93 replies to this topic

[Shane]

Where do we even begin with this? It feels like we're back at square one.

 

Again, you're showing signs of being unable to listen to anyone in this thread. How are we supposed to take what you say seriously? It's proving more and more to people you are full of yourself. People have mentioned Isle of Rebirth would have had positive reception without scripts because it did. You keep insisting that scripts are the only selling point, but have you read the reviews? Can you confirm every single review praised it solely for its scripts? Scripts are a factor, but you cannot code good design. Have you ever stopped to think why Mega Man sunk but quests like Lost Isle and Hero of Dreams are still well received? You insist that To The Top and Hero's Memory were different times, but why haven't they tanked? Why are they still well received? I'm sure there are people out there that will detest them due to their age, but there are plenty of unheard people that probably love them.

 

You don't need to learn scripting to get simple scripts. Ice Block Puzzle? Look through the database, or go to the Script Request forum and make a thread. Custom rafts? Look through the database, or go to the Script Request forum and make a thread. Literally anything? Look through the database, or go to the Script Request forum and make a thread. The worst case scenario is no scripts and no one wants to take on your request. That means you're either going to compromise as a quest designer, or learn to script. If you can't do either thing, then maybe you're not cut out to make the next big thing, or any project. Yeah, game design is hard, who would have thought?

 

You can make a great quest without scripts. I've cited plenty you seem to want to ignore to push this ridiculous narrative. Just because it's in the editor doesn't mean you should make full use of it, and a lot of good scriptless quests show that. It all comes down to good design and knowing your limitations and how to get around them or make the best use of them. It's just that a lot of people who know what makes good, creative design just happened to pick up scripting along the way.

 

You keep having the attitude that we're not listening to you. The truth is, and this is proven by your lack of actual responses, you're not listening to us. Your expertise as a salesperson can only get you so far when you haven't done any sort of research on the matter, aren't listening to anyone in the thread and just tooting your own horn as if that adds any credibility to what you're saying. The only thing you have going for you right now is random chance that ZC does fail.

 

That's all I have to say.

[Haylee]

Okay, no. Providing people with blatant misinformation and saying stuff with the specific purpose of riling others up is NOT doing "everything" you could. The fact that you completely ignored any of the actual points and just tried to refute it with "stop being in denial" tells me absolutely everything I need to know.

The fact that so many people bothered to even RESPOND to you should tell you that. You can criticize the program all you want, but tell me, who are these people you claim are quitting ZC because they're unwilling to learn scripting? I'd love to know, because all I see in this thread are people who enjoy scripting regardless.

Another thing, you mentioned before that there seems to be this mentality that a quest can't be good without scripts. Yes, this mentality existed at one point, I'm not gonna deny that, I was very much on the receiving end of that, due to me not wanting to use scripts, but now I'm not, and do you know why? It's because that mentality died years ago, and if you think it's still there, you're completely wrong.

Stop trying to start things where it just does not exist, it's not a good look for you. For someone who claims to have as much experience as you do, you sure are doing your job terribly.

[DarkFlameSheep]

James, you seem to have strong complaint to ZC, so you don't need using ZC anymore. And I recommend Pixel Game Maker MV for you. If you will buy it, and realize your dream to butt ZC and type A quests, but I'm irresponsible about it.

Edited by Stray Sheep, 21 October 2019 - 09:05 PM.

[Tabletpillow]

Just imagine for one minute a Zelda Classic engine which seamlessly integrated all of the above without the quest-maker having to know one line of scripting.  Most of what the average quest maker wants in their quests would be a few clicks and a few button pushes away.  That sells.  If they want something really extraordinary like Link and Zelda there's always scripting available for them and if their work becomes really popular then their scripts would be integrated into the ZC engine for every future quest-maker to use.

If ZC does indeed put in all those options in the vanilla editor, it won't make the quest-making process easier. It'll just make those new additions less valuable and less impressive. Instead of praising the questmaker for their hard work on their scripting skills and their originality, we say 'oh yeah, that's a thing in ZC now.' It might be cool at first, but then we get tired of it if it's used in the same manner every single time.

