Messages

Man, those farting rhythms really get the toes tappin'...

I'm gonna put forth a radical, earth-shattering theory here, and suggest that MillsJROSS may not have been particularly impressed by the ending of a certain calendar-related space game.

Apologies to those whose minds have just been blown by the sheer penetrating insight of that drastic suggestion.

You know, I think the generic plot and storyline is a GOOD thing in the case of this game. Like ldw points out above, 7 Days (moreso then 5 Days) is obviously a homage to sci-fi horror movies and 80's slasher franchises. If this was a film it would be okay to dismiss it as silly and derivitive, but to my knowledge no-one's ever really tried to make a game that successfully captures the atmosphere of those films. In my opinion this game does an amazing job of doing just that, and I'd say that's a fairly innovative achievement.

I agree the "days" thing didn't work very well in this game, though.


Babloyi: "I consider Yahtzee to be a slightly more successful game maker than the average AGSer (and I say AVERAGE). "

Genuine question: which AGS games/designers would you say are WELL above average, or the AGS peak quality? I haven't played all that many of the games here, so I'd be quite interested. But I have to say, only a couple of the ones I've tried stand up to the last three Yahtsee games, in my opinion.

I'm looking forward to this one - Cirque De Zale was quality entertainment (though I'm guessing this won't be anything remotely like it), and I LOVE those SNES-era rpgs. Doing this must be pretty daunting considering how huge and complex SNES rpgs tended to be, but those screenshots (and the title) get the style pretty much spot on.

I imagine a game like this must be a scripting nightmare though. Good luck with it!

Just remember to keep it tounge-in-cheek.

Why do you say this, out of interest? Personally, I think it's much more of an achievement to successfully pull off a serious horror game then it is to do a jokey one. I'd say this idea has the potential to make a good straight horror game, though it all depends on how well it's handled of course.

MAJOR ending spoilers here, so be careful:

Zootyfruit:

Spoiler

what was the point of having him holding a false identity? he didn't do anything wrong did he? daFOe was the killer... If he wasn't then what was the point li nking the two games up?? Bah.

[close]

---

Spoiler

I think the main idea was simply to catch you off guard and unsettle you by turning everything you thought you knew about your character on its head. It's fun to play it again and see the hints that your character really doesn't really know as much about his job as he should.

Anyway, even aside from the false identity thing, it's a nice bleak twist to realise that after all your hard work, all of the remaining evidence really does point the blame directly at you.

[close]

Wow, this might just be the best AGS game I've played yet. All of the good aspects of 5 Days with next to none of the irritating ones. Excellent characters, *completely* engrossing and as nerve-wracking and atmospheric as could be. And oh man that ending!

It's a shame the game is as buggy as all hell right now, though. Here's another one that I don't think has been mentioned (I'm assuming these'll all find their way to the author one way or the other?):

Spoiler

When I tried to go back to the escape pod room during the 'Welder' chase, Adam was still there and acts as if you still need to find the card.

And yeah, that escape pod vacum puzzle could really use some work. Also, I was sitting around in the airlock for ages waiting for the welder to arrive - it was a bit silly that you had to *close* the door to make him arrive.

[close]

Still, a phenomenal game! I get the impression this Yahtsee guy isn't terribly well liked around here (though I had a look at his website, and he seems a decent enough person), but whatever he's like, I have to say based on his last three games he's one hell of a talented individual.

They should name the sequel "Foundation and Empire" just to drive Asimov fans even crazier.

I'm quite interested in seeing this - because of the name, it had people biased against it by default, yet it looks like it's going to come out of it all with a decent reputation as a film in its own right.

I think a film must have something pretty worthwhile about it to achieve that kind of turnaround, just as the way Terminator 3 has apparently managed to largely overcome the massive "there's no Cameron" backlash suggests to me that it's almost certainly worth checking out (though I still haven't gotten round to it).

The whole name thing *is* rather shitty behaviour on their part, but at least they were honest enough to not pretend they were trying to make a straight adaption - there have probably been worse crimes made under a full "based on" credit.

[Texas Chainsaw Mass-a-Cree]

The real classics have all been mentioned, I think.

The original Texas Chainsaw Mass-a-Cree probably *is* over-rated, but it's still one of my favourites just for sheer entertainment value, and that 'dinner with the family' scene still freaks me out pretty badly. And I know people always talk about it, but that final shot really is one of the best things ever. Someone should make a poster out of it.

I think The Thing is my all round favourite though – that one really creeped me out, grossed me out, and… well, suspensed me out, I suppose. What more do you want?

