Messages

This may just be my computer, but after I log in, on the main forums page it calls me a "Guest". But when I go to a different page it says my username. It's not really a problem, just a possible bug you might want to know about. But, again, it could just be my computer or something.

Alright, thanks. =D I just redid some backgrounds as well, if anybody has any comments on these:


I'm sure the perspective is off, I'm horrible at perspective and I can never seem to get how it works.
Here's some more characters:

I know it's not the best possible example but I hope it helps at least a bit. Good job with the sprites though, they look lovely. 

Thank you. =) I think I'll keep it un-pixelated, for now, thanks. =D

They all have one of their hands in their pocket. For animation it might be better if you draw them with both hands out. Otherwise you have to animate that they take their hand out and put it back in later.

Hmmm. Well, I'll think of something, lol.

Hi,
I posted these a few months ago (a year?) and today I redrew them and I'd just like to hear any advice, comments, or criticism. Thanks.

No, not at all, I'm not trying to be so defensive, I just should have explained what part 2 is about better. I expected it to be much harsher, but you gave some good points, and I'm trying to take your advice where I can. Though a lot of the stuff you said was about stuff that wouldn't be finished until Part 2 is all and I was just trying to point out the reasons for that. You gave good advice, so thanks. =D
I'll put up part 2 later though and see if anybody can come up with any problems with that.

Hi, uh, I really don't know much about art, but if you want an amatuer artist's opinion, I like the bamboo, but the teacups on the table are kind of hard to see. In fact I didn't even realize they were there or what they were for quite awhile. And the biggest book's perspective looks a little weird. But I'm really, really bad at perspective, so...

Hmm, it's not bad, but you're story is swinging a bit too much. One paragraph, for example, is filled with small expanations about why the woods are avoided. But none of the stories go anywhere. Why put those dead ends in the main story?

This is only part 1. The graveyard in the woods is where the whole story will take place. Hauser Island was made up for the graveyard, not the other way around. What happens next will take place in Hauser Island, but soon after that it will all be focused on the graveyard.

Another thing that bothered me was the first line "Now these days, when we look out into the ocean, we are more likely to see a bunch of fish and water and maybe a couple of ships."
The first line is important to hook people and make them read more. It's logical that when you look at the ocean you see water. Is there a need to explaning that to your audience? And was this ever different?

I know. I was thinking about changing that first line, it kind of bothered me too. I'll try rewriting that a little later.

Past and present tense changes too.

Yeah. I was trying to switch from past to present tense without it looking obvious, because at first I wanted to be talking about the way the island USED to be, but then I wanted it to sound like I was talking about an island that still exists, like you're there. I wasn't sure how to do that any other way.

But my biggest criticism is the narrator not even believing that what he tells it true. It makes me feel that you, the story writer, doesn't want to commit to the story (or at least one story idea). The title
"The Vampire Guy" and the adding "Yes, I know it's a crappy name," confirms that you don't really believe in your own story. You don't have to claim that it's the best story ever, but don't bash your own creations to get sympathy and support.

Heheh. The title is sort of a joke, because I was talking to other people about how we needed to write the "vampire guy story". I added "Yes, I know it's a crappy name," because I didn't want anybody to think I was being serious about that title. I planned to change that later.
I wasn't trying to get sympathy at all. xD

My advice, don't write 100 different story fragments but 1 story about a tree with a face, no side lining, no red harrings.

This was somewhat neccessary to set up the plot for part 2. I wanted there to be some suspense and mystery about what was really in the woods, and make it clear that nobody really knew what was in there but everybody was curious. In part 2, they will find old letters in an attic explaining what parts of the story are true and which aren't.
I probably should have finished part 2 before posting part 1.
EDIT: No wait. It may take a while to get part 2 finished. I'll post when I'm done.

Hey, I just finished writing part 1 of my story. It's for this new room called The Boneyard that's going to be released for an A-Life game called Docking Station. I'd appreciate any advice on anything you think should be changed.
http://www.freewebs.com/rulezszs/

Read this: http://www.contenderministries.org/discrepancies/davincicode.php

Some aren't, but the expected style is usually very different. Honestly, if I used Mad's picture in Creatures, I would probably get laughed off the forums. Whereas, if I used the picture in an adventure game, nobody would think anything of it. Basically, I think it's the same with adventure games thats sprites are all a different style-for example, ever seen a 2D colorful cartoony background with 3D realistic looking characters? The results are not very good. The style all has to be the same, otherwise it will look weird.
But like I said, I am completely done with the male sprites-and in Creatures that involves much, much more drawing than in an adventure game-and most people are already saying that the sprites are good for a breed, so I'm done with that part. I just want advice on the female... I have not done all the female sprites yet, because they look weird.
I'm using Paint, GIMP, and ArtGem for my sprites.

