Messages

Any more comments about the use of pre-made material?

Just to sum up and reinforce what has been said already, I think this is a fair way of seeing things:

- Since this makes the bulk of the game: Write your own scripts.
- Since they make the visuals of the game: Make your own graphics.

From now on, you have a personal game.

Since sometimes you can't figure out something or don't have the time to write a full SCUMM: Use templates and modules from the forums as you see fit.
Since sometimes you don't know how to draw something: Browse the webs for reference material.
Since few people are talented musicians and/or don't have the equipment: Use music and sound effects from public domain / freeware sites.

I maintain my disagreement that music is somehow less important than graphics.

I would say that since few people are talented artists: Use freeware graphics.
OR
I would say that since this creates the atmosphere and mood of the game: Make your own music.

I think that we should make scripts, graphics in one week (because that's what a game is all about). As there are many who don't know how to make music (like me) or there are also some who know how to make music but don't have equipments. So, we should let everyone use music that is available for free. But then I have also read out a post here which says that graphics aren't really a part of game and one can even make a game out of square boxes. Hence free graphics should be allowed.
   
    This is really becoming confusing. The only solution I can think of is as under (edit it as you see fit):

  1) You'll have to write your own script from the scratch or you can use only those templates and modules that are published here, at the forums.

  2) You may use only those graphics that are published for free, here at the forums (to avoid unfair advantage).

  3) Likewise, you may only use that music which is published for free, here at the forums.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As far as I know, the forums have a great deal of content published for free use. I only kept the "forum only" restriction because Internet is much vast and one can find superb graphics and music to make an excellent game but that would be unfair advantage to other contestants because the content one particular person may use would be literally hidden from the others. On the other hand, content published here at the forums is literally in front of everyone and anyone may use it.

I agree.  I have seen some content on the site, made my first few projects with them, and I'm sure there are more I haven't seen.  I encourage anyone to post any links to free graphics or music that have been published here.

I like the concept of a tutorial for beginners by beginners, and would be interested in perusing it once finished.

The issue I have with a lot of the tutorial / manual / module / forum information is that it can be difficult to tell if it is current.  I search the forums often, and the results always take me to threads from something like 2003 or 2005.  I really have no way of knowing if that information is still relevant, or if the engine has been updated to a new, incompatible version (except for strenuous trial and error).  I also know that this can be difficult to fix, since people come and go, they don't update their threads, and it would be a ridiculous amount of work for moderators to weed through it all.

But back to the topic at hand, I would encourage the continued writing of a beginner tutorial.  Have it answer all of your beginner questions.  Look for other common queries and mistakes, and include that information.  Don't let yourself get discouraged by a few harsh words, just find the criticism in them and work to improve.

Good deal!

I like the new image, you're showing improvement.

Looking forward to seeing what you get out of Blender.

You can use material from the internet like graphics, music and sounds, but have to credit it in-game, even if it was public domain.

So you can use guybrush from some spritesheets found on the net if you give credit?

As long as it is in the public domain, but I'm not sure the original sprite sheet is.

Given the huge amount of free graphics available throughout the internet, I'm not a fan of this rule. "New game" means "new game", it doesn't mean you get to recycle any and all free or public domain stuff you can find. Music is a different matter.

I disagree that music is a different matter, personally, but that may be because I make music.

Isn't this really about making the game?  It's the writing and the coding that will really make the game.  I would put music and graphics on equal footing, below the importance of coding.  You can make a silent game just as you can make a game made out of squares, the music and graphics are extras.

I will aim to create everything from scratch (either myself or with a partner), so this issue likely won't impact me.  I feel that public domain graphics and sound should either both be allowed, or neither should be allowed.  Actually, if we are allowed to work with a partner, perhaps the public domain materials become unnecessary?

Question. What if I made a game that took place in one room. But jumped to different points and time and the room looks a little different?

I would assume that's ok? (it's an idea I've been toying with)

I was just watching some Back To The Future videos on the YouTube, thinking the same thing.

It's terrorism.

I feel terrorized by the US government.

Now I'm on a list.

Very exciting!

Will there be a theme beyond One Room?  Not that there needs to be, just wondering.

Is this on an individual basis, or can I work with a partner?  I'll likely participate either way, but thought this was a worthy question, as I would really like to work with an artist.

Excluding RON and OSD simply means we can't use those previously existing resources, right?  I assume we're still free to make a RON or OSD game if we choose, as long as all materials are created during that week?