 

Speaking of originally, like others stated, it's the key factor for selling a quest in my opinion along with quality. The quest has to really stand out if it wants my interest. It's why my favorite quest is the scriptless Hero of Dreams, and I'm willing to bet that that quest must have taken much longer to make than heavily scripted quests despite all odds against it. HoD uses vanilla elements in a very creative yet traditional way and I love it.

 

You're also assuming that scripts are the sole reason for slowing down quest development time. It's not though, the bulk of the development time is designing high-quality screens and testing out puzzles, just look at the screens from Hero of Dreams and Lost Isle, they look like they have tons of time and effort put into it, and as a matter of fact, they do. (HoD took years to make)

And to add to that, learning scripts isn't just a ZC thing, it's more of just a C++ thing. Once you fully mastered the arts of C++ scripting, you should easily make them in a matter of minutes for your quest. Whereas when it comes to screen design, it's going to take a while to plan and design no matter what skill level you are in. 

 

Having scripts isn't that much of a time consumption, especially since you can take these scripting skills and apply them to elsewhere, so do they even count as using time for ZC development? 

 

I'll agree with you on having more quests that really show how incredible vanilla ZC is. But just having vanilla assets won't sell, it's how you integrate them.

[NoeL]

Hmm, yeah I have to disagree with you that the discovery of zscript will deter a significant number of people. Maybe some fools that think they can jump into a program they've never used and immediately make the next big thing, but the vast majority of people aren't like that. It's far more likely people will either go "Oh, well I don't want to dive into that just yet - lets focus on the vanilla stuff first" or "Scripting eh? Well, time to dive in and see what it's all about!".

When people get into game development they usually overestimate their abilities and overscope their project. They know what they want to achieve but have no point of reference for for the work involved or if they have the skills to get them there - and you only learn those things by doing. First quest projects usually fail once the developer realises they've bitten off more than they can chew, and many people never finish a quest at all because they lack the drive/discipline to do so.

Finishing a quest is hard. Only a fraction of quest makers will ever actually do it, and the ones with the discipline to get there will have the discipline to learn scripting - if that's what they want in their quest.

When scripting first came out I didn't jump at it. By that stage I'd gotten so good at making the vanilla editor do things it was never designed to do. On more than one occasion someone would ask for help on how to do something only to be told it was impossible without scripts, and I'd have to correct them and show how the effect could be achieved in the editor (often through obscure features like tiered secrets and inherent flags). People were making cutscenes, custom bosses, NPC's, and all sorts of other trickery long before scripting showed up - trickery that arguably took just as much time to learn and understand as scripting - and ZC survived.

In many ways it's actually EASIER to make a fancy-pants quest these days, given the availability of scripts in the database and forum support, as many others here have referenced. You don't have to understand and implement some elaborate sequence of flags and triggers, you can just plug in the script.

Other than that, I completely agree with you that commonly-used scripts should have been integrated into the editor long ago. I don't think there's a simple way to make an NPC or even a freaking chest - things that you stand in front of and press A to activate. You made a great list yourself of features that probably should be in the base editor.

[P-Tux7]

By the way, isn't Classic.zh a developer-maintained group of scripts that is now included in the new default quest for 2.53? Those are literal new features from the developers, and they don't require the ZC user to write a single line of code, only use the NORMAL ZQuest windows. For example, one can change editor attributes of the Daira enemy like all the other ZC default enemies.

 

2.55 and future versions of ZQuest will have this even more integrated - now, instead of having "attribute x" like Ghost.zh scripts, the ZQuest windows will now have the editor preconfigured to work with the enemy or item's script. For example, in the future LTTP module, there will likely be a "Mask HP" setting in the Helmasaur King enemy's window, a Beamos spawn combo flag right in the Combo Editor, and a "Dark World" DMap setting that turns Link into a rabbit. These will all be as simple to use as the current methods to change a Patra kid's HP, place a horizontal trap-spawning combo, or tagging a DMap as having a wavy effect. Yes they will use scripts but that's just a new and better method of writing features instead of messing with ZC's spaghetti code.

