Messages

dkh, the noun "band" can definitely appear in singular. Just think of phrases like "the band is playing" and "the band comes from etc".
Sure, when you refer back to it, you can substitute the pronoun "it" for the plural "they", but that doesn't imply that "band" as a noun is treated as a plural.

The difference between "band" and "police" is that police is uncountable, or a non-count noun, meaning you can't say "two polices".

Played it a couple of times and ended up with 950$ which apparently is still not the best outcome...

Really nice concept, though. For once a huge tree of dialogue options didn't seem tiresome and lengthy to me...

It doesn't become a top-down perspective just because you say so

Here's a suggestion:


It would be helpful if you acquired an action figure or something and looked at it from above, to see how all the lines that make up round objects appear different.

Vince, it's nice that you're striving for a consensus here, but with activities like this it's probably better to just decide for the rules yourself and get going.
It'll take an eternity if everyone should share their two cents, and at the end of the day it's going to be about writing a story, and that's what people have signed up for.

I think you should go for your original plan, and just get it fired up.

I would like to add these reminders for our future authors:
Remember that this will be a short story. Short stories often have a limited cast of characters and just a couple of scenes. Do not include too many new elements, plot-changing twists and "hidden" facts just because you can. Try to build upon the ideas of your team members instead of introducing a whole bunch of brand new concepts.

I think the suggested genres will work, but I would prefer more specifications. It usually helps against writer's block if you have a more specified topic.

Oh, and definitely go for a fixed amount of words. I think 200 is fine.

[and]

Don't you say DEfence in certain isolated cases, as in "he's on the defence"... or other strategy/sport-related cases?

Another thing I've noticed lately is the use of "try and do something". I've seen this even in professional writing. Surely it must be incorrect to use anything but the infinitive marker "try to do something". It seems like something that began in spoken English and then made its way into even more formal texts.

I'm in!
petterlj at yahoo dot se

You know that extra part of...that thing down there...

oh heck, I was circumcised because my foreskin was acting up on me

There are plenty if things I dislike with Sweden (actually I was going to start an entire thread about it, but I think it will have to wait now) but one thing I can't really complain about is our health care.

I have been operated on once as an adult; I was..."fixed"..."downstairs" if you get me (nothing serious, it was just getting a bit troublesome and I preferred to get rid of the extra part.) I went to a doctor, got examined and referred for surgery. Some 3-4 months later they called from the hospital. I underwent the surgery - with the special robe, the anaesthetics and the whole shebang, and spent an evening on observation ward with tea and sandwiches. Everything cost me 15 euros.

To me it's very distressing that everything I just wrote would be described as socialism-communism-bureaucratic-this-and-that in USA, and Americans would knee-jerkingly dismiss it.

[You are free to debate everything! Nothing is undebatable! It's how you debate I'm complaining on!]

Funny... You are the only one that refers to me in that terms... You are the only one that feels provoked, or offended...

Wrong, I don't feel offended, as I'm not religious myself.

Maybe the problem are not "my words"? Maybe the problem is "Andail and what Nacho says"?

I just want you to be a better man. It would help you in the future to be more open minded towards believers.

I must concede to believers that they have done a much better exercise of trying to understand and tolerate me than you... Sad for a moderator.

Hm? I understand you perfectly. Just trying to make you behave. That's what moderators do.

So, to summarise, yes... You are not my father. I am not going to change my behaviour for what you say or write... Specially if nobody else complains. If there are 99 people in the room telling me something and only one telling me to do the other I use to think that thise solo man is not right, you know?

Well... can we go on topic?

I am on topic! I wrote an entire post on the topic. Please read it, I think it's pretty good!

EDIT: Would changing "Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different" for "Being a believer needs such an ideological compromise that is very difficult to discuss with them" work? Consider it done.

What? You just said nothing I said would make you change your behaviour! Ah well, I think it's getting better, yes.

Well, gotta go to work now, catch you later

Edit: Oh, double post.
I think you missed some important stuff I said there. You keep repeating that the bible is comparable to the Smurfs and stuff. I'm not talking about the bible, nor am I picturing a big bearded dude in the sky. I told you some stuff about our creation hardly being logical, did you miss all that?

