Support NeoGAF

[birdchili]

best idea for a game to get people talking about it incessantly until it's released.

it's the *properties* of the objects that are going to make this interesting, far more than the number of nouns supported. how do interesting puzzles get created without being frustrating? i have a hard time believing that i couldn't thing of an object or collection of objects that could retrieve an "objective thingee" for me from pretty-much any theoretical "level". how do you make the puzzles fun and clever when i can create objects on the fly?

this is such a great concept. you can use it to brilliantly teach oop to new cs students

 

[Jackson]

Please put these Boobies in the game.

Jackson, please tell me you guys have a sense of humor! Put dick in there. When someone writes dick, maybe some guy named dick will appear. Maybe Dick Grayson, or even better, if you have a staff member named Dick, and he appears to talk about the game.

It's more up to how the Ratings Boards handles things than us really.

Blue Footed Booby is in though

 

[Graphics Horse]

It's more up to how the Ratings Boards handles things than us really.

Blue Footed Booby is in though

Don't forget the Red Footed Booby

 

[platypotamus]

Don't forget the Red Footed Booby

I suppose if they have boobies and paint, you can have whatever color feet on your boobies that you want.


Supposing paint applied to subsections of objects and not whole objects.

 

[DDayton]

It's more up to how the Ratings Boards handles things than us really.

Blue Footed Booby is in though

So, again, Sir Jackson, can we get a word count for the game?

 

[Jackson]

So, again, Sir Jackson, can we get a word count for the game?

I dunno, would like David Blaine to explain how he does all his magic tricks? :lol

 

[linsivvi]

If you program a system that includes all of these things, it's trivial to create thousands and thousands of objects that interact naturally. Sword? A 3-foot long, heavy, useable weapon. Cop? An alive person who walks, wants donuts, and carries a gun. Barn? A reallly big, immobile, flammable container. And so on.

It's not that simple, and it's anything but trivial. If there's a fireplace on the screen can I light a match with it? Can I then burn a tree with this match? Can I then write "fan" and fan the flames? Or write "water" and put out the fire? If it's a regular puzzle or adventure game with a limited set of objects I expect all these to be possible. There are literally millions of interactions that can't be just simplified with having properties of the objects. Just think of all the possible chemical reactions for example. I expect most of these interactions won't happen, and that's the only reasonable expectation. But then what's the point of allowing people to write anything on screen if they can't act the way people expect them to?

Plenty of games will have over 500 objects, you don't need to code specific interations between every possible combination. An object with wooden properties will burn, because the game knows all wooden objects will burn.

Name one, just one. Name ONE game that allows you to bring up any of the 500 objects at once, and any 2 objects would interact the way people expect them to, instead of just saying a variation of "it doesn't work here".

 

[Jackson]

It's not that simple, and it's anything but trivial. If there's a fireplace on the screen can I light a match with it? Can I then burn a tree with this match? Can I then write "fan" and fan the flames? Or write "water" and put out the fire? If it's a regular puzzle or adventure game with a limited set of objects I expect all these to be possible. There are literally millions of interactions that can't be just simplified with having properties of the objects. Just think of all the possible chemical reactions for example. I expect most of these interactions won't happen, and that's the only reasonable expectation. But then what's the point of allowing people to write anything on screen if they can't act the way people expect them to?

No, actually Charlequin is pretty spot on, in how the game works. Also, in the IGN interview I explained this (though not in such detail as he posted.)

It's not "trivial", but it's not insane either.

 

[charlequin]

It's not that simple

Well, obviously it's not that simple; I just listed a pretty basic set of properties that I came up with in five minutes. The real list is probably something like 200 properties long or something, with many of those properties having numerous possible settings. But still, that number is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of objects you can create by combining these properties in different ways.

If there's a fireplace on the screen can I light a match with it? Can I then burn a tree with this match? Can I then write "fan" and fan the flames? Or write "water" and put out the fire?

Uh, sure. All of these are extremely trivial results of a property system just a bit more complicated than the one I described.

There are literally millions of interactions that can't be just simplified with having properties of the objects.

Like... what? I honestly have no idea what interactions you are proposing here that aren't possible with a system like what I described.

Just think of all the possible chemical reactions for example.