 

ZC 2.55 scripted modules will be a plug-and-play system. The developers do the plugging, and you do the playing. You won't be able to tell the difference between what's a 2.50 feature and what's a scripted feature. These features will be just as new and easy to use as when ZC 1.92 added new enemies and items. In fact, they're better because these enemies and items will have new variables (defenses, size, and other behaviors) that make them easier to use in a varied way.

[Moosh]

And I haven't even started about custom bosses.  Ok, so its not possible for the devs to make custom bosses for everyone who requests one.  So they put out ghost and let users figure out how to make their own custom bosses.  Did it work?  Nope.  Fact that Moosh and Avataro saw they needed to make a newbie boss maker so that average quest makers could put new bosses into their quests should have sounded alarm bells about the viability of ghost selling to the average quest maker.  Imagine if their newbie boss editor was seamlessly integrated into Zelda Classic.  Even better would be if the devs made bosses that are well known from Nintendo titles like what Phantom Menace did with the original Zelda Classic which had all the bosses from the NES game built in.  Right now, if I want my own bosses, I'd firstly have to know about newbie boss and secondly I'd need to figure out how to integrate it into my quest.  A lot of work.  I might not mind it but the average-quest maker out there will and they will voice their disapproval by the dwindling amount of quests made every year.

I think you've both misunderstood the purpose of ghost and the purpose of Newbie Boss. Ghost was never for everybody, nor was it a substitution for Saffith making other people bosses (I don't think he ever actually did this aside from the examples ones included with ghost). Ghost was if I recall originally a tool made for Saffith's own use which he later shared with the community for scripters to make their own boss scripts easier to write. It was never meant for new users. Newbie Boss on the other hand, was meant for intermediate users (so not brand new but not the script writing kind either) to be an expansion on the enemy editor. It was never meant for scripters to use or as any kind of replacement for ghost. They fill two different roles.
 
There's a cycle of development that questmakers tend to go through over the course of multiple quests from:
Entry level vanilla features (Stuff that's in Zelda 1) > Complex vanilla features (FFCs, carryovers, timed warps, ect) > Database scripts > Writing some original scripts > Writing complex scripts
 
Sometimes people jump around between steps too. Ghost was meant for people at steps 4/5 and Newbie Boss at step 3. Most people never move past step 3 and that's fine. Some people skip right to step 3 with the assistance of more experienced users and that's fine too. Allegedly there's a step 6 where you say "fuck this" and just start developing ZC directly. Hats off to Zoria and Rob.
 
Anyways, it's certainly true that something like Newbie Boss is not as approachable to new members as just using the enemy editor. Even so I'd put the enemy editor at step 2 of my model, so new members still would be turned away by its complexity somewhat. I'd definitely like to see ideas from Newbie Boss incorporated into the editor, but something you have to understand is ZC's enemy code and the way ZC handles enemies on the whole is an ungodly mess, a blight upon this program. I'd encourage you to take a look at the massive plate of spaghetti Zoria and Rob have on their hands. Ghost and now in 2.55 NPC scripts are hugely useful to the developers in that they can sidestep that mess altogether. Anything more complicated than what the editor can currently do, an NPC script can just do better. I wouldn't expect something like an in-engine Helmasaur King any time soon, though a pack-in NPC script is more likely. Because nobody wants to touch the poop.

[P-Tux7]

By the way, Zoria's new scrolling tech will probably only take a few hours to learn. How long do you think "permanent secrets" in 2.10 took to learn? The same amount, or even more. This will literally be a more impressive feature with LESS work to make an "impressive" quest. There will likely be an easy tutorial for how to integrate the script, similar to Newbie Boss (which a literal high schooler has successfully imported into their quest before).

 

Oh, by the way, here's how your feature requests should play out

 

1. You request it, and it's a popular enough idea that many people will want to use. The ZC developers notice, and it gets added to ZC 2.55 or 2.60

 

2. You request it, but it's not popular enough to get written. This proves that the feature is not wanted by questmakers.

