QUOTE(DavidW)
QUOTE(Baronius @ Aug 28 2008, 03:51 AM)
This is a big question: why aren't the questionable, subjective "fixes" put to a different mod? I have never got a reasonable answer to it.
I'd be interested to hear your definition of an objective, unquestionable fix. (& I mean definition, not example)... otherwise the worry is that "subjective" is itself subjective
First of all, a few examples to illuminate, illustrate the matter.
But you will get a definition as well.
- The correction of a broken item (or any other resource) which causes the game to crash is an unquestionable fix.
- The correction of a grammar typo or mistake in a text is an unquestionable fix.
- The correction of a certain faulty element (e.g. incorrect description) where the original (e.g. developer, D&D or similar) intent is unambiguously known is an unquestionable fix.
- The correction of a certain element that seems to be inconsistent or faulty and causes an unambigiuously undesired phenomenon/effect due to this fault or inconsistency is an unquestionable fix.
On the other hand:
- The "correction" of an element that seems to be inconsistent or faulty according to a certain interpretation and its effect isn't unambigiously unpleasant or undesired in the game (and possibly hardly noticeable, on top of it all) is a strongly questionable fix, which shouldn't be in the same category as the previous list of fixes. Depending on the concrete case, it may even be considered as a tweak.
- The "correction" of an element, which seems to be incorrect according to a non-objective, non-technical reasoning (such as "guessing what the developers meant", "this is how it works in D&D") and doesn't cause any unambigiously undesired effects in the game is a questionable fix, which shouldn't be in the same category as the previous list of fixes.
- The "correction" of an element in order to make it more comfortable for the player or better-looking is nothing else than a cosmetic change or comfort modification. If such a change would affect at least one important "interface" of the original that may be a dependency of any third-party mod, it is a strongly questionable as a fix, and should be in a different category than the strict fixes (i.e. the first category).
I'm not saying that the group of "fixes" covered by my second (two-element long) list shouldn't be accepted, but since there is a many of them (=> increased incompatibility probability with third-party mods and much burden to those who want to remove them for their mod) and they are questionable, they should be in a different category. In fact,
categories! But this will be examined in a later part of my post.
Now a few examples to the above... examples.
Assume that the script of a creature (the behaviour of a creature) seems to contradict what we would expect (e.g. from P&P or directly from the IE game, the quest, the dialogue etc.)
and prevents the game from proceeding, e.g. a cutscene freezes (it never ends). This belongs to the following element of the first category:
QUOTE
The correction of a certain element that seems to be inconsistent or faulty and causes an unambigiuously undesired phenomenon/effect due to this fault or inconsistency is an unquestionable fix.
In fact, even the second part of the sentence should be considered as sufficient criteria for a required fix (my definition that I will write later will reflect this):
QUOTE
The correction of a certain element that causes an unambigiuously undesired phenomenon/effect due to this fault or inconsistency is an unquestionable fix.
Of course, the way such a problem is fixed should be carefully discussed, to guarantee a more or less reasonable solution. In this case, more subjectivity and free interpretation is allowed than in case of problems that cause hardly noticeable or negligible effects in the game. This is because the problem is severe, and even if it's fixed in a slightly subjective, questionable way, it needs to be fixed -- no one can argue that it shouldn't be fixed just because they interpret it in a different way and don't think it's a fix, because it causes an unambigious and spectactular problem. (On the other hand, they can argue about how it should be fixed, but this doesn't mean the fix should be put to the second, "subjective" category of fixes.)
On the other hand, it's much more than a little exaggeration to say that it's a
fix (!) to change the alignment to evil of a smuggler captain who attacks your party when you
reveal his business. It belongs to this element of the first category:
QUOTE
The "correction" of an element that seems to be inconsistent or faulty according to a certain interpretation and its effect isn't unambigiously unpleasant or undesired in the game (and possibly hardly noticeable, on top of it all) is a strongly questionable fix, which shouldn't be in the same category as the previous list of fixes. Depending on the concrete case, it may even be considered as a tweak.