If someone has silly ideas like "you should be able to have accurate chemical reactions for cesium" they're going to be disappointed for no reason. The game isn't a chemistry simulator, it's an object-making game with a cartoony art style; that should make it clear what kinds of things are "within bounds."

Name one, just one.

This is a totally goofy thing to say. Can you name one other game that is based solely around the concept of distinct objects with different properties interacting with each other? The title is exploring an unusual area of gameplay and so obviously there aren't going to be any clear predecessors to look to.

 

[Cow Mengde]

It's more up to how the Ratings Boards handles things than us really.

What are the odds of them writing Dick in the game? Oh, or Moby Dick! drop a giant sperm whale on whoever writes dick in the game.

I dunno, would like David Blaine to explain how he does all his magic tricks?

Oh and I just want to let you know Lock's Quest turned my into a fan of 5th Cell and also opened my eyes to the sub-genre of Tower Defense!

 

[DDayton]

I dunno, would like David Blaine to explain how he does all his magic tricks? :lol

Oh, I don't want to know HOW it works, I merely want to know whether "anything" actually means "anything" or, rather, a limited subset of "anything" dressed up to fool most observers.

Sorry, I'm just reminded of all the text adventures from the days of yore and the wild and wacky claims made by them.

 

[donny2112]

We ARE the DS :lol

I second that :lol , though for a likely different reason.

This game's concept seems a lot like Little Big Planet. i.e. The user really makes the game go as opposed to the user just plays the game.

Spoiler

I know, I know "LBP has x number of precreated levels. You don't have to create anything." Blah, blah. The precreated levels are not the reason for the hype for LBP.

As such, it'll probably have a good following with the internet forum crowd. The expanded audience/Brain Age crowd? I'm more doubtful.

Drawn to Life was a great idea to appeal to the expanded audience, because you could just draw whatever and even without much ability, continue on and have fun with the game. This game from very early reading about it seems like it would require a largish vocabulary, quick thinking, and good penmanship to really make work. Being able to voice the different items would be ideal (though very hard to impossible to pull off), but having to write them all legibly and spell them correctly seems outside the scope of the average person who could buy this game.

One way to deal with that is to have the touch screen have suggestion buttons that you can just click to make the item. These would be the obvious or basic items, though, and then the real fun would be in going outside that prechosen word set to come up with your own ways through the game. Requiring every item to be written down would greatly slow down the game, but this hybrid method could allow continued appeal to the Drawn to Life crowd as well as satisfying the creative needs of the more hardcorish, forum going crowd.

Just a thought.

Good luck with the game!

 

[Jackson]

Oh, I don't want to know HOW it works, I merely want to know whether "anything" actually means "anything" or, rather, a limited subset of "anything" dressed up to fool most observers.

Sorry, I'm just reminded of all the text adventures from the days of yore and the wild and wacky claims made by them.

Rest assured, it pretty much means "anything" within reason of course.

 

[DDayton]

Rest assured, it pretty much means "anything" within reason of course.

See, it's the "within reason" element that confuses me... as "anything" directly conflicts with "within reason"; you can't have both be true concurrently!

I just want a word count for the game! Is there any particular reason we can't know how many words the game will recognize? Not how many individual items the game will create, mind you, just how many different words the game will recognize.

 

[civilstrife]

"within reason" sounds well... very reasonable to me.

I think half the fun of this game will be experimenting to see just how many words it knows, even if it's not every word. Until the entire list inevitably makes its way online.

 

[A Link to the Past]

See, it's the "within reason" element that confuses me... as "anything" directly conflicts with "within reason"; you can't have both be true concurrently!

I just want a word count for the game! Is there any particular reason we can't know how many words the game will recognize? Not how many individual items the game will create, mind you, just how many different words the game will recognize.

I think he means, like, specific obscure foods from Asian regions.

 

[Vinci]

I've truly enjoyed all your games, Jackson, and this one looks awesome as well. Looking forward to expanding my vocabulary whilst trying to find words you guys didn't think of.

 

[Dacvak]

I want something to happen if I write GAF.

Maybe it would just skip to the end of the game, and you win.

 

[Cipherr]

It seems to cause good fun at least!
The days of blast-processing is over for most of us. We know what platforms are capable of, basic ideas of what games can and cannot do. When pre-hypers like Molyneux ruin plenty of experiences for games by just being his overtaking self.

