Messages

Uh .... ok.

So, I seem to remember that the objective of the game was to stop a monster/alien invasion caused by a scientific experiment gone bad. Among the many creatures you come across is one called a "headcrab." In fact, it's the first creature you encounter in the game, and near the end (in one of the bigger and more difficult fights in the game), you lock horns with the Big Momma Headcrab. To quote Wikipedia, "they are the most numerous and arguably iconic aliens in the series." One of the behaviors exhibited by headcrabs is that they like to munch on the heads of scientists and turn them into zombies, who then tend to come after you. Since your character happens to be a scientist, this ends up presenting a double threat to you. Maybe they should have called the game "Headcrabs"?

The MAVAV hoax is a prime example of how easily information can be propagated on the Internet, as well as how easily consumers will take in that which they read, without first questioning it, sort of like Wikipedia.

This almost reads like a Philip K. Dick novel. So is this right or isn't it (note lack of references or citations)? What exactly is real here ... or anywhere? * trails off into metaphysical contemplation *

Dave, if you haven't already, check out this link:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=45432

It has information on what to do if your website has been flagged as spreading malware, and it looks like there's a way to check exactly why it's been flagged. I'm sure you've probably found this already, but just in case you haven't ....

It's a shame to see this. In theory it seems like flagging potentially harmful websites is a good idea, as that's how most people usually pick up malware. But assuming Dave's on the level, I have to question now how accurate and useful this "service" actually is.

Anyway, good luck with getting this worked out. And stop putting malicious software on our computers!

I like the name "Half-life", but it is like, kinda weird as it's not a word, is all!

I don't know if I'm so keen on the title Half-Life because it really has nothing to do with the game. I guess it's catchy and unusual enough, but since I knew what the word meant, I didn't really associate it with a horror game. I don't know, maybe I'm just too big of a geek.

Turns out, after being so damn careful with my own game name, someone else is making a game by the same name. So "limbo" is probably a good name, then! A big name developer is making it, some platformer. I'm keeping my name dammit! I carefully combed the net (via google) when I used the name in the first place! Don't you dare copyright it argh!!

If you run into legal troubles, maybe you could call yours Pandemonium?

Choose your title carefully. A good title could decide the outcome between people playing your game or not.

What Steel Drummer said. The name is the first impression everyone will get from your game, so make sure you make it a good one!

"Future" is kind of bland. "Past and Tomorrow" might work if you change it to "Yesterday and Tomorrow". Perhaps you could summarize the plot for us so people can help give you advice?

[like]

Ain' t we comparing pears with apples?

Good point, Nacho. I believe Esper's original comment was comparing children's programming of the 80's with that of today. I don't think it's really fair to match up after-school cartoons like Transformers and TMNT to prime-time ones like Simpsons or South Park. They're aimed at completely different audiences. Heck, I don't even know what they show on TV these days during the after-school time block, so I really have no way of making a comparison.

BTW Nacho, it's 'emphasize'.

The only thing I would say that doesn't seem subjective is that there is a dearth of cartoons like the ones in the 80's, with the sort of carefree and non-vulgar (even implied) humor that seems to pervade almost every type of media now.

That's why I always enjoy catching laughs with some classic Tom & Jerry. Just good, clean fun in my opinion.

Although, if Wikipedia is to be believed (I'll spare you the link), even some of their shorts contain (by today's standards) controversial elements which are edited out when shown on TV today. I find it discouraging that, in today's politically correct environment, a show like Tom & Jerry would never get produced because it obviously promotes animal cruelty and torture. And sure enough, just look at some of the modern incarnations of Tom & Jerry: watered-down, feel-good pap that's just a shadow of it's original self.

Why can't we let children be children anymore?  Must cartoons be mass-marketed with racy, adult humor and situations for the adults just to draw in more viewers (and money)?

One of the things that strikes me about watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons that I used to watch as a kid is how much adult innuendo and humour is actually contained in those. I don't really have a problem with stuff like this because, as a kid, that material was over my head and I simply enjoyed the cartoon at face value. Now as an adult, I'm still able to enjoy it at another level. I think it's really the mark of a sophisticated cartoon that different age groups can watch it and appreciate it for different things.

