Messages

Not quite. It's as much about design decisions as it is about popularity. There are a couple of brain-damaged decisions in earlier Windows versions that make it so virus-prone.

Believe me, I'm not defending the [in]stability of Windows.  But if Macs had the user-base that PCs have they'd have just as many viruses.  No matter how stable they claim their OS is.

My point (on the sheer stupidity of DRM and copy-protection) is that if they hired 10,000 people to fight against it, they'd still be outnumberd 100,000 to 1 by people who try to break it.  No matter what they come up with some 14 year old in his parent's basement will crack it 10 minutes after it's released.  They're wasting/losing time, money, and consumer trust by fighting a foolish battle they can't even remotely have the faintest shimmer of a hope to win.

It's no different with Macs if they had the user-base that PCs have.  More stable than Windows or not, it'd have hackers finding ways of writing viruses for it.  The only reason it doesn't now is these dolts like fu**ing with the most people they can, and right now, that's the PC market.

I'm also of the understanding that Macs are just about entirely virusproof. This may be hype, but like I said: Mac users hate every PC in my house, and I've got a couple higher end models.

I assure you ... if Macs had the user-base that PCs have, they'd be just as virus prone.  Run a mac if you want, but put an Antivirus program on it.

Not to mention the fact that, when I was around 12 years old, I knew a man who had a mac as powerful as my computer is right now...

If your profile age is correct ... you're saying that a guy 14 years ago (in 1993) had a mac as powerful as your computer is now?  Are you still using a 386?

Before I do a paint-over ... are you trying/wanting to use just the two colors?

They just never seem to learn...

I can't believe, in this day and age, there are still people who think they can copy-protect stuff.

Such a colossal waste of time and money.

Morons.  All.

In the interests of keeping this from turning into a GenGen thread, I'm going to lock it.

If you want it re-opened let me know ...

[Completed Game Released]

Completed Game Released

I wasn't mocking you.  I do wish you luck with the game.

Okay ... enough chatter about the graphics.  If you want some help with them post in the Critics Lounge.

Everybody else, to quote gold leader, "Stay on target ..."

I like the background too ... lacks detail perhaps, but looks good none-the-less! 

I think the new Roger is vastly improved!  There are still some issues, but it's a great improvement!

I did a paint-over to demonstrate some points:


- added some more shading (also used less colors for the shading)
- skinnied the arms up
- raised the head
- strengthened the jaw-line
- upped the contrast on the face/hair
- altered the eyes

- graphics 2%
- puzzles 2%
- scripting 5%
- music/sound 0%

I know don't say it.

I think it must be said ... if this is all the further you are, you probably should have waited longer before making a post about it.

That being said; I don't think anybody is opposed to another MI game.  Good luck finishing it.  The last 3,291 MI fangames didn't make it ...

[Forum Rules]

Forum Rules

Another screenshot is coming (he PMed me about it) so don't comment on the forum rules please

[Cyrus]

Cyrus ... I combined a double post of yours and requested you not do it again ... so you double posted again??  Please stop doing that.

The biggest problem I see with this is the layout isn't ... "convenient".  I don't know.  It feels thrown together rather than planned out.  I did this [below] in less than 20 minutes.

Probably went WAY overboard with this ... but I kind of dig the idea, so I thought I'd help out if possible:


(I put it with a lot of black around it so it'd show up easier with the forums light background)

The lighter color on the back button represents the mouseOver effect.

I am not sure if you're using all GUI controls and such for this (as you mentioned with the BACK button) so I don't know how far you can take it.  But I just wanted to give a "vision" of it I was imagining.  I AM using a similar design (to my paint-over) on something else I'm working on, but feel free to use it if you'd like!

Also ... attemps = "attempts"

Good luck with the project!

Like Bush said, you're either for the US or against the US. What a shit decision!

Only a Sith deals in Absolutions ...

You know something?  For the last few years I was slowly losing respect for my President.  After the faulty "WMD" intelligence was revealed I got VERY pissed off.  Not because he lied (all politicians do) but because he wouldn't own up to the fact that it was his fault.  He kept finger pointing.

You took our country to war based off of lies.  It doesn't matter who told you what ... it was your fault Mr. President.  It happened on your watch.  You're the boss.  You're responsible.  That's when I lost what last little clinging respect I may have had the man.

[Then, after Katrina, he did nothing about it for 5 freaking days (unless you count dipping below the clouds on his way back to DC on Airforce 1)  I become an opponent of him.]

Why am I saying all this?

I'm not saying that most Americans are war-mongering imperialists. But I am saying that most of the officials you elected into office over the last six years are. Therefore, why should you be absolved when such elected officials are supposed to represent your interests? Isn't that the fundamental theory underpinning democracy?

