Messages

[jokes]

And imagine now that the author of the monologue changes the direction of his darts and stars aiming Obama.

Same spirit on the jokes, same level of harm... But now directed to the fashioned, polite, all-of-us-love Obama. Can' t you imagine surprise faces, and some (all/much/one at least) of the audience thinking: "Wow... This guy is stupid" or "This man is a moron! How he dares???"

Making fun of Obama as well as of McCain is appropiate and adequate. I have nothing against that and Jon Steward for example already did that (regarding Obamas primetime TV-Ad). Since I'm against presidents in general it doesn't bother me anyway, whoever the candidates are  .

The point is that the jokes matter, not the candidate or the party.

My second statement is that making fun of the non-fashioned party is not brave (or is coward, if you preffer). Did I say that the jokes are bad? Did I say nobody has the right to laugh of someone beating McCain if that person likes political satire and he thinks the puns are bing funny? No.

I just said that it' s not brave.

This is just nonsense. I'll give an example:

Here in Germany we have the FDP (right-wing Liberals) and the NPD (national socialists, yes: Nazis). So your point is, I shouldn't make fun of these parties, because the don't get much votes und thus it's "cowardly" of me? Really? The Nazis come up with stupid old-baked nationalistic "arguments", like that immigrants are taking away our beloved jobs and when they're in a parliament they're an embaressament for everyone cause they're just talking bullshit. The FDP isn't able to come up with any solution to any problem either.

So OF COURSE I'm making fun of them. And WHY THE HECK SHOULDN'T I ??


I want to make two statements here:

1. As CJ already pointed out: Political satire is just another kind of satire.

2. Entertaining Criticism is just another kind of criticism.

Right click a sprite and choose either "Edit in default image editor", "Copy sprite to clipboard", or "Export sprite to file...".

D'oh! Stupid me!

I appearantly spent too much time away from the editor.

I don't know if there's a way to get the rogerframes, but you could just make screenshots of the views, seperate the sprites and paint them over..

EDIT: Ah, and of course you can use the character scaling feature of the walkable area and make the size to 60% or whatever you'll need. But this won't look to good..

I like them, but till now the buildings seem to small compared with the people, at least the detailed one...

Hahahahah...the first attempt I've ever seen at a cute raptor. And it worked!

That's because he doesn't look like a raptor at all. Still cute'n'funny though..

Why do they both have belly buttons?

..to make them even cuter..?

Look at the "melon head baby" travelling to the past, to the Nazi Germany, and finding a badge of McCain-Palin in the body of an incosncient nazi. Who can be annpyed by that? Millions of republicans. It's not a "brave" joke. It' s something specially preppaired to annoy. Same if happens in the other side. I simply dislike it. I don' t like to fuck 50% of the country because you don' t like a political party (left or right, I don' t care...)

No, making intelligent jokes about people or parties isn't "something especially prepaired to annoy", it's criticism. It's a difference between saying "Hahaha, Bush is dumb and looks like a monkey" and showing footage of republicans how they promise heaven on earth and doing the exact opposite after the election.

If you see critical comedy as something unnecessary then you see criticism in general as something unnecessary, and that is dangerous. What's the difference between a 100% serious criticism and criticism that is shown in a somehow entertaining way? What? If you don't like criticism then there's no need to debate at all. None about UFOs, none about an adventure's gameplay and none about politics.

What's with Chaplin who made fun of Hitler*. What's with all the millions of germans that were following him? Weren't they hurt by Chaplins parody? Same with the republicans. Things need to be outspoken. If that hurts half of the Americans, it's their fault.

*sorry to bring in the Nazis here again... Godwin's Rule striked again.


EDIT 1: Oh, Nacho postet again:

Imagine, I don' t know, let' s say Paris Hilton... The perfect target for jokes, blonde, stupid, rich... Let' s all make fun of her!

and now imagine she has an accident and becomes paraplegic or something... All those episodes, monologues, sketches about her would result extremelly unrespectfull and not funny at all.

So what? All those episodes would still be true. I don't want her or anyone else to get paraplegic, cause that's one hell of a disability, but I want to make jokes of her, when she's constantly talking garbage, getting money from papa while being an adult. I don't want her to become paraplegic but I want her to wake up. If she would mind about the jokes about her then she'd perhaps start making something useful of her instead of behaving like a barbie puppet. But if it doesn't bother her then it doesn't matter anyway.

