I like the script. I've played FF6 so damn many times that I've pretty much got the original script memorized, so the shift in tone is appreciated. Even if it is goofy in spots, it's a fun goofy. It's like a parody but it doesn't get cringy with fanfic-type stuff. If you want a neat FF6 refresh experience with a more serious tone, look up Eternal Crystals.
I think Ex-Modder is one of those dudes who prides himself on "keeping it real" and "speaking his mind" and thinks he's really smart, but in reality he's just a jerk.
Garbage Self-Referential, Immature, Inconsistent writing.
#82
- Village Drunk
- Job: Modder
- Posts: 522
14 March 2017 - 11:06 AM
Lockirby2, on 12 March 2017 - 06:49 AM, said:
Part of me *really* wants to recommend ROTDS right now, just to see how that goes down. 
Haha yeah, the same thought had occurred to me while reading this. In all fairness though to RotDS, the intent there is to personalize & separate itself from the original FF6 dialog & story etc. much more obviously than BNW.
As I say in the readme, you know, that thing that nobody ever reads:
It is a highly personalized modification of the original game and therefore naturally won't appeal to everyone. It's not a sequel or a prequel or a remake to FFVI, it is just a massive mod and customization of FFVI and at times somewhat nonsensical. If you go into it thinking like this I am sure you will have a much more enjoyable experience than expecting some high quality re-take on the game and coming out feeling disappointed.
Anyway, I feel the OP loved what you guys did to FF6 in terms of the gameplay changes, just was not a fan (to say the least) of the alterations to the dialog, since he assumed or wanted it to be an upgraded/better FF6 experience and maybe was not expecting such a drastic change in terms of script. So, I'd like to think he wouldn't of bashed on RotDS in the same way considering it is not trying to be a 'better version' of FF6. But yes, he went about delivering his criticism here in a terrible way.
#83
- Challenger
- Job: Member
- Posts: 704
15 March 2017 - 09:24 AM
I sure picked the wrong day not to stop by the forum!
All I can say is, if you ever need "better faux-shakespearian" dialogue, I'm your man! And since there's two feet of snow outside my window and all my meetings for the afternoon have been canceled, I feel like giving some commentary on the tiny part I've played in this grand adventure.
Just to give you an idea of what I did when BTB invited me to contribute script tweaks (which invitation I received as a great honor): I looked at both the Woolsey and Lina Darkstar translations of the original script, and then compared the (sometimes modified) BNW (1.5?) lines with the rules of grammar and authentic Early Modern English texts, which I quoted wherever possible.
Most of what I did was to make sure that the archaic -eth was always used to form the third-person singular present tense of verbs. For example, this was my note on Cyan's introduction to Sabin:
Not all of my tweaks made it in unaltered (context forced occasional changes), but here are some examples of the direct-quotations I referenced:
I will close by saying that my delight at imagining someone picking up on these obscure quotations of Shakespeare and the Bible is compounded by the image of them searching this forum and finding a thread named "Garbage Self-Referential, Immature, Inconsistent writing."
thzfunnymzn, on 12 March 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:
That said, there's been enough comments on this that I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate script mod. Heck, if I was a decent writer or knew the design goal to shoot for, I'd offer to do the back-breaking work myself.
Polaris, on 12 March 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:
I’m hoping to make one someday, although nothing that’s managed will satisfy everyone.
Miacis, on 12 March 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:
To be honest, the script hasn't received major alterations since... what? The Celes edgy meltdown? There were also Bishop's (?) changes to make Cyan speak better faux-shakespearian.
All I can say is, if you ever need "better faux-shakespearian" dialogue, I'm your man! And since there's two feet of snow outside my window and all my meetings for the afternoon have been canceled, I feel like giving some commentary on the tiny part I've played in this grand adventure.
Just to give you an idea of what I did when BTB invited me to contribute script tweaks (which invitation I received as a great honor): I looked at both the Woolsey and Lina Darkstar translations of the original script, and then compared the (sometimes modified) BNW (1.5?) lines with the rules of grammar and authentic Early Modern English texts, which I quoted wherever possible.
Most of what I did was to make sure that the archaic -eth was always used to form the third-person singular present tense of verbs. For example, this was my note on Cyan's introduction to Sabin:
Quote
The problem with “alloweth me the honor” is that “alloweth” means “He allows,” not “I command you to allow”. So instead I've suggested opening the quotation with “I beseech thee.” In reality the formal “you” might be used instead of the familiar “thee”, but even if so this a good compromise between the historical use of English and the desired tone.
