Messages

I want to thank all mods for their efforts in this, thank you all!

I guess it would be not too hard to add "colorblind" shaders to AGS.

Or if it's just about one puzzle or scene in question, simply take a screenshot and desaturate it in Photoshop.

But otherwise, I'd second what Sinitrena said, plus when it comes to text in game I think all devs should have either light text with a dark outline/background bar, or black text on a fair background.
It's already the default in speech fonts for AGS, but I've seen far too many movies and other video games ignore these criteria, and with DVD menues, many have just had so terrible design that even
I as a person with full color vision have a hard time seeing what I've selected because the selected option is only a smidge different hue than the default text option.

But the hardest problem to solve would proabably be in games where you use recolors of the same sprites for different characters or enemy classes. I mean, just look at this Age of Empires Screenshot with and without color:

Three of the Batman Arkham games and three of the LEGO Batman games, are currently free on Epic.

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/bundles/batman-arkham-collection
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/bundles/lego-batman-trilogy

That's six great games. 
Grab 'em now.

Wow, this must be a new record for Epic! 

I haven't seen Downsizing, but this whole discussion makes it sound like it's basically Bioshock but with a miniature city instead of an underwater city,
which is completely different from the first impression I got from the marketing, which was basically just Matt Damon messing around with giant props.

It grinds my gears when marketing and trailers completely fail to convey the tone or themes of a film or series. One example I experienced was with
the German TV-series Babylon Berlin, where the trailer I saw made it look like an awful attempt at doing "Game of Thrones, but with nazis", and relying on
edgy imagery of sex and violence paired with super cliche film noir tropes, and I probably would have skipped it entirely if it wasn't for the recommendation
of an acquaintance as well as a review praising the series for avoiding exactly that sort of stuff.

I actually wound up loving the series for it's great visuals and nuanced and complex characters and how it gave a captivating portrait of an interesting historical era,
and how it could deal with mature topics without fetishizing them or reveling in shock imagery and featured marginalized characters without killing them off or reducing
them to tragic victims. Basically, it was the stark opposite of what I saw presented in the trailer, and if that trailer had been all I'd heard of it, I probably would have
missed out on Babylon Berlin entirely, which is kind of the opposite of what marketing is supposed to do.

Just found this on imgur:

And this:

I would draw the line at making the same kind of humor based on victims of intentional, human-made atrocities, but accidents that happened over 100 years ago...

That is a good point, though the problem with the movie is that it also features a "humorous" depiction of the ghosts of the trans atlantic slave trade
right in the same musical number (look for yourselves at about 1:50 in the video), plus they insert a great deal of random WW2 weaponry at the end of the song.

But probably the worst part for me is that I saw this movie as a kid, and knowing the context of the scene is that those two walruses are supposed to be the cutesy comedy relief!
I mean, the hyenas from Lion King used a random animal rib-cage as a xylophone, but they were supposed to be the creepy and evil villains, whereas the walruses in Sampson and Sally
practically wades in weird inappropriate imagery for no reason and kills a whole school of fish in the process and kid's are meant to laugh at them. 

I don't remember much of the actual story, but I do remember thinking that whole segment had no business in a kids movie even when I was a kid watching it.
I do think there is a place for dark humor in animation aimed at older audiences like The Simpsons or Family Guy, but for kids who haven't yet learned satire or
what half of the tragedis referenced  in that song were about and only see "funny" characters laughing at dead people and destruction? Just nope. 

Seriously, it's insane how many kid's movies featuring the sinking of Titanic there are!

Nostalgia Critic fan?

Yep, though the worst depiction of Titanic in a kid's movie I've ever seen wasn't even reviewed by him!

It's a Danish film called Samson and Sally, and there's a big musical number where two comedy relief characters
build a human centipede out of the skeletons of the dead crew members and use it as a xylophone! 

I've found a clip from that movie on YouTube, if you skip to about two minutes in you can see the scene for yourself:

Seriously, anyone else thinking that movie was messed up?

To each their own.  I find Ferrel funny in a lot of things, but it can be a bit much at times.  As for Adam Sandler, Billy Madison is one of my all time favorite movies but I don't care much for anything post-Wedding Singer.

Yeah, pretty much all his later movies only exist because they were a form of paid vacation for Sandler and his friends, no one put any effort into anything and everything is financed by enough
product placements to put even Michel Bay to shame.

Regarding the Holmes and Watson movie, I never saw it, but I did see some YouTube reviews of it and it seems spectacularly bad.

Apparently, the big climax of the movie show the two "heroes" finding a bomb on board the Titanic and their hijinks end up destroying the ship. It just sounds like remarkably bad taste,
though sadly I've seen even more inappropriate uses of the Titanic catastrophe in bad kid's movies. Seriously, it's insane how many kid's movies featuring the sinking of Titanic there are!

