Messages

[phone]

If that is not a word, then I will pick up the phone tomorrow morning, book a plane ticket to Africa and let a rhino trample me.

Either that, or I'll just make more effort to increase my vocab.


All the above words have their own entry in the paper dictionary currently sitting in my lap. Why does everything always have to be one thing or another? Can't a word be BOTH an abbreviated form AND an acceptable word in its own right?

I guess it comes down to generalised expectations of where and how far language has progressed. I guess I'm a little behind 'public opinion' (as defined by what the NYT Wordle decides is a valid word) in that I don't consider that (or vocab) to be a valid word, but would be fine with 'phone' (plane being a special case because it has another meaning anyway). Checking the dictionaries cat linked, MW specifies that 'fam' and 'dis' as slang, but OED does not (and even lists 'fams' as the plural of 'fam'). Again, I'd not consider those valid Wordle words either (even if they were 5 letters long).

However, Oxford English Dictionary lists it as noun

Spoiler

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/admin?q=admin

[close]

So, definitely a word. Since Wordle is originally British, it makes sense to include the word.

We already discussed that it is quite random what is accepted and what not.

But even the OED link you shared states it is an abbreviation 

I also got it in 4.

Today's word...is not a word.

Yet, presently I mostly use generative AI to help me build my backgrounds. Not just by writing a clever prompt. But mostly by using a photograph I made and ask the AI to create a background based on it in a certain pixel art style. And then use that as a basis to further edit it into something that fits in my game. Or I ask generative AI to make a nighttime version of a daytime background. So far I've managed to get a consistent enough style. And enough of myself in it to not make it feel as 'soulless' as Generative AI art often feels. Again: not Generic mediocrity.

Could you share an example of your process? Maybe one or two BGs to show the matching consistency of the style?
Because as it is now, even putting aside all the ethical issues with using generative AI, I've just never had successful use cases with it. Obviously, I'm not a prompt engineer or anything, but while my "See it in my mind's eye->Draw it out" conversion process is really bad, my "See it in my minds eye->Write a prompt->Have something generated" is even worse, and for detailed art (like you'd have in a BG, compared to like "draw a picture of a cat!" prompt), there's always so much nonsense and incorrectness there, that even using it as a reference seems pointless (maybe that'd be less relevant at pixel art level?). I've not used it with having a picture as input, but I feel it'd be faster for me to just shrink down a photograph and pixel over it.

Not really related to the new site specifically, I think, but apparently the AGS awards are currently underway.

Wordle 1,385 X/6*

⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩

Bit annoyed, seems wordle long ago gave up on the most common words.

The AGS versions listed on the main site: https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/#create
As well as the CREATE page: https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/create/

Are out of date, pointing to a download (and forum page) of a version from June of last year.

I have had this happen as well. Its been for the past few versions of 3.6 as well (I think I noticed it since the beginning of last year). Sometimes typing something and searching just crashes the whole of AGS.

I've gotten into the habit of not opening the .chm through AGS.

Ah, that's true, fair enough! I wasn't thinking of that, as I think this year I played so many of the games the month they came out 

I know this is far too late to ask this, but since cat mentioned it, I figured I might throw it out there:

Could we have all the MAGS games that came out this year included?

(totally understand that this is an unreasonable request!)

The problem of the 21st century individual 

I think the usual solution is to engross yourself in whatever addictive form of social media is closest at hand (on your phone) and "doomscroll" until you look up and 4 hours have passed.

Look at each game you want. There is "AGS panel rating" was this rating done by AGS PANEL? If not why call it AGS panel rating? It's the simplest English.

Again, yes, nobody is denying the word panel is used. I don't know why you keep going on about that. The point being made is that it is only YOU who assumes that because the word "panel" is used, that automatically means something involving every member of that panel playing every game and rating every game together.

This is why I said there appears to be a language barrier. You are the only one who seems to think that's the way a panel has to operate. Nobody else has claimed that here.

Reviewing and rating every game is part of categorising them, yes. The rest of it, I don't know what you are saying or asking.

So now that we've established:
- There is an AGS Panel
- The Panel rates games as part of their function
- "The Panel rates games" does not mean that ever person in the panel played the game and rated it, and had their ratings averaged for the panel score.
- Nobody, ever, anywhere, at any time, suggested any system like the one above
- No system like the one above exists at this scope (including rottentomatoes, which you now accept does not work like that)

I don't understand your point. I'm not the one who brought up rottentomatoes, you did. If now you feel they don't fit your meaning of how ratings should be done, then...why mention them at all?
As per the link I've already shared with you, the Ratings panel's function is to bring order to and categorise the vast number of games in the AGS DB.