Assuming one agrees with the subjective change, the
"biggest" problem it fixes in the game is that the Detect Evil and similar spells didn't highlight the captain before. And I emphasize:
assuming one agrees that the alignment change is justified (there are pros and contras). On the other hand, the
"biggest" problem it may cause with this change is breaking the AI of other mods: for example, in this specific case, it may break Improved Anvil's certain scripts. If this (and all the tons of other questionable "fixes") were in a different mod, perhaps Improved Anvil would just be incompatible with that mod and would be able to support the core BG2 Fixpack.
Finally (as far as "example examples" are concerned), let's see another change that cannot be considered as a (strict) fix, and belongs to the following category element:
QUOTE
The "correction" of an element in order to make it more comfortable for the player or better-looking is nothing else than a cosmetic change or comfort modification. If such a change would affect at least one important "interface" of the original that may be a dependency of any third-party mod, it is a strongly questionable as a fix, and should be in a different category than the strict fixes (i.e. the first category).
"Doors not Consuming Keys". Due to the "fix", now they do, the item (key) disappears from your inventory. This is a very nice as a "comfort fix", because many players like it because it makes life easier in the game:
QUOTE(A player)
I hate to have a door opened because I have a key in my inventory without knowing it
On the other hand, other players wouldn't prefer it (bold added by me):
QUOTE(Blucher)
Keeping the "odd" keys would be a good idea imo, for two reasons. (1) Some mods use these items, and (2) from a roleplaying perspective, it's nice to keep those items as little mementos of your previous adventures.
Why to force the latter group of players by adding such a "fix" to the Core mod (or Core part of a mod)? The previous group of players could still install it by installing the other mod (with the "questionable fixes"), while the second group wouldn't be forced to use them (and mod developers whose mod uses the keys wouldn't be forced to tamper with G3 Fixpack code through their own mod's code to prevent G3 fixpack from breaking their mod). This is the "influence and power of apparent majority" I was talking about: dictating the base content for players and modders, taking the possibility to choose from them. (And let's not forget we're talking about a BG2 Fixpack that is meant to be a standard part of every game installation, so it indeed has a big influence and possibility to dictate; on the other hand, it's interesting that Improved Anvil, a mod which
isn't a fixpack and no one is required or recommended to install it for such reasons, was criticized for "forcing certain things on players" and "forcing playing styles". Do mod developers and players have a choice whether to support Improved Anvil or not? Yes, of course. Do mod developers and players have a choice whether to install G3 BG2 Fixpack? If they want the
important fixes, they are FORCED to install a lot of other questionable fixes as well).
Back to the example, the biggest problem of the "Doors now consuming keys" change isn't that it's subjective and disliked by some players, but that it may
also break third-party mods. What is the balance? Nothing else than
introducing a comfort change (that might disliked by some players after all) vs.
the risk to break other mods! Why can't it be in a different mod, instead of the mod with the core, strict, crucial fixes?!
Again, the general problem isn't that there is captain with a changed alignment, some keys which disappear from your inventory, or things like these. The problem is that there is very many of them, and the tendence doesn't change. Questionable, mod-breaking "fixes" aren't put to a different mod, forcing all players and mod developers who would need the strict fixes of the Fixpack to accept or tamper with tons of additional problematic "fixes" and changes.
I owe you a definition yet, DavidW. I remember I've made up a quick definition once, and the answer I got from CamDawg (after asking him twice to tell what's his problem with it): "It's not practical enough". He didn't like it because it obviously excluded the questionable, risky "fixes" from the group of strict fixes.
A fix (or strict fix, if you will) satisfies at least one of the following criteria:- It solves a problem that unambigiously and noticeably hinders the proper functionality of the game, or a problem that prevents the game plot from proceeding, or a problem that causes crash, freeze or similar critical problem.
- It solves a problem that causes an unambigiuously undesired phenomenon/effect in the game.
- It changes an element which functionality, behaviour or feature(s) were incorrect according to an objective or non-objective, technical or non-technical reasoning (such as "guessing what the developers meant", "this is how it works in D&D") and this does not result in any severe incompatibility risk for third-party mods by affecting potential game dependencies.
