Messages

All this can really cause you to rethink if all these musicians and actors are really worth the millions of dollars they're making.  To most people, it probably seems ludicrous to hear a whiny pop star say "I only made $4.9 million instead of $5 million!"  Besides, most of their revenue comes from their live concerts.

I think it's the same with movies.  I love going to movies, and I don't see digital piracy replacing the movie experience anytime soon.  Moreover, if you love a particular singer, you can always support them by going to their concert.

I think it's really funny how record companies have approached the issue.  Napster was shut down, but inevitably a whole bunch of new bigger and better p2p sharing programs sprouted up to replace it.  It doesn't matter if Kazaa is shut down next or not (I doubt it will be).  Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a lot of these programs use the same backbone (e.g., FastTrack)?  Why not go after that instead, and place restrictions on what can be transferred?  What's the point in shutting down front-ends if all someone has to do is make another one?

The technological idiocy of those who oppose digital piracy may just be what saves it.

This is SWEET!  Your choice in music cracked me up.  It sucks that we won't see this finished for quite awhile.  Best of luck to you!

Stop saying, "Thank you for being nice to me."  We're all flippin' philanthropists.  Deal with it.  

I was just in the mood for a disgrunted ramble last night.  I'm not really that bothered by the state of the world, and despite how I may have come across, I don't really think it's all that bad.  It's up to parents to teach their kids what's right and what's wrong, but you can't neglect the free agency of children.  Children aren't as mindless as some people seem to think they are, and if they really want to be good, they will be.

I think sometimes we expect parents to do too much, and then are too quick to blame them when their kids misbehave.  Of course, it's one thing to be in possession of cocaine, which is itself a pretty dumb thing to do, but then also be dumb enough to leave it around so your 4 year-old can get it and take it to school.  You can't expect kids to be good if the parents aren't good role models.

EDIT: I have no idea what canabis even is.  I've never heard of it.  Maybe that's a good thing.

EDIT 2: MrColossal, don't give too much credit to what I said (I just felt like rambling incoherently), but what I initially meant by "civilized world" was how close-knit communities act.  In smaller societies around the world, everyone is responsible for watching out for each other, because the community depends on total interaction.  An internal symbiotic relationship is essential to a smaller community's survival.  In our large industrialized societies, everything has become impersonal and people are capable of subsisting without relying on any "community" as I defined it.  This is just a common trend anthropologists have long recognized in the development of societies.  You could argue over whether this is good or bad, but community closeness is something that has been lost to us.  The loss of community closeness is what I was incoherently lamenting, and what I meant by "a truly civilized world."

Although it's not really worth trying to clarify my original point, since my original point was stupid, I think your misconstrued the logical conclusion.  It's not that rules and regulations have created societal degradation, but how people conduct themselves around others that may have done so.  People have just evolved a different notion of what is appropriate cultural behavior.  It's not necessarily wrong (in the cultural sense as a whole)...just different.  We "traditionalists," if you will, just have to learn to adapt to the changing world.

Is this game almost finished?  Was the tentative March 2004 release date accurate?  I'm interested to hear more about this.

I hate the majority of the world. And I truly mean that.

I'm lucky, in the respect that I've never allowed myself to be fully exposed to it. I keep good friends, and don't go to places where these kinda things happen. I don't understand what is so appealing to a 13 year old about getting stoned or drunk! How do they think that's going to help them in the future?? I know kids don't think that far ahead, but it's fairly obvious...

I hate most modern music in general. Most of it (besides lacking COMPLETE musicality, which I won't go into, but could verify for a million different reasons) contains themes which are appealing for all the wrong reasons. We try to stop teenage girls from getting pregnant, but look at all these songs! They talk about what an easy girl Sasha is, and how she's so popular because of it!... grr... it drives me absolutely mental.

In conclusion, Earth sucks. I wish I were dead - at least then I'd be heading off to a much nicer place - and I hope all the dickheads in society get a cheese-grater rubbed against their genitals.....

EDIT: You saying you prefer dope to alcohol? No way. I think both are dumb when taken in extremes, but drunks tend to be more personable than stoners. At least with drunks, when someone goes to stab you, you can say "WAIT!" and generally they will. When you piss off a stoner, they just go straight for you...

Also - I agree that these lyrics have just been a gradual progression. Even a lot of opera from the baroque period had questionable subtexts. But it is more blatant now, and that's the problem. By hiding subtexts, most kids don't pick stuff out unless they look (which very rarely happens). By just saying it plain, you're sending a very clear message.....

I am 100% with you, Peter Thomas.

