jerrysheppy

how has this altered "what things mean" like literally, the only way this could possibly be a case of "altering what things mean" is if the association with human slavery is somehow relevant to the "meaning" of a particular python process.

me: I don't like onions on my hamburger, can you please make mine without waiter: certainly, sir waiter (later, in the kitchen): fucking customers strong-arming us into making hamburgers a different way

Gotta say that it's a pretty big jump from "it would be nice" and "there have been complaints" to "they are being strong-armed". Businesses and organizations disregard complaints all the goddamn time if they don't think those complaints are valid.

I mean if saying "all else being equal, it's good to be considerate of people" is "subtly controlling the use of language to adhere to ideological orthodoxy" then hoo boy the sky is the limit. Anyway: A few people have alluded to the concept of Orwellian language in this thread, which makes me think that they don't actually know what they're talking about, because a key principle of Orwellian thought policing is to make it impossible to think or speak coherently of a given concept at all. To use an example from Orwell's "The Principles of Newspeak" itself, it's still possible in Newspeak to say something like "Big Brother is ungood", but that would be considered simply absurd, a contradiction in terms. The concept itself is rendered no longer sensical by the thought police. Here, it seems obvious that no such loss of meaning has taken place, because the items in question still exist and fulfill exactly the same function as they used to. (or, in the event their functionality was changed at some point, it has nothing necessarily to do with the terminology change.) If you called it a slave yesterday, you can call it a child (or whatever) today and nothing about the concept or its utility has changed. At least, that is my understanding as a layman with regards to programming.

Yeah, it's worth keeping in mind that this isn't the government threatening to throw Python's administrators (or whatever the word is) in jail, or even people boycotting Python over it. (People would be within their personal rights to boycott Python for it, of course, but personally I would consider it excessive.) It appears to simply be people having made a case for changing the use of terminology, and the leaders saying "hey, that sounds like an okay idea" and doing it. I assume if there was actually a compelling reason to keep the terminology, they would have taken that into account. "Forcing" in this context seems to just mean that the creators made a decision to change it with a new version. It's like complaining that a new computer game "forces" me to update my graphics drivers. Like yeah, the word "force" has a meaning in that context, but it's not like Big Brother is coming for you.

On the one hand I would hope that any reasonable person can realize that the term is being used in a context that has no resemblance to, say, the atrocities of antebellum slavery in the United States, or even the lesser human rights violations involved in non-chattel slavery throughout history. On the other hand, if it costs you nothing to replace it with a term like "parent and child" or "leader and follower" then why not? I think part of the problem with even discussing things like these, and we're seeing this in this thread even, is that the assumption creeps in that something is either 100% A-OK, doesn't bother anybody an iota, no reason to change it; or it's the most horrible offensive thing ever and you just ruined someone's life and now you're a doublehitler forever. But this sort of stark dichotomy is a dumb way to look at it-- it's perfectly possible for something to only bother somebody a little bit, or only bother a few people, and yet still be worth changing because the change is so simple and easy. Take the example of somebody who's a parent who lost a child. Obviously, this person can't go through life completely avoiding anything that would remind them of it, like seeing other people's children. But at the same time, if I know this person, I'm probably going to give a little bit of extra consideration and try to avoid anything that would unnecessarily remind them of that loss, all else being equal. And if I accidentally do, I'll say I'm sorry and see if I can avoid doing it again. That's not "policing my language" or whatever the fuck, it's just being nice to people. (I I have no knowledge of programming so I can't speak for how simple or easy it is in this context. But from what I'm reading, it's not just people standing on the sidelines calling for a change, it's something that the folks in charge actually went ahead and did. Clearly they thought it wasn't too much of a problem to be worth doing.)

Downloaded this and futzed around with it for a while. I very quickly discovered that I was in the camp that doesn't enjoy this genre of gameplay (more on this in a minute), but at the same time the eye candy was lovely enough that I turned on cheats and continued plodding through so I could see more of it. The lore is also entertaining; I agree with whoever said it really needs a proofreader, but this goes for a lot of projects by non-native English speakers, and frankly for a number of projects by ostensible native speakers as well. Obviously, the gameplay is the most polarizing aspect. I agree with those who find it not to their taste, but I also agree with those who've pointed out that, as a matter of taste, it's somewhat pointless to argue. There's nothing inherently bad about arena wave gameplay, after all-- some people will like it, some won't, and neither are "wrong". A more interesting and potentially fruitful question to ask is whether this gameplay ends up working with the lovely graphics as well as it could. Because, after all, a mod whose major selling point is environmental and architectural eye candy would seem to be best served by gameplay that promoted exploring and admiring those environments-- I'm thinking here of exploration fiestas like ZDCMP2 or TCotD: Apocalypse. Instead, what we have is relatively simple arenas where the player's task is not to explore and look around, but rather to be distracted by grindy waves of enemies. I think it's a valid and relatively objective criticism to question whether this is a maximally effective use of these resources. One other thing I want to mention is that, while most of the graphical enhancements are decently enough used, there is at least one level (second proper level of the first episode, I believe) where intense colored lights are overused and it hurts the overall effect. It's harder to appreciate the hi-res textures and advanced surface effects when I have red and/or green colored lighting trying to burn my retinas off. I don't know if you're familiar with or have an equivalent to the English saying "less is more", but it definitely applies here. edit: I should mention that I've played, like, three or four maps in, so if there are later maps where the gameplay feels different, I'll reassess my evaluation when I get to them.

Like so many others, I cherished his levels back in the 90s when I played them. Thank you for taking the time to bring us this news, and my condolences for your loss. :(

What resource(s) are you using, please? I recognize a lot of recolors here (not that anything is inherently wrong with recolors), but also a few really striking new textures that I can't remember seeing before.

Fair enough. It seems like my original impression was correct or close to it. Thank you very much for the clarification.

OK, so, it might be good to follow up this post with an explicit request for clarification since I've seen both Dragonfly and rdwpa say "just ask!", which suggests that it might be less harsh than I was assuming. Is the "approval process" for incorporating OTEX textures going to be just a matter of making a request and assuring you (ukiro) that it won't be a terry wad or anything? Or is there going to be a high bar to clear? Either would be your right as a creator, of course, but there are significantly different implications for people wanting to use the textures

Like quantum physics, this is one of those things that's great fun to read about even if I could never actually work with it myself. Thank you for writing this up!

Also, would it maybe be better to start a separate thread about ethics and preferences for texture pack usage, if that's something that people are interested in discussing? I worry it might seem like ukiro's thread is being hijacked.

If it is literally as simple as making a courtesy request and getting a reply, then I might have been given the wrong idea. But you're painting a picture that's different from the impression I get from Ukiro's own words, like these: "exceptions", "if they are justified", "reach out if they want to discuss" are all word choices that signify a pickier, more protracted gatekeeping process than "you only need to ask". I really don't understand why you're being snide at me for taking those sorts of statements at face value.

Great idea. I'll nominate TSoZD and BTSX E3.