Everything said about Scribblenauts so far just has a smack of that "See, we're technically doing what we said even though it's not what you thought it would be!" taste that is going to make a lot of people mad in the end. Read what I said again. It has that flavor, but that is just because we are jaded by too many big promises that never delivered fully. I think most people would like to see awesome games.

As many have said, being proven wrong would be sweet, but in the words of President Bush "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, and and and ... you can't get fooled again."

I don't know much about advertising games, but I think it would be in the favor of the developers of Scribblenauts to shut the fuck up for a while.

Dude leave the thread, and never return. Leave us to speak of this game alone since we are actually looking forward to it. And if you are somehow looking forward to it as well, go do it alone, far far away from any other living human beings.


I'm extremely excited about the concept. Its really actually something new, that in itself is enough to get my attention. Although the "what can I draw that it wont be able to make!" isn't what I'm looking forward to the most. I want to be stumped by puzzles where I have to close the DS and put it in my pocket on standby for hours to try and figure out what I need to conjure to advance on whatever stage I'm on. Thats what I'm imagining will be the best part of this game if it delivers.

Cant wait.

 

[Drkirby]

I want something to happen if I write GAF.

Maybe it would just skip to the end of the game, and you win.

I think it should stand for geographic adjustment factor, and randomly change some of the land.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Dude leave the thread, and never return. Leave us to speak of this game alone since we are actually looking forward to it. And if you are somehow looking forward to it as well, go do it alone, far far away from any other living human beings.


I'm extremely excited about the concept. Its really actually something new, that in itself is enough to get my attention. Although the "what can I draw that it wont be able to make!" isn't what I'm looking forward to the most. I want to be stumped by puzzles where I have to close the DS and put it in my pocket on standby for hours to try and figure out what I need to conjure to advance on whatever stage I'm on. Thats what I'm imagining will be the best part of this game if it delivers.

Cant wait.

GAF would be a sad place if it were only to jack off about games. Everything I have read about Scribblenauts smells fishy. I'm not saying what the game will or will be, I'm just saying that every time I read about this game I become more and more skeptical. And I'm not the only one. This isn't a good thing.
Just because some of you are still in the 'believe everything you read' stage doesn't make it the same for the rest of us.

 

[MGrant]

I don't expect super-accurate chemical reactions, but will there be some general ones? Can I get a bunch of vinegar and a bunch of baking soda and foam it all up? Can I light Magnesium on fire and have it burn underwater?

 

[batbeg]

I have to admit I'm already a fan... and my girlfriend is nuts about the idea, which is never a good thing. But I'm worried specifically about the levels of challenge and the level design. By leaving it so open-ended with so many endless possibilities, it feels like the level design will suffer from being too open, and too easy so long as you can think outside of the box. I hope this isn't the case, and I'm almost certainly going to buy it to find out either way, but I'm not ready to praise it to high heavens quite yet.

But I will be combining thousands of things, I'm sure

 

[A Link to the Past]

I have to admit I'm already a fan... and my girlfriend is nuts about the idea, which is never a good thing. But I'm worried specifically about the levels of challenge and the level design. By leaving it so open-ended with so many endless possibilities, it feels like the level design will suffer from being too open, and too easy so long as you can think outside of the box. I hope this isn't the case, and I'm almost certainly going to buy it to find out either way, but I'm not ready to praise it to high heavens quite yet.

But I will be combining thousands of things, I'm sure

The game will have core and casual levels. Core levels will require more than puzzle-solving skills, and are far more challenging.

 

[linsivvi]

Uh, sure. All of these are extremely trivial results of a property system just a bit more complicated than the one I described.

Like... what? I honestly have no idea what interactions you are proposing here that aren't possible with a system like what I described.

You are saying the system can handle most of the common real life interactions between objects, and I'm saying they will be severely limited in the scoop. We'll see about that when the game releases.

This is a totally goofy thing to say. Can you name one other game that is based solely around the concept of distinct objects with different properties interacting with each other? The title is exploring an unusual area of gameplay and so obviously there aren't going to be any clear predecessors to look to.

Huh? Did you even read the post that I quoted? The guy's saying there's plenty of game with over 500 objects. And I just wanted him to name one, not objects that just sit there but can be conjured up at any point and do something (I think he had Animal Crossing in mind, uh). Obviously there's no clear predecessor to this game, but I wasn't the one who trivialized this, he was. So how is this a goofy thing to say?