Because they have followers? Okay, so, according to you... we must not fight illogical beliefs if they have some amount of followers? Where is the line? What is the valour of "X" followers that makes a belief undebatable?

You are free to debate everything! Nothing is undebatable! It's how you debate I'm complaining on! Jeesh.

[Oz]

I watch extremely few TV shows, but I enjoyed HBO's Oz in a weird kind of way. I've tried watching Lost, Prison Break and similar series, but I always end up very bored.
The British The Office is arguably the smartest comedy show so far. I also really enjoy Futurama, although I've only seen a season or two.

Riiiiight.
Nacho, my man, take a look at this;

Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different.

How is this not unnecessarily provocative and rude?

Alright, I'm not your father, so I obviously can't teach you manners, but take a look at why your statements and similes have been wrong:

Why is it wrong to claim that everyone with a faith are illogical? Well, they simply aren't! I can name several people who believe in God who have a logical mind far greater than either of us, Nacho. Remember that a belief in God is not per definition a belief in a bearded man sitting in the sky listening to our prayers and selecting who to save. Great philosophers and scientists have believed in some sort of God, Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein to mention some. They are not illogical people, Nacho. Believing in God or not is beyond logics. It's another ballpark.

Then why is not illogical to believe in God? Because ultimately, our existence isn't logical! We can't really take a look at ourselves and claim that it's only logical that we sit here, chatting on the Internet, because it's beyond pure logics. Sure, after Big Bang we could suppose that the cause and effect chain deterministically leads to this very situation. But before Big Bang, things sort of cease to be logical the way we know it. It either had to start at one point, or it must always have been existing. You could also claim that since nothing existed prior to Big Bang there also was no time, and without an extension in the temporal dimension there can be no "before" and thus we're not in need of an "initial mover".
But these are things you can say, things you have learnt by heart when you read those first book about the universe, because it sure as heck isn't logical. None of us can honestly say that we understand this. I sure don't, and I have half a meter in my book shelf worth of science books, and I even have some university credits in logics (as a part of a philosophy course), and from the books in my shelves I can say these phrases, like a parrot, "before big bang this and that happened", but it's way beyond our capability to understand. Please don't claim that you understand this Nacho. I would maybe believe you if I knew that you had studied science in any shape or form, but I don't think you have, except for browsing websites about scepticism.
So, with all this, why is it so disastrously illogical to invent just one more entity, another force, the initial mover, that starts off everything and adds a sense of unity and reason to our existence. I'm not saying I believe in this myself, because I don't, but I sure as heck don't see it as exceedingly illogical.

Why is it wrong to compare believing in God with believing in Smurfs? Because we know exactly how and when and by whom the Smurfs were created. They were created by Peyo in the fifties. Secondly, they were never intended to explain anything about the universe or our existence. Nobody, except children and a few lunatics, would ever believe them to be real, or to have some sort of existentialistic function.
Same goes for Luke Skywalker. You only brought these examples in to make religion seem stupid, when in fact they're totally irrelevant.

The reason I ask you to change that condescending tone of voice of yours is because it deters sane religious people from entering these debates. All you're left with are the hard headed fundamentalists. And then you have a "debate" where one single stubborn newcomer is going to face all the self-proclaimed masters of logics in this community.  

In Sweden you pay an administration fee of roughly 15 euros for any sort of examination, surgical operation, treatment or consultation. Whatever your issue is, that's the cost.
(There is a high-cost protection with a cap of 800 euros per year. Luckily I have never been close to this).

For operations that are not life-threatening but still complex, like the ones Nacho mentioned (hips, knees, etc) the queues can be very long, several months up to a year or more.

If you have a flu or something similar, there are clinics that can accept you outside of hospitals, they are covered by the same health insurance, with waiting times of a couple of hours.

Dental care is another story; it's not covered by the insurance, but instead there are several high cost protections, as well as a small yearly personal fund. Still, just having a root canal filled will cost you several hundred euros.

