thinks (s)he could argue against a ban because of a "loophole in the forum rules", that person is gravely mistaken. :twisted:
it just is a lot easier saying "banned for violation of forum rule <unsigned char>" than writing "banned for violating common sense" - from what I've seen on the net so far, common sense does not seem to exist :)

just kidding, of course!

clem
rofl, if only there was a repping system on these boards

Post Reply