Messages

It's not really horror, more of a cute comedy. I think it's probably going to be classed as a short game. This was supposed to be our first game, but we got distracted by our MAGS entry and it delayed us finishing this title. All our other planned games should be long ones

I know Mandle is not responsible. I have not insinuated he was even slightly. Anyone capable of reading can see that he hasn't attempted to push the issue, and who actually has.

But yes, no need to derail the original thread. It was 100% well intentioned.

NOW COMPLETED AND RELEASED. DOWNLOAD IT HERE!



Goat Herd and the God is the second release for Dropped Monocle Games. It follows the journey of a young goat herd named Atl, who was enjoying the simple life until his world was turned upside down by a visit from El Chupacabra. With his goats gone, and an angry village to appease, will the Gods help Atl or will he end up on the sacrificial altar?





We have currently completed 100% coding of the puzzles and are working on finalizing the art, recording voices, getting some animations in place and polishing everything up. We also have fantastic music by AGS's very own Problem. You can check out some of his stuff here.

To follow our progress you can visit our website, facebook page or follow us on twitter.

UPDATE 10/11/2014:

We have been working away quietly for a while now and the game is almost complete! Yaaaay!

Goat Herds is now in the final stages of Beta and play testing and we are recruiting testers is anyone is interested >link to recruitment<
The game is pretty much finished and we just have a couple of bits left to polish up like the menus and some custom music to add to the final cutscene, but that's pretty much it!

Unless the testers find something horrendous that sets us back we anticipate a December release at the latest.

So here are some updated screens:







P.S We know berrie is spelled berry but my proofreading skills only kicked in after Sox made the screens so it'll be corrected for the release lol

I think it's completely reasonable to tell them to stop opening new threads and demanding answers when there is a working search function. The vets said what they had to say, it's rude to keep bringing it up and bitching when they don't want to go into the level of detail we might want. Frankly it's not our business.

Also I never said curiosity wasn't natural. I was curious myself, but being a rational adult I knew better than to ask about decade old drama because its a bit pathetic. And Yahtzee being an internet celebrity doesn't mean we somehow have the right to pry and badger the veterans. I understand being curious, I just dont think its appropriate to act like we are entitled to know everything about it. They have no obligation to talk about it, and we need to respect that.

I don't find it suspicious in the slightest that people dont want to talk about something that happened over a decade ago. I mean why should the veterans of the forums have to constantly tell every nosey newbie what happened? People have fights, they move on and forget them. If you are really hell bent on knowing why dont you do a forum search for Yahtzee, because frankly it gets brought up a lot as you will see. I don't blame people for getting sick of it.

Here is what Chris Jones had to say about the whole thing http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1682.msg68984#msg68984

I wish people would stop feeling so entitled to know every tiny detail about things that are really just ancient internet dramas that they weren't even involved in. Curiosity does not somehow trump the fact people don't want to rehash it for the millionth time. Just learn to let go.

It's great fun to see Woo in 3D. Thank you! We will have to stick it on our blog. We need a stickied fan art thread somewhere so we can all post different fan arts and not derail threads lol.

To be more on topic, Ghost makes good points re: Nelly Cootalot. There was a solid freeware game for people to play that showed Ali had talent and the ability to finish a game. But it also had a really engaging pitch video. So many of those can end up a snooze fest, but Ali's was great fun. I had a lot of confidence in him to make a great game and so I backed it.

Thank you. That's very kind of you to say.

Honestly though, we debated if we were ready for MAGS and then just went "Screw it!" We didnt expect to make anything amazing, but our only unspoken rule was to try our best. If it came out rubbish, then we would laugh it off. It's a short freeware game, and our first one too, so it didnt really matter if it was bad or good. It was just important we learn the code and make something complete. Those were the goals. By some goof we made something people liked and here we are.

I think we can all be too cautious, and sometimes the best thing to do is just go for it. The only way to find out if you can make a go of it, is to make a game and finish it Your art style will work well and you understand animation so you only need to carve some time out each day/week/month to work on it. If you need help with code there are so many tutorials and helpful forum threads, and if you need any help with your story or art there is a critics lounge too. If you wanted an opinion on story ideas I'd be happy to take a look for you.