Jesus...
Everyone's entitled to their opinion!
And everyone's entitled to question that opinion!
But everyone is not entitled to call other people stupid, illogical, lost cases!

I seriously don't understand how you can ignore the fact that you're being offensive and impolite. Read the parts I quoted above. Those are the parts where you're being inappropriate.
If the mere thought that people believe in God(s) upset you so much, then do what you've promised and avoid these threads!

I just wish that once, just for once, religion could be discussed here without everything boiling down to the you-can't-prove-that-God-exist-ergo-religion-is-wrong. Surely there must be some other aspects of religion that we can talk about, without every other post being a disclaimer that God cannot be proven! That's why I threaten to lock this thread, because it's basically just about you displaying your contempt towards religious people.
People everywhere are religious, people in this very community, Nacho, that's why we must discuss respectfully and as adults.

Nacho, sometimes I think that you - the Internet-you at least - simply don't understand when you're being provocative and inappropriate.

Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different.

The spirit of my post is that "God" is such an unbelieverable that, if someone does believe in it, he/she is a lost case. If someone understood something different, I apology.

We don't need to understand it differently; it is exactly what you wrote that is provokative.
A large part of this community is bound to believe in some sort of deity, but people stay away from these threads because the tone is so harsh.

You spend so much time with your clique of mega-atheists that you perceive every one who's even close to religious as an uttery illogical person, worthy of your mockery. I don't see what drives you to behave like this.

Miguel, I am not going to discuss with someone who believes in God. Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different.
.....
For me, someone who believes such a set of ideas is clearly too deep into a belief that trying to discuss with him about those issues is useless. So... Do you believe in God? Good... I believe in smurfs.

Nacho, you said that you would avoid this thread and not enter any more religious debates this whole year, and instead you come back with even more anti-religious provokations.

Please at least let people enjoy the liberty of believing in God.

It's one thing to point out that the catholic church would be better if there weren't pedophiles among their priests, and it's one thing to point out that we don't need biblical verses in the splash screen of AGS, but it's another thing to ridicule and insult the very concept of having a faith.

So instead of just keeping cool, you decide to come back and - for the millionth time - challenge someone to prove that their God is more real than Smurfs, Unicorns, Luke Skywalker etc etc etc. How does this give you pleasure?

If we can't move on to something more fruitful to discuss, this thread will be closed.

You're far from the only Christian in the community. It's just that most Christians don't really bother to enter religious debates, since sooner or later they'd be promted to "prove" that god exists. 

It would be more interesting to discuss various religions from anthropological, historical, philosophical or psychological viewpoints, instead of breaking it down to whether you can prove that God exists, which naturally you cannot.

Well, might as well publish it again:


It was a rather quick sketch, don't know how much of an improvement it actually is.

original:

Hey Ryan! Yeah that was me, I started a paint-over but had to stop prematurely, so I just uploaded what I had. Afterwards I realised it was too rushed to serve as a paint-over, so I removed it until I could work with it some more.
Anyways, my points were:

* You have gone too far with the atmospheric colouring/lighting. It's good that colours don't wander off in all directions, but right now it looks like you're watching the scene through a coloured lens.

* Too saturated, and too low contrasts. Sure, large chunks of pitch black are good to avoid, but you need more dark than that, or everything will appear to be covered in a haze. Likewise, try to focus on a part of your composition and increase the light/dark contrasts there.

Well, I'll return a bit later with a paintover.

You can create a rather playable game in AGS with practically no scripting skills.

As for this Visionaire...I say go ahead and buy it if you feel tempted. There are no finished games to try out, and the community doesn't seem very big or very active, so I would probably wait a bit myself.

Don't we have these let's-thank-everybody-threads over at gen-gen at least a few times a year?
I don't know...it's one thing if you've done some kind of achievement and wish to thank those who helped you get there, but these sponteneous displays of admiration tend to be a bit like the best-buddies-lists kids make in school.

As for graphics, there have surely been a decent amount of acclaimed games that don't show any traces of traditional drawing skills.
It's often enough to make art that's consistent, functional and serves its purpose. Pleurghburg is one great example.