You're absolutely right.  If 1/2 the people of this nation elected the man into office, the other 1/2 of us can't point fingers and say "they did it!!  we didn't want him in there!!"  It happened on our watch.  We're responsible.  That's just the way it works in a democracy.

I would say the only point I'm trying to get across is that we're not all blindly following the man.

It's actually very frustrating because it seems no matter what we do the man sits on his throne and ignores us.  It gets so frustrating that at times I think a little armed revolution might just be a good thing!

Feeling so strongly for America, taking all these steps we "anti-Bush" people can, and hating with a blinding passion the image that George Bush is giving the world of us ... I think it's not hard to understand why I don't like being "lumped" in with the man.

I will be the first to admit that I have changed a lot since first getting to AGS ... So some of these statements might come as a suprise.  I fell into the same "trap" that so many people (not just Americans) have fallen into in history.  An event (or series of events) allows somebody to take power that shouldn't ... and slowly but surely the truth comes out and we realize the mistake we've made even though we, at first, supported them.

I just hope it's not too late to recover from this.

[edit]

I've always wanted to make an adventure game in this style ... I wish you best of luck!  Having said that ... I gotta go with Matt on this one!  My initial impression from the backgrounds themselves was an eerie forboding (which is good!), but that font kills it for me!

I've made an example of what I'd do with it:



(The images you posted are very dark, so I put it in a huge dark border so the contrast between the forum page and the image didn't wash out all the dark details)

Feel free to use or disregard at your discretion!  I hope it helps!

edit - diggin the style man ... so I made another idea for ya:

[edit]

edit DG - that's hilarious!!  Of course you know ... ALL spaniards have violent tempers so you better keep your doors locked for the next couple of weeks!!


Yakmed Ahmadinejad??

I think you're mistaken.  That's Steve Carel with a beard!!  Seriously ... use your thumb and cover up from the nose down.  That looks just like him!!  I wonder if he's a virgin?

I cannot believe that this thread has now gone to using a toy as proof of evil Americans!!  I seriously laughed out loud when I read that!

This is a little known fact; but the U.S. toymaking consortium patented violent/grusome toys so no other nation in the world can make them.  In Japan for example, the most deadly weapon their action figures can wield is a spatula and any and all blood must be hot-pink.

Come on guys ... a toy?!?!!

Yes. Why?

Because making generalizations like that is ignorant.  So is not reading the rest of this thread and then picking out bits and pieces to make rude comments that are clearly just meant to be inflamatory.

Because your public is ready to fight the "nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea. Ready to invade Cuba (once Castro dies) and invade Venezuala to remove the "evil" regimes. Its imperialism.

Yet another brilliant generalization about the people of the U.S. based off of Bush's foreign policies.

I hope there are others reading this thread who appreciate the irony that my rant about "lumping" and "generalizing" keeps being proven.  I couldn't have asked for better proof.

Some of us just want to try to live our lifes and run our small countries without USA's prying fingers in every aspect of our lifes.

Then why does your government allow the U.S. their "prying fingers"?  Why don't the people of your country stop this?  I suppose I could generalize and say that you're all a bunch of puppets who give in to whatever the U.S. wants?  It's not always so easy is it?

I felt more secure in this world when the Soviet Union was around then now when there is only one hungry world power. Isolationalism > Internationalism

I'm going to assume you're profile age is inaccurate then ... because the Soviet Union collapsed before you were born!  You must have a REALLY remarkable memory indeed.

Im pretty disgusted with how many people viewed Sadaam's execution video. How fucked up do you have to be in the head as a nation to WANT to see a human being be killed. Im done with this thread, it makes me to angry.

I, too, saw the same statistic you must be speaking of. The one that shows that ONLY people from the U.S. watched that video filmed by an Iraqi and released to the public by an Iraqi.

Maybe the generalization of americans angers you so much because the alternative would be to admit that the Pro outnumbers the Anti.

No.  Generalizing is ignorant.  That's what bothers me.

Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:
...You call that power?, they are either easily manipulated, or just "filling required spaces" (in this kind of decision).

I don't see any confusion with my two statements.  Congress does have the authority to stop it.  But when given information that Saddam was developing WMD, they acted.  Bush tried to give them two other excuses for his invasion and they rejected those.  He gave them WMD and the took the bait.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?`

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

AND

I think what gets up people's noses is the apparent apathy of a large proportion of the american public towards the actions of it's government. This may be an ill-informed generalization on their part, but when so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration, beyond "Yes, he's an ass.", you can understand how people outside the US could develop such a view.

That is exactly my point right there.

You don't see US people doing anything about it???