I wonder if Spongebob (just to pick an example) doesn't fit into this category? I've watched it from time-to-time and for the most part have enjoyed it, but the humour seemed a little edgy to me, although clearly the show is marketed at kids. Having only watched it through the eyes of an adult, it's hard to tell what kids take away from it. Drawing on my own experience as a child, I have to think that they're enjoying it at a different level than I am. I think it's a mistake to view children as "little adults" that are experiencing the world in the same fundamental way as we are.

What's my point here? Going back to my example of Tom & Jerry, I think it's an interesting (and sad) comment on society that cartoons we had no problems showing our kids 40, 50 years ago are now seen as something we need to "protect" them from. By all means, let children be children. But does that mean we have to raise them in some sterile bubble and keep them hidden away from the real world?

It obviously stands for "The Spectral Mime". What's scarier than a mime ... other than a spectral mime? :o

"Can't Hardly Stand It" by Charlie Feathers. It's on the Kill Bill 2 soundtrack (as well as, obviously, various Charlie Feathers albums).

What I want to know is where the western-movie style music (that plays when you're walking around town and at the Salton Sea) is from? They also sound like something from the Kill Bill movies or reminiscent of Ennio Morricone (a lot of whose music was used in the films). Perhaps it was inspired by the movie but re-scored for the game?

Anyway, here's my vote for an isolated soundtrack.

ProgZ, I pretty much agree with your comments. Taking into account that some people may get genuinely stuck and that most other people will place a limit on how much time they'll spend trying to solve a particular puzzle, I think it's safe to say that walkthroughs are a fact of life. I wonder what people's thoughts are on game developers creating "official" walkthroughs/hints. From the perspective of the game developer, it seems you can at least make an effort to control the release of information and try to preserve as much of the game experience as possible.

MrColossal, I think you made some goods points about the problems of walkthroughs and hints spoiling much more of the game than the people consulting them are looking for. For linear games, I think this can be remedied fairly easily ("Have you done this? Yes? Have you done this? No? OK, here's how ...."). But for non-linear games where you can tackle multiple puzzles at once, I don't think there's any easy solution for trying to figure out exactly what the player is having trouble with without giving away other parts of the game. Perhaps a forum like you described, ideally with the designer controlling the release of information?

I wonder if this might actually be an argument in favor of in-game hint systems? Although I'm generally opposed to in-game hint systems, it seems like a well-designed system can monitor the player's progress and provide only information related to the tasks the player is trying to accomplish without spoiling too much of the rest of the game. Thoughts?

Nice re-write, Wellington! This seemed like a fun exercise, so I decided to try my own attempt (hope no one minds!):

Through the Death Star
     Obi-Wan tried to sneak,
But evil Darth Vader
     met him in a corridor.
"I am now the master,"
     did the old apprentice speak.
A blazing twirl of sabers!
     Obi-Wan was no more.

Not quite sure what I did here structurally. Doesn't seem to hold to a strict meter, but it does seems to have a nice rhythm when you read it aloud (well, at least it does to me). Maybe someone less ignorant than me in the structure of poetry has an explanation (free verse maybe?)?

Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out there as one possible way you could take this, Babar.

Neither, they both suck!

What would you do if you have an itch that you can't scratch?

Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation,

Wha-? Not at all the tone I was trying to take. I just get irritated by people spreading around false information like it's accepted fact.

So well...good luck

Thanks ... I think.

Maybe they already have, and we've just been duped all this time that we're drinking regular Coke!

Why did the duck walk into the synagogue?

I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.

Sorry.  Girls calling themselves guys, guys calling themselves girls in their profiles, it's hard to keep it all straight sometimes.

Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Why, so I can take part in discussions like this?

Just as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

So it's only ok if we discuss the US and its politics and foreign policies and examine the decision-making behind it as long as we've already established that its aims are ultimately imperialist and not in the interests of serving its people and protecting their freedom? Not really the informed, intelligent kind of debate I'm looking for. You'll forgive me if I decide to take a pass.

You know what? The world isn't as simple as "the American imperialists are out to get you, and its willing citizenry is really just repressed by its government." Frankly, in an age of an unprecedented free exchange and availability of information, I'm shocked that people really believe this. I think all I've tryed to do is point this out without trying to reduce culpability for what we've done or be "apologetic" for the way things have unfolded.

It's a long story that begins all the back to when the first creature pulled itself out of the oceans and took its first breath. Actually, it may go back even farther ....