Also if you do make any Witchy Woo fan art please let us know. Sox would get super excited and I would love to post it on our blog

I'm a female dev, and no one on AGS have ever been anything but helpful to me so you really shouldn't have any issues here. I've never been on other dev forums, but the facebook group I'm in is usually pretty good too. Admittedly my biggest problem has been a handful of creeps trying to use it as a dating network, but thats easily fixed with a block button. Anyway, I hope you are no longer discouraged after some time here.

Myself and soxbrooker are in a similar position to you regarding commercial releases. We want to make games full time and we want to go commercial, but we know we have to prove our competence first. We entered a mags competition as our first game release, and are very close to alpha testing our current project. We are considering charging for our third release, but we decided we wont think about it until we release our second game and see how it is received.

My advice is finish a game. Just finish it to prove you can finish something. You mention you have lots of unfinished games and that will not bode well for people looking to fund you. Get a fully functioning short game up and see what the community says. Take part in the next mags on the competition forum if you can, it was honestly the best thing Sox and I have ever done. It gave us a steep learning curve and showed us we could finish something decent.

Best of luck

Hi

I just sent in a voice acting audition for this game.

Thanks

Just scrolling through AGS forums as I haven't been online much recently, check the nominations and see Witchy Woo was nominated. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside Thanks for the nomination guys. Sox and I are chuffed to bits.

Thank you so much for the compliments guys. We are really excited to make more games and aren't too far off putting a game on the in progress forum. We are aiming for a June release so fingers crossed Sox has been posting his walk cycle tests in the critics lounge and we occasionally update our Facebook page and blog when we remember so we'll try to keep you posted

So do you feel that one person is more important than the majority, even though they are still free to do as they like? I should not offer an alternative point of view just in case he changes his future actions because even though more people were upset than not upset, we can't risk the concept of one person potentially being stifled in the future for causing offence?

The rape comparison was not borne out of frustration which you use in your comparison. It was somebody sat at a computer, typing a response. I don't believe we can control emotive outbursts, but we can control what we write online because we have the time to sit here and think about what we are writing. I look at an emotive outburst and a considered response differently. If I went and corrected a person in some distress tbh I would think I was a bit of an ass. There is a time and a place to correct people on their language, when they are having a distressing emotion that elicits cursing it's not the time. I would be too concerned about what had them upset in the first place.

Also curse words are offensive to some, but are they likely to trigger a PTSD episode? Does saying "Fuck" or "Shit" trivialise the experience of a group of trauma survivors? If someone shouted the n word it would be more in line with what I was suggesting. If someone white shouted that word in public, there would be no emotive reason behind it aside from racism and so I would probably challenge him on the use of the word. I dont care if he stubbed his toe and it was the first thing that popped to mind. He can still think about it and maybe just say "FUCK"! next time. He doesn't have to do it, but he should be asked to think about it. We are talking about words upsetting to an oppressed or marginalized group for a particular reason, not just because some people find them crass.

Honestly I think this attitude is why we have seen such entitled, navel gazing turn in society with a sometimes shocking lack of empathy. It's almost like we cant possible expect people to be selfless once in a while and exert a bit of self control. Everyone is a special snowflake and it only matters if individuals are happy and saying every asinine thought that pops into their heads. An effective community does involve considering the reasonable feelings of others and sometimes compromising. Society functions better when we all agree on a certain set of rules to make life easier and more pleasant such as standing to the right on the escalators on the underground. Maybe I feel like standing on the left, but I don't because that would make me an asshole and upset a bunch of people. I could stand there, dig my heels in and piss everyone off, but I don't because it doesn't horribly inconvenience me not to do it, as it would the commuters in a hurry who would end up behind me.

Again I support anyone's right to say whatever they like, but you know I don't see expressing a response to it as censorship unless they are literally saying "You can't say that!"

I'm not suggesting we all live life under a huge list of rules, but being considerate of others is a pretty good one I think. Especially if it isn't going to really fuck up your own day. Is not comparing things to rape that are clearly nothing like rape going to totally damage someone psychologically and emotionally? I doubt it. Asking someone to think about it going to make them more aware of the choices they make and rape culture in general? I hope so because becoming more self aware is hardly a bad thing in life. Censorship is wrong, asking others to think about their actions in a thoughtful and polite way isn't wrong and in my opinion not the same.

