Messages

I finished this game last night. Nice work! I got the neutral ending and now I'm trying to figure out how to get the good ending. I wish you would have included a soundtrack listing besides "various places on the Internet." I'd like to see what some of the tracks were.

I'll put myself in the minority here and say that I liked the puzzle with the level-measuring device. It was tricky enough to make me think about it, and the solution was completely logical. I was a little confused about where to calibrate it, but once I figured it out it made sense. I think part of the problem might have been with your english?

Spoiler

Instead of saying the "deepest point" in the pipe, it might have been better to say the "bottom" of the pipe. Also, it might have helped if the water at the top of the pipe was little less dense (say .995 or something) than the bottom of the pipe (say 1.002). That might help the player zero in on the correct point. At first I was trying to calibrate across the diameter of the pipe, and I was a bit confused when I got a density of 1.002 and the device still wasn't working.

[close]

Anyway, congratulations on a really excellent game. I hope to see more in the future!

Edit: just finished the happy ending!

Spoiler

It's not very happy, is it! Galivan was better off in prison!

[close]

It was definitely worth going back to unlock it. Well done!

Thanks again for a great game!

My art skills are pretty weak, but I did what I could. As I started to look at it, I decided his jaw line wasn't so bad after all. Maybe I just got used to looking at it. Anyway, I ended up making pretty minor adjustments.



For the left-most picture I just shifted his mouth over so it doesn't look like it runs onto his cheek. For the right-most picture, I didn't really know how to fix his jawline without changing the entire dimensions of his face. So I ended up just shifting his neck over a little. I don't know, I think it's a nice improvement.

You still may want to fiddle with it a bit, but hopefully is helpful!

Can't say the same about Gladiator, though. I nearly died laughing when I saw Russell Crowe blubbing through a big dollop of snot.

Yeah, the first time I saw this movie, I didn't really care for it. The second time, I realized that if Caesar had let his guards take out Russell Crowe in the colosseum when he found out he was still alive, the spectators wouldn't have cared much, Caesar would have won, and the movie would have been over. Then I changed the channel.

As for 300, it looks pretty kick-ass from the trailers. I don't mind taking in a mindless, "artful" (i.e. cgi-laden) action flick once in a while. But with the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels being the busts that they were, I'm not willing to buy into all the summer "blockbuster" hype. If it's good, I'll probably wait for the crowds to thin out a bit, and then go catch it.

Except for the Batman Begins sequel. I'm already excited about that.

The solution is quite simple;  STOP BURNING CARBON BASED FUELS for energy.

Actually, the solution is quite a bit simpler than this: it's called achieving a sustainable balance. No one's saying we need to go back to horse carriages. But isn't it a bit eye-opening that the average fuel economy of cars is worse today than it was 20 years ago (thanks predominately to the popularity of SUVs)? How about if governments stopped pumping billions of dollars into fuel subsidies and instead invested just a fraction of that money into exploring alternative energy sources? How about encouraging the construction of "green" buildings which can use 30-70% less energy than conventional ones? A recent HBO special pointed out that a theoretical 100 square mile solar panel in the middle of the Mohave Desert (which for reference is 22,000 square miles) could supply the entire power needs of our country. So why haven't we gotten started building it? Not very drastic stuff I'm talking about here, and it would make a difference.

If you look at Earth's history the only thing constant about iit's average tempurature is that it is constantly changing.   The fact that it may increase a few degrees doen't bother me in the least bit.

I think this completely misunderstands the problem. The Economist recently published a survey on global warming which, in my opinion, is the most even-handed assessment of the issue that I've seen. I'll quote an excerpt here which pretty much sums it up:

Climate change is complicated and uncertain, but, as our survey this week explains, the underlying calculation is fairly straightforward. The global average temperature is expected to increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C this century. The bottom end of the range would make life a little more comfortable for northern areas and a little less pleasant for southern ones. Anything much higher than that could lead to catastrophic rises in sea levels, increases in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding and drought, falling agricultural production and, perhaps, famine and mass population movement.

Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.

This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear. What's more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert an uncertain, distant risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?