EDIT 2:

Zooty, agreed to everything you just wrote.

 :o Damn, Tuomas, that is as funny as it is pathetic. But Palin has proven often enough that she is really really dumb.

Nacho, I'm with Andail here, can't agree to a single sentence in your post.

If you attack the political wing that is leading the polls, you are an idiot which can' t stand how democracy works, and how majorities choose a party.

I would change that sentence into something like that: If you don't think that political satire should be part of society then you don't understand how democracy should work. It doesn't only have a humorous aspect but also an educational, critical one which should be important for an enlightened society. And when I come across things like Evo Morales at the Daily Show I'm happy that shows like these exist.

If you "attack" the party that is below, you might know what majorities are, but you are bing a coward who makes jokes knowing that is going to have the safety net of the majority of the audience clapping your show. A humourist simply goes to 0 in my respectometer if gets into politics...

Are you serious? Is it e.g. "cowardly" to make fun of the both major parties in the US? And does it matter which party wins this time? If you think democracy is filling out a ballot every four years, and if you think the "majority" of the people really stand behind the party that won the election then you're being naive without caring about politics at all (which is perhaps the reaon you don't find political satire funny).

Additionally I have to say that even the worst Simpsons seasons can compete with Futurama's silly humor. But you should check out Season 10,13 and 15-18. There are some real gems of episodes in there.

And the obvious copies of the Simpons - Famlily Guy and American Dad - are shows that should have never been aired (like so many others  :)...

Yeah I know that program. But as some others here I'm not a great fan of installers. Especially small adventure games just don't need to be installed. Extracting a little zip file isn't something that bothers me, but installing and uninstalling a game is a bit annoying.

And matti... I suspected, by your sensible posts and way of thinking, that you were not comunist, or (old fashioned) socialist, but you must recognise that the red star avatar does not help

You're right, but the red star is also a symbol for the EZLN, who earned my respect by being revolutionary anticapitalistic, yet undogmatic and democratic.

Also I find the star aesthetically appealing.. 

Use a GUI that displays the amount of money.

Take a look here.

No... I think in "Where do people live better" terms... I won't include the "morale" term into discussion so communist/socialist lovers can still have a little chance to win the debate. 

First of all, I'm not a communist but I'm a strong anti-capitalist and I'm against dogmatic ideologies. I just don't want to choose between two bad systems and I think it's stupid and contraproductive to say that we need this kind of capitalism because the communist systems we experience(d) are much worse. Even capitalism could be so much better/friendlier/wealthier than it is now without having to call it something else than capitalism. But I'm not looking for some sort of "compromise", but this would go far now and I don't have much time...

There are much poorer countries than Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia that aren't socialistic or communistic at all.

Yes, but there are no RICHER countries than those that ARE socialists... and if being as "rich" or as "welthy" as Venezuela is your goal, sorry, mine is a bit higher.

Hehe, mine is higher too. And I'm everything else than a fan of Chávez or Castro (though I like Morales a bit). But you have to compare a third world country with a third world country, not a rich western nation.

No hard feelings, I guess... I don' t know why, but I like you, Matti!

No hard feelings at all. I like debates as long as everyone watches his mouth, isn't easily offended and doesn't suddenly get angry. So it's quite nice to discuss with you, since you fulfill these terms. 

I don't know if we're a bit too off-topic here but as I said before things like this palm-oil thing is directly connected to capitalisms way of the cheapest possible (over)production. If it doesn't bother anyone (and robvalue is gone anyway), I'll expand my thoughts a bit within the next days.

Oh please, Nacho.

Is your narrow mind stuck somewhere in the cold-war era? If you think in good-capitalism <> evil-communism patterns then you really have a small horizon.

Capitalism as we know is indeed greedy and miserable. You're right about us living a high standard, but that's because we live at the expense of poor countries that produce the cheap stuff we consume under hardly bearable conditions. Go make our t-shirts in Bangladesh and say again what you think of such a system.

There are much poorer countries than Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia that aren't socialistic or communistic at all.

Also, if you buy a sportshoe for a 100 Dollar, a few cents go to the worker while 80 Dollar went into advertising (and the rest to the manager). Don't you think this is a complete perversion of a way to produce things?

Yeah, you've taken the (pure) comicstyle out of it with clearing the wobbly lines and making everything more realistic and geometric.