Thank you Blondbraid, but please don't feed the heat. Jack has spoken his arguments, all of you replied with yours. Make fuzz about this was not my intention.

_

I'm sad to see the thread get off topic myself, but at the same time I and several others have a hard time standing by and letting nazi apologia and transphobia stand unopposed... 

[it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology]

It's more accurate to say I have a problem with not punching communists. This board has opened my eyes to the possibilities of assaulting people based on their suspected beliefs.

And hopefully you've opened a great deal of other people's eyes to what a massive hypocrite you are. I posted one joke image about Indiana Jones punching a nazi soldier wearing a nazi uniform and was fully armed and had a bunch of other nazi henchmen in the background, and you'd have to be both blind and deaf and raised under a rock to miss that the image depicts a fictional hero punching a guy who is 100% undoubtedly a nazi. You're talking about you going out and beating up random people because you suspect they are communists.

For crying out loud, the entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology.

Right, and the one I made is that the dead end up just as dead and almost as numerous either way. It's funny, when we started discussing this, you said I couldn't compare all the deaths from communism globally to the nazis, because you know how many they have killed, everywhere that communism was the law.

I've already made a post about why your counting is disingenuous nazi apologia, and I got real sources linked to back it up.

Do you think Jack the Ripper was a better man than Winston Chuchill because millions of Indians starved under Churchill but Jack the Ripper only gutted five people alive?

But you've already proven that you don't care one iota about history, or logic, or human morality, or even anyone of those who died under communist regimes. You just desperately want Communism to be seen as worse than nazism so that you can feel better about punching people calling you out on your hypocrisy and spreading transphobia.

I'm actually glad that discussions with Jack make people like Ali feel uncomfortable.

Me too, because if that bullshit wouldn't make people uncomfortable, all hope would be lost.

True words!

The more I read up on the Weimar Republic, the more I feel like Cassandra.

[it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology]

Equal? Who ever said that? That's right, no one.

What I want to know is at what number of deaths, inflicted over how many years does an ideology become bad enough that you can assault someone you suspect of believing in it, several decades later? Because apparently that's the major difference here.

Anyway, this has gone way off topic. I think the EU is a shit idea as a government and that it probably cannot stay afloat financially without the UK, that's why they will stay at all costs.

For crying out loud, the entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology.

Nazism is an ideology that specifically demands killing ethnic groups and undesirables as a core part of their ideology.
No other ideology in history have demanded that handicapped people should be executed just for being handicapped.

I don't oppose nazism because of some mathematical calculation, I oppose nazism because they advocate for murdering entire groups of people based on something they were born with.
And last time I checked, not a single baby on record has been born wearing a swastika armband.

And if you think this thread has gone off topic, stop contributing to it by defending nazis.

[I already wrote a lengthy post on that just last week.]

Are we seriously having the same argument on why communism isn't equal to nazism again?
I already wrote a lengthy post on that just last week.

It's weird to me for "populism" to be seen as a negative, when it literally means trying to appease as many people as possible. Which is kind of the point of democracy, isn't it?
Sure, the majority doesn't always make the smartest decisions, or the best decisions, but that's also part of being human.

Once again I'll bring up an example from the history of my homeland. Axel von Fersen didn't wan't to be lynched, the big lynch mob wanted to lynch him (because they wrongly thought he'd killed a Danish prince),
and if they'd held a vote about it back in 1810 it'd be roughly 800 votes for and one against lynching Axel von Fersen. By that logic, was turning an innocent man into pulped meat* a justified and logical decision?

*Seriously, the Swedish word for minced meat still used to this day is pronounced exactly the same as Fersen's last name!

Exactly this. This romanticization of "the will of the people" against "the corrupt elites" is literal Populism, and results in situations like Matt's in which people end up voting for stuff whose consequences they don't understand because they've been manipulated, lied to, not given enough information or given contradictory "facts". The rule of the mob indeed.

I agree. Speaking as a Swede, my homeland used to drive on the left-hand side of the road, but seeing as all neighboring countries drove on the right-hand side, the government naturally wanted to change this to avoid unnecessary complications with people crossing the borders.

Unfortunately, most Swedes at the time didn't care for all the long term gains and only thought that having to spend a month re-adjusting their driving was too tiresome for them and therefor the proposition to switch the driving lost the popular vote. However, the government then decided to switch anyway, because there would me such massive complications later down the road otherwise, and it was switched against the people's vote in 1967. Source

And guess what? Today, no one regrets making the switch and if you ask any Swede they'll tell you switching was the right decision.

Swedes will get it... 

(for non-Scandinavians:)

Spoiler

"Never thought I'd die side by side with a Dane."
"What about side by side with a friend?"
"What the f**k are you saying?"

(most Swedes find Danish language really hard to understand)

[close]

Personally, I think the only fun thing that's come out of this whole mess is that Hugh Grant posted a tweet calling Boris Johnson
"an over-promoted rubber bath toy". If that's not the most insane insult I've heard this week I don't know what is. 