 

[Nocebo]

It's not that simple, and it's anything but trivial. If there's a fireplace on the screen can I light a match with it? Can I then burn a tree with this match? Can I then write "fan" and fan the flames? Or write "water" and put out the fire?

Let's put this small example into a simple over simplified design templates:

[b]*Object name*[/b]
- Parent:[i][/i]
- Elemental affinity (or something) :[i][/i]
- State:[i][/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i][/i]
- Fire:[i][/i]
- Wind:[i][/i]
#Contents (optional)
#When used by player (optional)

We have the objects: match, fireplace, tree, fan, water, (secret hidden objects FIRE, WOOD and WIND)

[b]*Wood*[/b]
- Parent:[i]None[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Earth?[/i]
- State:[i]?[/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i]Get soggy[/i]
- Fire:[i]Burn/ignite[/i]
- Wind:[i]Get moved depending on weight[/i]

[b]*Fire*[/b]
- Parent:[i]None[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Fire![/i]
- State:[i]Burning[/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i]Get killed[/i]
- Fire:[i]Nothing/merge[/i]
- Wind:[i]Burn more fiercly[/i]

[b]*Water*[/b]
- Parent:[i]None[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Water![/i]
- State:[i]Splashing[/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i]Nothing/merge[/i]
- Fire:[i]Evaporate/Boil[/i]
- Wind:[i]Ripple etc.[/i]

[b]*Wind*[/b]
- Parent:[i]None[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Wind![/i]
- State:[i]Blowing[/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i]Nothing[/i]
- Fire:[i]Rise[/i]
- Wind:[i]Get stronger[/i]


[b]*Match*[/b]
- Parent:[i]Wood[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Earth?[/i]
- State:[i]Idle[/i]
#Element relationships 
(inherited from wood parent)
#When used by player:
- Spawns "fire"

[b]*Fireplace*[/b]
- Parent:[i]Furniture[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Earth?[/i]
- State:[i]Burning (see contents)[/i]
#Element relationships
- Water:[i]Affects contents[/i]
- Fire:[i]Burn/ignite[/i]
- Wind:[i]Idle[/i]
#Contains:
- Fire

[b]*Tree*[/b]
- Parent:[i]Wood[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Earth?[/i]
- State:[i]Idle[/i]
#Element relationships 
(inherited from wood parent)

[b]*Fan*[/b]
- Parent:[i]Usable object[/i]
- Elemental affinity:[i]Wind[/i]
- State:[i]Idle[/i]
#Element relationships
(inherited from parent)
#When used by player:
- Spawns "wind"

Now that we've defined some properties we can look at the interaction flow:

- Match intersects with fire contained in fireplace.
- Match relationship with fire = Burns (inherited from wood). Match state is now burning (spawns/contains a fire).
- Player moves match (and its contents fire) to tree.
- Fire intersects with tree.
- Tree relationship with fire = Burns (same as match above).
- Player uses fan = Spawns wind.
- Wind intersects with fire (contained "in" tree).
- Fire relationship with wind = Burn more fiercely.
- Water Intersects with fire(contained "in" tree).
- Water relationship with fire = Evaporates because "fire burning fiercly" is the dominant object in this relationship.

See, by defining properties for objects interactions can be simplified and because of the nature of the poperties you can define how it reacts to certain basic elements (or properties rather) every object has. Even if this little example doesn't clear anything up for you I enjoyed thinking about how I would do a scribblenauts like system :lol

Now I bet you didn't think the fireplace would contain a "fire object" nor that other burning things would contain (and would spawn) fire objects which other objects would interact with instead of the object they're burning. That's the sollution I see for how this could work anyway. I think I could be on the right track since buring objects all seem to have the same fire graphic. Of course this is super simplified, more could be defined like what the last line of interaction hints at: "who would be the dominant object in a relationship and why"

If you can come up with a more complex interaction we could try to break that down too.

If it's a regular puzzle or adventure game with a limited set of objects I expect all these to be possible. There are literally millions of interactions that can't be just simplified with having properties of the objects. Just think of all the possible chemical reactions for example. I expect most of these interactions won't happen, and that's the only reasonable expectation. But then what's the point of allowing people to write anything on screen if they can't act the way people expect them to?