[caption #532]
I beseech thee, allow me the honor!
[caption #532]
I beseech thee, allow me the honor!
Not all of my tweaks made it in unaltered (context forced occasional changes), but here are some examples of the direct-quotations I referenced:
Quote
Coriolanus III, 1 & paraphrase of Comedy of Errors V, 1. Note that “who art thou” is indeed found in Shakespeare, in Henry VI, Part I V, 3.
[caption #69]
<A$02>: Be calm, be calm.<P> Now, O rough, rude and wild one, who art thou?<P>
All's Well That Ends Well III, 6
[caption #76]
<A$02>: Is not this a strange fellow, sir <A$05>?<P>
Canst Not. I found it in Act III Scene III of Romeo & Juliet. It's legit.
[caption #654]
<A2>: _Sir <A5>. Thou canst not be serious_
“Beheld her countenance.” Judith 10:14 in the KJV. Totally legit.
[caption #851]
<A2>: It IS her! I knew I had beheld her countenance before. Sir <A11>, step aside!
Twelfth Night [II, 3] where Sir Toby Belch says “Let's to bed, knight. Thou hadst need send for more money.” Subtle references! We all love those, right? Can we make this work? Can we? You just know that twenty years from now someone will finally have to background to get the joke and laugh uproariously.
[caption #798]
<A2>: But Sir <A5>_ <D>thou hadst need send for more money.
[caption #69]
<A$02>: Be calm, be calm.<P> Now, O rough, rude and wild one, who art thou?<P>
All's Well That Ends Well III, 6
[caption #76]
<A$02>: Is not this a strange fellow, sir <A$05>?<P>
Canst Not. I found it in Act III Scene III of Romeo & Juliet. It's legit.
[caption #654]
<A2>: _Sir <A5>. Thou canst not be serious_
“Beheld her countenance.” Judith 10:14 in the KJV. Totally legit.
[caption #851]
<A2>: It IS her! I knew I had beheld her countenance before. Sir <A11>, step aside!
Twelfth Night [II, 3] where Sir Toby Belch says “Let's to bed, knight. Thou hadst need send for more money.” Subtle references! We all love those, right? Can we make this work? Can we? You just know that twenty years from now someone will finally have to background to get the joke and laugh uproariously.
[caption #798]
<A2>: But Sir <A5>_ <D>thou hadst need send for more money.
I will close by saying that my delight at imagining someone picking up on these obscure quotations of Shakespeare and the Bible is compounded by the image of them searching this forum and finding a thread named "Garbage Self-Referential, Immature, Inconsistent writing."
#84
- Game Breaker
- Job: Regulator
- Posts: 2,015
15 March 2017 - 09:42 AM
I think you're funny, Bishop. x]
#86
- Novice
- Job: Member
- Posts: 22
22 March 2017 - 06:32 PM
Joining the party late.
I'm usually pretty critical of people's writing in general (in fact my first post on this forum was a lengthy screed about Cyan--glad to see Bishop was able to fix it up, though!), and I think the script is mostly fine. Sometimes the in-jokes seem a little out of place, but that's kind of the nature of the beast: this is a twenty-odd year old game, and most of us know it by the back of our hands.
For a bit of levity, in the early '00s there was a hack called "Awful Fantasy", which replaced all of the characters and script with a series of Something Awful forums in-jokes. It was, uh, pretty terrible unless you were a forums goon yourself. It contained rare strokes of genius, though. The description for the item "Goggles" was changed to "they do nothing"--which, of course, at the time was what they actually did.
I'm usually pretty critical of people's writing in general (in fact my first post on this forum was a lengthy screed about Cyan--glad to see Bishop was able to fix it up, though!), and I think the script is mostly fine. Sometimes the in-jokes seem a little out of place, but that's kind of the nature of the beast: this is a twenty-odd year old game, and most of us know it by the back of our hands.
For a bit of levity, in the early '00s there was a hack called "Awful Fantasy", which replaced all of the characters and script with a series of Something Awful forums in-jokes. It was, uh, pretty terrible unless you were a forums goon yourself. It contained rare strokes of genius, though. The description for the item "Goggles" was changed to "they do nothing"--which, of course, at the time was what they actually did.
#87
- Co-Creator of BNW
- Job: Modder
- Posts: 4,548
22 March 2017 - 07:45 PM
There actually is a Goggles Do Nothing nod in BNW, as well. It's just very well-hidden.
