Messages

Immensely helpful, Alliance.  I suggest you work on your English (particularly reading this thread) before you pretend to know German.

"Fiddling" aside, I think "Interact" and "Use" would be clear enough.  As you suggested,  I would associate "Operate" with machinery much more than reading a book or opening a door.

""

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/TikiTikiMan13/gonzocheating.png

The Great Gonzo
Fighting Game or Platform Game Baddie
Weapon of choice - nunchucks

Took just under an hour.

I realize that it's too small.  I suppose I can add some blank background, but I don't care about winning anything.

Edit: Yeah, I cheated and added some space.

"he was a robot, and that is how he was programmed to respond" was mine and it totally fits!

I think you should've mentioned that this is not original, but paintovers of sprites from a Sierra game.

We could also use more information on this guy.  You said you wanted him to look like Samuel Adams.. so you want him to be colonial?  I doubt a colonial man would wear colors like he has on.

Also, I dislike how Sierra often had generic playable characters and animations.  Can't you add some originality to this guy?  He looks like he came straight of a Kings Quest template or something.

Mats, I respect your opinion, but I think you're dead wrong.

It's important to listen to the wishes of the owners of licenses.  Not only is it deceptive to try hiding a copyright-infringing game, but you'll be unsuccessful anyway.

If the game is popular, then they will hear about it.  It's better to ask in the beginning, get a no, and work on something else than it is to work for months on a project only to get a cease-and-desist.

Why make a game if all you're doing is trying to hide it?

I don't think the Adventure Game community is about underhandedly using licensed characters and keeping mouths shut.

Suppose you had two children... Which would you prefer?
1) Kid A asks Kid B if he can play with Kid B's toy.  Kid B says no, Kid A finds another toy
2) Kid A takes Kid B's toy when Kid B isn't looking, and they beat each other up in a gruesome deathmatch

Isn't it really easy to cheat at this game?

Just wait until someone comes and gets all the hard ones, and then post right after them

I stepped in an ant pile.

Mine's French.

Great, as long as D'arcy Wretzky and James Iha are in.

I think that the latest winner should have a trophy (perhaps it could be part of the forum, like Edmundo suggested), and the next winner will take the trophy until the next week...

So only one person has a trophy at a time

Naw, Rolf is just that crazy DG.

edit- as for the pants - DG has them.

Goodnight!

Don't let the bed bugs bite.

I think the best way to simulate it would not be displaying the literal content of the signs (etc) but the protagonist's interpretation thereof. For instance, in Zak McKracken, when Zak reads the sign in India he says "I think it's a brand of cigarettes" (whereas Annie says "it rather obviously says 'jail'").

Never played Zak, but that gave me a good idea.  It doesn't partain to this particular discussion, but I thought I'd say it all the same.

If there's a game with multiple player characters, perhaps to one character it appears as gibberish, or the sign says "cigarretes", but to the other, knowledgable player character it says "Jail".

I don't know, I just found that intriguing.

The shadows, particularly that one sign's shadow, should be skewed a bit.  Right now, it's indictating that the moon is more centered than it really is.  Look at the angle of Loominous's shadow in his small edit to see what I mean.

I've already started one with Progz's, so I'll just continue with it anyway.

I don't find believing in God, or the 'reward' of eternity in paradise in exchange for living your life in the service of God, crazy.

How can it be a reward when you don't earn it?  Rather, it's a gift.

The Bible has been filtered down through so many hands that what we now consider to be the "Definitive" edition, bears little resemblence to what came before. Through the centuries beliefs, both moral and spiritual, and those simply political, changed the meaning and the wording of a number of passages to suit whatever the current political or social climate was at the time. A King whose own views clashed with the views of The Bible, and/or the church, simply ammended whole passages and claimed his version of The Bible was now the only version, all all others should be destroyed

Completely false.  In the Old Testament's case, scribes would copy the original manuscripts letter by letter, not even word by word.  After completing each copy, they would go over and count how many times each letter appeared, and then count the ones of the original to ensure they matched.  If there were three or more mistakes, the copy was burned.  These scribes took their jobs very seriously.  Also, there are so many thousands of copies of the Old Testament that they can easily be compared to eachother.  Any changes would be quite evident.

As for the New Testament, any book that appears in it had to be written before 100AD.  This ensured that there would be some witnesses to the original events still alive to verify its information.  There are 6000+ copies of the New Testament available, some from as early as 90AD.  Compare that to Plato's work, of which there are 7 copies made 1,000 years after the original.

There are still copies being found today, and they still match up with what the current Bible says.  If "the Kings" had been changing the Bible as they pleased wouldn't they 1) Contradict the Bibles found in other parts of the world and 2) Contradict more recent unearthings of scrolls?

If you like them you'll want to check out Jaga Jazzist - What We Must, which is sort of a departure from their previous work and sounds a bit like a hybrid between Sigur Ros and Radiohead. Oh, and then listen to Jaga Jazzist's previous albums too!

Absolutely, positively seconded.

(Also, it should be noted that it has no lead vocals.  Don't be expecting Thom Yorkeish wailing )

Somebody mentioned narrow-mindedness a few posts ago...

I know it's popular to be open-minded these days, and I think that's good to a reasonable extent.  However, truth is narrow.  You can't be open about certain things - either they're true, or they are not.  There are some issues on which I am glad I am "narrow-minded."

Edit: MashPotato - can you edit your link so it doesn't screw up the thread width?  thanks

Reverse the father and mother.

Why on earth would the competitions be closed, Peder?  The Sprite Jam, for instance, has nothing to do with whether or not we involve wintermute - although, we might start seeing more 3D entries.

Seriously, I think you guys are trying to find excuses as to why this is a bad idea, instead of being rational.

As for myself.. I was against this at first, but now I find it exciting!

I managed to get the beta in #ags a few days ago, woo!