Messages

I also agree with Stupot about it being a legitimate mechanic, and I think that bad puzzle design has trained us to play adventure games wrong. I do it too, but reflexively combing every location for hotspots and filling your pockets indiscriminately is a silly way to behave (except in the context of a forensic detective game).

It is true that it can be a legitimate mechanic. However, bear in mind that characters in most games behave in lots of silly ways - so 'cracking down' on only this one would be weird to the player. If you want the main character to behave realistically, that's great (and innovative), but it would require more changes than the one this thread is about.

Thank you.

I have a free copy of Achron. It's a coupon, not a code. If interested, please link me to your Steam ID.

I'm not saying the player shouldn't be able to pick up useful looking objects - hammers, keys, books etc. I just don't like it when they pick up useless looking items for no reason.

The straightforward solution, then, is to not have any puzzles that require useless-looking items. This is elegant, whereas disallowing taking the item until the character has a reason for is not elegant.

Onikira - Demon Killer

I'm interested

Funnily enough though, I've used the ribbon GUI, and I'd argue that it's actually easier to use than the good old-fashioned GUI. Yet here I am, refusing to upgrade.

I find it lacking in keyboard shortcuts.

Darth, you do now that the upgrade is disguised as "important security update", right? Instead of being in the optional downloads, with a clear tag "Get Win10" or something. The only nags I got was when I decided to update my work computer with only "security updates" and all of a sudden a screen was poping up on the corner telling me to upgrade to Win10, and closing it just made it return a little later. I then deleted that update, and again short after Windows sent a new "security update" that was just a new pop-up to "download win10" And before I knew it a "install" button was also present! . If that's not being pushing and intrusive I don't know what is. I do not run automatic upgrades on my computers, I selectively select those I want. But if I can't trust that "security upgrade" means security upgrade and not an installer for Win10... then... I stop installing them.

Oh, it's worse. On computers with a slightly different set up, it would hog up your internet connection for gigabytes as it would automatically download W10, then finally asking if you wanted to install it. Yes, even if you're on slow wifi or have a monthly bandwidth limit.

This was the main reason I updated my Win8 machine (was never really happy with Win8).

This is precisely why I never migrated to Win8, and of course this makes me hesitant to migrate to any other windows version.

Well, shall I or shall I not? Is it worth it? Has is helped or hindered you?

Well the main question is, are you in any way dissatisfied with your current operating system? Because if the only reason to switch is that "it's new", then you don't really have a reason to switch.

Speaking for myself, I'm still avoiding the ribbon GUI as much as possible, which means not upgrading my Word and Excel. And since the older Word and Excel I have already do everything I need, I have no reason to upgrade.

If you have concerns about security, the straightforward response is to update your security software, not your entire OS.

(Anyone remember how in the late nineties, people were nervous about GIF files because there was a patent on the type of compression it uses?)

Yes. The main reason why the PNG format was invented was because the patent owner of GIF's compression method was being a d*ck about licensing it, in 1994. Several major software vendors refused to support GIF until its patent expired ten years later.

My working title is "Colourblind" although it may get added to or changed, but if I named my game colourblind, and there is another game out there with this title, would it get me in trouble? Especially If my game goes commercial?

If the other game is from a big company AND you go commercial, then yes. Otherwise, no.

I can never understand the whole copyright thing,

Copyright applies to CONTENT, trademark applies to NAMES, patent applies to RECIPES. You automatically have copyright on any content you write; you need to apply for trademarks or patents. By the American system (but not the European one) anyone can trademark or patent anything, and this will automatically stand unless someone successfully challenges it in a lengthy and expensive court procedure (this is why patent trolls work; it is cheaper to pay them for a license than to pay for the court costs). People have in fact tried to patent the wheel, and to trademark the word 'zombie'.

Also, as Mandle already pointed out, a trademark for (e.g.) a soft drink named Blorble does not interfere with a video game named Blorble, because it is extremely obvious that a soft drink is not a video game.

For example, I legally cannot create a game called King's Quest, regardless of its content, because Activision owns the TRADEMARK (although I could probably get away with selling a soft drink by that name). I legally cannot create a game using sprites from earlier King's Quest games, regardless of its name, because they own the COPYRIGHT. I legally could not use their point-and-click interface, regardless of name or content, if they had PATENTED it (which in fact they haven't).