The largest problem, in my opinion, is the mass desensitization to sex and drugs.  It's not that sex itself is bad, it's just that we've been forcefed tragically mind-numbingly erroneous views on how people should conduct themselves sexually in a decent society.  That's the problem: I feel our society has become unliveable, because no matter how hard I try to correct the problems, it probably won't make a difference.  I shouldn't have to live in a place where I can't make a difference.

The situation with drugs is just awful.  It's such a waste.  It seems younger and younger kids are getting access to drugs, mostly due to idiot parents.  Sometimes I don't think natural selection is working fast enough on our species.

Something that pisses me off is that they ban music videos like Britney Spears new song from MTV, yet they let all these black rap videos stay where sex/drugs/pimping/whoring/etc is a common theme throughout, and women are objectified so nastily. They probably do it because they're afraid of being called racist or something. But what, Britneys songs get banned for her simulating sex, right... but other songs don't get banned for simulating sex, and promoting pimping, whoring, sex, drugs and guns?

Quite frankly though, I don't give a shit anyway. Because any person stupid enough to watch these videos and then copy them deserves to get beat up anyway, which eventually they will if they go down that path.

I was up late one night, flipping through channels, and I found that BET (Black Entertainment Television) shows pure hardcore porn rap videos (semi-censored), if you're willing to stay up late enough to watch them.  WHAT, praytell, IS THE POINT OF THIS FILTH?  There is NO redeeming value to it whatsoever.

[club]

I don't think there's any room for tolerance when it comes to the world's filth.  Things don't HAVE to be this way.  It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't involve me, but when it comes into my own home through sex/hate/racist/drug-oriented themes on network television shows, I don't see why I should consign myself to just pass it off in the name of tolerance.  I'm starting to get tired of the state of the world.  It's like an awful fad that won't go away.  Who knows how bad things will be just a few years from now.

What also perturbs me goes back to the original topic: how parents don't raise decent kids.  Here I am, doing my best to be a good role model to my young daughter, to teach her good moral values.  Then she goes outside and the neighborhood kids around her are cussing up a storm and calling people "bitches" and crap like that.  I'm sure I'll regret saying this, but sometimes I think freedom of speech has gone awry.  Moreover, it's socially unacceptable to ask the neighborhood kids not to talk about that stuff, since they're not your kids, and the parents will get mad because they don't share the same sense of values I do.  Would it really be so bad to live away from the world in a plastic bubble?

The only solution is to let our children know how WE expect them to act, and then to teach them to think for THEMSELVES.  It's not the best solution, but what else are we supposed to do?  I actually didn't realize those were the real lyrics from "Tipsy."  I've only heard the radio-edited version, where it goes "Everybody in the club getting tipsy."  Needless to say, the lyrics wouldn't even exist in a truly civilized world, where people cared about the welfare of their community and about the effect their actions have upon other people.  How screwed up and misanthropic do you have to be to create such garbage like that?

The problem is, of course, not as simple as just showing kids rap videos and the like and worrying they'll emulate what they see.  It's about desensitization.  For some reason, we've all just come to accept the crap in the world because, well, we gotta be "tolerant of others."  Rap music and videos are quite a strange anomaly.  They rarely portray real normal life.  If you think they do, your life is not normal.  I don't dispute the musical talent of rappers (I'm not just saying that to be "tolerant"...rapping is really a difficult thing to do well), but I think sometimes these rap artists feel like they have to put up an image.  How different things would be if rap music evolved to support good moral values.

[/migs'dailyramble]

It works if you go to the web site here and download it.  I'm glad you pointed this out, it looks like a funny game.

EDIT: Correction: It's hilarious!  If you haven't played this already, get it!

I haven't been able to download and play either Rich Phycho (not sure if I should put "sic" or not) but I REALLY want to.  Where can I get them?!

Can you give some more information about the game you want to create?  What are these 3 other games you've made?

FFAST: I bet that prank would work with a less intelligent crowd, like AOL Chat users.  That's really funny.

Would players be able to chat to each other without pre-determined phrases? If yes, I would like toleak info about a Nanotech sequel, even before the Nanotech demo.

Yes, of course, no predetermined phrases.  That would be too limiting.  It would be just like a regular chat, except you can only chat with people in the same room as you.  A-v-o made a demo game where you just type in what you want to say and the character says it (in the Lucasartsian above-your-head style).  That's kind of what I imagine the in-game chat would be like.

Whether you want to use the in-game chat for your own insidious designs would be entirely up to you.  

I was just in the middle of sleeping and an idea came to me, so I came down to the computer to type it out (sorry if it's not so lucid, as I'm not).