That wouldn't work, Mad-sprites for adventure games and sprites for Creatures are very much different things. A very different style. Adventure games are more 2D-ish and cartoony, but Norns are more 3D-ish and detailed, a little more realistic. For example, here are some pictures of other popular Creatures breeds:

Besides-I'm already done with the male Sky Norns' sprites, I just need to know how to make the female Sky Norns better...
I like your suggestion, big brother-lots of C1 breeds had things like bows and ponytails. And, they are supposed to be pink, so...

Hi,
I'm making an add-on for a game called Docking Station (not an adventure game). In the game, there are breeds of creatures called Norns. I'm making a new breed for the game, and I've done most of the sprites for it. But right now I'm stuck because I can't figure out how to draw the female Sky Norns.

This is what I've done so far, but the female doesn't look right from the front-any advice on how to fix it?

Duane Gish! I know him! They mention him in one of the links you posted. I watch him on TV sometimes. Actually, he's on the show that I gave you the link to.
About half done with one of them...

Adamski, what do you think this is about? It's about religion, duh! What do you think "Creationism" is based on? I'll read your links, you read mine. There's real evidence in the links I posted, to support Christianity. You told me to  post evidence, I have. And you even said that it wouldn't prove Christianity, but this does give evidence for Christianity-that's what you wanted, isn't it? I would appreciate sites that don't have a bias either, but that wouldn't do much to prove your point, would it?
I don't have time to read the links right now-I have to go... but I will when I get back.
Um... fossils aren't rare... there are many, many fossils in the world, and I've found many in just a day.
I bet there would be more than we thought if we actually ever found any of them.
Anyway, will read it later, but probably won't post, since I don't think the argument is going anywhere anymore, and I don't have the time. Just read the links I posted, especially on the Creation in the 21st Century website-go to the page called "evidence for creation". I'm not sure if the other link gives any free info, you might have to buy their tapes.
On another note-look at this, it's unbelievable: http://www.alimaggs.co.uk/2006/04/trading-paperclip-for-house.html

Sorry for responding so late, I forgot about this board.
I found some links to the websites of the shows I mentioned, they should give some evidence like the ones I was talking about...
http://www.thecreationnetwork.org/index.htm
http://www.creationevidence.org/

I will read the links you posted about evidence for Evolution...
EDIT: Um... I can't find the links... what were they again?

Something with little circles in the cellular structure of granite, or something like that. Also a few other discoveries. You should really watch the shows I mentioned, and you'll see what I mean.

LimpingFish-I have heard no reliable evidence for Evolution. Ã,  The ones they have found have been mostly disproven by now...
For example, the half lizard half bird... it was a young tropical bird that now lives in Africa. The birds lose their teeth when they get older, but when they are young, they have teeth and claws like lizards for escaping from predators.
And I don't like how you say ALL Creationists don't listen to both sides. I watch Paleoworld (a show giving the Evolutionary viewpoint on fossils and history) as well as Creation in the 21st Century and the Creation Network.
But in all the years I've been studying paleontology (as I want to be a paleontologist)... I have found no evidence for Evolution with a reliable source or even a simple explanation. I have talked to numerous paleontologists... all of which believe in the theory of Evolution, but not one of them can even come close to explaining why their theory has any proof for it, they only say that it is proven... And thus I have come to the conclusion that Creation has more evidence for it than Evolution.
Of all the books I have read, of all the shows I have seen and all the scientists I have questioned, I can not find just ONE bit of reliable evidence for Evolution. The fossil record is against it. Darwin himself said, "as we walk across our lawn, we should be stepping on missing links." (Or something like that, not the exact quote)
If the population in the world today is billions of people, then a few million years ago, when we were supposedly in the neanderthal stage, it must have been at least a few million. Those early people would have had to go through many generations to evolve into us today-millions of people multiplied by millions of years, that would mean that simply billions of fossils would be scattered throughout the Earth, all of which were half human half ape. And yet, we have only found about, what, 20? All of which were disproven in some way (many were found to have no evidence of human ancestry in them, and many without ape ancestry, some were hoaxes.)
Also note that the textbooks in schools are outdated and still give disproven information out as a fact. One of the books I have been reading from, "Exploring Creation with Physical Science", is one of the most recent books, from 2005.
Quote: "Before we go on, I want you to think about what you have learned for a moment. Earth just happens Ã, to have all the right quantities of those gases; and they just happen to be in the right place. If nearly any other gas than nitrogen or argon diluted the atmosphere, life could not exist. If If too much or too little oxygen was in the air, then life could not exist. Similarly, if too much or too little carbon dioxide were in the air, life on earth would not be possible. In addition, not only does life dpened on ozone, but it also depends on ozone being far away from the life that it is protecting. Beyond all of this, the gases int he air are all replenished when they are used, keeping their concentrations relatively constant over time!

Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air that we see around us. Only intelligent design does!Truly, anyone who understands the science of air must excersize an enormous amount of faith to believe that all of this occured by chance!

And the tests from the book:

Question: A very popular evolutionary theory of how life originated on the planet requires that, at one point, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. This theory, of course, assumes that the first life form did not breathe oxygen. Since there are organisms today that can exist without breathing oxygen, this is not as fantastic as it may first sound. Based on what you learned in this section, however, what serious objection can you raise against the theory that life originated on an earth with no oxygen in its air?
Answer: No oxygen means no ozone. With no ozone layer, no life form would be able to exist. Remember, the earth replenishes its ozone supply from its oxygen supply. With no oxygen, there will be no ozone.

