Messages

In Space Quest 4:

Spoiler

Roger picks a cigar butt that can be used near the end of the game in a room that appears early in the game.

[close]

I can see I'm clearly in the minority, but this SQ4 example is exactly what I think is bad. In a detective game, holding on to a cigar butt for ages makes sense. But not in a humorous space adventure.

I'm not saying the player shouldn't be able to pick up useful looking objects - hammers, keys, books etc. I just don't like it when they pick up useless looking items for no reason.

I see your point, but it seems to me that you're viewing the protagonist as a puppet for the player. Conversely, I get really annoyed when the character picks things up for no (apparent) reason.

Even if the protagonist is a puppet - in a single click game, when the player clicks on the large, unwieldy item which they don't yet need - do they actually WANT to pick it up?

I guess we can all agree that the most elegant way to design a puzzle is for the player to meet the obstacle before they come across the solution. But when a game is plotted in a non-linear way, it's (probably) inevitable that the player has a chance to come across the solution first.

So here's my question. If the solution involves carrying a large/outlandish item that doesn't seem immediately useful, should the player character decide to take it before they have a reason to?

I would say no. Though, I can see the traditionalist argument, that the player is king and you shouldn't stop them from picking up whatever they want.

I think the player character should refuse to take an item until he/she sees the relevance of it. I think that's preferable because (in an adventure game) the protagonist is a character with opinions, not just the agent of the player. The player's agency is mediated through their personality, and they are entitled to refuse to do something which is pointless or doesn't make sense. Particularly in the context of a 1 or 2 click interface, I think the protagonist picking up useless bulky item X is unlikely to be what the player intended them to do anyway.

What do you think? How happy/angry does this make you as a player?

I've split the psychology discussions/demonstrations off into a separate thread here: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53721.0

While no doubt well meant, I feel we ought to be careful about posting at length with arguments that appear to suggest that some forum members are delusional.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, or to imply that anyone was mentally ill. (Not that I'd want to stigmatise mental illness, we're all capable of holding delusional beliefs).

I'd argue that the links I posted are on topic. Ronson places the theories in context gives his subjects a chance to explain their theories in detail. You could watch his doc about Ruby Ridge and come out of it convinced that the New World Order really exists. But I think he provides a gentle, sympathetic, humorous rebuttal to these theories which takes into account human frailty.

But I see your point, and accept your decision to shill for the Zionist censors split the threads.

Since this thread could do with even more Jon Ronson, he made a short series on conspiracies for Channel 4 in the UK. At one point he gets chased by the Bilderberg Group, but I think this one about David Icke is very surprising:

[embed=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBMw2QErYzs[/embed]

In terms of the psychology of conspiracy theorists, David Icke is an interesting contrast with David Shayler. While Shayler went from being a seemingly credible MI5 source to someone claiming to be Jesus, David Icke began as a laughing stock and has carried on regardless.

It's remarkable how not crazy Icke seems considering his outlandish beliefs. I think he must be like medieval saints - people who experienced something like a psychotic episode, but somehow rationalised it as a life-altering revelation.

Jon Ronson is (((Welsh))) though, so let's keep that in mind...

This alternative knowledge thread reminds me of the old joke about alternative comedy - it's the alternative TO comedy.

So as an alternative to the alternative knowledge, here are two REALLY interesting episodes of Jon Ronson's BBC Radio series Jon Ronson On. In the first he meets a woman injured in the 7/7 bombings who was harassed by truthers who think she doesn't exist. And in the second he follows lead conspiracy theorist David Shayler's very sadly collapsing mental health.

http://www.jonronson.com/Jon_Ronson_Uncontrolable_responses.mp3

http://www.jonronson.com/Jon_Ronson_On_Wrong_type_madness.mp3

I hasten to add that the lovely art (seriously, check out the detail at full-size!) is totally NOT drawn by me. There's more info about the artists Matthias and Sebastian on the Backwoods Blog.

[Unforeseen Incidents]

Hello! Apologies for the slightly spammy post, but a game I'm working on is on Greenlight, and I think you might be interested in checking it out.

Unforeseen Incidents is a conspiracy mystery with a subtly black sense of humour. It's being developed by a team called Backwoods Entertainment, and published by Application Systems Heidelberg (who published my game Nelly Cootalot: The Fowl Fleet).

The game follows small-town handyman Harper Pendrell as he's drawn into a mystery involving a cryptic radio signal, a deadly disease and a fanatical cult. Armed with nothing more than his trusty multi-tool, can Harper get to the bottom of the conspiracy?

I'm working with Marcus (the designer) on the English language script. But since it isn't my project I can shamelessly say that I really love the game. I think it has great characters and fantastic artwork, and hopefully people are really going to enjoy it. So if you like the look of it...

Please vote for Unforeseen Incidents on Steam Greenlight!