If the risk is big enough, yes. Governments do it all the time. They spend a small slice of tax revenue on keeping standing armies not because they think their countries are in imminent danger of invasion but because, if it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic. Individuals do so too. They spend a little of their incomes on household insurance not because they think their homes are likely to be torched next week but because, if it happened, the results would be disastrous. Similarly, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the risk of a climatic catastrophe is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening.

And the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably not huge. The cost differential between fossil-fuel-generated energy and some alternatives is already small, and is likely to come down. Economists trying to guess the ultimate cost of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 parts per million or below (the current level is 380ppm, 450ppm is reckoned to be ambitious and 550ppm liveable with) struggle with uncertainties too. Some models suggest there would be no cost; others that global output could be as much as 5% lower by the end of the century than if there were no attempt to control emissions. But most estimates are at the low endâ€"below 1%.

The technological and economic aspects of the problem are, thus, not quite as challenging as many imagine. The real difficulty is political. Climate change is one of the hardest policy problems the world has ever faced. Because it is global, it is in every country's interests to get every other country to bear the burden of tackling it. Because it is long term, it is in every generation's interests to shirk the responsibility and shift it onto the next one. And that way, nothing will be done.

No one denies that the planet's climate has changed dramatically throughout history and will continue to do so. But that doesn't make human-driven climate change all fine and dandy. Climate change - whether natural or man-made - will have potentially huge consequences for the entire planet and everyone and everything on it. We may not be talking about the Earth becoming an uninhabitable, chemically-poisonous greenhouse like Venus, but really, does it need to get to this point for us to take the issue seriously? Previous climate-driven mass extinctions have wiped out 70-80% or more of all species (plant and animal) on the planet. Yes, despite all that (or maybe because of it) humans and all the other creatures on this earth are still here, alive and well. But are we really supposed to be ok with this if this is a potential outcome? If we're the one's causing it, then it's in our interest to stop it.

It's precisely this natural variance in weather that makes measuring the beast so difficult. The incontrovertible evidence demanded by global-warming rejectionists just doesn't exist. But if you take into account all the natural variations in climate (the graphs and articles that Steve McCrea linked to are quite good), all the evidence suggests that temperatures are rising and we're causing it.

OK, so that still doesn't prove anything. But isn't it reasonable to take a little extra effort now to avert potentially catastrophic consequences in the future? As the excerpt above points out, we make choices like this all the time. Why should this be any different? I don't see anyone saying that pollution is a good thing, so even if the worst-case scenarios are a myth or temperatures are moving independently of our actions, we'll at least have cleaned up the planet for future generations.

Honestly, given how little effort would be required to make a positive impact, and the potential consequences of not making a change, I really don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's just good economic sense, and in more ways than one.

I agree that the "global warming is going to destroy the planet" claim is a bit of a scare tactic. We're talking about a 2 or 3 degree baseline temperature change. Doesn't seem like much, but a change like this will have a huge impact on the climate. And we don't know what the long-term effects will be, so much so that we don't even know whether temperatures will go up or down. Some countries may benefit from better weather, others may not - no one knows. But for better or worse, life will go on.

So the argument isn't whether we're "killing" the planet, but whether we're ok with destroying and polluting it to the point that everyone's life will be dramatically impacted. I guess you could compare the change in climate and the mass extinction of countless species of animals from human activities (over-fishing, deforestation, pollution, etc. etc. etc.) to that caused by natural events and say it's no big deal. But I'm not comfortable with such comparisons. I guess it's all about how much of a moral obligation each person feels to take care of the planet vice exploit it.

I find myself more prepared than most people I know to walk across town visiting the same locations over and over.

Now that you mention it, whenever people start asking me to do things, I find myself much more adept than others at saying things like "I don't see how that will help" or "I can't use those two objects together." And I thought I was just lazy!

But in all seriousness, I pretty much agree with what ProgZ said. Other than providing a somewhat intellectually-stimulating pastime, I don't really see adventure games (or games in general) as being able to have an impact on someone's life, other than the "I loved this game so much I decided to become a game programmer" type of thing. Learning english by playing games is certainly a neat example, but I think along the same lines as learning a foreign language by watching tv or listening to the radio.

