Messages

Looks pretty good. A little light on story, but I'm sure you'll figure that out

Really love the idea and the graphics! And since I am a nanotech PhD student, I of course have to give you my special thumbs up for making a game about nano. Keep it going!

Wow, pretty soon I'll be able to call you Doc


And I love the idea of having 6 controllable characters all at once. Should make for some inspired puzzles.

I'm really trying hard to come up with a reason her breasts are directly linked to a number of important plot details...

Are there aliens in there, that burst out and go on a rampage? Or maybe she's the alien, and she was designed to efficiently attract men, like in Species.


Anyway, I disagree with the whole 'objectifying of women' argument - there's women in this world with large boobs. Which means that it's perfectly realistic to have a character with big boobs. And even if you do objectify her you can say you're doing it to prove a point.

The thing I don't really like is the fact that they seem sort of out-of-place. (This is also one of the reasons I hate anime)
They are kind of noticeable. Almost to the point of being ridiculous.

I mean, the Tomb Raider series has some serious plots, but there's always that undercurrent of playful sexuality, even when she's slaughtering a platoon of mercenaries with a pair of pistols... (Then, when she's finished, there will be a cutscene which zooms in on her ass for five minutes...)

Looks cool. A little cliche, but I love the idea of a 'morale' system.

It gives real incentive to solve puzzles, other than just "reaching the end".

"If I don't solve this puzzle, my guys will get depressed and commit suicide..."

Instant classic

Lol, "unctuous rumblings"... you did a funny...

Anyway, for some reason I've always felt the need to keep 'emotional narrative' and 'large, physically imposing breasts' apart... They just don't really seem to go together...

Hell, Agatha Cristie's world-famous classic novel, "Ten Little Indians" was originally called "Ten Little Niggers"

To be honest, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance.

That's a paradox. If you're not tolerant towards intolerance, that makes you intolerant, which means if I was to follow your sentiment I shouldn't be tolerating your intolerance towards intolerance. And you shouldn't be tolerating my intolerance for your intolerance for intolerance. If that makes sense. So, basically, everyone should kill each other.


We all have our little intolerances. It's natural. My uncle's lactose intolerant... I'm not all up-in-arms about that...

Because then her breasts wouldn't be visible. She has nice breasts.

...

I like...breasts.

...

You realise 'she' is a drawing, right?

Flabby Astronauts of Los Angeles?

Where the heck did 'Astronauts' come from...?

This is an interesting thread. I'm inclined to agree with the majority of people who've posted: If it's part of a mature and intelligent story, anything is fine with me, really.

Personally, as a writer, I'm a realist. I stay as true to life as I possibly can, and life isn't always pleasant, or nice, or fair.

I like to give a dark side to my character. A side that people might dislike, but I feel it must be there nonetheless. I think the greatest writers are those who can take a character who is extremely racist (or whatever) and make the audience love them regardless. Because it's true - racists aren't necessarily bad people. Sometimes they're very good people, who are just misguided.

AGS 3.0 killed Jesus!


Seriously though, I'm a newb no matter which version I use... So am I better off learning 3.0? I tend to be a bit allergic to scripts though... In fact, the 'interactions' window is my primary method of programming right now

It largely has to do with publishers, we can explain why we're doing things a certain way with "see! we asked people!".

Nice to know what our opinions are worth...

The point is there is explanation, maybe one of these maybe another, but there's no single thing in the movie that is illogical or impossible or is the producers' mistakes, because we didn't see all that's happened. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if something illogical happens, it should at least hint at or allude to some sort of plausible explanation. Otherwise, any explanations after-the-fact will just seem like retconning, and they will, at the time, seem like a mistake.

Lost provides mystery. You're not sure what the hell is going on, but you're sure that the writers mean for things to not make sense. There's no speculation as to whether the mysteries in Lost are intentional or not.

The devoted fan might assume that their beloved director/producer is more competent than he seems, but most people wont, and so it's common practice to ensure that anything that resembles a plothole is filled.

FBLA?

Fruitlessly Bland Lamer Awards?

I don't understand why she doesn't just wear a bigger shirt which she can actually button up...

Like Emerald said (although you wouldn't want to have too many cooks in one kitchen) I could have a gander at the story development as well, if you need the extra pair of hands. 

'Ey! They asked me first, Ringworm!

specifically, in the previous function.

Ahh, that makes much more sense. Turns out it was a missing bracket about 40 lines back (I used 2 closing brackets instead of 3 - Coding is so goddamn anal retentive )

I don't know why it didn't just point me to line 88 (the problem) instead of line 131 (a totally unrelated function) though...

Thanks for your help, guys!

yeah, basically. It points to all the lines starting with 'function' which I've added since starting this game. I can't post the exact code right now, but I'm wondering if something like this has been precedented, and I just didn't notice...

When I delete what it points to, it'll point to something else, until I've cleared pretty much everything I've scripted so far...

What's to stop me from saying "4950", despite having never played it? Do you get some sort of code or something?

The spectator wasn't supposed to see the big picture!

Don't you get it?

You can't just say that. You have to judge what happens based on what actually happens, not on what may or may not have happened.

I mean, by your logic I could argue that Schindler's List is actually about a cyborg sent back into the past to kill Hitler - but it's never shown on-screen, so you'll have to wait until Schindler's List 2 to find out the truth

That is hilarious!

Although most of those would apply universally, not just in Britain...