 

Just make the requests in Feature Requests. It's that easy

 

"Even better would be if the devs made bosses that are well known from Nintendo titles like what Phantom Menace did with the original Zelda Classic which had all the bosses from the NES game built in."

This is happening. LTTP and GBC modules (aka template quests). 2.55's development so far has been adding scripting features that will make it possible for the ZC devs to script them so that they're easy to use for the average user. If it had been scripted in 2.50, it would be horrible for the user to use easily.

Edited by P-Tux7, 21 October 2019 - 04:35 AM.

[klop422]

Most of what I wanted to say has been said. Please read the replies to your arguments before you reply, otherwise you stop looking rational.

The most important thing I want to reiterate is what Ptux said - if you think something should be an in-engine feature, put it in the Feature Request forum. Some of the things you mentioned as stuff that should maybe be in the engine I kind of agree with (and slightly disagree with a30502355's suggestion that such features being less impressive is inherently a bad thing), but there is a system in place for putting that into place.

I don't know. How many quests do we actually have from people who are completely new to ZC? And how are those generally received? I haven't checked the numbers, but I can't imagine they tend to come out better than just ok, at best. Item Fantasy was kinda panned in its first appearances at the expo (iirc NJF streamed it a couple times - hilarious, by the way. And embarrassing). I can't assume everyone is as dumb as I am, to be fair, but the program does have a decent learning curve, as I stated last time.

In any case (again, I can't speak for other's processes, but in my experience, this is how I do things) I don't think learning these things is entirely linear. Even if it does take 6 months to learn to script (others have argued against that - suffice to say people learn different skills at different times, and something as big as scripting includes a lot of sub-skills) many people learn that in parts, and goal-oriented; if they need a script for a specific thing, they'll learn what they need to to do that thing. Some also study it, I'm sure (you, for example, if I understand you correctly), but different processes work for different people.
And, again, scripting isn't alone in this. I only learned how the palette editor works last year, despite having made the vast majority of a quest by that point.

I think everything else I wanted to say has been covered by now

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

James, I know why you think the way you do about this. It's because you're a type A-thinker. There's nothing wrong with that of course, type A-thinkers are just completely incapable of reading data and making conclusions about said data, mainly because they don't know where to look. If type A-thinkers went on Discord and saw all the things the community does, all the quest contests that goes on and all that, then maybe they would realize that they're mentally blocking out a huge part of the community to fit their narrative, but then they wouldn't be type A-thinkers anymore, would they? No, they would be type B-thinkers. And type B-thinkers are *clearly* superior, even though there's nothing wrong with being a type A, I promise!!

[James24]

I have read through all your opinions.  But I haven't found one argument that I've found so compelling as to believe I've got this prediction wrong.  Mostly what I've read is emotion, people colourfully expressing their dislike of my opinion, what people want to hear and what's popular and not what is based on reality and life experience.  My prediction stands, ZC 2.55 will not sell, the number of quests made every year will decline and eventually ZC is going to end up like Armageddon Games.  Its not something I've come up with lightly and I've made it with no self-interest, prejudice or malice.  Its been made purely on logic, a lot of thought and life experience.

 

The people voicing their opinions here are the vocal minority and not the ones who will ultimately decide whether my prediction is correct.  Its the unknown user - the one who is inspired by Isle of Rebirth who opens ZQuest for the first time having an aspiring dream to make their own beautiful quest who then finds out there's too much work learning how to script and abandons the program - never to be heard from again on the forums or on discord.  Those users are the silent majority and it is them that the devs need to spend their time accomodating.  If ZC 2.55 is able to engage them in quest making then ZC will live on but there are hundreds of unknown users who abandon ZC because of scripting for every one user who speaks up, learns how to script and accesses the scripting database.

 

Once ZC 2.55 is released the coming few years will decide whether my prediction was right.  I would be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong but I'm 99% sure of this one.  We've all had our say and let our opinions be known so lets not bring this up too much again.  I know this has caused a bit of grief for some of you so I'd like to conclude by saying I love you all.

