Messages

Gonna need to "normalize" the shading between frames as well ... it's creating a flashing effect that is distracting.

As has been said the static shoulder/waist lines is the problem.  Just add a matching 1 pixel hop to them and you should be golden.

I updated your post to actually display the screenshots.

I don't see any characters and/or GUI(s) ... are those actually "in game" shots?

There is no "genital stimulation."  (Sorry, Darth)

I was referring the Wiisure Suit Larry concept ... but I also excel at discovering witches by genital stimulation too.

FINALLY a game I'd be really good at!!

That music (in the trailer) made me so happy I pee'd myself.

Looks fantastic man!

For future reference ... don't post the same thread in two different boards.

Post in one and wait for a reply.

Also for future reference, you might try reading the "sticky threads" to answer commonly asked questions like this one.

You know, this movie was the first time I've heard of this project, and basically this thread is the first place where I've ever heard anything good about them. what does that mean?

That far too many in the world don't recognize true talent when they see/hear it.

The D rules!

Jack Black is comic genius.

I've not yet seen them live, but I will when they come to my neck of the woods ... that's if I can get up by the crack of noon.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=28807.0

[New trailer...]

New trailer...

Now I'm even more geeked to see it!

Have any of you ever wondered where life began in the universe?

What?  This is a competition board, not a general chit-chat board?  Hmm ... I couldn't tell.

[Edit]

So if it was easier to download DVDs for free and display them on your TV you would do that too?

What about computer programs? Those you download, install and use right on the computer you downloaded them on, no burning required.

Also, the cost of setting up your house to allow you put a movie on a removable storage device and display it on the TV is probably much less than that of buying DVDs for the rest of your life.

You don't like the prices of things so you take them unless it's not convenient? This is my take away from this thread.

I've run my own company for several years now.  I'm developing "something" (sorry, under wraps can't talk about it) that I intend on selling.  I know full well what the value of that product is, what it costs to produce, manufacture, and distribute.  I know how much I need to charge to make a profit and still serve my customers fairly.  I'm not going to mark it up 200% just so I can be filthy rich.  I could do so, but I'm not going to.

That is what I'm opposed to.  I'm opposed to the general public being so brainwashed that they fork over ridiculous amounts of money on over priced products and never question it ... just mindlessly "going with the flow" and continually getting screwed over.

Bad argument dude, because the same could be said for Westlife, Backstreet boys, or whatever talentless pap you can think of. My point being, an argument that suggests something is good because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good! However Helm is just being a big meany! Nickelback are okay, but I am not into them.

Just because millions think something is good doesn't mean it is.  Just as one person thinking something is "OUCH" doesn't mean it is.  It was just his opinion, which is fine, but it didn't really need to be said.

Edit - I'm getting wierd looks at work here ... so I might not respond for a bit as I need to actually accomplish some work!  I'm enjoying this debate though, and will return later! 

Didn't comment on this in my last post:

While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life

I admire Rick's informed "crusade" against the RIAA.  The way I look at it is like this; I'm opposed to it, but this debate has been going on for years and isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Show me a petition I agree with and I'll sign it

Ask me my opinion on the matter (this thread) and I'll give it.

Devote a lot of my time and energy to fight against something that can't possibly win in the first place?  Nah.

If that's "simply after my easier life" than sure, I guess I'll agree with that.

Here is a link to the FBI's page. See?

http://tampa.fbi.gov/investprograms/internetfraud/theftofintellectualproperty.htm

Can you refute THAT?

No you can't.

Thank you Matt.  That is what I was looking for.  Though it seems more like it was written by a kid than an actual law-maker.  If that is legit, than I'll admit to "theft".  I won't stop doing it, but I'll admit to it.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.

sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH

Why "OUCH"?  Because you don't like Nickelback?  Well ... they must suck then.  I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.

In the end, Darth (who I repsect you, and I agree with all your points, as well as Rick! But Rick didn't show up saying, I rip mp3s but I'm certain it's not illegal!), what made me feel a little bad, is that you are after your own convinience and nothing else. While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life: While ripping the hell of mp3s (and why not? I don't entirely dissagree), you still buy DVDs (although they probably cause more pain than the CDs), for the simply reason that you wouldn't be able to enjoy them so much. This simply is breaking all the things (on which we agree on) you said earlier.

How come you're against RIAA, DRM and all that stuff, against the anti-piracy ads, teh high prices etc, adn still buy DVDs, but not CDs? Come on! Think about it! One needs to be a little more "coherent" to his options and "small rules" he sets up. Other wise you are basically canceling everything you said about the above stuff (RIAA and so on so fourth).

