Messages

Whoa the ending took me by surprise. Nice game, though a fullscreen option would be great, as the window almost clipped my monitor. (Yes, I still have an old school 4:3 monitor ).

There *is* a fullscreen option! If you press escape in game you get a little menu. I'm not sure how well it would cope with different aspect ratios though... alpha software.

Spoiler

The safe puzzle was really unfair though, I only knew their ages because of MiteWiseacreLives' comment. The only information I could gleam through the game was that I was two years older than Jenny.

[close]

Spoiler

It's hard but I don't think it's unfair. You get the current date from the calendar and the PC tells you that he got the plant for Jennifer's 22nd birthday *last year*, thus giving you the year of her birth

[close]

Burn.

Spoiler

The ring is a bit of a pixel hunt, check the bathroom again.

With the code, try using their year of birth rather than their ages.

[close]

Possibly, when it's more complete.

The plan is to make an editor program (similar to AGS) that basically just outputs a load of lua files. That way the engine is fully customizable by the user. If you don't like the pathfinding/saying/animation then you can just overwrite the function.

Then the lua files are just read by Love so I don't have to worry about any of the lower level stuff.

I've added support to disable shaders if they aren't supported.

try this version if you wouldnt mind:

http://www.sanctuary-interactive.com/~steve/whiteweddingver1.1.zip

EDIT: sorry for double post.

I imagine a lot of games would have logic to disable the shaders if they weren't supported. That's not yet implemented in Adore. Having said that, it only uses GLSL 2.0 I believe which is very old.

@Andail

I imagine it's a graphics requirement issue again but here's a debug version of the game which will give a more useful error message:

http://www.sanctuary-interactive.com/~steve/whiteweddingdebug.zip

EDIT: I should point out that adore itself doesnt have very high requirements but white wedding uses pixel shaders for bloom and stuff.

It's cool you let us enter.

The game is by Calin Leafshade *and* Sookiesock by the way. Not just me.

@Eric

It's made with an adventure game engine I'm developing called Adore (Adventure Rendering Engine) which uses Love2D for its rendering.
It aims to be a technically modern engine scripted in Lua.

@Miguel

The system requirements for Adore are significantly higher than AGS. Do you have a particularly old computer? Specifically an old graphics card?
I do need to add better error trapping.

Oh well.

In my defence it says the competition is open to "all amateur adveture makers"

Even if we're disqualified from the vote, I'd like to leave the post there so people can play the game if that's alright.
Grundislav is going to win anyway.

[White Wedding]

White Wedding

Here's our (Sookiesock and I) entry for MAGS. It's not made in AGS but I couldn't find anything in the rules to suggest we couldn't use something else.

We made this in 2 weeks using my own engine dubbed Adore (Adventure Rendering Engine - AdRE) which is also 2 weeks old so I expect some issues maybe...

SCREENSHOT


DOWNLOAD
http://www.sanctuary-interactive.com/~steve/whiteweddingver1.zip

Thanks to Arj0n and FlyingManderine for their testing services.

Once all gods can exist, none of them can.

Once all people can exist, none of them can.

Once all animals can exist, none of them can.

Once carbon-based lifeforms can exist, no other forms of life can exist.

Once answered, no question can exist.

Again, same logic is same.

This made me laugh at loud.

I realise you're being glib, but yes, scale.

More specifically the scale of the impact on human culture.

I'm looking for testers for my MAGS game.

Holla at a brother.

How can "rebutting a claim" be a fallacy?

That's literally nonsense.

I meant that the courtier's reply as a fallacy is bullshit. Not the reply itself.

Again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

PZ Myers is not a place to get one's fallacies from. He's a buffoon.
The courtier's reply is horseshit anyway. It amounts to "I don't want to learn about your stuff because it conflicts with my philosophy which has already dismissed it". It's begging the question.

And since you mentioned "God does not play dice", saying "The universe doesn't play dice" is much better. And not just because this quote still gets used today to claim that Einstein was religious.

No, because they mean different things. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "God" means something to us beyond the physicality of the universe whether he exists or not.

Also, materialism isn't a fractured philosophy, right? And even if it was, having different opinions about whether some crimes warrant death sentences is different from discussing properties of imaginary beings.

Materialism is pretty scant as a philosophy. It's a statement at best and even then people can't quite agree what matter is or what it means to be material.

Also, Theology is also about the analysis of the properties *given* to imaginary beings by people.

How is discussing the nature and will of God (and I'm talking about Yahweh here!) different from discussing vampire biology?
I'm talking about the god of Christianity, of Catholicism, not some arbitrary god concept that might be useful (how, exactly, btw? Because Voltaire said so...?)

Yes, because Voltaire said so. :/

No, as metaphor and shorthand for things that language are ill-equipped to describe but that the mind can understand. ("God does not play dice")

I'm not saying that any and all philosophical debate about the nature of the universe, or about whether there's something "greater" than man, is useless. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay people are abominable, and that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay marriage is A-OK. No problem there so far, but both groups point to their book to support their position.

Christianity is a fractured philosophy. Show me one that isn't.

And my assessment of that fact is that some Christians have unchained more of their intellect from the old book than others. Theology in my mind is debating which chains we can cut.
Why not cut all of them, dismiss the book as a failed attempt at creating morality and a model of the universe, and move on?

If you don't understand my frustration and intolerance, please note that to my mind, being religious is no different than believing in auras, astrology, conspiracy theories, dowsing, psychics and all the other bullshit.
I don't have a purely materialist world view because that's how I want it to be, I have it because every single thing about the entire universe constantly tells us that's all there is.

There is a brilliant video online from some major Christian network. It starts out innocent enough, with six Christians starting to talk all kinds of stupid about the war on Christmas. About twenty minutes in or so, they suddenly split into two groups and spend the remaining two hours arguing whether the universe was created in six days or six ages. I laughed my ass off. I'll see if I can find it.
It just pains me to see grown adults behave like that. It's like watching six years olds argue which Pokemon is more powerful.
Edit: Awww Yissss, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
(This just goes to show what happens if you chain your intellect to a book.)

Let's be clear about something. There are the learned and there are the masses. One does not analyse feminism by searching tumblr and one does not critique theology by referencing some pop-youtube video. That's fucking Ken Ham for christ's sake. Have a little respect for the topic.

Also, I am a materialist. I think creationists are idiots. However I think it's dangerous to dismiss a huge part of academia out of hand as useless.

Another fairly standard internet atheist mistake. You can't casually substitute one piece of culture with another. Religious texts are not the same as the fucking twilight series.

When one discusses the nature of God, one is not discussing a work of literature by some guy. One is discussing an *entire cultural perspective*.

As someone who generally agrees with you Khris, I am a little dismayed by your dogmatic approach and dismissal.

Theology is useful and the idea of God is useful. If I were to say "I was lucky today", you wouldnt jump down my throat and declare that there is no such thing as luck and that I am kidding myself. That would make you a giant arse. In the same way, it is useful to consider "God" a thing even if that thing was not the creator of the universe. As Voltaire put it, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Where modern Christianity goes wrong is that it ascribes all kinds of acts to God which were almost certainly intended to be allegorical and were taken as such before the inception of the modern perspectives (garden of eden and so forth). Islam is generally better in this regard and the eastern religions even more so.