Messages

Don't you think you're all expecting too much from adventure games? They don't tell stories like a movie. They can't, they never will and they don't have to. And if they did, they would have to lose most of their interactivity - they'd become a movie.
It's just a different medium. But there were several adventure games that grabbed me just as much as a good movie. Adventure games have evolved quite a lot from the first graphic/text adventures in the early 1980s, so I don't get why anyone would say they're still stuck in the beginning of their development.

Dark #1
Dark #2

@Ghost: I haven't given them any titles yet. If you like, you can give it a title according to its use in your project.

@miguel: Thank you! I don't want to pillory anybody, so I won't make the name public.

I composed some music for a MAGS game last month, but the author obviously lost interest in his game. I asked him twice if he was still working on it, but he didn't even bother to answer.
So now I have two tracks that I don't have any use for, and I might as well contribute them to this thread. They are seamlessly loopable, and if somebody wants to use them in a game, feel free to do so. Both are quite cheerful, but different in style:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1891681/music/free/unused1.ogg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1891681/music/free/unused2.ogg

But it's not very unfounded to say that most people hate Sierra games, or remakes of Sierra games

I don't want to go offtopic, but I think that's just wrong. AGDInteractive's remakes were very well recieved. And didn't "Mage's Initiation" just have a very successful kickstarter campaign? Sierra games are still very popular. Maybe not as popular as LucasArts, but that doesn't mean everybody hates them.

That said, I don't care too much for remakes anyway, no matter if it's Sierra or LucasArts. I'd much rather see Al Lowe make a new game.

This is such a sad story... 
Fantastic work Daniel, I just love the unique style. The cross stitched animations are simple, but very effective. This must have been a lot of work. The puzzles were too easy for my taste, but the story progresses nicely. This is very impressive for a first game!

Sadly I didn't have time to come up with a special tune for this contest, but I still composed something that should fit the rules. It's a happy tune I composed for a game that will (hopefully) be part of this month's MAGS. It's loopable and starts quite catchy, though it's not exactly the "best gosh darn beginning" I've ever composed

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1891681/music/free/unused1.ogg


(edit: link updated)

So, can we prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang or we don't know and assume that there was nothing?
Anyway, it's interesting that you want to believe that there is more to the universe than we scientifically know, you want to believe that there was "something" before the BigBang and "something" "outside" of what we scientifically know.

No, we can't prove that there was nothing. It's all assumptions. And the fact that I like the idea that there is more is probably just human. You already said it, we can't comprehend "nothing". Even a vacuum is not nothing. It's in our thinking that there is a reason for everything, so a universe that starts to exist out of nothing is something we can't really imagine.

Basically, what you can do is take the physical laws and calculate backwards in time until you've reached a point before the big bang. But this is just math, and there's no real data to verify this. This may lead to interesting theories, but none of them can be validated in any way.

Not an expert on quantum physics, so I'll just answer the first question.

- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?

The thing is, we just can't know. Science deals with what's inside of the universe, because this is everything we can observe. So the question what is outside or what was before the universe doesn't make sense from this point of view. This is something that science usually doesn't deal with, because there's nothing to work with. That's also the reason why (serious) scientists don't try to prove the existence or nonexistence of a god, because there is no way to verify or falsify it.
As for me, I'd like to believe that there is more to the universe, that there was something before and that there is something "outside", whatever this may mean. But that's out of reach, nobody knows anything about these questions, least of all any "holy books". And I'm sure we'll never find out.

Nice thread, there are some great screenshots here! Releasing stuff is always good, so maybe I should throw in some music. Here's another preview from the Conspirocracy Soundtrack:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1891681/music/conspirocracy/desert_preview.mp3

This demo fades out at the end. For the soundtrack release I'll rearrange all of the loopable tracks to have a proper ending.

Congratulations, that was absolutely amazing! I have the deepest respect for you. I don't think I could have done anything like this. I'm useless without sleep. Well done!

I think it's too blurry in parts (e.g. the nose). And I have the impression that his arm is too short.

I've always been into alternative rock and similar genres, but the older I get, the more diverse my musical taste gets. My taste seems to be quite similar to Sunny Penguin's though. Radiohead have already been mentioned, and these guys never fail to amaze me, no matter how often they change their musical style.

Speaking of amazing sad songs, there's one particular Radiohead song I keep coming back to, and that's Pyramid Song. This might be my favourite song of all time, there's really nothing like it.

Fixed. Thank you once again, selmiak 

Thanks, Blue! I didn't know that site, but it looks interesting.

@jwalt: Instead of using vertex groups and weigh painting, you could also use envelopes: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Rigging/Skinning/ObData#Envelope

Science is a great achievement, but it's ethically neutral. Good or bad - that depends on what we do with the knowledge that science provides us with. So, of course we still need ethics. Ethics and science don't contradict each other, that's a common misunderstanding. Science is about gaining knowledge, and ethics is about what we do with it. That said, ethics doesn't necessarily require a religion.

[@miguel]

@miguel: In this case, our opinions aren't that far apart. Of course you can make individuals responsible, and of course there were scientists who wanted the bomb, but this is not science in general. 
By the way, this is what you said:

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

No I did not make science responsible.

I know what you probably wanted to say though (and I read the whole thread), but we shouldn't confuse individuals with science, just as we shouldn't confuse individuals with religion in general.

Anyway, the Americans did spend 2Billion dollars to make the bomb. Not because, but through science they did manage do built it.
The rest of your rants about technology is not even funny. Humans create technology and decide what to do with it. Not God and obviously not technology itself. Why you retrieved that from my words is a complete unknown.

Well, my point is that you made science responsible as if science was a person. Science is a method to find out the truth, or at least to come as close to the truth as possible. Science is neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. Science can't be held responsible for the bomb, because this would be insulting towards scientists in general. I'm not blaming christianity for the spanish inquisition, but if I applied your logic, I would.