Also - Romero's Day Of The Dead. I don't think it's the most popular "of the dead" film, and its probably not all that scary, but I still enjoy the holy hell out of it. Also, visually it might just be the brightest horror film ever, which is pretty cool. And hey, he’s making a new one – how good is that?

My problem is that when I was a kid I was too much of a well behaved little bastard to be watching films I wasn't supposed to, so by the time I really started watching horror films, I was already becoming desensitised to that sort of thing. I only caught a few before the magic was gone, alas alack.

Actually, now that I think about it, a while back a friend of mine gave me a detailed description of his uncut bootleg of Cannibal Holocaust. *That* might just be the 'best' horror movie ever, based on the fact his description alone nearly made me sick. But I'm not planning to ever watch the thing, so I'll probably never know for sure.

I took a look at the links Gilbot posted - it looks like it *might* be possible to extract the sounds and instruments direct from SNES games to use yourself. I can't figure out exactly how, though - I'd be quite interested in grabbing a few myself.

And just a little question for anyone here who's used Sound Club - is there any way to stop that damn clicking noise that seems to appear every time I change notes when using many of the built in instruments? I like the program a lot, but that little clicking sound is doing my head in!

Hmm, this is a little over my head, but let me see if I've at least got this straight in my head.

Basically, I'd need to get a whole bunch of SNES music, and use a program like Sound Club to extract individual "sounds" from the music files, and then use them to put together my own music? Sorry if that's totally off, this isn't really my area of expertise.

Sorry, I think I was being a thicko and misinterpreted what you meant when you said you had lots of 'samples'.

But yeah, if you had a sound editing program (Cool Edit is a very good one, but you have to pay for it - unless, like me, you find one that 'fell off the back of a truck'), you could take isolated sounds you like (like a specific drum or synth tone), cut them out and use them as midi-style instuments in a program like Sound Club. They'd have to be completely isolated sounds though - I don't think there's any easy way of extracting specific sounds and instruments from a backing track - and it's quite a fiddly, awkward way of doing things in any case.

In summary, then: I'm not very helpful at all.

I agree with PaulSC - EMI is actually a pretty good adventure game. The sad bit is, it's a very, very poor Mnkey Island game.

But it simply falls short of CMI...

Actually I disagree with this, and this is what I mean by "EMI doesn't do much that CMI didn't do worse". I think Curse Of Monkey Island is a decent enough adventure game in itself (though I'd still easily put it at the bottom of the 90's Lucasarts adventures pile), but I think it's an absolutely fucking atrocious Monkey Island sequel. The complete disregard for consistent characterization was slap in the face to fans in my opinion, and truthfully it annoys me how happy most of them were to receive it.

Exactly how anyone could play through the first two games and come away thinking the COMI Elaine Marley was a logical direction to take the character is genuinely beyond me. The portrayal of Stan misses the point so completely that it makes my head spin, and even Guybrush for the most part is reduced to being just your generic wisecracking protagonist - only superficially similar to the original character. I mean, Wally was only in one short scene, and they still managed to get him all wrong!

The thing that gets me is that there was really no reason for the game to even exist. There's no real story to speak of – at the end of the day the only point seems to be to cancel out the (fantastic) ending of MI2 in order to allow for further franchising of the series. The genuine imagination, eccentricity and personality of the first two games is lost almost entirely, leaving a soulless, commercialised piece of crap that thinks that sticking to a superficial check-list of "Things To Put In a Monkey Island Game" is enough to make it a good sequel.

Now, Escape isn't exactly a masterpiece either, but as far as evil bastardized corruptions of the Monkey Island games go, I think it's fairly decent. At least they seem to have *tried* to make the characters a tiny bit consistent with the first two games, even if they still missed the mark a fair bit, and at least this one actually had a story to tell – at least until it reaches the rather lame Monkey Island section.

All of this probably sounds a little over the top, but... well, you know what they say: it's the disgruntled fan that howls the loudest!

One word: Nostalgia.

Midi just tends to fit the general AGS aesthetic better. If you're making, say, a slick FPS total conversion, midi would probably sound stupid, but for a low-res retro-styled graphic adventure anything better would most likely feel a little out of place.

While we're on the subject, am I the only person who thought the whole "Monkey Kombat" thing was a pretty entertaining puzzle? I thought it was a nice change from the increasingly stale item puzzles.

Actually, Escape From Monkey Island is a fairly under-rated game in general around here, I think. Sure, some of the graphics are weak and the robot monkey bit *was* shite, but aside from that it doesn't do a great deal wrong that COMI didn't already do worse, in my opinion.