Full Size


Full Size


Full Size

If you're looking for an interesting take on Brexit, which might cover some background unfamiliar to non-Brits, I found this piece quite thought-provoking:

In this context, the slogan ‘take back control' was a piece of political genius. It worked on every level between the macroeconomic and the psychoanalytic. Think of what it means on an individual level to rediscover control. To be a person without control (for instance to suffer incontinence or a facial tick) is to be the butt of cruel jokes, to be potentially embarrassed in public. It potentially reduces one's independence. What was so clever about the language of the Leave campaign was that it spoke directly to this feeling of inadequacy and embarrassment, then promised to eradicate it. The promise had nothing to do with economics or policy, but everything to do with the psychological allure of autonomy and self-respect. Farrage's political strategy was to take seriously communities who'd otherwise been taken for granted for much of the past 50 years.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/

Wake up! That's not Calin, it's a Government sock-puppet disseminating misinformation.

[great]

I think getting feedback and input from a cinema or animation perspective is a great idea. But there are a lot of talentless egomaniacs who want to be the next Orson Welles, so you'd want to get to know someone's work before collaborating with them. What I would say is, the things you're looking for feedback on aren't all a director's (definitely not a TV director's) job.

Camera angles / lenses and scene layout is something that a TV director is likely to be less involved in than a film director. You might also talk to a production designer about scene layout. Working with a director when recording voice actors is a great idea. But for lighting a scene, a director won't be as much help as a cinematographer / DoP.

That's good to know - thank you!

What an achievement!

I look forward to 2026, when you go back and do VR remasters of your back catalogue. (And we purists get angry and start doing fan de-makes in the style of Bestowers of Eternity.)

As far as I can tell, no one on this thread is arguing that national and international banking systems are working well. We have stock market crashes every 10-15 years to remind us that they don't work properly.

I don't want to patronise you, but the problem with conspiratorial thinking is we can't talk about the very real problems of modern capitalism without fluoridation and climate change denial irrelevantly popping in. Conspiratorial thinking prefers explanations which are at a practical level unnecessarily complex and at an emotional level very simple and reassuring. Climate change is a scam - that would be nice wouldn't it? The world is run by evil lizards - well, at least it isn't (to borrow Alan Moore's term) rudderless. The financial system is in the hands of a secret cabal, rather than being full of chaos, conflict and contradiction.

Anyway, for a SERIOUS investigation of money & debt, Philomena Cunk asks the REAL questions. Like "when you have a coin, where is the money in that coin?":

[embed=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-YKw8w-e50[/embed]

Thanks for all the help with AGSer.me over the years Peder. Are you going to keep the AGS archives pages up, or do I need to find a new home for: https://www.agsarchives.com/gamecard/735/nelly-cootalot-spoonbeaks-ahoy!.html

Sorry if you've answered that elsewhere!

What you just described is illegal, and that's my point. A small group have been given the right to create currency, which would make sense if they weren't a private business operating for profit.

It's not illegal just because you think it's wrong. Or because I think it's wrong. There are a variety of arguments in favour of banks extending credit in this way - credit can smooth out variations in income across individuals' lifetimes. Credit can facilitate investment in new (and therefore risky) business, science or technology.

You don't have to agree with those arguments, but do acknowledge them. The financial system may be amoral, irrational and rigged in favour of the wealthy. But what's the use of simplifying the issue in conspiratorial terms?

No way! I'm a socialist - not particularly keen on deregulated financial markets. It's just that, unlike the other things in this thread, the banking system does actually exist.

My takeaway is that the answer is a little of both. While the explanation at first sounds like a firm contradiction, if you read the details, it's actually not that different.

Cool! I feel like this thread has veered wildly off topic into facts about the real world...

However, the point is still that when the banks make a loan, they have to debit their reserve, and if this makes them fall below the reserve requirements, they need to increase their hard assets somehow.

This totally makes sense. But is it effectively true? (If it is I'll be happy to be proven wrong again!)

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
• Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
• In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up' into more loans and deposits.
Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system.

From a Bank of England PDF.

The point is that for the bank to lend out a certain sum, it has to actually have that sum available in "real" money: treasury notes, gold bullion or what have you. As in your post before, you're not taking into account that when the bank lends out money, it actually has to give out that money, which means that (1) it has to have the money, and (2) once it's given it out, it no longer holds it in reserve.

Fair dos, my account of Fractional Reserve Banking is clearly wrong! But, is it really true that when a bank issues a loan they actually have to give out "real" money that they hold in reserve? I ask that in the context of reading things like this:

"When banks extend loans to their customers, they create money by crediting their customers' accounts."
Mervyn King (Former Gov. of the Bank of England)

"Read an undergraduate textbook of economics... and if they describe banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional, and it fails to capture their essential role and implications.
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. They make loans to borrowers, crediting an asset on the banks' balance sheet; at the same time they put money in the borrowers' account, creating a bank liability. The loan is repayable at a later date, but the money is immediately available. It is this "maturity transformation" that creates effective purchasing power. The borrower may, and almost certainly will, then pay out the money to another business or household, but that creates money in that person's account. The vast majority of what we count as "money" in modern economics is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form, and only 2% represents the notes and coins liabilities of the state."
Adair Turner (Former head of the UK's Financial Services Authority) - any typos are mine, not his.

If money = purchasing power, is there a practical difference between what we're calling "real" and "virtual" money?