ANYway, if you're thinking of having a supernatural element (or even if not, I guess), a possible killer motive could be a constantly-climbing "Insanity Meter" or something of the sort. See, s/he's tormented and crazy (possibly due to the game's ghosts), and has to kill in order to not totally freak out (at which point, they'd be pretty easy to spot as the killer or something).

If you ran with such an idea, the ghosts of the dead players could come into play in (somehow) tormenting their killer, making things harder and harder for him/ her as more people were killed.

Did that make any sense?...

Thanks for your idea (and not going back to sleep)!  It would be a great way to inject some personality into the killer.  I think this could be implemented, but it would have to be done carefully.  For one thing, the killer needs to feel free to go at his own pace, since different killers might act differently...one player may be a tactful, thoughtful killer, planning each move carefully, while another player may be a reckless killer, hoping to quickly eliminate people before they have a chance to regroup and share secrets.  However, I think making it so the killer can automatically see the ghosts of dead players might be a nice thing to put in, so the players are in charge of tormenting him.  This could also be an Easter Egg that occurs in just some of the games.  Maybe dead players could move in front of objects so the killer can't click on them, or block entry into other rooms.  Ghosts could also have some sort of scary mode they can activate, that makes their head expand and their eyes pop out or something.

Your basic idea, making it more difficult for the killer, nails it right in the noggin.  It can't be too easy for the killer to win each time.  Ideally, once all players have figured out the mechanics of the game, each game should be roughly 50-50: half the time the normal players win, half the time the killer wins.

That site has a lot of great movies in ASCII.  I remember seeing Spiderman on there awhile back.

Maybe I could make the web site.  Eventually, I'm going to put together a web site and forums for that multiplayer murder mystery project I've been yapping about, assuming a team is formed and the project officially launches sometime soon, and I might just be willing to incorporate a resource archive into the whole design.  That way, it's not just another "Hi, we're making a game!  Here's the progress on it..." site.

One thing I'd like to do is make the project open source, and the source code may be a worthwhile addition to the resource archive.  That way, the two projects -- the resource archive and the multiplayer project -- won't seem so disparate.  I'd have an excuse to make the resource web site, and it would give me a chance to brush up on my PHP skills.

Perhaps adventuredevelopers.com would be willing to host it.

Just have the "murderer" selected at random.  Start with a murder done by the "murderer" (who selects the mode of death or has it randomly selected).  The murderer and NPC victim start off in the same room, and the killer finishes the job while the other players gain their bearings (they maybe have limited space to walk about for the first couple minutes or so).  The murderer has time to hide the evidence (remove bullets/hide the knife, etc) in that scene and then the game proper begins.  There are numerous weapons/items throughout the area, and a limited space in which no weapon/item can be permenantly lost or destroyed (for example, a gun placed in the river leaves a "glint" object, a knife dropped down a well can be resurfaced and a rope can be pulled from the drawer at any time.  Weapon-sounds too could be "heard" within a certain distance (for example, if a gunshot is made in room A4, and you're in room A5, you might get a message saying "You hear a loud shot to the East," or "There is a scream to the East," whereas someone in B6 might hear "You think you hear a scream somewhere in the house."

I like your idea about including extra hiding places which entirely remove the item from sight, but still make it retrievable.  In my opinion, destructible objects should not be allowed at all.  Also, I'm not entirely sure clues should be planted at the beginning.

Here are my thoughts:

The players should feel as if they control the game, rather than feel like pawns subject to the game's design.  Although giving the killer the ability to choose how he carries out his first murder gives him some degree of control, this is still an automated procedure which restricts the player's options.  Different killers may want to adopt different strategies.  One killer may want to be sneaky and carefully plan every murder, check around for possible witnesses before he commits it, and make sure there's a good place nearby to stash the evidence.  Another killer may just grab a nearby chainsaw and start mutilating the crap out of everyone.  Placing the killer in a situation where he is instantly required to flee a crime scene may go against his own personal style of gameplay.

There are certain things the game should avoid doing, such as automatically planting clues linking the murders to the secret killer at the beginning.  While this would be a method to give the players something to start with, it would go against the game's philosophy of player control.  It would encourage the killer to react to the clues planted, rather than act as he wishes.

It's important to distinguish the difference between predictable and unpredictable computer involvement.  Predictable computer involvement includes, e.g., the functions of items.  Once players learn the system, they will learn what items can do and where they can be used.  They will learn some good places to drop items if they don't want them to be found.  Unpredictable computer involvement includes, e.g., the random placement of items and players at the beginning of the game.  Once the game starts, how it plays out should be left up to the players as much as possible, with automated [unpredictable] computer involvement kept to a minimum.