Patents expire after a set amount of time. Trademarks expire only if the company stops using AND defending them (this is why DC Comics illogically owns the trademark to Captain Marvel, and why they have to publish a title by that name every now and then, otherwise Marvel Comics would swoop in). Copyright expires in every country except the USA, because of the Disney lobby.

Secondly, I have a company in my game called Bloom INC , and they manufacture a drink called Bloombrew , now again, if there is a company out there called Bloom INC , or a product called BloomBrew, can I get in trouble for it?

No, you can claim fair use on that. Although if Bloom is a big company AND you go commercial, it is safer to avoid this (because they can afford big lawyers and you can't).

HTH.

Ah, please change me from "confirmed" to "tentative, depending on my schedule". I know I selected four weekends in the doodle poll, but that doesn't mean I can treat them all as reserved until the poll concludes. I will try my best to make it though, Amsterdam is easily within biking distance for me.

Pro-government people claim that this also happens in modern Europe countries, too. Is that right?

Absolutely not. In fact it makes news here any time some country decides to block the internet (or major parts thereof), simply because that would never happen in modern Europe (or, indeed, North or South America, or most countries in Asia either). The only countries that block large parts of the internet on a regular basis are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Turkey. I think Indonesia and Egypt tried it once or twice but stopped when they got a big backlash over it.

This comic says it well...

I've just heard the referendum is only advisory and that the government could still elect to do something else than implement it in the most literal fashion... any thoughts on that?

However, it can't be denied that they took steps to manage their own affairs as they see fit and to accept whatever consequences may come.

But that is wrong on both counts.

First, leaving the EU doesn't allow them to manage their own affairs: they need to cooperate with the EU but no longer have direct influence of them. That makes them less able to manage their own affairs.

Second, they don't want to accept consequences: that is, they want to stop paying EU, but immediately petitioned the EU to keep paying the UK (e.g. grants for culture, education, and so forth).

This is not freedom, it is playing ostrich.

To an extent I agree but essentially your simply saying that democracy does not work.

Not at all. One of the points of democracy is that you elect expert politicians to govern the country since it is a given that your neighbor Bob can't do it. Running a country is not a series of straightforward yes/no questions.

The government unfortunately does try to please everyone as that's the only way they can stay in power. Imagine if the government only tried to do what was good for the country, what a lovely place to live that would be!

While no government is perfect, the politicians of some countries do lean more towards doing what's good for the country, and others do lean more towards staying in power. The former kind does tend to make the country more prosperous and having higher standards of living.

but the comment about Rupert Murdoch and his publication 'the Sun' supporting the leave campaign is a shrewd one

It is a fair point that any major party outside of the EU, particularly from the US or China, has a vested interest in breaking up the EU, and thus in supporting the brexit.

What it really boils down to is that this is just typical politics - 50% win and 50% lose - you literally can't please everyone.

The goal of a government is not to please everyone, but to do what is good for the country. Here's where those facts come in handy, and this is why successful businesses and universities (and countries!) are run by experts and not by popular vote.

Well, a couple weeks ago we also had a referendum in the Netherlands. See, the European Union had to decide on whether to have economic negotiations with Ukraine, and in every country the politicians decided that negotiations are good, so let's do that. Except for us: for some reason this was forced to a public referendum instead. And, our local Animal Rights party started some heavy campaigning since apparently Ukraine has poor conditions for its cows and chickens. So since almost nobody in the country understood what the refendum was about in the first place, and there were lots of posters against it, so people voted no. Which leaves us in the idiotic position that all of Europe including our own politicians want to negotiate with Ukraine, except we're somehow supposed to veto ourselves now because that's what the popular vote said.

So how does that relate to brexit? Well, it's obvious that if you're going to leave an important decision to popular vote, then you're going to have a bunch of ignorant people decide based on their gut feeling, which is generally the exact opposite of what the country needs.

Well, I'm curious what Scotland is going to do next. Given that their membership of the UK was essentially contigent on the UK being in the EU, it wouldn't surprise me if they declared independence some time next year and join the EU as such. I hear that Scandinavia in particular sees kinship with them and is well in favor, and UK is no longer in a position to block it.

I'd be interested in Broken Dreams.

Most adventure lovers love fun and whimsical games.

Why do you think that, have you done any market research on that? Have you looked at the most popular adventure games (including oh say Police Quest) and considered how whimsical these are?