Messages

Hi there,

I took the GhostGR's layout and redesigned the website.

Take a look and tell me what you think:

http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Cheers!

(Not long to go -- only a few more sleeps till nominations start!)

The irony of all this is I got 'And Now For Something Completely Different' on DVD from my sister for Christmas.

The circle is now complete.

Bite me, gramps!  

Looking back, I am also going 'WTF??'

I really like Denzil's game, not only cause it's funny as hell, but cause it deconstructs it.

In playing this, I can stand outside the sphere of my original game and look at it from an outsider perspecitve.

Also, it gives me an innocent perspective too now -- Kinda like Forest Gump watching the Vietnam war.

Also, I'm 22, yet I'm still in university (read 'college' to USAers) -- does that classify me as an adult or a college person?

Also, I found the joke non-offensive -- If I am indeed a college person, why is it that I'm the only non-adult person (between marcus and myself) with a sense of humour?

Oh fuck it, I'll tell it like it is: Marcus, you're retarded if you're going to knot your panties over something so insignificant!

Why don't you just write a letter to Dennis Leary's agent if you want to start a crusade against offensive humour?

Why pick something so insignificant to bitch about like a MINOR JOKE IN AN ADVENTURE GAME CREATION UTILITY???

If CJ does change it, what exactly have you achieved, genius?

I'll tell you: SWEET FUCK ALL!!!

You could have spent your time doing something constructive like painting a picture or putting your cat in a microwave oven.

Seriously, you would utilise more potential with the aforementioned "cat in microwave oven" scientific experiment than you would in your complaints about a TINY ANT'S TESTICLE-SIZED JOKE IN A COMPUTER GAME CREATION PROGRAM!

Hope that clears things up.

P.S. HAPPY FUCKING NEW YEAR!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

* DGMacphee falls off chair *BOOM*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I urge everyone to vote for this in the AGS Awards!

Denzil, my man, you nailed it perfectly!


(On the sad side, I'll won't be taken as a serious game maker anymore.)

You got a sweet ass, Squinky!

I love it when people get all ambiguous -- it makes me get all hot and sweaty.

OMG MARKIS IS RYGHT!!! AGS IS FULL OF JOKES!!1! OMG CHRIS JONEZ WHTA WERE YUO THINKIGN!!!1!! I SAY WE AERS BOYCOTT AGS UNTIL CRHIS JENOS REMOVES TEH JOKES!!!1!!

DO YUO SEE ME GO LOL? NO!!!1! TEH DECEMBER 25 JOKE IS SO OFFENCIVE!!! CJ HAS GONE [bold]TOO FARp/blod]!!!!

I SAY WE IS JOIN MARKIS'S SIDE CAUSE HE OBVIUSLY KNOWS TEH FUNNY WEHN HE SEAS IT!!!!!1!!!

I don't know about the major method (The toothpaste one), but the minor scratches method is kind of risky, and here's why:

Most rubbing alcohol will take a thin layer off the CD's face.

However, if you do this too many times you could eat off the data of the CD and be left with nothing but a coaster for drinks.

I know this because this issue was raised in PC Format ages ago, where one guy wrote in a told people to use car polish to repair CDs.

The tech pages guy said the same thing -- be careful.

Vel, I think that the author talks of non-linear games with DW Noir in that you can explore whatever you want and you're not set to a linear narrative.

He clearly separates it from multi-linear games, like Indy FOA.

If I take his definition on non-linear as truth, then that also means Ultimerr is non-linear -- AND THAT RULES!!!

I like his definition of an adventure game -- If anyone remembers that long-winded thread where I talk of "adventures not needing graphics", you'll know how much I consider narrative to be important to the gameplay of an adventure.

And his analysis of dialogue in games is spot-on -- I've never heard more classic lines than I have with Grim Fandango.

All in all, a very good article.

Curse my stupid lack of game playing time!!!

Okay, I'll remove it.

I think people might need to do a bit more "photo manipulation" and less "google image posting" too.

Come on, where's the creativity?

No Rabbit with Fangs?

No Captain Mostly?

No Scummbuddy?

Hollister Man anyone?

CommaToes??

FUZZPILZ??

MONKEYSPANK FOR CHRISTSAKE -- THAT ONE IS PURE GOLD??

HOW MANY MORE QUESTION MARKS CAN I HAVE IN ONE CAPITALISED SENTENCE???

So far, www.oscarwatch.com is picking Bill Murray for Best Actor in the film Lost In Translation.

I haven't seen the film, but I'm hanging out for it -- From what I've seen and heard, it looks like the kinda film I'd appreciate.

Good luck to Mr Murray -- I've always loved his work, even his shitty films like that Charlie's Angels P-O-S.



However, Murray's got stiff competition from Jeff Spicoli in Mystic River.




And not to mention Shirty The Slightly Agressive Bear in Master and Commander

TK, I gathered all the games from the Announcement forum -- if it wasn't there, I wouldn't have got it.