I suspect that since adventure games generally require a bit more thinking than other types of games, they probably attract a smarter audience to begin with. And as ProgZ pointed out, adventure games puzzles tend to be too removed from reality to really be practical. Sure they may encourage some degree of lateral thinking, but in reality there's more to making a safe helmet than putting a cooking pot over your head.

I did a little looking around on my own (I love Wikipedia), and I didn't realize how different every country does it.

If you compare all the Polish army ranks a Colonel is actually 3 stars and 2 bars. 3 stars by themselves is a 1st Lieutenant. For the Dutch army ranks, a Colonel is 3 stars and a bar (3 stars alone is a Captain).

The U.S. army is a silver eagle, and the British army is two stars and a crown. Out of curiousity I also looked at the French army (5 gold bars), and the German army (3 silver stars and some kind of crossed-leaves thingy).

In the end,  I guess it doesn't really matter as long as you've got a lot of stuff hanging on his uniform.

Eh, not to nitpick, but 3 stars would make him a general (a lieutenant general, to be exact). A colonel is a silver eagle. Well, at least in the U.S. army. I suppose it could be different for other armies, or if you don't really care, then just ignore me.

His jaw line in the pictures on the left and right are a bit too much for me. I'd suggest making them less extreme of an angle. Especially in the picture on the right, it looks like his neck runs all the way up to the top of his skull, almost like his face is mounted on the front of his neck instead of on top of it.

His right arm looks a lot bigger and muscular than his left arm. Also, his left arm is missing a thumb. There's also something a little funny about his left leg, though I can't quite put my finger on it ... I guess it looks a little bit like the hind leg of a quadruped or something. Maybe it's just me.

Also I think his eyes need to stand out a little more, although I'm not exactly sure how. At 1x size it looks like they're closed. Maybe make them bigger or something.

My suggestion would be to make him look a little more military. I don't know if you plan on putting your characters in clothes, but maybe you could give him some chest candy (medals, ribbons, decorations, etc.), or have him a military hat, or give him a sidearm or something. For some reason I picture him in something like a World War I British Army uniform.

Since he's a Colonel, I'd maybe make him look a little older - like some gray in his mustache or something. Also I feel like he needs a monocle, but that could just be me.

No point in beating around the bush: Eric Harris made some Doom WADs, and then he killed people.

Is this serious?

I suppose the fact that these kids were clinically-diagnosed sociopaths with apparently little or no parental involvement in their lives had nothing to do with them going on a murderous rampage.

Or how about the fact that they were able to stockpile shotguns and semi-automatic weapons with relative ease?

Or the fact that they displayed warning signs as early as 2 years prior to the incident - evening publicly posting death threats to other students on their website - yet no one took notice or intervened?

The fact is that these kids were seriously disturbed, deliberated and planned a massacre of their fellow students for years in advance, and after carrying out their plan turned their weapons on themselves and committed suicide. And we won't ever know the reason why or what set them off. From the Wikipedia article:

A thorough study of all U.S. school shootings by the U.S. Secret Service warned against the belief that a certain "type" of student would be a perpetrator. Any "profile" would fit too many students to be useful, and may not fit the potential perpetrators. "The researchers found that killers do not 'snap.' They plan. They acquire weapons. They tell others what they are planning. These children take a long, planned, public path toward violence. And there is no profile. Some lived with both parents in 'an ideal, All-American family.' Some were children of divorce, or lived in foster homes. A few were loners, but most had close friends." Instead of looking for traits, the Secret Service urges adults to ask about behavior: "What has this child said? Does he have grievances? What do his friends know? Does he have access to weapons? Is he depressed or despondent?"

Pointing out that these kids played a video game and then killed people is about as useful as pointing out that they poured milk on their cereal and then killed people.

video games clearly condone gorey violence that can influence people who don't know the meaning of 'fantasy'.

I don't see how killing fantastical creatures in a fictional environment is giving me permission to go out and kill people. And I don't see how getting rid of violence in video games will solve the problem of sociopaths who can't distinguish fantasy from reality. By this reasoning, we should get rid of anything fictional for fear that people who can't separate it from reality may somehow act out.

Why is it always "more impressive" when someone creates something in MS Paint? It's not like all the features you get in PS or the Gimp magically make you a great artist. Sure it makes life easier, but it's no substitute for talent.