How many interactions are there really when you break it down? Not infinite! How many different chemical reactions? How many states can an object be in? Solid, Gas, Liquid and Plasma?
Because of the simple style of the game they can get away with simple effects and animations resulting from the interactions. It's still an insane amount but every interaction can be broken down into something basic that multiple objects can also do. So if you define that once you don't have to define it for every single object that can do it.

 

[charlequin]

and I'm saying they will be severely limited in the scoop.

But you're not really spelling out in more detail an argument why this is true. Everything you mentioned in your first list of interactions with the matches and fire is well within the bounds of a simple property system, and there's no reason to believe that this game doesn't have a much, much more nuanced system than that.

Huh? Did you even read the post that I quoted?

I was really just continuing in response to your original claim that a game with 500 objects was inconcievable. I'll concede that I don't offhand agree with Graphics Horse that there's already a game with 500 objects that interact freely this way, just because I literally can't think of another game that's based purely around a system of object interactions like this other than The Incredible Machine.

Just because some of you are still in the 'believe everything you read' stage doesn't make it the same for the rest of us.

I think people are being ridiculous in this thread because they're being skeptical over the part of this game that's entirely believable to accomplish (brute-force implementing thousands of objects from a dictionary into a property-based physics/gameplay system) and not the part that actually bears scrutiny (will this game be fun at all? will the levels have well-designed puzzles? will carefully chosen objects let the player trivialize all the challenges?)

It's certainly plenty reasonable to be like "yeah, 5th Cell, I didn't like your other games, this will be just like Drawn to Life -- all polish and no spit" or whatever, but there's nothing particularly unbelievable about the basic premise of the game. Disbelieving that it's possible when it's quite straightforwardly possible seems contrarian for its own sake.

 

[Drkirby]

Can I just use a teleporter and win every level by teleporting?

 

[Jocchan]

Can I just use a teleporter and win every level by teleporting?

Be sure you aren't wearing any blue pendant before using it.

Spoiler

*Quotes his own avatar*

 

[linsivvi]

But you're not really spelling out in more detail an argument why this is true. Everything you mentioned in your first list of interactions with the matches and fire is well within the bounds of a simple property system, and there's no reason to believe that this game doesn't have a much, much more nuanced system than that.

I mentioned just a few objects and the interactions between them. Anyone can make a solution (like the one Nocebo used) to solve this. Can this system handle thousands of objects and have them behave reasonably well? Each one of these interactions might be simple, but when the scoop is to handle any of them, can they still pull it off? Can they also properly animate the results of these interactions?

There will always be a limit to what this system can do. You and I agreed this is not going to handle all chemical reactions, for example. I am of the opinion that the limit is set at a lower bar while you believe it's set to very high. Like I said before, we'll find out later this year, and if they can pull it off reasonable well, well then I'm be glad to add this game to my DS library. We shall see.

 

[Y2Kev]

Can I drop a toaster in a tub and electrocute someone?

 

[{Mike}]

Need more game ideas like these. Reminds me of Katamari, which is a great thing.

 

[Boonoo]

Please put these Boobies in the game.

Or maybe some tits.

 

[Jocchan]

Or maybe some tits.

And some pussy (first meaning only).

Spoiler

I think we'd better stop here.

 

[Ranger X]

They need to have the logo appear when you write "GAF".
I would buy a copy to all my DS friends that post here just for kicks.


Anyhow, i'm buying this SO day one.

 

[charlequin]

I mentioned just a few objects and the interactions between them. Anyone can make a solution (like the one Nocebo used) to solve this.

Well, like, to take your fire examples:

It's not that simple, and it's anything but trivial. If there's a fireplace on the screen can I light a match with it? Can I then burn a tree with this match? Can I then write "fan" and fan the flames? Or write "water" and put out the fire?