I guess I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there. I understand you feel it is a dilemma, but to me I just don't see it. People are free to make up their own minds and say whatever they want in my book, but if thinking things through and being considerate is wrong then frankly I don't want to be right.

But you said explaining my side and offering a suggestion was censorship. Unless I misunderstood. I'm asking how is it censorship? I explained why I believe it is not.

Nefasto re your censorship post I have to disagree and say asking someone to consider another view point is not censoring them, even politly.

Telling someone to shut up, or stop is an attempt at censoring, absolutely. Explaining your viewpoint to someone and asking them to take it into consideration before choosing their words is absolutely in no way censoring. The person might choose other language in the future, they were able to make an informed choice about it. That isnt censorship, no one forced anyone to change anything, the person simply took on board the view of another and chose for themselves. The person could equally take on board the information and ignore it. How has calmly explaining something become the same as censoring? 

If I took you guys to court, or started a petition or said "You can't say that or I will complain or make reports" or whatever, then yes I think that would be an attempt at censorship. But if you are saying I can't explain another viewpoint to someone because it will censor them, surely I'm being censored no? When I am not even slightly attempting that! Communication might affect a positive change in the way I hope, but that isn't censorship. Most people have the option to choose to filter their words based on their own standards of morality (which has been pointed out as flexible itt) and so if another viewpoint affects a person then they might choose to include an extra word on the think twice list. They are not obligated too, no one is forcing them, so again how is that censorship? How is someone making their own mind up not to say something based on new information censorship? I think my explanations have been calm and fair and not in the slightest aimed at censoring anyone or forcing anyone to agree with me so again it baffles me this is still being treated as such.

Seems to be a bit of a feminist/censorship strawperson in this thread.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying you can't say anything. I'm saying people should consider what they are saying and if it is really necessary to use the term. Its a recommendation. And its based partly on the prevalence of sexual crimes.

Racist jokes aren't considered okay by most people, of my group of friends, rape jokes aren't either. I dont think jokes that make fun of victims or an oppressed people are funny myself but I will defend anyones right to spout whatever pops into their head under freedom of speech. I have not at any point said people should be censored have I? I'm making a suggestion that maybe rape is a word people should think about before throwing around. Just a suggestion. Not sure why you keep thinking I am trying to stop people, when I'm just asking them to consider something they may not have thought much about.

That being said I might exert my right to speak freely and tell you that when you use the word rape out of context I think it can be offensive and upsetting to people who have actually experienced it (1 in 3 women I again reiterate). And you are totally free to ignore it. I'm still not trying to censor everyone, just expressing an opinion in case it had not been considered before. Is that clearer? Genuinely confused as to why censorship keeps coming up when I repeatedly state that isn't what I'm wanting. 

Im going to put it another way

Sheltering recent victims of sexual assault from triggering words and images is not wrong. Some people need space to heal. We are talking in generalizations because of course everyone has their own coping mechanisms, but honestly Calin, once you have experienced rape it is very hard to disassociate the attack you experienced from the word itself. When that word pops up it can trigger serious flashbacks, Many victims suffer for PTSD and so it can take some time to get to a place where that word does not have the same impact.

I speak not only from personal experience but from time spent volunteering at a crisis centre when I was training as a counsellor. 10 years since I was attacked and I have no symptoms of PTSD and I am comfortable hearing and saying the word. When I was 16? No. Not at all. I wasn't playing a victim, I was recovering from being raped. Speaking with victims of rape and assault on the crisis line and at the centre assures me I am not incorrect. It is not about feminism, at least for me, it is about respecting people who have recently been through a traumatic event.

The thing about rape is that it is so common. You wouldnt compare something trivial to a school shooting in front of people who had experienced that, but the chances are you wont know anyone who has been though that. So maybe one day you do and then a parent who has lost a child is listening, or someone who survived one. They probably wont appreciate it. As I said before, 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in some form, and some might not have had much time to process it. They might be sensitive. They might not tell you what you said hurt them, but they might go away and feel trivialised further. It's just something to think about. Rape survivors can overcome their attacks, absolutely. I'm a survivor, your words have not affected me. However you must appreciate people take varying amounts of time to overcome things and that you may be hurting people with your words without realising.