Naturally, I would've preferred it if neither game had ever been made, but what can you do?

I found a link on this board for a music program called 'Sound Club' - you can get it here:

http://www.bluemoon.ee/history/scwin/

I haven't really used it much yet, but it's free and seems to be a good way of making music out of samples. You just go to "Add Voice" and click "Import", and select whichever sample you want.

I personally tend to use a nice and easy to use (but limited) commercial program called Making Waves, which makes it very easy indeed to make fairly decent sounding and complex stuff out of samples and programmed loops. I also use a great program called Cool Edit a lot, which lets me mess around with individual samples and other parts more precisely.

But you're probably best off just tracking down as many free music programs as you can, and seeing which ones seem to best suit the kind of things you're trying to do. Good luck!

(downloading sample later)

Ooh, nice cover art... who did it? That font looks so familiar...

Those snazzy fonts have been driving me crazy, too. The 'Valor' bit seems to be based on the Unreal game logo font, but I can't place the other one. I know I've seen it somewhere, though.

The music seems quite fun as well. Nice and camp!

[SSH]

To the people who keep trying to put a stop to this discussion: if you don't like discussing this stuff, maybe you should just stop reading the thread?

One little thing: I've never claimed to be right about anything, pretty much all I've done here is ask people why I should accept that they're right.

SSH

PaulSC, ditto try and prove there isn't a god. You can't prove it either way. If someone did PROVE it then all religions would just disappear. It's not about proof, don't you get it.

However, there is still such a thing as evidence. I can cite as evidence that God answered my prayer on such-and-such a thing. You may belive that that is just a coincidence, or I'm lying, or whatever, but it's still evidence.Ã,  The dictioanry says enidevce is "Something indicative; an outward sign". It doesn't mean it is proof. Don't get the two confused.

I never asked for "proof", and I never said there isn't a God. Like I said before, I've hardly made any positive "this is the way it is" statements at all, if any. All I've asked for is to hear a sensible reason why the claims of any one religion can be considered more valid then any other to an impartial observer.

The reason I don't generally accept claims such as your prayer example as solid evidence in favour of any one religion is because, as I said, people from pretty much every religion make identical claims. What reason do I have for accepting one claim over all of the others? They all look the same to that impartial person.

The main reason I asked the question in my last post is because I find it arrogant and hypocritical for people to accuse other people of being irrational/worshiping false gods etc (which has been done in this very thread), when they themselves are completely unable to justify their belief when pushed about the issue.

Guybrush Peepwood:

What about people who were atheists? There are people who used to believe God doesn't exist. They used to think there is no evidence of His existance and they mocked Christians. Then, something happened and they are christians now and they feel stupid for not understanding earlier.

Like what Geoffkhan said, here IS a God and there IS evidence. You just don't see that evidence or simply don't want to. When I became a christian, I answered everything to myself. If I give you the answer to any question you have, you won't find it logical

This doesn't change anything. I know full well that religious people believe what they believe very strongly, but that doesn't give me any reason to assume that what they believe is right. What makes you think we can trust our own senses?

Just a little general point: believing in God and believing in Christianity are very different things. The concept of 'God' in no way presupposes the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell, divine intervention etc. Proving or disproving the "God" concept is very difficult, if not imposible. Many aspects of Christianity, on the other hand, can in theory be proven or disproven, as the bible makes numerous claims that God has made a great deal of observable impact on the world. Apparently at one stage he was perfectly willing to pound people over the head with evidence of his existence.

[lgm]:

PaulSC.. Your generalization about Christian religions and branches isn't very justified.. I mean.. What the heck does the War in Iraq have to do with applying the Bible to ones life., other than it being a POSSIBILITY of the apocolypse..

Like I said in another post.. It's not about religion for Christians.. You can be a methodist, baptist, presbyterian, whatever... And still go into heaven.. All the Bible says is that you have to believe in God, have faith in him, love him and live for him. It doesn't say you HAVE to be in ANY religion.. It doesn't say what methods or rituals you have to follow or do.. You don't even have to go to church on a regular basis to get into heaven.. That's the beauty of Christianity, it still recognises your free will!

But that's just your personal interpretation - there are plenty of Christians who wouldn't accept that viewpoint at all. If you were born in the middle ages - even if you were still a Christian with the same general fountation to your faith - there's a good chance your beliefs would be quite radically different to the ones you hold now. There's probably even a decent chance that the Middle Ages you would actively condemn the beliefs of the 21st century you.