I don't understand why it's so hard to simply accept that I don't like the cost of CDs.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.  They are coming in concert down here in March and I already bought my tickets.  2 tickets for $122.84, bought and paid for.  I have every Nickelback song I can find on mp3.  I don't own a single one of their CDs.  I support them by buying concert tickets (and I'll get a shirt when I'm there).  If that isn't good enough for them ... they can cry about it at their mansion in the hills while lounging by the pool behind the garage with 15 luxury cars while their man-servent refills the apple-tini.

I REALLY don't like the cost of DVDs either (especially now that I'm buying HD-DVDs at 29-39 USD each).  But if I want to watch them, right now, just "digging out my wallet" is the most convenient way to do it.  I'd rather spend 20 dollars on a DVD than spend hours downloading, converting, burning, etc.  This isn't the case with mp3.  It takes me 1 minute to pull down a song and I can instantly listen to and enjoy it.  The music biz needs to pull their heads out of their greed corrupted fat-asses and get with the times. 

Adapt or go extinct.  Good riddance I say.

And before anybody says "but without the record companies you wouldn't have music ..." do you REALLY believe that?  Without greedy pigs running the show we'd actually see "the day the music died"? I don't think so.

The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.

My last post was intentionally "incoherant".  There are countless opinions on the subject.  Now matter how much one thinks his/her opinion is "correct" there are others who think something different.  That makes the situation confusing.  Though I have the solution to the confusion (which I stated a few posts back).

The internet's a big place, and it's given everyone an equal voice. This is what the RIAA can never beat - the fact that there's so damn many people trying to do the same things. What they need to do is work with the consumers, not against them.

In total agreement there.

I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.

I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.

Do you hear that knocking sound?  That's the internet police and they're coming for yo' ass!!! 

I understand the "discrepancies" and the "flaws" but the simple fact remains that people are enjoying a product that they didn't pay for.

So if a person were to buy a CD, rip it to mp3, destroy the CD and give away the mp3s and then delete the copies he has, he's doing nothing wrong.  So if the person he freely gave the mp3 to makes 10 copies of each and freely gives them away is it the first guy's fault for giving it to him in the first place?  The second guy is giving away something that was freely given to him so is it his fault?  Maybe it's the record label's fault for producing it in the first place?

I'm really not trying to step on anybody's toes here ... I respect all your opinions on this subject.  The over-all point I'm trying to make (and beating a dead-horse doing so) is that it's a confusing jumble of shit and the bottom line is no matter how much people rally against file sharing it's going to continue.  If the recording industry hires 10,000 people to fight against it they'd still be outnumbered more than 100,000 to 1.  They cannot win this war they've chosen to fight.  All they're doing is making themselves look even more greedy and incredibly foolish and turning consumers against them.  One good thing to come from their foolishness ... it's exposing their greed and corruption and opening a lot of eyes.

In truth, I'd say all the negative energy directed towards it [file sharing] just makes it increase more.

"But ... but ... You can't do that!!!" feebly stammers the RIAA.

"Wanna bet?" says John Q. Public as he opens LimeWire ...

Not quite sure what the answer is.

Create a website/program offerring ALL music from ALL labels EVER produced in high-quality mp3 format w/ a [reasonable] monthly subscription for unlimitted downloads.  Simple.

The difference is that when you give out cookies, you paid for, say 10 cookies, give away 8, only have 2 left. So you paid for 10 cookies, 10 cookies get eaten. Also, cookies are done after you've eaten them.

If you buy a CD, and share your MP3's, you're not doing the same. It'd be the same if an album you bought as MP3's has 10 tracks, you give out 8 of them, and delete your own MP3 of the songs you gave out. Then it's a good comparison. Now, not so much

It's still a good comparison.  You're buying a product and freely giving it to those that didn't pay for it.

So if a guy buys a CD with 10 songs, rips it to mp3, and gives the songs to 10 people only.  That's okay?  It's just not okay if he gives multiple copies?

1 cookie or 1,000 doesn't matter.  Those eating the cookies didn't pay for them.  They are stealing the cookies and are thieves!!

Erm... Darth, you usually have intelligent and good points. This must be your off day!

I was trying to be a little silly (to lighten the mood in here) but I do think it's a similar point.

If some guy buys a CD (legally) and freely gives away the songs on the CD it is, in my opinion, no different than somebody buying a box of cookies and givin them away free.  Those that eat the cookies are enjoying the product without paying for it.

But did they have the RIGHT to share that file with you? Did they hold the copyright?

No, but they didn't sell me the mp3 either, so they didn't break copyright law (as far as I understand it).  Though I do believe the RIAA is targetting the people that provide the mp3, not the ones doing the downloading.

If I go out any by a box of cookies, and I share them with all the people I work with, are they theives for eating them?