Not that I'm criticizing this guy's work. I'm always in a bit of awe to watch somebody with talent create something out of a blank page (or in this case, a blank screen) while making it look so easy.

Kind of a cool idea. But you might as well go all the way with it: the floor gets slippery from the pools of blood, or you lose your footing as you step through/over/on piles of bodies, etc.

How about Blender? I don't have any experience with 3D programs, but since Blender is Open Source and free (and available on a variety of operating systems), it would probably be my first choice. Anyone actually have any experience with it?

In ManiacMatt's defense, I believe his point was that some words are offensive no matter how they're used. To say that it depends on the context you use them in is to ignore the fact that many words, especially offensive ones, carry an inherent context in themselves. Check the definitions for yourselves:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nigger
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paki
They are, by definition, disparaging and offensive. Just because you're not using them to demean people doesn't mean people won't find their use offensive.

Sure, you can make a relatively mundane phrase (calling someone an idiot, for example) especially offensive if you really mean to disparage the person you're saying it to. But there's no nice way to say the "n" word or the "p" word, just as there's no nice way to say "f- you!" In fact, if you know the connotations behind these words, I don't see how one can continue to use them and honestly claim that they're not trying to be offensive. And just because it's "ok" for some black people to call each other the "n" word doesn't suddenly make it acceptable to use that word. It's still racist because people who aren't black can't call them that; it's discriminating between those who can and those who can't.

It's no different when the meaning of a word changes over time (or in different cultures). 20 years ago or so "gay" and "queer" had very different connotations, but now (at least in the U.S.), I'd be very, very careful about how I use these words in public. Similarly if some word or phrase that has no special meaning in America is seen as offensive in other countries. Common courtesy says that once I become aware of the negative connotations, I stop saying it in mixed company, even if saying it isn't offensive to me.

Can ManiacMatt calm down a bit? Sure. But at the same time, when someone has made it clear that they find a particular word offensive, I don't see where it's ok to continue using it and pushing it on the person that objects to it, regardless of the circumstances. As m0ds said, we should respect how other people feel.

More from the Rev JJ today. Apparently he's in meetings with entertainment and media execs to discuss the possiblility of banning all racial slurs from TV and movies.

If he were smart about this, he'd approach this from the angle of "racism promotes terrorism" ("racial slur makes someone angry, causing them to act out in violence" sort of thing). Then we could reorganize the FCC under the Department of Homeland Security and just hand over final approval of our programming to the government. Really I think it's the cleanest, fairest way to handle this. Plus you've just solved this problem for all forms of media (print, games, etc.)!

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, the FCC and MPAA already do this, so I don't know what his problem is. If it's a toughening of standards he wants, he shouldn't be wasting his time talking to media execs.

Wow, that's a bad cartoon. Two typos ....

Actually, three typos. "Blue eyed" should be hyphenated (i.e. "blue-eyed devil") because it's a compound adjective. Really, can people at least take the time to get the basics right on this stuff?

Anyone besides me ever play a game called Dream Zone? I remember a really, really annoying puzzle where you walk around in an office building full of pigs, collecting one form after another in order to get some final form that you know you need. Well, the last pig randomly decides he won't give you the last form, so after all that work, you end up just plugging him and grabbing the form anyway. Yuck.

As an aside, I played this game on an Amiga, and it's just amazing to compare the Amiga screenshot of your room (which you can see at Underdogs) with the DOS screenshot (which you can see at Moby).

This sounds kind of similar to those travel libraries (not sure if this is the correct name) that you sometimes see in hotels, train stations, airports, etc. Basically it's just a bookshelf with some books that you can grab for your travel, or you can leave one that you've finished yourself. I guess a lot of people buy pulp novels just to keep them occupied on a flight (or train ride, whatever). This seems like a better alternative than just pitching it when you're done, or letting it collect dust on your bookshelf at home.

I guess these aren't very original examples, but:

The mazes in Zak McKraken. A great game otherwise, but come on ... what was it, 3 of them?

Also, in The Last Crusade, you had to find like two or three books in the library. Basically a pixel hunt on acid x3.