Messages

This article is kind of relevant:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061129-121812-1240r.htm

When it comes to my personal well-being, I could care less about being labeled racist. Hell, I'd ask for two or three seat belt extensions.

About damn time this thread title got changed!

And Jenna, totally over Barbara (in case it ever comes down to picking just one).

Please list your choice.

What if Pib had been an inventory item himself? A picture of his head, say. "Use armour on Pib"

It's a valid suggestion. We may have limited ourselves by justifying the magic of the inventory book. Instead of dealing having Pib lug around lots of objects on his person, we made everything transfer onto pages in the item book. We also established rules why he wouldn't be able to "pick up" very huge items or animate objects. But having a Pib hotspot on the HUD outside of the book might've worked. It would seem a bit strange for something so underused to command that kind of visual real estate.

You are right, I'm sure there's a better way of doing it.

Seconded.

Only one puzzle comes to mind that I thought was particularly illogical right now. In Apprentice 2, when you have to click on the armor twice just to put it on. Of course it was easy with the walkthrough, but without it, it makes no sense to "Use Uniform with Uniform" to put it on. It would have made more sense to "Use Uniform with Pib". But oh well.

We ran into some trouble with the scripting (and we didn't want Pib to be an object, as the player character tends to get in the way of other hotspots). If you'll look at the HTML help (that we spent too much time making) included with the game, it describes the "use item with itself" interaction. So I would call it awkward, but not totally unfair. Hopefully, it isn't the worst puzzle ever.

DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.

Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.

You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.

Where did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?

If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.

When did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.

Evenwolf, I agree that a majority of modern advertising is intrusive and unwanted. But keep in mind that internationally, it's a ~$45 billion dollar industry worldwide (roughly triple that of video games, which in turn are bigger than Hollywood, etc.). These ad dollars allow you to watch a TV show for free, and help keep the costs of public transportation, newspapers, and magazines down. Without advertising, many of your favorite sites and search engines (Yahoo, Google, Youtube, etc.) would not exist. Yes, it can be annoying, but at least for me, that's a price I'm willing to pay for the services I enjoy. Furthermore, if marketers decide that TV is no longer a worthwhile investment (high media space and production costs per GRP), they will put their budget into other media. With less money available, TV has to host MORE ads per segment to maintain show budgets, etc. It's the same slippery slope that transformed radio in past years.

Here are some quotes from Adage articles that reinforce some of my statements about the evolution TV is facing. I pulled most of these from cover articles, since it would be fairly time-consuming to review a year's worth of these trade journals. Note that all these articles are more recent than Steven's book (and the data within).

March 13, 2006 (Digital Buyers Step Into the Upfront Rumble)
"It looks like, for the most part, these video-media explorations are being taken out of the TV pot, rather than separate digital budgets. 'There's been a slow migration of broadcast dollars into video alternatives that will continue,' said Mr. Donchin (Director National Broadcast Buyer at Carat)."

March 27, 2006 (Over 75% of Advertisers Feel TV is Less Effective)
"Advertisers are suffering a crisis of confidence, according to a survey released by the Association of National Advertisers and Forrester Research as part of the ANA's TV Ad Forum. The survey revealed that 78% of the 133 national advertisers polled felt their traditional television spots had become less effective over the past two years. On top of that, 60% said that once DVR penetration hit 30 million, they'd cut spending on TV advertising. DVR penetration hovers around 10 million and is projected to reach 30 million within three years."

August 7, 2006 (TV Selling Power Slammed)
Stats from McKinsey & Co.'s report on media proliferation to Fortune 100 clients:
40% increase on ad spending on broadcast TV over the past 10 years as viewers have dropped by almost 50%
65% of consumers feel they're bombarded with too much advertising
54% avoid buying products that overwhelm them with too much advertising
600% amount more time spent online by teens compared to typical adults
44% of purchasing decisions at one telecom company were influenced by costumer interaction rather than advertising

I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best)  and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.

You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).

You are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines"). Daily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL). Satire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).

I enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show. Keep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.

I believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.

Don't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.

Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).

Just because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.

If you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738

Stunning! It's refreshing to see such an original visual style. Keep up the good work! I can't wait to play this.

Where can I find this demo?

And I will smack the first person that links Google.

I'm glad we could learn something useful from this.

The Top one is the original Brink, the one below is Indy from FOA, and the one below that is their lovechild (Indy sprite 50% opacity over Brink Sprite).

Paintover?

I'll check out ripped Indy sprites. Pretty sure the layout of the pixels on the face is the same. Also the stance. I'm about 85% sure. I'll let you know when I find out.

It's funny to see the original sprites as crappy paintovers of Indy and Sophia from FOA.

Does anyone know why they didn't go with Moriarty's version?

I'd still be interested in playing a wonderfully written and aesthetically pleasing oldschool adventure game, even if it was a puzzlefest like old games, but there hasn't been any of those for a decade or so.

You clearly have an idea of how an adventure game SHOULD be, so why not make it yourself? This is the place to do it. CJ even provides the tool for free! You couldn't ask for a better setup.

Marlamoe:Ã,  Thanks!Ã,  I can't stand looking at that video now, as every stupid twitch and stammer stabs at my gut like a neurotic dagger.Ã,  I watch it and think, "You could have gotten a haircut, you slob.Ã,  Stop smacking your lips!Ã,  Do you have to say 'um' or 'ah' every other word? Bleh, you're a disgrace."

To be honest, I really didn't notice (and I don't think anyone there did either). Maybe the free beer played a role in that. Compared to the other presentations, you definitely stole the show.

Or did the free beer steal the show? Hindsight is fuzzy.

LimpingFish sneaks out the back way.

Anvil falls on LimpingFish's head.

Does that mean "I disagree?" Please elaborate.

Please don't. As entertaining as it would be to watch the ensuing equivalent of a "cripple fight", let's not turn this pettiness into an issue of Lilliputian magnitude.

Jimtbrit's question has been answered, so we should move on to more pressing offensive topics.

You'd be such a downer to take psychotropic drugs with.

"That tree's not breathing, it's just the effects of Psilocybin manifesting in visual hallucinations."

Have a little imagination. If God really created everything, including sex, emotions, and humor, he wouldn't be the dreary, austere Deity you envision.

You say you're unable to accept the existence of God regardless of personal experience, yet you mock those who won't accept the non-existence of a god, no matter the rhetorical proof?

And yes, personal experience is the least expandable proof, but isn't it the most powerful for you individually, as you inhabit a single consciousness?

EDIT: A better phrase for "non-existence" would be "lack of".
By "mock" I mean "belittle". You're right; I can't tell if you're really laughing over the internet. Apologies for my poor word choice.

Hooray beer.