Critical ratings on rottentomatoes don't work anything like that. Rottentomatoes takes reviews from other sources (individuals and newspapers/sites/magazines) who have given them permission (and they have accepted), and combine and average those ratings. Every person/group who qualifies doesn't have to have written a review before there is a score for something on rottentomatoes. In fact, for new movies or obscure/unpopular movies, it is very possible that there is only a single critic's review when the score goes up, and more may or may not be added later.

Nobody is specifically writing reviews for rottentomatoes. It is a review aggregator with a selection process for reviewers.

Yes, it definitely does seem like there is a language barrier at play here. No, "Your game was rated by the AGS Rating Panel" does not inherently imply that multiple people played your game and collaborated to decide on a rating. Such a system would be impossible, and we'd never get any ratings done at all (even as it is, the Ratings panel is far behind the released games).

Yes, it definitely seems like a language barrier issue here.
You seem to think that "AGS Ratings Panel" means that there is a team of X number of people where all of them play a specific game, and they all give a rating, and then the rating is averaged.

That is your assumption. Maybe something you assumed because of your own interpretation of "AGS Ratings Panel".
There was never any claim or assertion from anybody at any point relating to AGS that the Panel rating involved multiple people playing your game and then giving a rating and having it averaged.

I would be curious if anyone else here thought that is how it worked. Nobody ever said any such thing, and all discussion of the Ratings Panel (including the FAQ that I linked from 15 years ago) always made it very clear how it worked. If you thought about it for a few moments, you'd realise your assumption was quite absurd:

In your mind, a group of...lets say 20 people, in their own free time, with no salary or payment, who have various levels of activity online or on the forums (one of who passed away a few years back), would go through the AGS DB, and each of them would play every single one of the thousands of games in the same sequence and give it a rating, then wait for every other member of the panel to also do the same, then have it averaged to show as the panel rating?

I'm even more confused with your comments now. I am guessing (hoping?) that the language barrier is responsible for most of the issues, because otherwise it makes no sense.

The AGS community doesn't know each other. We don't go on picnics together without inviting you and make fun of you while munching egg sandwiches. We are all here because we enjoy making and playing adventure games, the same as you, I'm assuming.

None of the panel members are paid for their work. None of the developers who work on making AGS are paid for their work. There is a donation button, and that mostly goes to server costs. Every person who rated your game did it on a voluntary basis, on their own time, with their own effort. If you want, you can also PM the mods and request to join the panel to rate games. How exactly do you think a rating system like that of rottentomatoes (which you mentioned) works? The only difference here is that those critics get paid for their work.

Do you think that AGS members or panel members are so dumb that situations like "Oh, I like romance games, and this is a horror game, so I will rate it low" arise? How exactly would you envision a "better" "perfect" "proper" AGS panel rating system? Can you outline what specifically are you so annoyed with in the current system (besides the fact that they gave 2 ratings that you personally don't agree with)?

I'm not exactly sure what specifically you are complaining about here?

There is no such thing as an "objective review". Even if all the reviewers were following strict guidelines about how they score their reviews, it will always be coloured by their own subjective opinions.

The review comment is where a comment is given to explain the rating, and to provide more context. The panel rating for your game The Order was actually positive. The ONLY somewhat negative comment (if you take it that way?) is that your art wasn't of the highest quality (but it was still complimented about it being done by hand). Would you have preferred that the Panel Rating for "The Will" actually wrote "This game has really bad art"? Unless the game is obviously bad in some way, Panel Rating comments stay away from negative comments like that.

I haven't played either game, but it shouldn't bother you that even with your less skilled art from The Will, it ranks in the same ratings number as your improved skill art from The Order. There are lots of games like that, and graphics is just 1 part of the rating.
Here are some other games with worse and better graphics than your game, also rated 3:
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/2314-tales-from-the-outer-zone-the-goat-crone/
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/2276-space-tunneler-deluxe/
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1223-star-trek-newton-part-one-anomaly/
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/2604-saturday-night-is-the-loneliest-night-of-the-week/
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1010-nes-quest/
https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/2190-10-ways-from-sunday/

This specific case aside (because I have played neither game), I do think there is a bit of a problem with the Panel ratings (that are showcased here fairly well):
They are untransparent.

Panel ratings used to be quite transparent.
Obviously, every panel member had their own take on the guidelines, but it generally followed that pattern ^

It's been some years now that those guidelines have not been used any longer.