They're doing everything they can short of taking up arms over this situation.  Lodging protests, sit-ins, peace demonstrations, there are literally MILLIONS of anti-bush websites, voting the dems back into control of both houses ... we ARE taking action.  The problem is the mass-media (not just the US media) only shows the sensational "if it bleeds it leads" stories so you don't see a lot of the protesting that's going on here.  All you see is the War in Iraq and other war-like foreign policies.

Can you not see the hypocrisy that would arise should the citizens of the U.S. go to war over this?  We're going about it the right way I think ... I just hope it's not too late in two years.

Believe me when I say there is a LOT of tension floating in the air about this President.

Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out, and this happened in many countries, this is what makes me doubt

And the majority of us tried that with the last election and he still managed to worm his way in.  The only bright spot I can see is that in 2 years he's out whether he wants it or not.  If he tries to abolish the 22nd amendment I'm leaving the country.  I hear Argentina is nice ...

[A Hypothetical:]

Is not that simple, I forgot to mention the paper work, and the TV speech. I dont want to sound like a smart ass, Im just saying that if the president (of US) wants to go to war he will get what he wants eventually, so it may not be THAT simple, but is just a matter of time.

Now we're getting somewhere   Since the start of the War Powers Resolution no president that has requested a war has been denied it.  However, the power is there for Congress to say no should they choose to.

In my opinion, the congress was not cheated,  you said they rejected the claims of danger twice, and they could not have possibly been cheated by any doubtful intelligence, I think USA congress is smarter than that. They just ended up doing what the president wanted (Or they probably were convinced of the economical advantage of the war).

I can see what you're saying.  I don't agree with it, but I see it.  In my opinion Congress didn't percieve a threat from Iraq (thus didn't consider there to be a point to an invasion) until they were lied to about WMD.  If I received information that the guy down the street from me was planning to kill me with a powerful weapon I wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing (the fact that there turned out to be no weapons in Iraq isn't the issue here).  Congress has to act on the information they are given.  They don't go to Iraq and check it themselves.  They were told that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (by several intelligence agencies) and that those weapons could potentially be used on the U.S. and they acted upon that information.  Yes, the intelligence was faulty/not accurate, but they couldn't know that at the time.

In the other hand if Bush has that kind of influence in his country, I dont think is too crazy to think he can manipulate the congress (and press of course) as he wants.

I wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

The thing is, they knew many would die. Im not saying they are targeting them,I probably dont understand the real meaning of "targetting", they speculated many would die, and that's what happened.

But you have said, on several occasions, that they ARE targetting them.

Civilian casualties have been a fact of war since the first two human tribes took up sticks and went after one another.  There is a difference between collateral damage and deliberate targetting.  That's a cold way of looking at it, but it's true.

Argentina never occupied the "Islas malvinas", where did you read that, some english web?. Did you see where are the islands?, there were Argentinian people living there long before this war, and they are in the middle of the ocean. We never were a pro-war country, we've always been a mediator, and a provider during war times, we dont have military power, we were not having a good economical time, the english declared war with ridiculous statements and we were obligated to defend what was "ours", we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.
They invaded our territory, check a non U.S, Canadian or english history book, and you will se what I mean, you know what they say about war winners writing them.
What the english did was taking what they could of our inmense territory, seeing their country is the size of one of our 24 provinces.

Do you see what I did there?  I took that situation and put up an outsider's take on it.  You immdiately jump to the defense to clear it up.  That's all I'm doing here.  People are making assumptions about Americans that I'm trying to prevent.

we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?

Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.  I'm just trying to make the point that people shouldn't be casting judgement on other people in this way.

A Hypothetical:

- Imagine I wasn't here telling you that Americans aren't all clones of Bush (who you have a hatred of and wish dead).

- You have a deeply negative opinion of US citizens, the "blindly patriotic" clones.

- Now imagine you become the leader of your nation and you take political actions against the US because of these uninformed opinions you have.  Wars have begun that way.

Ignorance is very dangerous.

I'm not saying I'm the most informed guy on the planet ... but I don't cast judgement on a person/people based solely on some pre-conceived notions and stereo-types.

[Geneva Convention]

3000 soldiers death, I've just checked a more reliable source, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/02/elmundo/i-01801.htm , "El diario admite que esta escalada en la violencia en Irak se hace sentir más profundamente entre los civiles iraquíes quienes "mueren de a miles"." Here says, that "The Times" "admits" Iraqi civilians are dying by thousands, it cant be compared with the 3000 deaths of the country that started the war.
One of "The Times" Headline was, "3000 thousand deads, countless tears", I cant imagine what an Irak headline should say.

I am beginning to think there's a language barrier here.  Now you're arguing my point?

So you think the president has no control over the congress, or that the congress will act according to what people wants?, do you really are that "innocent"?

