Messages

Not bad, but I don't think the hand should be just floating in midair. Give him a cane to lean on or something, and you've got yourself one evil schemer.

So... guess I should vote. I'll go with...

Be Quiet... because The Mission was way too twisty for my taste. Be Quiet has its problems, but at least it doesn't flip-flop as crazily as The Mission.

Oran's Awakening... because I'm an egoistic fuckwit with monkey here. 

Shpritz 2K... because I thought the idea pretty clever. This one was a close call, but it just fits together better than the hero's tale (although the final twist of that one was really, really funny).

Ehh, I dunno. Personally, I still think the first version the most menacing of the three, but it sort of depends on what you want to go for. Physically threatening? Progz. Cold, scheming mastermind? Yours.

Yeah, one of these. The latter (Game.MinimumTextDisplayTimeMs) is probably the one you want. Briefly setting it to 4000 should work just fine.

If I recall correctly, there's also some way to adjust how the game determines how long a line of text stays onscreen; there's some variable you can manipulate during run-time, but I'm at a loss as to what it's called. If I don't recall this from some sort of AGS-themed fever dream, that is.

Anyway, if the var is real, just multiply it by four, make the character smile and say great, then set it back.

Ehh, speak for yourself there. The animated miniseries are of questionable quality, at best. They have their moments (the theater guys trying to find Lancre, for example), but for the most part, they're pretty awkward.

However, the movies are a bit better. Hogfather is the best of the bunch by a long shot, though, and it's adapted much more faithfully than Color of Magic.

Oh, and yes, Rincewind is waaay too old. I mean, the first book outright states you could mistake him for an apprentice if it wasn't for some sort of trinket. The two Discworld adventures featuring him were... let's go with "a question of taste", they did nail the look perfectly (IMO).

Alright, this should make for a nice competition. I'll give you guys... let's say five more hours, then voting shall commence.

VOTEY TIME!

Well, great. Now I'll have to re-activate what little knowledge of the French language I have left, and I'll have to draw trophies.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR ENTERING. I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD OF YOURSELF AND THAT YOU DON'T SUFFER ANY ACCIDENTS. 

Well, hurry up a bit, guys! I can't wait to 'em, especially SciFi2...

I think it was something along the lines of "USA SMASH PUNY DISAGREEING FRANCE!!!", coupled with a health dose of "... but we can't actually take them on, so let's go for something symbolic instead".

It's the same thing here. Good grief, guys, it's not like the guy is going to do any more terrorisin'. At least let him set his affairs in order, and let him die in dignity; no matter somebody's crimes, they're still human. No need to petition people to refer to Scotch as Terror Cocktail from now on, or some equally retarded crap.

Thanks for entering, it's hugely appreciated! Seems like we're going to see some competition... 

Damning people for things they haven't done is just how YHWH rolls, dude. That's why we're still paying for the incredible crime of "apple eaten by two people incapable of attaching consequences to actions". I think creating people in a particular way, then punishing them for being like that would be right up his alley. We're talking about somebody who kills people because he has a wager running with Satan about the soul of their father. (Hiob's sons were unceremoniously killed by Sky Daddy when the man didn't lose his faith after the first few rounds of undeserved kicks in the teeth).

No sin is greater than any other? So "murder" is on the same level as "wearing clothes woven of two different fabrics", "shaving" and "eating stuff from the sea other than fish" (all banned by book Leviticus)? Well, drat, guess that pizza frutti di mare means I get to share eternity with Hitler.

Three days left, and just one entry so far? Come on, people... make that two. Well, at least some competition. I'll make sure to read yours as well, AG; thanks for entering.

Oh, and thanks for your entry, Find Therma, and congratulations on finishing it! I haven't managed to read it yet, but expect a review. Painkillers make mind go all blurry-blur but Akatosh want to die when not take them. 

/EDIT: Ooh, sorry, AG; I missed that one.

I'm going to not make any horrible money-related puns and instead just wish 1$ a happy birthday. That's your present, by the way. 