I remember a gay guy at my work who wasn't really out to us, people threw around "That's so gay!" or "Quit being such a f**" all the time. It hurt him. They didn't know he was gay, and definitely wouldn't have said it if they had known, but people take for granted that everyone is just cool with stuff being a certain way.

I always think of tazers being an excellent comparison of why we should be careful with words. Used correctly tazers can be an excellent way to stop criminals, and 99% of time they wont leave lasting damage. But you only need to hit that one innocent person with a heart condition and it's a deadly weapon. I'm not the word police. I honestly don't care what language you use in relation to its affect on me personally, but I have different life experiences to you and so I appreciate there can be a deeper impact that you might realise.

Anyway, I'm not going to say any more really, and I appreciate everyone has an opinion Also please don't take the disclosure of my own experience with sexual violence to portray me as a delicate flower or that I've now tried to make it impossible to disagree with me because that was not the intention. I have been hesitant to bring it up partly because it is private but also because I like people to give impartial and real opinions even if they disagree with my own. You all raise interesting and insightful points even if I disagree.

Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it. In Julian Assanges case I dont see how it is comparable to rape. I think rape is used far too casually as a word. I personally take issue with it, but in most cases when people say it I stay quiet. Especially in the gaming community when "Oh, you totally raped me bro!" is used in the context of defeat.

I do not disagree with you Andail, merely citing British Law, however the rest would be defined as assault over here. I would probably agree with Swedish law in many instances and obviously hasnt taken into consideration a woman raping a man without her penetrating him. I apologise if you assumed I thought otherwise.

Anyway, my opinion, feel free to disregard. I don't like the word being used out of context, in the same way I dislike people using the word retarded or gay as negative descriptors. If it isn't rape, dont call it rape. 1 in 3 women (many sources but here's just one.) are reported to be victims of sexual crime, not fun for them to have to hear it used flippantly or in cases where it is clearly, clearly not comparable. I believe and support your right to choose whatever words you want to describe things, but I reserve the right to tell you why I think it's not okay and that I dont like it.

I will echo what trapezoid said, please do not call things that are not rape, rape. Rape is defined by UK law under The Sexual Offences Act 2003 as:

"The definition of rape includes the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief in consent." Source

If this did not happen to Julian Assange then he was not raped, nor was he kind of, sort of, or some form of raped. Rape is not a term you need to use to creatively describe this situation. There are words already is existence to describe what happened to him. In your opinion he might have been "framed" or "set up" or be a "victim of political deception". There is no need to bring rape into it. The government have not penetrated him physically, they may have levied false accusations against him. Not the same in any sense of the word.

I don't know all the facts of the Assange case so I'm not going to say he did or he didn't, but I don't think being the owner of Wikileaks makes him any more of less likely to rape. Plenty of people in power have done stupid things so why would he be any different?

Section 1

I loved this twist and was hoping for it deep down. I feel like this explains why diary Amy was so fluffy, because real Amy created her to be OTT loveable. I love that both she and Nick are both the villains of the piece. She is full on psychopath for sure, but that doesn't mean Nick is off the hook for being a shitty husband by any stretch. Both are just totally flawed people, but Amy has her insane narcissism driving her.

Regarding the cool girl rant I don't think it is the author hating on men or women, I think it is just an opinion Amy has and it's not invalid. Our culture does worship these "cool girls" and that to some degree they are just a pretence in the majority of cases. I say this because the cool girl has no real flaws and that is the issue. It's not what she likes, it's the idea she is never disagreeable. You'll notice cool girl flaws are always endearing quirks or "lack of femininity" like "Oh I belch really loudly." or "I can eat a whole pizza by myself, man I'm such a pig!" (not that she ever gains a pound or looks slovenly in any way.) Having no genuine flaws is just not possible. It is part of them being a real human beings. Cool girls basically live to please their man. I think in 99% of relationships there is disagreement and compromise over at least one thing, and once that occurs you can no longer be a "cool girl" because they aren't disagreeable. At least that's how I interpret it.