- It applies a cosmetic or comfort improvement according to an objective or non-objective, technical or non-technical reasoning (such as "guessing what the developers meant", "this is how it works in D&D") and this does not result in any severe incompatibility risk for third-party mods by affecting potential game dependencies.
Remember that there is an OR relationship between the criteria in the definition; I wouldn't be happy seeing it twisted anywhere by presenting (quoting) them as
necessary criteria, as requirements which
all must be met -- this is not the case.
Indeed, a good definition should be practical, usable. The best feature of a good definition is its usability. However, usability is also "defined". Defined, dictated by the expectations of players and by the expectations of mod developers (this latter group includes technical expectations, which are related to compatibility and development). It isn't correct to say that a definition isn't practical enough because it doesn't allow all reasoable (but possibly subjective) improvements to be called fixes. In this case, a definition is practical if it helps us to identify which changes should be considered as strict fixes (which are required to be in a central mod) and which changes should be considered as non-strict fixes, and incorporated into additional categories. A practical definition allows as many reasonable improvements (including crucial corrections) to be added to the group of strict fixes as possible
while also keeping incompatibility risks due to dependency violations as low as possible.
A practical definition offers
balance: increasing the number of required & useful fixes vs. decreasing the probability of introducing problems for third-party mods.
That is what I would expect from every mod developer, including G3 BG2 Fixpack developers: balance. Balance between the urge for constant improvements, additions (to provide new content and better gaming experience for many -- but not all -- players) and the incompatibility risks introduced by the many new changes (which may cause headache for mod developers, and force them to work much).
It would be crucial to realize that other viewpoints can make sense too, and your viewpoint might not always be 100% superior and seamless, guys. I've noticed that "rules"
For example, let's see the case of a creature who has some "illegal" stats, some statistics that its class/race etc. wouldn't allow. Telling that these are bugs and must be fixed is a strongly subjective approach. Who knows that in this case, it wasn't "developer intent"? To make that particular creature stronger/better in the game. And justification can also be found: it's called imagination and the Forgotten Realms setting.
For example, telling that an elf with 19 constitution is illegal and thus buggy and must be fixed is very narrow-minded (note that this elf is a theoretical example to illustrate the attitude I discourage). That elven hero also had its own adventures, might have found a Manual of Bodily Health, and so on.
But to avoid being called someone who brings up a non-existent example, here is a real one: TorGal getting the same regeneration abilities as other trolls. This can easily break mods that are based on TorGal's original features, while it's strongly questionable. Who says that TorGal didn't sacrifice this native ability e.g. during a ritual in order to get other powers?! Why is it required to arbitrarily approach everything with RULES? The Forgotten Realms isn't about that; rules are guidelines, but they aren't meant to make the whole world boring and predictable.
Assuming that one's viewpoint is
superior is very narrow-minded. The urge to override original solutions and elements, the urge to "improve" and "fix" everything should be restricted a bit. It's very narrow-minded to search some sort of justification to call everything as a (strictly required) "fix". Yeah, do find things to be improved, but don't put them to the same group that contains critical and important or commonly accepted fixes.
If you tell me, DavidW, that my definition contains words such as "unambigious" and who defines what is ambigious and what is not, my answer is that common sense
and technical facts are the two things that are very helpful in 99% of cases. Common sense says that changing an alignment which affects only a hardly noticeable thing while potentially breaking mods is not a strict fix.
If you ask me how to put the changes (fixes) into more categories, and how to decide whether a fix belongs to one category or to another, then let me mention
fuzzy logic (you're certainly far more skilled in this myself). The various categories cannot be completely well-defined, but it's possible to decide about most fixes which category they belong to in the greatest degree (let's think of fuzzy membership functions).
So it's not true that subjective fixes cannot be distinguished from strict fixes. For example, I suppose that three categories would be completely enough, suitable: strict fixes, other fixes, subjective fixes (with probably different names than I've quickly made up now).
The strict fixes could be in the central mod, which wouldn't force players and mod developers to accept or tamper with hundreds of questionable fixes. Players who would like the additional fixes could install the other mod as well (which would contain the other two categories, for example).
Easy as pie!
I do ask it again from those involved: why is this not possible? What's the real reason?