7962 replies to this topic

[Shane]

Them screens man, great use of the GB set! I do prefer the graveyard screen though, has a very nice graveyard-ish vibe to the area.

Sorry I'm late; people bury this thread quite a lot.

 

Thanks! I'm glad you like the graveyard most, because I agree. I'm redoing the forest map because I don't quite like it.

[Astromeow]

FIRST QUEST FEATURING 1987 VHS QUALITY GAMEPLAY

 

[Eddy]

If you make weapons VHS Tapes, that would be the greatest quest of all time.

[KingPridenia]

Here's a rough draft of the next overworld section; the "noob barrier" of a pond you have to jump across and the item cave:

 

[Eddy]

Looks nice, the dark green colour really does give off a nice dark and spooky atmosphere. And that cave definitely matches the kind of forest setting.

[trudatman]

"....you burned my...." would be MUCH better.

[Geoffrey]

It made me laugh, RedmageAdam.  Well done.  It surprises me that so few people have thought of making an interior out of trees.

 

"....you burned my...." would be MUCH better.

 

Burnt is a perfectly acceptable preterite form of burn.

Edited by Geoffrey, 17 March 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[Shane]

Yeah the trees instead of mountain walls are a nice touch. Good job.

[Hoff123]

[Geoffrey]

Spiffy.

[Astromeow]

Spiffy.

 

yes.... too spiffy.

 

I've got my eye on you Hoff123

[trudatman]

....Burnt is a perfectly acceptable preterite form of burn.

interesting.  I forget what "preterite" means, but I know that you know your words and grammar.  would you agree that "burned," "have burned" or "have burnt" would flow better?  I didn't mean to insist that it is "wrong," more like it unnecessarily betrays an amateur level of production.

[Geoffrey]

interesting.  I forget what "preterite" means, but I know that you know your words and grammar.  would you agree that "burned," "have burned" or "have burnt" would flow better?  I didn't mean to insist that it is "wrong," more like it unnecessarily betrays an amateur level of production.

The contents of this post will be completely off topic, but I enjoy talking about it, so I will:

 

Preterite simply means 'having to do with the past'.  For all intents and purposes, the terms preterite form and past-tense form are identical.

 

The fact that we have two preterite forms, burned and burnt, is mostly due to Early Modern English, in which pronunciation had more influence on spelling than it does now.  Often the usual preterite marker, -ed, is pronounced as a t; unsurprisingly, this has lead to its being written accordingly.  We have some words that only use -t in the past tense, such as sleep/slept, creep/crept, keep/kept; as you can see, these are usually accompanied by a change in the root vowel.  Many words that could historically be spelt ( ) with -t no longer can, such as kiss/kist, bless/blest, possess/possest.  However, we have several words that still maintain both forms, such as burn/burned/burnt, spell/spelled/spelt, learn/learned/learnt.  You can probably tell that how one pronounces a word directly relates to how one spells it.

 

But is either preterite form 'more correct'?  I hesitate to say either 'yes' or 'no'.  Obviously, the -ed form better fits the regular pattern.  If there were a new verb to glop, you would probably spell the preterite as glopped but pronounce it as glopt (this exact pattern is exemplified in the new verb clop/clopped ).

 

As for convention itself, in the United States the -ed forms are preferred, whereas in Britain the -t forms are preferred; as always with linguistic preferences, Canada is divided.  If we base this solely on the intended demographic, then -ed is the obvious choice; I think that I know a total of one Brit who uses ZC.  However, my personal recommendation is to choose whichever one appeals most to you and remain constant in its use.

[Eddy]

That's a really nice swamp screen going on there. I like it a lot

[Nightmare]

Some screenshots of the James Quest 2 revamp:

 

 

-James

Edited by Nightmare, 22 March 2014 - 05:57 PM.