This is because, as I said, a person's beliefs seem to be crafted as much by their culture and upbringing as they are crafted by their 'divine' texts. The fact that people can hold such dramatically contrastic beliefs and opinions - all of which supposedly based on the same one religious text -Ã,  makes me doubt the idea that any one religious text can be considered a definitive source of objective truth and morality.

Anyways.. Like it's been said before.. Noone can ever be proved right or wrong.. That's not what I'M trying to do, anyways.. I'm just trying to open your eyes to other ideas than your own. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. I know I've been wrong before.

I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, but no one's given me a reason to assume anything I've posted here *is* wrong - if only because most of my posts have been questions and observations rather then definitive statements. Seriously, if i'm absolutely wrong about something, feel free to explain exactly how. I'm all for trying to understand religious ideas - that's why I keep asking so many questions!

Don't let me down, loves!

Here's a little challenge for the religious:

Place yourself in the position of an objective agnostic - a person with no biases for or against any particular religion or religious organisation. Then, try to build up a case for why your personal favourite religion is a more credible proposition then any other. Make sure every piece of evidence stands up in comparison to corresponding evidence from other religions (e.g. citing subjective religious experiences as evidence will not necessarily count, as such experiences have been shown to occur almost equally throughout members of all religions – and even regularly among the non-religious - only the interpretation tends to change).

Until religious people can do this, they should lose all privileges for suggesting people of other beliefs are wrong or irrational, in my view.

I was thinking in the lines of bohemian rhapsody or a song of there first 3 albums ( and I know that bohemian rhapsody is from one of the first 3 albums. To be acsact it's from the QUEEN 2 album. But that's not what maters).
If you can't make any of these we can make an agrement for any other QUEEN song. Just send me a personal mesage BEFORE you start to compose becouse I already have some music and don't want to waste your time with something I already have!

This is a snotty thing to post, but Bohemian Rhapsody is actually from Queen's fourth album A Night At The Opera, not Queen 2.

I actually probably would've been able to help you with this but unfortunately my PC's microphone port broke recently, and that put a stop to my music recording activities.

So basically I can't help in any way shape or form, aside from pointing out a small factual error like the bratty jerk I am.

I think religious discussions are fun and often quite interesting - nothing to get upset about, as long as people are fairly polite. To be honest, it kind of gets on my nerves when people try to stop discussions just because they don't like people discussing certain subjects. 'Course, if you think we're getting too off topic I suppose that's fair enough - I suppose we could always start a proper religious discussion thread for people who want to talk about it?

You also assume that God is manmade. There are other gods that are manmade, including Buddha, Allah, etc., but the reason man created them is because we seek religion.

Everyone has a God-shaped hole in his heart.

*sigh* Unless you can show otherwise, you have exactly the same amount of objective evidence to prove your god as they have to prove theirs, and that amount is this: zero. I heard a good saying recently that fits here pretty nicely: "If you can tell me why you dismiss all other gods, I'll tell you why I dismiss yours".

Just a little thing: Christians place the bible at the centre of their belief system, but the funny thing is how small a part the bible truly plays in their beliefs. If the bible was truly an accurate guide on how to lead an objectively 'good' life and find salvation, then *anyone* could read it and understand perfectly, and all Christians would have identical values. Instead, every Christian has a slightly different interpretation - every Christian is effectively a denomination unto themselves, *unless* they choose to abandon their own interpretation and follow someone else's. If a person has enough influence to convince a lot of other Christians to follow their particular interpretation, then lo! You've got yourself yet another new branch of Christianity.

The bible is like a blank slate that can be twisted to fit almost any persons personal beliefs if they really want it to, and so despite what they like to think, Christianity isn't doing a terribly good job of showing people the 'true path' – they're as conflicted as anybody! You've got Christians who hate homosexuals, Christians who *are* homosexuals, Christians who think money is the root of all evil, Christians who think Jesus would be a capitalist, Christians who think the Iraq war was wrong, Christians who think the Iraq war was right etc etc etc, and EVERY ONE of them believes they're the ones who got everything right and are going to heaven. Ha!

In summary: The nature of your religious beliefs has every bit as much to do with your cultural background and upbringing as it has with that divinely inspired little book. After all, it's a good bet that your average church in the middle ages would be happy to condemn just about every modern Christian to hell for being sinful monsters. In fact, just reading an English bible translation would probably be more then enough to condemn you to the good old 'lake of fire'. But of course, modern Christians don't care about that- after all, they're the ones who've got the whole "how to get to heaven" thing 100% right, right?