Messages

I never get tired of how often the name "Chris Jones" pops up in the most random places :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7qEivYkgZM&NR=1

OK, enough with the "Icey Games" troll. He's been making some efforts lately and I'm quite tired of reading about that in every thread.

About the AGS news: f******* hilarious! And makes my eyes bleed :-) It's because of those old people who stole all the vitamins from my free food.

NEXT: Members of a boy band battle both tourette's and IBS syndrome

NEXT: Lara Croft's understanding of the MS Paint game goes horribly wrong.

It's really cool (I love the destructible environment).
I'd be perfect if you enhanced the jumps - they're really awkward.

Vote for your favourite of the 6 entries. Voting will end at sunday, again, 16:00 GMT.

To be honest I've never be in a sprite Jam where there was a vote. Who votes? The contestants vote, too?

AWESOME SPRITE

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR! IN THE LAST FEW HOURS!

I hate you.  :'(

[[ON TOPIC]]

[ON TOPIC]
Well, it seems that we've said everything that could be said about the law of attraction...
Sorry, RaGG, it seems like it didn't generate too much enthusiasm.

[OFF TOPIC]
To answer calin leafshade and anian's comment about Religion, well, have a look at the video below.

WARNING
This video expresses radical laicist views (laicism= "politics shouldn't be mixed with religion").
- If you think the Dalai Lama is cool, then don't watch it.
- If you think atheism is evil, then don't watch it. (even though this video is not atheist but about laicism)
- If you don't know/believe that one of USA's first principles was that Religion should have nothing to do with the country (see the Tripoli treaty written under George Washington: "[the United States are] in no sense founded on the Christian religion", other sources here), then don't watch it.

The link: (forgot again how to make a spoiler field)
CLICK HERE

the later pokémon have serious style inconsistencies and look more like plastic statues then something that resembles animals

I often thought that until I clicked on AtelierGames' link (just right now) and realized that one actually only knows the "plastic-looking" ones because they seem to be the only ones that Nintendo shows in the ads and on the posters, because they would be the... "coolest" (  ) ones.

"If the player character is seen on the screen, he must be on the transition hotspot in order to transit"

You must be right. The arrows would make sense only if the player coudn't move around. Here, the 2 systems compete.

Honestly, I would spend a lot of time to discover that room transitions are done by clicking on cursors. I would think we need to walk character to the edge of the screen and the cursors show us the available locations.

Is it the natural average player's behavior or is it an historical bias inherited from early point-n-clicks?

when you exit main manor gates, character appears as if he walked from the right side, while he should appear right at the gates front.

Good point, I didn't notice that at all.

Yeeees, much better, except now the character fits like crap.

The character was vector-drawn. So it looked crap but the animation was smooth. Think "Flashback opening sequence" (same technology).

To be fair, that game does look like it'd be hard to navigate.

Well, it didn't strike me as particularly hard. I'd even say ridiculously easy. Could you elaborate? What do you think looks confusing?

Much of what they say [in the Interface Hall of Shame] does apply to adventure games, too.

Yes, I'm very aware of the GUI paradigm, thanks to the classes I took at the University, that's part of the reasons why I started this thread. Good site, I could spend hours reading thos stupid messages :-)

WOW! I love the entries!!!

Fine art in less than 50x50 pixels!!!

Recently I've been working on developing on the iPhone

Wow, your journal scares the hell out of me. 3 days of non=stop crashes with no way of knowing what's wrong... Reminds me of my first contact with WinAPI. :-)

[ON TOPIC]

ON TOPIC

> RaGG : "I don't perceive Law of attraction as a religion"
The problem is that "religion" has no definite definition. Some say it has to be performed in a group, some others say it can't be called a religion if it doesn't have a cult, or a church, or (etc.)


So let's ignore that whole religion thing, and let's focus on the purely "philosophical" aspect of it.

Law of attraction is based on a pretty clear assertion: "My thoughts can influence the environment".

What's nasty with it, is that it's not offered to the audience as a scientific theory that would need to be tested. It's presented as a set of "philosophical reflexions".
It's flawed from the start. No matter in how many philosophical terms you wrap it. If you make a binary claim ("thoughts impact the environment"), then you must prove it in a binary way. All the rest is a scam.

There is a simple reason to that: The New Thought appeared in the late 19th century. The scientific process started prevailing around 1850 and the New Thought appeared less than 40 years later, at a time when some of the most brilliant elite were still hardly struggling for outdated conceptions of the Universe and the Man (the most simple example is... the complete rejection of Evolution, again and again).

For the record, this also preceeded the wave of "magnetizer" hobbyists who were "moving goblets with their minds", in the 1900's.

What I'm trying to say is, that (IMHO), the New Thought is a pure product of that intermediate time between 1850 and 1920 when people were starting to accept scientific explanations of the World, but were still tempted to use them to produce even loonier (and desparately Dualist) theories (e.g. : "ghosts are fairy tales from the Middle Ages, however I do believe that we can perceive souls with a magnet")

Now, about the facts (after all, maybe there is some scientific truth in all that)
No need to say, all practical experiments that have aimed at discovering any kind of psychic powers have miserably failed. If you put the so called medium/psychic/etc. in a different room, then he suddenly loses his "powers" and becomes blind.

Of course, there are exceptions, but they can easily be explained: twins (because they have so much in common), subconscious, or guys who have trained themselves to be aware of clues inconsciously given by other peole (the best example is Darren Brown, who explains here that there is nothing supernatural in what he's doing - but people still strongly believe he's a psychic!!!)


As a conclusion: Any philosophy that appeared before 1850 should be forgotten (they were useful in their time, but now they hardly serve as a base for post-scietific-era philosophies). The New Thought (i.e. the Law of Attraction) appeared after 1850, but is still a remnant of those wacky visions of the Universe.


PS: I love you, Calin Leafshade.

Too bad the bubbles aren't animated.

Yes, I got lazy. I was using a very awkward tool and it would have required me to manage the eyes speed and the bubbles speed independantly . So I said "SCREW IT!", because I'm a man of moderation.

If you want to look at old low resolution 256 colour graphics done right, look at Discworld.

Yes, yes, there are some much better graphics out there in the world. That's not the point. :-)

Someone commented the black outlines, and, indeed, I remember perfectly finding the backgrounds unhomogeneous. Some of them rely heavily on black outlines, while some don't have any (see below).
They probably had a production pipeline that involved several artists. Or maybe they lacked time to polish all the backgrounds.

[thank you]

I think it's women remember details and landmarks, but men have a better feeling of direction, something along those lines, right?

Yes, that's what I targeted when I wrote : "the difference between the geometric representation of space by boys and a representation based on remarkable "hotspots" by girls. There, the graphics were so basic that the geometrical aspect took over, despite the many details (lamps, doors, flowers, etc.)!"

You mind showing a screenshot?

Not to sound like a chauvinist

Yes, by the way, thank you for the great effort you put into not making sexist comments.
I'll sound like a nazi, but if anyone (and I say ANYONE) starts saying awful clichés about women, then I'll ask the moderator to lock the thread.

It's about game design, not about "haha, women can't drive and can't play video games designed by male no-lifes".

*Tu serais pas francais par hazard?

Si, mais à condition que tu écrives "hasard" et pas "hazard" 

About the background, I wonder why you reduced the darkness between your last 2 posts. In the very last post, the contrast is too small and it causes the foreground wall and the ground to look a bit the same color.

(this image is supposed to be animated. If you can't see the animation, then blame your security settings or your web browser or the Soviets).