Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - OK. It's up to Cam, but I can't see that any reasonable changes to the Baldurdash GTU can be a bad thing. I guess as long as you standardized on Quarterstaff, continue as needed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I actually thought about that one quite a bit, because the proficiency itself is listed as "Quarter Staff" (i.e., in character creation and on the char sheet). But in this case I did go with Quarterstaff. For bows, though, I went with "Long Bow" and "Short Bow" rather than "Longbow" and "Shortbow", because the former is more consistently used. I also changed some items that looked like carryovers from BG1 that had types like "Small Sword" and "Large Sword." It was pretty easy to infer from the rest of the text what BG2 type it should be (dagger, 2HS, or whatever). Link to comment
CamDawg Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Honestly, I'm just thrilled someone is looking at the GTU finally. There's a lot of... questionable... changes in it. I think devSin summed up my sentiments fairly well: it was better, slightly, than the existing one and there's nothing comparable. By all means, feel free to start the review and start knocking out changes. Large-scale issues like Quarter Staff v Quarterstaff v Staff are better handled by one person, since they can be done with full-GTU search-and-replaces. I'd suggest trying to tackle a lot of these macro changes first--after that's completed, then we'll chunk the tra so that we can get multiple folks working on it. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hello - I got about 500 lines in starting from the top, then decided to switch to item / spell descriptions exclusively, for now. Have the descriptions been modified to match any changes to the underlying game objects? I happened to use NI to look up the fairy dragon familiar (in my fixpack-modded ToB install) in order to clarify something in its description, and found that its resistances in the .CRE differ somewhat from what is listed in the description. Do you anticipate this being a recurring problem? That is, should I stop the editorial review of descriptions based on ITMs, CREs and SPLs until they have first been reviewed for accuracy? I ask because I am more interested in spending my time fixing grammar and style than I am in matching descriptions to in-game objects. Link to comment
devSin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Don't waste the time. Stick to the parts you want to update, and let icelus take care of the rest. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hello - Don't waste the time. Stick to the parts you want to update <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, fair enough. I will not be reviewing object description text for accuracy. and let icelus take care of the rest. I'll let him respond to that bit. Link to comment
icelus Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Don't waste the time. Stick to the parts you want to update, and let icelus take care of the rest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heheh, and I would, too. I'm not sure, however, of what's being done where, so I'm hesitant at the moment to jump in and do work someone else has already done. Link to comment
cirerrek Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 (e.g., making sure there are two spaces between the end of one sentence and the start of another). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Does BG2 use a fixed with font or a non-fixed width font? General rule of thumb these days is that you only need to put one space after say a period or before a zip code. The computer handles the rest of that figuring. Then again, BG2 isn't a word processor, so maybe it is an issue. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hello - Does BG2 use a fixed with font or a non-fixed width font? General rule of thumb these days is that you only need to put one space after say a period or before a zip code. The computer handles the rest of that figuring. Then again, BG2 isn't a word processor, so maybe it is an issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Judging by the journal text, non-fixed. I am eyeballing everything anyway (or at least, proceeding as if I am eyeballing everything), so it isn't that hard to pop in spaces where needed. In fact, it forces me to go at a slightly more deliberate pace, which is more conducive to finding things to fix anyway. Link to comment
SimDing0 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 You know, it'd probably be vastly easier to go the other way--replace all incidences of two spaces with one, since then it's just a mass replace job. (Exclude occurances at the beginning of lines as these will be indentation.) Link to comment
Macready Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hello - You know, it'd probably be vastly easier to go the other way--replace all incidences of two spaces with one, since then it's just a mass replace job. (Exclude occurances at the beginning of lines as these will be indentation.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. But of course this is isn't a hugely important issue -- I doubt if anyone will even notice in the final product. I just go into nitpick mode when I start reading critically. If at the end of the day a one-space convention is deemed more desirable, this could be done as a final step. For now, the practice of adding the spaces is keeping my eyes from glazing over. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 Hello - I am periodically posting a zip of the updated fixpack GTU to my server, mostly as a backup, but it is there if anyone wants to see it, keep tabs on the ongoing work, or whatever. For now I am still in the midst of my item/spell text review. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Add this: @1009800 = ~We got a gusher!~ [] to address the Lilarcor sound file issue. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hello - Add this: @1009800 = ~We got a gusher!~ [] to address the Lilarcor sound file issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Done. Item and spell text review is going well: on line 20698 of 26261. Link to comment
Macready Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hello - I've completed my review of the item and spell text in the TRA file. Although for the most part I made no attempt to verify the accuracy of statistics, I did make a few changes in cases where I knew the text to be inaccurate. Also, while I may have missed some of the obscure items (i.e., those without a STATISTICS section), I think I put my eyes on just about all of them. Cam, this would be a good time to grab a copy from the server and resynch. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hello - I've completed my review of the item and spell text in the TRA file. Although for the most part I made no attempt to verify the accuracy of statistics, I did make a few changes in cases where I knew the text to be inaccurate. Also, while I may have missed some of the obscure items (i.e., those without a STATISTICS section), I think I put my eyes on just about all of them. Cam, this would be a good time to grab a copy from the server and resynch. Cheers, got it. Thanks for all the work! If I get a bit of time this weekend, I'll try to chunk this up and post to the wiki. However, anyone should feel free to start working through strings if they want. This is probably as good a place as any to track progress, so if you're working on a block just post the strref range here. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.