I never claimed the president has no control over congress.  You were making comments on how Bush just decided to invade Iraq.  I was pointing out that it's not quite that simple.  That's all.  Again I think maybe you're not understaning what I'm writing.  Or you're putting words in my mouth.  I hope the former is the case here.

If Bush wants to go to war, he will end up going, with the last elections he may have lost some power, but at the time he started the war, he could do whatever he wanted, the congress was not at any point "cheated", believing the contrary would be extremely innocent from you.

I would be curious to know your source of this information.  So you know for a fact that the American congress wasn't "cheated" (I'm assuming you mean they knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq and they just granted the president's wish for war)?  If you do a little reading on the matter you'll see that leading up to the declaration of war congress wasn't buying anything the Bush administration was selling.  They (even the republicans) roundly rejected two claims of "danger" from Iraq as a basis for invasion.  Third time is the charm I guess.  He convinced them (with faulty intelligence) on the WMD.

What can I say,I've never red in a newspaper "USA people is blinded by their patriotism", is just how I see it in many cases with the people that supports Bush, and the war, his re-election is a huge proof of that.

Bush's re-election is proof that the system is flawed.  Nothing else.  The popular vote wasn't his.  Which means most (majority) of Americans didn't vote for him.  Since you seem to need to generalize about Americans, try using that fact instead.

I'm not saying he has no ideals, or that he is a liar, he WAS a pawn, he was sent there either under orders or under fake reasons.

Let me do you a huge favor ... if you ever have an encounter with an American Marine who served in combat in any theater, do NOT call him a pawn.

Im not saying your friend is not a person to trust, Im just saying I find impossible to believe Iraqi army could have been capable of killing half of the civilians, no matter what he believes, he can't actually see that to prove it, and count it, so someone told him that. Of course neither you nor I know the facts, so is a matter of "believes".

No ... he was there, on the ground, rifle in hand, seeing it with his own eyes.  He's talking from experience in the Iraqi theater.  That's intel I trust FAR more that some reporter sitting in an air-conditioned office in New York reading a report that's gone through 20 censors and copywriters.

I'm afraid this is all I can do for you, www.discoverychannel.com, www.historychannel.com.

If, by these links, you mean you saw these videos on those channels that's pretty weak.  I happen to watch the History channel a LOT and I've seen plenty of film from the front.  I suppose you can believe those are all hired actors if you wish.  Seems more likely it's just a bandwagon thing than any true belief in the idea.  Just my opinion.

I'll try to be more clear, Im saying, that since the moment Bush ("and the congress") took the decision to invade Irak, they knew how many civilians deaths they will cause

They couldn't possibly know that.  They would have known there would be civilian deaths, as there are with any war, but they'd have absolutely no way to know the actual number.  They might speculate on statistics from past wars, but it's just speculation.

in that decision he knew it was unavoidable to target Irak civilians, he started the war anyway. So he (this word may not exist) "indirectly target them", and the army do as they are told.

You REALLY need to stop.  The U.S. MILITARY IS NOT TARGETTING IRAQI CIVILIANS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY!!!  Perhaps you need to look up the definition of targetting?  I'm not denying that Iraqi civilians are being killed, but the U.S. isn't trying to kill them.  It has been the U.S. doctrine for decades to "win the hearts and minds" of the civilian population.  While this has become a bit of a hot term, it's still in practice.  You don't win the hearts and minds by targetting civilians.

It should also be stated that, according to the Geneva Convention, when war is declared soldiers on both sides must wear a distinguishing uniform:

"It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly"

Most of the Iraqis/Insurgents fighting the coalition troops in Iraq are dressed as civilians.  Yes they are carrying guns, but in Iraq, your average civilian is allowed to own AND carry and AK-47 in public.

I hope you're right, it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

The constitution cannot be magically altered.  It can be ammended, sure, but it's not just a simple decision.  Of course, lawyers and presidents can find ways to skirt the constitution, but not "magically alter" it.


We seem to have reached a point where we're just making the same points over and over again.  Bottom line (as I see it) You're making generalized statements about the American people based off the actions of the American government's foreign policy.  This is the igorance that I object to.

In looking at your profie, I see you're from Argentina.  In 1982 the Argentine military kicked off the Falkland Wars with its invasion/occupation of South Geogia.  As I understand it, the Argentine people believe that South Georgia was their land and they were entitled to take it back.  Leading up to this "war" (as war was never officially declared) the country of Argentina was in economic turmoil.  The invasion was a political move, for political reasons.  Hundreds died in the action.  While the conflict was resolved in short-order, I've read that it's still a topic of discussion in Argentina to this day.

Now ... should I assume that you're a nationalistic prideful Argentine that likes invading countries and starting wars simply based off the actions of your government even though I don't have all the facts and have never met you?

You're doing the same thing by assuming all Americans are blindly patriotic and follow their war-crazy President without question.