I'll add it soon, just as long as the link to the zip file still works.

DS: I'll double check but I'm sure I found it in the Announcements forum.

Edit: Here it is -- http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=5174

I also agree that it is like a simple fairytale.

William Goldman used the term "comic book movies" to describe them -- i.e. a hero struggles against evil and ultimately triumphs.

I don't think LOTR contains any moral ambiguity and the film makes pretty clear who is a hero and who is a villian, while in retrospect a film like Mystic River is shrouded in moral ambiguity.

Don't get me wrong cause, like William Goldman, I like comic book movies.

However, I think some people treat the LOTR trilogy as something more than it should be.

*giggle*

We love you, Phil!

I like Italian cinema.

Cinema Paradiso is one of my favs.

I also like Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa, buteveryone loves him.

Godard is always a mindfuck!

BTW, would you describe "foreign" films as more "non-English language"?

I read the Ebert review and I understand his point.

He did not say it was impossible for him to empathise with an android.

He said that the android (David) had only artificial feelings and thus the film asked us to empathise with such a creation.

And this is also where he faults the film: it never questions the idea of articifial feelings (The whole premise was 'He is not real, but his feelings are") -- and this is a fair question.

I'm sure Ebert does immerse himself in film -- However, a fault is still a fault, and I agree with him as the film (to quote Ebert) "evades its responsibility to deal rigorously with this trait and goes for an ending that wants us to cry".

Perhaps, it's not Ebert that has failed to immerse himself in the film, as he asks some pretty good questions based on the film -- But perhaps, it was the film that failed to engage.

I think I should have mentioned the context of the quote, cause I think a lot of people misundersand.

Ebert wasn't calling the film 'silly', just the story's ability to carry emotional weight (more on this in answer to Darth).

He praised the film very highly and gave it 3 1/2 stars our of 4.

You can read the full review here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-rings17.html

I think Ebert's ideas are a bit flawed there. If Middle Earth wasn't more interesting for so many people than the contemporary real world, there'd be little point Tolkien writing about it or Jackson filming it. Ultimately this is popular escapist fiction and people have always loved that. Sure, Copolla released 'Apocalypse Now' in 1979, but two years before that there was 'Star Wars', so it doesn't seem like a transition - people haven't suddenly started liking this kind of film instead of films about real life. There's always going to be this big appeal of fantasy worlds, although I'm not sure any films of this nature will be as popular as the LOTR for a very long time. This is probably the answer you wanted to avoid, but: there's room for both.

Then again, keep in mind that Star Wars was a conter-culture film in a similar way to Apocalypse Now.

Both expressed anti-authoritarian attitudes that both directors expressed for major Hollywood studios.

Both Lucas and Coppola worked together to achieve an independence from the studio system.

Also, the same anti-authoritarianism was prevalent in the 60s and 70s.

Also, there was a transition, but you have to look at the 70s decade as a whole.

Consider the 70s started with "real life" films like The French Connection, The Godfather, The Last Picture Show, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, etc.

Now look how the decade moved to more "escapist" blockbusters like Jaws, Star Wars, (and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the ealry 80s) etc.

Notice also how most of the "real life" films at the end of the decade sank financially, like Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Heaven's Gate, etc.

So, yes, there was a transition.

As a side note: George Lucas was originally going to direct Apocalypse Now, while Coppola was just going to produce it.

However I don't think 'silly' is acceptable.

As I mentioned, Ebert wasn't calling the film 'silly'.

He was calling the story too silly to carry emotional weight.

In other words, I think Ebert was trying to say that a fantasy story like that doesn't have the same emotion as something more realistic, like Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia, because Apocalypse and Lawrence both were based on real events.

He did praise the same things you did and said that it was a great achievement in filmmaking.

For example, he writes in th enext paragraph:

Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films. Yes, they will be adrift during the early passages of the film's 200 minutes, but to be adrift occasionally during this nine-hour saga comes with the territory; Tolkien's story is so sweeping and Jackson includes so much of it that only devoted students of the Ring can be sure they understand every character, relationship and plot point.

The DG vs. Barcik argument on what is classic is just silly. You are both too young to decide what a classic is.

Bullshit -- Barcik and I have the ability to see films as classic as much as anyone, despite our ages.

For me, personally, LOTR is a classic. For me to argue that it should be, or any movie regardless of age, should be a classic to someone else...is absurd.

Wait -- first you say LOTR isn't a classic.

Then, you say that no one can judge what is a classic except for RickJ.

And now you're calling LOTR a classic, even thought it contradicts your two previous statements???

Now that's absurd!



So, I hope the context of the quote comes across a bit better -- Remember, Ebert is not calling the entire film 'silly'.

His point was this (I think): the deaths of several Middle Earth inhabitants seems a little inconsequential to the large amount of soldiers and civilians who died in an actual war -- But nevertheless, he continues to write that both films are extraordinary examples of filmmaking.

Hope that clears things up.