Messages

It's so disappointing that lovers of the genre would wait for Trilby's Notes to give IF any credit. It's not like oh... there were ever games like A Mind Forever Voyaging, or Gateway 2 or Trinity that were worthwhile before Yahtzee took a stab at the genre.

Generally, this thread baffles.

I've had some experience with Gmaker and I don't see the MMF comparison either. Gmaker can do collisions with the pixel-perfect sprite, or with a rectangle set at whichever dimensions you want, or with a pixel-perfect mask independent of the sprite itself... I don't see any problems there. This is open-ended enough for customization without having to work around the engine, I think.

I'd like to make a request to visit the cliffs by the sea in Benidorm. I've been told by people who've been there that they're very nice. Is it easy to get there?

Seconded

 :'(

I like it when Andail gets all regal and totalitarian

I suspect that, if you were to remake Hugo with a SCUMM interface rather than a text parser, you [n]wouldn't[/b] end up with a hugo-like game anyway.

fixed

Nobody in this thread has defined free will in a clear, intuitive, non-circular way. This is okay, I guess, because nobody in the world has, either, but it does undercut the discussion a bit.

God is equally undefinable, or Infinity, or Nothingness or other such terms. Yet they are widely used and abused and create invented problems for people to get confused with. Yes, there's a semanic issue there, but then again, the whole of language, no matter how robust an argument, how positivist, how whatever, will always be plagued by the issues that are emergent in using language to communicate.

In this case, people ARE making decisions based on internal preferences. They're making their own choices - it's not as if God is coming down and forcing them to act against their preferences. Does that fact that this is totally predictable mean that it isn't free will?

People ARE making decisions. If by people you mean the natural mechanisms that we are.  There's data, and there's processing, and there's result. Infinitely many decisions every half-second. If you mean some other mystical essence that lives within the body and commands it's actions, I'd have to say... no, no such thing probably exists and makes decisions. And these decisions that the machanisms are making, wether they're clockwork-determinism based, or chaotic quantum random based do not really have anything to do with free will that OVERRIDES THIS SYSTEM.

what does free will MEAN?

Free Will means: "I am scared of the world, please let me believe it is under control'.

I am talking of the Cryo-developed original Dune, part adventure game, part strategy. I am no Dune fanatic, but I thought it was a very nice game.

My point is that nonsensical puzzles are as old as the genre, and did not contribute to its alleged demise.

How about adventure games enjoyed their time in the sun because IN SPITE of the awful puzzles, they were, at a time, the most graphically, musically and story....cally fulfulling games you could play on a computer?

How about adventure games started to die off when the rest of the gaming world caught up to the graphics, 3d action games occured will characters and stories as well, and people just couldn't deal with the 'mustard on forehead' type of idiocy anymore?

Can anyone blame them, seriously?


How about, finally, the fact that modern era adventure games aren't even well-written most of the time and capitalize on the genre's WEAKNESSES by sticking to inventory-based-puzzling, because they know their target audience is starved-for-adventure-games-nostalgia people like us here?


Puzzles were always bad mostly, yeah. People just took a while to wise up.

The original Dune game was lame? What?!

clearly labeled 'Catastrophica'.

I am interpreting this to mean 'I'd be intererested in making a Hugo game, but not a game like Hugo'.

but Game Maker is kind of cliche. If it was so simple to make that decision, why wouldn't major companies just use AGS or Game Maker?

what are you talking about?

Just as long as you die

I'll donate worn underwear.

Hey... endorsed!

EDIT: I guess a metal shirt would have been better, yes

(my brother keeps photo albums)


oh how many years ago I had short(er) hair! And a clear look of naivete that would be lost as soon as I became a habitual internet user!

Not if nobody goes insane at the end.

As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.

Whether animals eat their kind is really irrelevant to the ethical issue at hand is my point.

Definitions make sense in context. The human is an animal, if you look at him in the context of biology. However in the ethical context this takes an entirely different charge, one that cannot be compared to animalistic behaviour simply because animals do not have ethics. We are also made by the same particles as a rock, does this mean that in matters of masonry the one that behaves most as a wall wins the argument?

Cannibalism and if it's ethically sound or not is a different discussion than the current one.

People that think eating animals is wrong need to be brave enough to admit that they think so entirely out of their own arbiterate volition, without any sort of rational backing. They might be logically consistent in their ethical world, but the foundations are manufactured. Just like people who think eating animals is right do the same thing. WRONG. RIGHT. ETHICS. INVENTED. The 'look what animals do!' line of thinking doesn't lead anywhere in my opinion.

For this conversation to go anywhere people need to say 'okay, I realize I have an arbiterate opinion, we all have arbiterate opinions, but for us all to get anywhere we need to come to realistic and applicable compromises between our disparate ethical viewpoints. Because we want to get along.' Trying to rationalize and 'win' this argument by backing one's ethical choices by comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom is silly. So what if we do what other animals do? Does that make it right? So what if we don't do what other animals do? Does that make it wrong?

satirical

because what this thread needed was your wit.