Social, Ethical, and Political Statements of CoR

[Carlos.R]

@Wraith_Magus

I invite you to read my actual message, because you clearly haven’t read, addressed, or in any way shown comprehension of anything I’ve written, so I’m presuming this is just trolling at this point.

I disagree.

But then again, you did come here to trash talk Choice of Games on their own forums, now didn’t you?
Turnabout isn’t fair play, then?

I’m actually not trolling you.
One of the things you’ve suggested, more than once, is the implementation of puzzles.
That idea was discussed here; started around July 2013:

Puzzles and Choicescript

I’ve been mulling over how to implement puzzles in Choicescript. It’s something that we’re currently lacking, there’s no published games that I can think of that have interesting puzzles. I don’t think that it’s because of the limits of choicescript though. Text adventures tend to be filled with puzzles, of course they’ve also got the benefits of a parser. It would be possible to code up a limited parser using the input command but I think that could also destroy immersiveness. I do, admittedl…

One of the problems with the “points” that you’ve been making is that you’ve been stating your opinions as if they were facts.

Another is that you are trying to disguise negative criticism as neutral, scientific observation.

You’ve been trying to “wall of text” the wrong person, my friend.
I’ve read and understood every little detail of what you were saying.

Now, here’s an example of what constructive criticism looks like (in case you’ve forgotten):

• Person A: “I can’t find a way to translate backend mathematical equations into meaningful player interactions.”
• Person B: “Well, that’s interesting. Maybe you could approach the problem by reconsidering why you want to make the player interact with heavy math?”
• Person A: “Well, my initial idea was because then the player would be able to (fill in the blank here).”

Now, all you have to do is fill in the blanks and reconsider why you are trying to push the limitations of technology instead of trying to work within them.

If the technology (or its inherent limitations) don’t work for you, that doesn’t mean the that it doesn’t work for the vast majority of other people.

I invite you to find inspiration in your original purpose.
If you consider why it doesn’t work for you, then carefully examine what kinds of things you would want to experience.

If what you want to experience isn’t plausible in a given system (at least in your opinion), then what purpose is there in trying to convince the world that it’s not possible to punch through a solid concrete wall with your bare fist?

Read the above carefully, because that’s what you’re doing.
Of course it’s not possible.
You’re using the wrong tool for the job.
Try installing a door.
Doors work much better for bypassing concrete walls.

Allowing the player to interact with heavy backend math meaningfully is a problem that takes real work, effort, and creativity to solve.

Again, you won’t get free answers by pretending that what you’re talking about is an unsolvable problem and that we should therefore move on to “better” systems.

You have to do the work on your own.