But it's neither good nor bad, it just depends on what creatorlars was aiming for. But it seems that he likes it. I don't know, I like both. The important thing is how the characters will look like since they should fit the background.

Even if we confine our attentions to orang-utans, consider that if you boycott palm oil, it's not going to stop companies from having plantations at all. All you'll basically do is destroy the livelihoods of those who work in the plantations.
The palm oil industry is a huge part of the Malaysian and Indonesian economies. If the palm oil industry collapses (unlikely), where will the workers go? They'll be the ones hurt the most.

This is no argument. It's like saying: Right, we have to keep all the armories and produce NBC-weapons because the jobs have to be saved. I know that this is an unequal comparison somehow but you get the point. The economy just can't be based on destructive ways of production.

I don't especially care about Orange-Utans but about the rain forest itself and every creature livin in it. And if you take a look on what's left of the rainforest, it's quite depressing and doesn't promise a bright future. In 1950 the tropical forest was 16-17 mio. km² large, in 1985 only 8,5 mio. and I don't know what's left nowadays. Being "pro nature" isn't "not cool" or something, it's a fucking necessity for everyone or at least for everyone who has or wants to have children... or wants his children to have children themselves. The saddest point is that we all know about the climatic problems but no one is doing anything. (Regarding politics) everybody talks about it, but it's nothing more than that. It's bullshit without positive consequences. The german Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (or Germany itself) is oddly enough seen as some sort of idol regarding ecologically friendly politics but it isn't more than an unfunny joke.

I predict a future with only "animals of production" like cows, sheep and chicken. But I don't want that.

I speak for myself, but it's simply impossible to have a normal, healthy life is you start to ask that every product you purchase is "green" or not. As CJ said, in this case is the orangutan, but about canned tuna it's the dolphins, about pet food is the deforestation of the Amazonas (Apparently yes... The trees are being chopped for creating grass fields to feed the cows, which are going to feed our dogs, cats...), etc... You simply can' t think of it, because then the only apparent escape is to come back to the Middle Age... And sorry... I don' t want that

You're right in way. Of course the suffering of the rain forest has many reasons. Every chocolate-product of Nestlé will destroy some m² of the forest, every McDonald's burger will too. And we shouldn't buy any clothes made by poor rightless workers in Bangladesh, China or elsewhere. And we shouldn't buy Cola, as its factories in 3rd world nations lets necessary wells run dry plus Coca Cola is aggressively avoiding the creation of labor unions. But as Nacho points out this isn't quite possible.

But I completely disagree to the point that we would have to live like in the middleages in order to produce sustainable goods and having to eat enough. It's just a capitalistic problem (but not a pseudo-problem).

The western world is producing such exorbitant amounts of meat that we don't need at all. People are eating so much disgusting burgers, sausages, steaks etc. and therefore the rainforest is cleared in order to have agrarian areas to put cows on it. Do we need that? Not at all. We could live with less meat, especially regarding the amounts of food we're throwing away everyday.
But well, it's profit maximization. But I don't think it' possible to genuinely change the livestyle of the people, the only solution I see is in politics. Eg. the McDonalds Burgers just could be banned and forbidden and every other good that destroys the source of life shouldn't be produced either. So instead of trying not to buy 80% of the products out there one should organize and protest against corporations, capitalistic ways of production and dishonest/not caring politics..

The indian proverb:

"Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

..is something people shouldn't forget, but of course it doesn't matter to corporations. But I guess in 50 years or so this proverb will be remembered. Yes, I'm very desillusioned regarding the future.

I like it. 

Can't give any critics right now, perhaps when I listen to it again.

[Idea]

Idea               - Ghost

Atmosphere   - Snarky

Composition   - Geraduatuza

Technique      - Geraduatuza

Functionality - Coconut Shuffle

I've uploaded some pictures on deviantart a few days ago too:

http://userlame.deviantart.com/gallery/

The new images are much better and somehow have the same style (colors/lighting/shadows). And yeah, it was good to get rid of that effect.

But as it was pointed out before, it will be difficult to make a game using photos. But perhaps you will make it right, who knows.

Well, I'm more curious about the actual gameplay than new photos...

in my opinion it is a bit too pixely and could be smoother. also, the smoke is no loop so it looks a bit odd.

but then again its a nice background altogether.



sorry for my writing style, i once again - the second time within two month - dumped a cup of coffe on my keyboard and now some keys like shift dont work.