Difference between revisions of "Talk:Designing a Level (Alternative Tutorial)"

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This topic is so incredibly intricate and varied, not to mention subjective, that I think it's silly to suggest that a single authoritative article can be created. So I see no reason why BJ's article can't exist alongside Angry Beaver's. --[[User:Giles|Giles]] 17:06, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
 
This topic is so incredibly intricate and varied, not to mention subjective, that I think it's silly to suggest that a single authoritative article can be created. So I see no reason why BJ's article can't exist alongside Angry Beaver's. --[[User:Giles|Giles]] 17:06, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
 
:Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
 
:Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
 +
::Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --[[User:Giles|Giles]] 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Revision as of 18:17, 16 December 2006

This topic is so incredibly intricate and varied, not to mention subjective, that I think it's silly to suggest that a single authoritative article can be created. So I see no reason why BJ's article can't exist alongside Angry Beaver's. --Giles 17:06, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --Angry Beaver 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --Giles 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)