Why do people who hate this thread so much keep posting to it, wondering when it's going to be locked, yet still play by the rules?

But those reasonings do not, to me, demonstrate that the foreign policy decisions of the United States have ensured the freedom of US citizens - especially when the surrounding policies of intelligence surrounding the "War on Terror" have demonstratably stripped away the civil freedoms of US citizens to an almost unconstitutional degree.

I think I see what you mean. But I think it's difficult to summarily evaluate something like the "War on Terror" because it's really a bunch of relatively distinct policy decisions with a common "theme." I think ultimately you need to look at each decision separately and evaluate their merits.

We invaded Afghanistan to destroy a terrorist organization (and the government that supported it) whose aim was basically to destroy our government and way of life and demonstrated a repeated ability to attack critical parts of our infrastructure. I think this is a fairly clear example of acting to protect our freedom - after all, much of our freedoms are enshrined in our government, our culture, and our way of life. Iraq, on the other hand ... not so much.

I think the domestic security issues that you're talking about is, again, another issue, and one that's raised its head before - the Red Scare in 1917-20, post-WWII McCarthyism, etc. I think it's a constant (and useful) reminder that we're always fighting to keep a balance between how much personal liberty we're willing to sacrifice in exchange for "security." It also goes to show why even in democratic societies we need to fight to exercise and protect our freedoms against those times when the government may step across the line.

It's casually making the entire middle east out to be a bunch of children that is so annoying.

And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

Actually, I was responding specifically to Becky's question, and in such a way that I figured she could gain more information (which it turns out she already had) and make her own decisions. Sorry to have offended in taking this approach.

Wow, your gamble to go full-time into game development really seems to paying off. Congratulations, and here's wishes for your continued success! Just don't forget the little people when you eventually become the next EA.

For what it's worth, I've heard that it might be a good idea to keep the company registering your domain name and the company providing your web hosting separate. That way if you decided to change web hosts, there isn't a chance that they'll hold your domain name hostage.

One thing to check (related to above), make sure that the company registering your domain name is actually putting you down as the owner of the domain name, not them.

And I might as well pimp my domain registrar: Westhost. I haven't done extensive price comparison, but they seem a little cheaper than most other reputable services.

Cover your left eye with your right hand, mash down on your keyboard for a bit with your left hand, and see what you get. That's how you spell it.

What would happen if an unstoppable force ran into an unmoveable object?

Still, I can't really see how Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq have ensured the wellbeing and freedom of American citizens.  Would anyone like to expand on this?

Vietnam was part of a larger policy of containment, the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. As World War II ended, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR along with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe led to the development of the domino theory, which basically said that if communism was left unchecked, it would spread throughout the whole world. As a result, wherever communism seemed to be on the rise, the US would basically support the opposing side. If you really want to put it in it's proper context and feel like reading more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Cold War.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan harbored, supported, and protected the Al-Qaeda organization. In addition to 9/11, Al-Qaeda is also suspected of having planned and carried out numerous other terrorist attacks, so hopefully it's clear why the US wanted them destroyed. The two groups had a close relationship, so destroying one basically meant destroying both.

Iraq was alleged to have WMD and links to Al-Qaeda. Of course, we all know how those claims turned out ....

These are the reasonings behind these events. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter. I would caution that it's pretty easy for us to sit here today with the benefit of hindsight and pass judgement on these events. Most decisions are evaluated simply by whether or not they resulted in success or failure, but I don't think this is the whole story. To really appreciate everything that goes into a decision and determine whether or not it was justified, I think you need to put yourself in the role of the decision-makers and examine why they made these decisions in the first place and why they ended up succeeding or failing. There are lots of lessons to be learned in doing this, one of them being that not everything is as simple and clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

We're like an uninformed adult stepping into a dispute among neighborhood kids without knowing their individual personalities and history.

So Muslims are like kids and the USA like adults... and then Americans wonder why they are percieved as arrogant!

I don't think that was the point she was trying to make, but whatever.

Listen to your heart, it will tell you when. (But don't hold your breath! )

Does anyone beside me worry that human technology is altering the course of evolution, so that thousands of years from now our ancestors will be be blind, bald, spineless creatures requiring their neurologically-wired machines to do the most simple of tasks?