I dunno. I sorta lost track, but I think it was about proving the existence of an invisible unicorn, an island chieftain, oral prayer-healing licenses, claims that science wasn't better than pulling stuff out of your ass, the relativity theory in Gen 1:1, healthcare related worldwide conspiracies and goat-herding in Canaan. Then again, I'm delusional from painkillers because of some effing ear infection. 

(Oh, and thanks for stepping in, KhrisMuc. Guys, there is a reason why science aims at putting aside personal belief. Skepticism works. Blind faith doesn't. And there's no Evolution vs Creation debate in science anymore because the creationists lost already, several hundred years ago, over and over again, not because science was a religion on its own that discarded the idea as heresy. It's the religious fanatics who'd rather ignore reality than rethinking your own beliefs.)

/EDIT: That's actually a pretty good thougt, Natan. A famous German philosopher by the name of Kant had a similar one, and wrote a book called the Critique of Pure Reason. The thing is a doorstopper supreme, and I haven't read it in its entirety, but the gist is that
a) as we are only human, there are limits to what and how we can perceive, and
b) there are certain assumptions the scientific method hinges on, even if they are unprovable.

In summary: there are certain a priori assumptions we can not remove if we want rational thought to still work, although they are effectively non-provable. They are pretty trivial, though - IIRC, among the a priori are, for example, the assumptions that "effects need to have at least one cause" and "things happen after other things". The thing is, though, that theories that are built on them can, at some level, be disproven. For example, if we suddenly see effects happen just before their causes, the theory of linear time progression would be disproven. If we found true randomness (and I think we have, on the quantum level, but I don't know jack shit about quantum physics outside of Heisenberg's stuff), the theory of determinism would be disproven, and so on.
The main quarrel scientists have with religion is that a) currently, there is no deity neccessary to explain the universe, and b) assumptions are made that are inherently uncheckable - you try collecting evidence for the presence or absence of something that's explicitly stated to be undectable.

Oh, and I'd just like to say that "science vs religion" is basically a false dilemma. There are asshats on both sides that make them seem completly non-reconceilable, but as long as neither meddles into each others domain, they can co-exist perfectly.

I think I still have the one about Detective Lane on an old PC. As for the second one... dunno, I'll have to dig around a bit.

That's admittedly the main problem with induction, and the reason such a big fuss is made about falsifiability - we may not be able to prove something is true, but failing to prove it's false depite a theoretically possibility to do so is the next best thing, really. Oh, and despite this problem, scientifc theories aren't just "made up" despite the impossibility of proof - in order to get your hypothesis elevated to the high, high level of "theory", you have to have a lot of evidence. We don't make shit up as we go (unless funding runs out).

On the overall, I'd still rather trust someone that says "Here are the facts, here is our theory. They line up almost perfectly, and the latter can accurately predict and describe the former, but you're welcome to try and disprove the theory" than somebody who continually screams "I AM RIGHT DESPITE THE FACTS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM WRONG I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT!"

Hmm, I dunno. I find the concept of such a... disconnected game pretty neat, on an abstract level. It's been said that a good way to true innovation is to take something seen as integral, such as linear narrative or rational puzzles, take it away, and still try to make a decent game out of it. Of course, I'm only one person, and you may want a bigger target audience than "Akatosh" for your game. 

However, your website suffers of technical problems. I could get it to run, after a long wait, but it's choppy to the point of being unplayable. I couldn't even solve the first... let's call it a "level", because the game ran at about 2-3 fps, making it impossible to accurately move the boxes.

http://www.tokbox.com/conf/fu8r8v60tpoqhjit

What 1$ said.

Dude. Eating from the tree was explained to have the consequences of being able to tell right from wrong. Before that act, Eve and Adam were living in total ignorance, to the point of not being able to tell they were naked. If you can't tell right from wrong (and it was directly stated that they couldn't), how the fuck can you be held accountable for your actions? That's like expecting a toddler to solve the world financial crisis, only you punish it for eternity if it fails.