I mean we all fake it at the start of relationships to some degree. We want the other person to like us so we put on our best face, but eventually the flaws will come out.

A big deal is made about how they like to do stereotypically masculine things, and take a more stereotypically masculine approach to emotions and relationships which is fine. Girls do often like things that men like and vice versa, but that is not the point. It's about that being perceived as perfect. That a girl who is up for anything is the ideal, and up for anything again is code for "never disagrees with her man." Why are they never disagreeing? Because they need to be with a man and need to be perceived as a cool girl, or because they are genuinely fine with the way they are being treated? I don't know any guy who would be cool if I agreed to go to his work event and I just didn't call or show up the way Nick did to Amy at the girls night where partners were coming too.

So even if I like beer, sports and "making out with girls", even if I like all the stuff a guy likes, unless I'm a door mat I can't be a cool girl. Also with regard to girls making out, it's fine if the girl is doing it because she is bisexual and enjoying it, but if she is straight and doing it for male attention then it's not really cool is it? She's kind of making a mockery or genuine lesbian relationships in the process too because she is making it all about the male gaze. Men are the target, lesbianism is the weapon. This is why many lesbians and bisexuals resent these straight performers. Bisexuals are often rejected because they get lumped in with the fakers and lesbians become the target of unwanted male attention because they are used to lesbian pda's being sexualized for their benefit.

Sorry to get a little off topic but those were my thoughts on that subject. Apologies for any generalizations. I know we are all individuals capable of reasoning and independent thought so of course I am not a man hater, or woman hater

I do like your theory about lacking her own identity Stupot. I think it is very insightful. I think her own identity being magnified in the books has left her trying to find her place in the sun in an extremely twisted way. Her stillborn/miscarried siblings have also contributed I think. She could never truly be herself because her mistakes were always corrected in print via her parents books, and so she has probably always felt less than and needed to latch onto others to fill the emptiness of their "subtle" rejections. I think her parents are incredibly oblivious and I also think that their closeness probably didn't help her much as a child. They should have been a unit of three, but it seems like they were a team of two and Amy was outside of it high up on a pedestal.

I also agree she categorizes people into groups, preppy, etc, but I think she just hates everyone or at least is incapable of feeling love for them. She's a complete narcissist and has at least a vague disdain for everyone she speaks about. She sizes everyone up and bluntly calls it how she see's it. Noelle for instance. Everyone is a pawn, a tool to be used. I think Nick was the first person she wanted to use to create a lasting happiness and identity and that is why she is so full of rage now. I think Nick is one of the first people she didn't have a quick disdain for and that is why he was unique to her.

But yes, I love real Amy in the sense she's fascinating. Her planning is spectacular to read about. She's cold and meticulous and like I said I am oddly pleased to see her as a villain instead of a victim. Excited to see where it goes now Nick knows he's completely fucked.

Yeah probably is the cosmo thing. Just couldn't see a Harvard Psychology graduate being that fluffy for whatever reason. Seemed out of character, but I probably read to much into it.

So, combining what I have read of 2 and 3.

Spoiler

I was most unhappy about the cheating. Especially as Amy's diary seems to portray her as trying very hard to work on the marriage. Although, at this point I trust no one, not her or him. I think both their versions of events are twisted. I'm still not thinking it's Nick, but I did not like his statement about lying by omission. I think as people have said he works very hard to keep his good guy mask up, and it is oddly gratifying to see it slipping even if he is innocent. I think Amy probably has a similar mask.

The homeless guy in the house I alluded to before is probably unimportant, related to the blue book boys. The gun purchase was an interesting discovery. No gun was found by the police or evidence of fire so wonder where it is if she bought it.

The other thing I keep going back to is Nick's father and his relationship with Amy. His escape from the nursing home and his remarks to Amy, I think there could be more to it than dementia. Maybe he witnessed something, maybe she reminds him of something significant.

[close]

I dont know it's all speculation at this point. I've nearly finished section 3 and I'm really looking forward to the rest of the book!