Alternatively, there could be a NPC murder at the beginning, without any clues left at all.  In this case, the players will have to wait for the killer to make a move, while they look for the "ultimate clue" (mentioned earlier), which could be something like the killer's secret journal, or, going with the notion of a haunted mansion, invoking the spirit of the murdered NPC who reveals who the killer is.  I think the idea of an ultimate clue is really what the normal players need, so they don't just wander around aimlessly waiting for the killer to strike.  It would give the game a good objective for the killer and non-killers.

Just like in other murder mystery games, everyone could take on a character with a particular past, and certain details could be inserted or altered at random at game-start-up from a pre-selected list.  The murderer would be told WHY they committed the murder (out of a randomized selection), and others PCs would be told at the start bits of information that their character "knows" about other player (or, their character could find it out by looking at other players).  The game would be set up such that if everyone collaborated, the evidence would point to one person, but that anyone could lie or be persuaded to join the conspiracy.

For now, I believe it's best to go with the "bare-bones philosophy"...keep the game as simple as possible.  This includes little or no NPC interaction, since NPCs have to be designed and programmed.  I like your ideas, though, and I think they'd work very well in a future version of the game.  We'll definitely have to keep that in mind.

Further, create NPCs with certain skills that could not be emulated by just anyone.  Things like fingerprinting expertise, local lore, etc--in reality they are programmed to give clues about the murderer based on the actions the murderer took, but they just make investigating more practical.  Other players who are dead perhaps can still interact as "ghosts" with limited communication ability (say by moving things in the house from one location to another, etc., or can simply observe.  If someone solves the murder, they win, and if no one solves it before a certain time-out (several days game-time, when everyone has a chance to skip the country?), the murderer wins.  But the murderer has to cover their tracks because by default little clues like blood, tracks, fingerprints etc are left, including noises as above.  This would be reason why murderers would have to be very careful about covering their tracks, and the information held by others would be reason to kill more people off.

The possibility of poltergeists was discussed earlier, but I think it would give an unfair advantage to the normal players.  All a ghost would have to do is follow the killer around until he enters a room with someone else and start madly picking up and dropping objects, so the player sees it and knows who the killer is.  The way I see it, if you're a ghost, you've lost the game.  The only thing you can do is wait it out.  Giving people the ability to walk around and talk with other ghosts is just something for them to do so they don't sit in limbo the whole time.  They could also just disconnect from the game and go walk their dog in the park if they want.

Alternatively, there could be a slight chance (25% or whatever) that one player is randomly selected as a psychic, and has the ability to commune with the dead.  It could put an interesting twist on the game, since you would never be entirely sure if anyone actually has the ability, and thus you wouldn't know whether to trust them or not.  The killer could be masquerading as the psychic (or in fact be the psychic...it might be funny if the killer could hear what the players say to him after he kills them).  This might encourage the ghosts to at least try to communicate with every player they meet.  Also, I would eventually like to see footprints, blood, setting traps, spying via binoculars through windows, and all sorts of features implemented, but most likely not in the first version (bare-bones philosophy).

In my view, this would mean programming many responses, possibilities and interactions with items (including the ability to trade), but the game itself would clearly be no more difficult than the creation of a fairly intensive game, since most puzzle-making would be fairly self-defining.

Do you mean that NPCs would be carrying certain items that the PCs have to obtain from them?  That would be a nice way to include additional puzzles requiring NPC interaction.  I also think your idea of giving NPCs special abilities is a great one.  Definitely something to consider for a future version.  (I'm keeping a log of every idea mentioned, regardless of whether it would be necessary in the first version of the game or not.)

Here's a possibility for murderer's motive: lots of people on IRC seem to be the kind of people that would happily volunteer to be the murderer: maybe at the start of each game you can say if you want ot be or not. If no-one volunteers, an NPC (maybe need more than one so there is still some doubt) such as the butler becomes the murderer. Now, people might agree on #ags beforehand that no-one wants to be the murderer, but the truly devious murderer will be lying! Obviously, if more than one volunteers, only one is picked, but maybe still a small random chance of it being an NPC.

So the motive is basically "I want to kill people"?  And why would people not want to be the murderer?  I think that's one reason people would keep playing the game, in hopes that they get selected as the killer!  Having a possible NPC killer might be interesting...obviously, it would require that NPCs exist in the first place regardless of whether they're selected as a killer or not.  It wouldn't be too difficult to tell who the NPCs are.  That could really be an interesting twist.  Of course, this would also require programming a somewhat complicated AI.

What a nice game.  It has the best lost puzzle-filled temple ever.

http://www.happytreefriends.com