If I were going to solve all of these, I'd probably start by making a status called "on fire," which had some properties:

• If something is On Fire, it has a Fire Area defined; scale the Fire picture and place it on that area. (For a tree, this would be the whole thing; for a torch or match, it'd be just the end.)
• When something On Fire touches something Flammable, that Flammable object also becomes On Fire (this works for pretty much everything.)
• When something Flammable has the Consumable property, it has a time associated with it; after that much time On Fire, it is destroyed (so a tree will burn up completely, but a torch will, for convenience, just stay burning at the end.)
• When something has the Extinguishing property, if it touches something with the On Fire property, the latter loses that property. (Or, more complex, if its mass is greater than the mass of the On Fire object or something.) This would cover fire extinguishers, mountains of dirt, etc. too.
• When something has the Fire-Increasing property, it has a time (either a number of seconds or "as long as they're touching"); as long as that time is still on, any On Fire object touching it has its Consumable time decreased and its Fire Area enlargened* (this would cover gasoline, lighter fluid, wood logs, etc. as well as fanning with air.)

*Yes not really a word

Now, it's true, that system only covers things being on fire, but if I had a well thought-out property system to work with that predefined the building blocks for me (areas, properties, objects touching, objects being destroyed, etc.) I could implement something like this in a couple hours. With a big enough team of people, a huge variety of properties could be implemented in not that much time.

Can they also properly animate the results of these interactions?

The animation's all handled the same way it is in Drawn to Life, IIRC, which means it should look crappy (by a broad standard) but also "just work."

I am of the opinion that the limit is set at a lower bar while you believe it's set to very high.

My argument is mostly with what you consider a "really low bar." 500 objects that interact in a very believable set of ways really would be trivial; even a hypothetical Scribblenauts that doesn't really deliver will hit a mark much higher than that.

I think my real objection to the people who are like "yeah right" about this game is that it really isn't comparable to something like Fable that overpromised and underdelivered. In a game like that, the problem is that someone is promising hundreds of completely different, distinct systems that probably haven't even been looked at for implementation yet at the time of the promise; here the promise is of a single universal system that just happens to have a really huge database connected to it, in a game that literally has nothing else to it, pretty much. The latter is far easier to developmentally achieve than the former.

 

[Jackson]

They need to have the logo appear when you write "GAF".
I would buy a copy to all my DS friends that post here just for kicks.


Anyhow, i'm buying this SO day one.

If the owner of the GAF brand would agree to it, I wouldn't mind putting it in :lol

 

[dragonlife]

If the owner of the GAF brand would agree to it, I wouldn't mind putting it in :lol

Contact them ASAP!

 

[abstract alien]

Contact them ASAP!

What property should it have? I think it should be flammable.
....or what if it could hatch open and have a flame spitting fanboy walk around...


Yeah, do that one.

 

[platypotamus]

What property should it have?

It should be indestructible, and any attempts you make to harm it should lead to a big red "BANNED" sticker across the screen, and you fail the level.

(I'd say with one of the mod's avatars, but then they'd have to get Samuel L or whoever's permission too)

 

[Haunted]

If the owner of the GAF brand would agree to it, I wouldn't mind putting it in :lol

10k additional copies sold confirmed. PM Evilore ASAP. It doesn't even need to do anything, just being in there as an easteregg is enough.

 

[Ramenman]

It's more up to how the Ratings Boards handles things than us really.

Blue Footed Booby is in though

Isn't it three words ?

I remember you saying something like "Bear is okay, but Giant Burning Bear isn't"

 

[Shiggie]

Isn't it three words ?

I remember you saying something like "Bear is okay, but Giant Burning Bear isn't"

Giant burning bear isnt a type of bear. Blue/red footed boobie, however, is the name of the animal. The amount of words dont matter.

 

[hbkajshdvfbkjhvgkahsgdfka]

What happens when you type in "God"?

 

[{Mike}]

What happens when you type in "God"?

The game sends this message :

'Fool. There is no God'

 

[Fireblend]

Can you divide by zero?

 

[DeadFalling]

If the owner of the GAF brand would agree to it, I wouldn't mind putting it in :lol

If it happens Insta-buy. That's like.. another 10k sales just for one extra object.

 

[Shiggie]

What happens when you type in "God"?

No names of people/deities and such... its somewhere earlier in the thread.

 

[Fantastical]

If the owner of the GAF brand would agree to it, I wouldn't mind putting it in :lol

Okay so this was already a day one purchase, but with that in it would be... amazing.

Put it in!!!!!

 

[JohnsonUT]

I think a pretty cool poster for this game would be a mapping of the item database (or some subset) with all the tables and keys and links between the tables. The stuff is all proprietary, but as someone who works on databases, it would be extremely interesting.