I mean all of them, although I would be discussing with some of the mods how I would go about submitting some of the bug fix patches all in one bundle so it wouldn't be like FFVI's section.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And then vivify will put HIS patch on top of the ... whatever the final one is?!Just to clarify for anyone else--I've sent Digitsie a PM--I am not working on any Lufia II patches. I'm primarily concerned with Lufia & the Fortress of Doom (Which is complete.) and Lufia: The Legend Returns. (Which will be complete soon.) While I have made input on Lufia II, I'm just asking questions in this topic since the three Lufia projects all aim to be as in-line with one another as possible.
Y'all have this Lufia Voltron going on and I'd like to not try to figure out which parts goes. I just want FORM BLAZING SWORD!
If the Le-Gion from Lufia II is the Ele-Gion from Lufia III, giving them the same name would be ideal - what's wrong with Raiju anyway? It seems clear enough to me that if Le-Gion from II is the same as Ele-Gion from Lufia III, then II is misnamed (and why it's dummied out) and should be Ele-Gion.Ele-Gion actually isn't in Lufia 2. I typed my post a little wrong--I said Lufia 3 has the three more dummied thunder spells, when it was actually Lufia 1.
This is the music glitch:
And there are also these glitches:
As this altogether really is a lot, so let's have a look at what's important.
The remaining boundary issues:
Completely not worth it, especially considering you said these ones are harder to do. I expect to be that Dragon Mountain one also to be somehow tied into the puzzle logic (related to the falling bridge, I guess). So I'd say it's the best to screw these.
Capsule Monsters feeding:
Also not that important because it doesn't do too much harm - aside from making the CMs some snobbish and obnoxious assholes. I'd say, skip it if it makes too much trouble.
Looks strange, but doesn't do any real harm. So, especially considering that it looks fixing it has the potential to destroy more than it actually fixes, this one can be skipped as well.
Lufia report glitch:
This one is a bitch because it totally spits on all your effort and invested hours to beat the Ancient Cave. So this should be fixed if possible.
This one is annoying because it easily happens and doesn't go away unless you reset. So this one also should be fixed if possible.
Not really a glitch because it just seems like an intentional safety measurement to ensure you always can refill your powers at all. Theoretically, instead of not touching your money at all, the inn keepers at least could take all the remaining money. But that's not really worth it. Let's just call it generosity.
Hook sound glitch:
Somewhat annoying but as it seems easily to cancel, so no real harm. Therefore, this one really isn't important.
Ancient Cave creation glitch:
This one is annoying as it can completely screw over your run. Especially annoying, if you found great stuff, but no Providence yet. However, I don't have any savestate for this one.
Arek intro glitch:
I don't care. If anything, it makes Arek even more mysterious, so it's actually not a bad thing, eh?
I'd say screw this one.
Ancient Cave chests:
Actually I'm undecided about this one. I say you can look whether you find an error that lets us make conclusions about how actually it was supposed to be. Then we can think about it again. If, however you don't find this kind of error, then let's skip this one, too.
That's all there is about glitches and bugs I think.
Capsule Monster Feeding fix
Option 1 - 14908h @ fe 00 00
Yum = fussy + 1
Option 2 - 14908h @ ea ea ea
Yum = fussy + 0
Yuck = fussy - 1
(*) fussy = item craving level
Warn: Use a clean Frue headered rom. Use this only, not previous patches.I have a question. I have a slightly altered version of Frue that I have for personal use. But I don't seem to have kept a backup of before I applied any of your patches. The oldest revision I have is the very first church patch, which restored the small-town outside-church crosses and all the inside-church crosses. Do you think it would be OK to apply the most recent two patches over that patch, or would I have to create my changes again?
Thanks, all!Years and years ago, I did have plans to look into The Ruins of Lore, but I was honestly really let down by that game's story. It had so much potential and it just kind of falls apart when you go into the past. I think making Eldin a silent protagonist was a mistake as well.
Off topic, but vivify, do you plan to poke around Ruins of Lore as well?
I understand, I should probably update that, everything including the "story" behind Rogue Dawn has evolved a lot since I wrote that (2 years ago ) The original intention was to say Samus knew about Dawn but since I would like this to sync up to the original series as best as possible I believe keeping the two from ever knowing about eachother makes more sense.Alright, thank you very much for answering my concerns so kindly and gracefully. I hope you excuse my questions, I was just really getting into the series' lore. As I tend to do!
[Edted the rest out for brevity.]
That's a valid concern. There is no intention of excluding something like a proper case hacks, typo corrections, or complete text re-invigoration. That clause was intended for submitted hacks that only change a few words, or replace a character's name throughout the game with 'vivify93', or changing Mario to blue for no reason, or replacing Mario with a one frame glitched rectangle sprite, etc. There must be a clause that prevents such hacks. People try and submit all kinds of junk daily. Sadly, the noise ratio is high enough already.Examples would probably be the best way to clearly express what you're aiming for.
The idea is such hacks simply need to substantiate themselves in the description. That can be done by noting reasonable necessity for having the trivial hack, or explanation of any non-trivial nature of the hack. It's not intended to widen the scope of exclusion, rather rephrasing existing exclusion. Do you have a better way of expressing that idea through the guidelines?