Also I can bring up "more gruesome ways" because in your example both children died instantly.

Did you read the same article I linked to with Klaus Barbie? Right in the middle of the section on the second world war, it says that he

Spoiler

skinned a man alive and immersed his head in ammonia.

[close]

There was no instant death there, and I see no mention of the two children dying instantly that you mentioned. If you want to reference the sources I link you should actually read them before doing so.

You need to add up everything Stalin did, not just his own people he had imprisoned and murdered for saying the wrong thing.

Then you'd need to do the same thing with Hitler and count not only the ones who died in the Holocaust, but all other civilians who were killed by the
Wehrmacht, or died as a result of his policies of eradicating slavs in order to make lebensraum for Aryans. You can count it however you want, it still doesn't
change the fact that Hitler only was in power one third as long as Stalin, yet still caused the death of about as many people in that shorter time span.

Also, I thought I did answer your question. Trans people should have very right in the world to defend themselves,
and considering the violence they face, they have more reason than most. If you can't take that for an answer that
only says more about you than of me.

To everyone else reading this thread I ask, who sounds like the more reasonable debater, the one using actual links to real sources to back up their claims, or the one using emojis whilst talking about mass murder?

[four to five million]

No, Stalin's people killed many more than Hitler's, and in more gruesome ways too. It wasn't just incompetence. Unspeakable crimes were committed against the Germans in the ethnic cleansing in Europe after the Nazis were defeated. Millions.

Unlike you, I'm actually bringing up real sources to back up my claims, which I link to here for everyone to read, concluded that; "On the basis of a careful analysis of the nature of Soviet society and the economy of the 1930s I concluded that it was impossible for there to have been more than four to five million in the labour camps in the late 1930s. This is a conclusion that has now been totally vindicated", and that is only the people being imprisoned in the camps, out of the actual executions and deliberate killings; "Other sources gave figures as high as three million executions, and Conquest concluded: `It will be seen that no exact estimate of total executions can be made, but that the number was most probably something around a million". I do not deny that the death tolls would be higher if one was to also include those dead from famine, but I've already linked to just as high numbers of civilians dying from famine in Brittish India, and deciding that Slavic people dying from famine and mismanagement is a crime against humanity but not Indian people dying from famine and mismanagement takes some serious hypocrisy.

And once again, Stalin's rule lasted for three decades, whereas Hitler's rule only lasted for 12 years, yet Hitler had six million Jews and an additional 11 million people murdered in the Holocaust, and if you count the civilians killed in occupied areas, the number gets even higher.

And killing people "in more gruesome ways" is a ridiculous claim, you can't objectively measure how painful or gruesome a method of killing is, and even if you could, there is no form of execution or torture practiced by the NKVD that wasn't also used by the Gestapo. If you need an example, read up on what Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie did to captured resistance leaders. How is that any way less gruesome than any of the torture or executions Stalin's regime comitted?

The why doesn't matter when the two kids both end up equally dead, and one's life is not worth more than another because he has crutches. Both the perpetrators are guilty of killing someone, and both should go to prison. I have no interest in hand wringing about which murder was really the worst, or seeing how far we can get lost in moral relativism.

The law of virtually all known countries do treat unintentional and intentional killings differently though.

But you're basically saying that the terrorist Rakhmat Akilov was not any worse of a human being than a random drunk slipping on the pedals.

Also, didn't you also give the communists flack for killing people in "more gruesome ways"? If the method or motive make no moral difference to you, why bring that up?

Also, your last question for me did a pretty good job of making you sound exactly like a transphobe.
Plus statistically speaking, trans women are far more likely to be physically assaulted than the other way around.

Funny how Jack shifted the entire discussion to nazi punching when he ran out of arguments on the original issue with racist jokes...

And comparing communists to nazis is a false equivalence, firstly because while communist dictators killed more, it's because there have been dozens of communist dictatorships
that were in power for decades, whereas the Nazis were only in power for 12 years in one country. You can't fairly compare the number of dead in a dozen countries during an entire century
against just one country during one decade and decide the latter were morally better just because they didn't get the opportunity to cause more deaths.

Secondly, killing isn't a more inherent part of communism than capitalism or feudalism or libertarianism. If people dying from starvation due to failed five year plans means communism is inherently and unavoidably evil,
wouldn't all the dead from deliberate mismanagement of the Indian colonies by British rule mean capitalism is just as inherently evil?

But nazism is a different ballpark because those who died in the holocaust didn't die from mere mismanagement, they were deliberately executed because nazi ideology demands that the "wrong races" should be
killed, and no agricultural management in the world would have changed the fact that the nazis wanted to kill those people.

Jack, do you also think a drunk driver accidentally running over a random kid and a perfectly sober driver deliberately running over a kid on crutches just because he disliked disabled people are equally bad from a moral standpoint?