Before you start saying that Creationists don't listen to evidence for Evolution, look at yourself, and please watch and read the books and shows I have mentioned. If you give me evidence for Evolution, I will listen. But I have yet to see any.
BTW-sorry it took so long for me to post this...

TheYak, you're absolutely right. Religions should emphasize evidence more.
Which is why I got into science, kind of-(see my username)... There is a program on TV called "The Creation Network"... which is really exactly what you're talking about. The Creation Network gives evidence for Christianity, most of the time they look at fossils, etc. You should really watch it. It's one of the best science shows I've seen, as they give facts instead of just theories, like most shows on the Science channel.
It's on a channel called "Angel", I think, or maybe it's Sky Angel. There's another show similiar to it, as well, called "Creation in the 21st Century", that on the TBN channel. Both I found very interesting, especially when they started talking about microscopic cellular stuff that was way over my head.
Anyway, watch it-it's interesting, no matter what you believe.
Also-any one who kills somebody because the victim was not a christian is certainly not a Christian, it goes against the entire teaching of the New Testament.
The catholics did this many years ago, but the catholics also believing in worshipping saints, which would be considered idolatry.

And-I know Christians who believe in the Big Bang/Evolution theory. My cousin does. I don't know why he does, because when I debated with him about it, he didn't do a very good job of explaining.
I, myself, don't believe in the Big Bang or Evolution theory, because
1. The Bible says God created everything in a certain way that doesn't agree with Evolution
and
2. Recent scientific evidence goes against the theory of Evolution. It's not as known as most evidence, for some reason, but that's why you have to watch the above mentioned shows.

Yes! I have.
My mother gave me a prophecy from God talking to me about something she didn't even know about (and she couldn't have known. I was just thinking about something that was worrying me, and it was worrying me for a couple of days, and in the prophecy it told me not to worry about it.)
So, yes, there ARE clear signs from God... I know other people who've had the same kind of things happen to them. Only problem is, nobody every believes them, because you can never prove what you saw, so it's not like on the Discovery channel or anything. My family had other things happen to them... which creep me out when I talk about them, so I don't want to.
Supposedly, I assume God doesn't talk to you unless you talk to him.

Hello,
I, too, have been having some problems with this. My friends on another forum are not Christians, and I am, and we got in some debates over this. But I'm not going to get into that right now...
I am a Christian. And I know that God is real, no doubt about that! I know from my own personal experiences that God is real.
Ok, first of all-my opinion is that, in a country, for everything to be completely fair, you should have the same punishments for the same crimes. For example... kill a dog, go to jail, kill an unborn baby, and you should get the same punishment. Or, kill a dog, be set free, and kill an unborn baby, and be set free. Same goes for murderers, though, that would be politically fair. But that's my opinion and really has nothing to do with the discussion anyway.
If we want a truely fair country with politics and religion seperated, we should probably stick to "hurt anybody else, go to jail" but as long as you don't do anything to hurt anybody else, then it should probably be your choice, because, that's freedom, and that the way we were made to be, with a free choice. But, I think it should be a choice, but not a right.
That would be politically correct, in my opinion.
But if we wanted a country that is biblically correct, we'd have to do something along the lines of kill a dog, be set free, kill a baby, go to jail, etc. Then again, same thing as above, we could have total freedom and basically be an anarchist country.
In the end, it's all religion vs. politics, and I think half the country wants it based on religion, and half on politics. That's what's caused this whole dispute, because anything in between wouldn't really be fair for either side-both want an extreme version of their ideal country.
That's why I'm going to buy a private island in the middle of the ocean and live as a hermit one of these days. Heh xD
As for your questions...
1. Ã, Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
Yes, but so do non-Christians...

2. Ã, Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
Personally, yes. But if we want a free country, no, because I know nobody would be happy with that.

3. Ã, Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
Err... I didn't understand half of that, but yes. Religion and politics can intertwine. But they can be independent as well.

4. Ã, If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
Errrrrr... what?

As for the rest of the discussion... I know that there are people out there who say they are Christians. There can be frauds out there. Don't listen to them. I'm sorry, very sorry, that there are these kinds of people. We call them the "baptized in lemon juice" people where I live. I have noticed this lately, what a fraud the whole stereotypical "Christian" belief can actually be. But, yes, I am a Christian, I have no specific belief. Frankly, most beliefs (catholicsm, mormonism, etc.) are usually frauds... sometimes they aren't even technically called a Christian belief. Christianity shouldn't be a religion, it should be a friendship with God. That's the way it is with me. I would talk more about this, but I fear a long debate in caps ending in 50 exclamation points...

Obviously. I can't believe people always fall for these same kinds of jokes even after they remember it's April Fool's.
I mean, I did, but only after some people were trying to convince me it wasn't... xD