[Shane]

I have read through all your opinions.  But I haven't found one argument that I've found so compelling as to believe I've got this prediction wrong. Mostly what I've read is emotion, people colourfully expressing their dislike of my opinion, what people want to hear and what's popular and not what is based on reality and life experience.

Clear evidence through recent successful quests that aren't by scripters isn't compelling enough? Stats showing quest releases aren't declining isn't convincing enough? And you boil both down to "emotion"? Then I guess this truly isn't a discussion worth having with you then because the only one who's actually going by emotion is you because you feel you represent this silent majority and that you have to speak out for them, that you feel quests are on a decline and that you need to do something about it, that you feel ZScript for others is not worth learning, that you feel you needed to make this thread without doing any research. And now you're shrugging off legitimate arguments because you feel that somehow they are less logical than your arguments based on assumptions.

 

In your mind, your experience (despite showing you are incapable of doing any ounce of research) overrides evidence, apparently. I think that speaks for itself.

[NoeL]

there are hundreds of unknown users who abandon ZC because of scripting for every one user who speaks up, learns how to script and accesses the scripting database.

 
Out of curiosity, what's your evidence for this claim? Because really, your entire argument hinges on this one assertion and I haven't seen you present anything to support it other than a hunch. If you have evidence of these "hundreds of unknown users" please share it.
 
On the contrary, others have provided data to indicate that either your claim is false or that there are so many new users the community is able to thrive despite the poor adoption rates. In either case ZC isn't dying - at least not anytime soon.
 
 

My prediction stands, ZC 2.55 will not sell,

 
I also find it strange that you make this claim based on the complexity of learning/integrating scripting, yet it's been stated that 2.55 will make it easier than ever to integrate scripts into your quest - as simple as clicking a button in the item/enemy editor and selecting a file. So if scripting really is the massive barrier to entry you claim it is we should expect the minimisation of that barrier to precede an influx of new users and activity... which is exactly what the "emotional" people here have been saying (that new version releases are followed by increased activity).
 
 

Mostly what I've read is emotion, people colourfully expressing their dislike of my opinion, what people want to hear and what's popular and not what is based on reality and life experience.

 
Mostly =/= entirely. I completely agree with you that you've gotten impassioned responses to your argument, and I'll even agree with you that some (if not many) of those responses are arguing from emotion rather than evidence. But despite that, people HAVE presented evidence against your claim - evidence you've regrettably chosen to ignore rather than address. And again, the evidence you've presented hasn't been very strong. You claim your argument is based "purely on logic, a lot of thought and life experience" but what's missing from that sentence - and what's been evidenced to be lacking given your outdated (mis)information - is an accurate and evidence-informed understanding of the current state of ZC. I see "logic, a lot of thought and life experience" based on false assumptions - a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario. You may be very good at making market predictions, but I'm sure that relies on having an accurate picture of the market to begin with. And I'm not convinced you have that. But again, I welcome you to prove me wrong.

[Haylee]

Yes, because spreading literal misinformation in your post is me responding emotionally, and not you ignoring my request for even a small amount of evidence as to the reason for these users leaving can even be remotely proven.

Our only "proof" of these claims is your own word of mouth, which is credibility that has been thrown out the window thanks to a number of factors already. I'm going to ask you one more time: how can you act like you know how this community functions when you can't even see where the bulk of the activity is? You claim your claims are valid because you're some kind of marketing wizard, but regardless of whether you actually are or not, you've really dropped the ball on providing remotely accurate information.

[klop422]

I don't have anything else to say that hasn't been said yet. Only what everyone else has said - that the burden of proof is on you. We've all put forth evidence - it doesn't matter how few people have put it forth, unless you can prove that it's somehow invalid (logically, not by moving goalposts), either by explaining why the evidence is faulty or by putting forth stronger evidence to the contrary, it's perfectly valid evidence and there's no logical reason to discount it. This is how logical discussion works. Not by saying "yeah, not good enough" to everything that's put forth.

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude, or 'emotional', but it is frustrating to see arguments ignored and not even acknowledged in more than "I see 'em".