I'll probably join in.  I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

I'm also a fan of Blender, and if you can catch onto the controls you should do pretty well.

The new walk cycle looks much better.  I didn't mind the shadows at all.  The bounce in the step helps, but you currently have him bouncing on only a single foot.  Try the head bob on both steps of the cycle and it will look more natural.

And don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

It looks like the side view is playing backwards.  Try reversing it to see if it looks more natural.  A little bounce on each step will go a long way.

The style is interesting, and with some practice you should get much better at the process.

Good work so far.

Try this:

Spriter's Resource

I've been doing a lot of sprite art research there, and they have a lot of material.

There are so many laws that are tied to marriage and would have to be rewritten. And if you're not careful you're going to end up giving corporations the right to get married, and I bet they'd find ways to exploit that loophole. (Maybe I could set up a company, SnarkyCorp., which I could then marry in order to claim all the tax deductions and benefits available to married couples.)

We really have to get around to deciding that corporations are not people, but that's a completely different topic.

I'd like to apologize for being so blunt with my opinion.  Yes, I think opposing gay marriage makes you an asshole, but I also think that calling someone an asshole makes you a bit of an asshole.  So that makes me something of an asshole myself, but let me tell you, there are worse things to be called than asshole.

so is .ogg

oh - je - je
or
ock

I would say og, as heard in agog.

Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony.

I'm an atheist. I got married because I love my wife and wanted to formally and publicly commit to her in a way that resonates with cultural norms for my part of the world. My use of a wedding ring is an appropriation of a pagan symbol. Guess what? It's not pagan anymore. Culture is malleable. And again, when I got down on one knee and proposed, I didn't say, "Sweetheart, let's get together so that I can use your income to fund my IRA."

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break. No one is stopping anyone from being in a committed relationship or having a formal commitment ceremony with family and friends.

Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

Again, you're myopically denying an entire cultural context to marriage here, even if we limit it to just the western world, and even if we limit it to contemporary times.

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break.

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of legal implications, from adoption and child custody, to spousal privilege (in court), to making medical decisions, to immigration status. There are major differences in what happens in case of divorce (child support and alimony), for example. Lots of the stuff a civil union couple might have access to in principle is a lot more hassle and paperwork, as well (in part because domestic partnerships/civil unions vary from state to state and country to country, while marriage laws are much more consistent or harmonized).

And yes, there are tax implications, as well as lots of federal+state grants, benefits and family support, e.g. for military personnel.

But it's not just the differences specifically enshrined in law. There's also a matter of differential treatment by private organizations and companies. Like whether your employer allows you to add your partner to your health insurance. If you can get days off work to deal with a medical emergency or death in your partner's family (or even for your partner him-/herself), or for the lesbian equivalent of "paternity leave" (though that's a rare perk in the US anyway). As long as homosexual couples only have access to a separate status like civil unions, it's easy to discriminate against them.

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

I believe that these are the essence of the debate here.

People must acknowledge that in modern western culture, people get married for many reasons, including a simple love and desire to commit to one another.  It has actually been this way for at least a few generations in most of the west to my knowledge, so it's not some recent fad.
They must also acknowledge all of the legal and cultural ramifications of marriage.  Some people say just get rid of these legal tidbits, falsely thinking they are the crux of the issue.  I disagree, because all of these things are equally important in the debate.  It's not about arguing against one point or the other.
One day, I hope to marry someone in the name of love and commitment.  I would want my partner to receive all of the related legal and social benefits regardless of their gender.

And I would want everyone else to have that right.

Having not participated in either MAGS or OROW, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion holds.

That said, I believe MAGS and OROW should be separate.  I would really like to try my hand at either, actually, and had I not participated in the Monster Workshop, I may have taken part in the Underwater themed MAGS.

As this is about OROW, I'll put in my support.  How about run the two concurrently?  Next month, have both start at the same time.  I'm not likely to have the time to do both, but this way, at least I could make an informed decision about which one to attempt.

To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax.

Actually, yours is a pretty strict definition, since it has by no means always been the norm that marriages are entered into out of love, or chosen by the couple themselves. Not to mention the rather frequent custom of polygamy, where one man (usually) can separately marry several women.

You know, you're absolutely right.  I do have a fairly strict definition that includes love, monogamy, and humanity.  I'll also admit it is a modern definition, for I am a modern man.

That's how I personally define marriage.  But to me, that's all it is, a definition of what marriage means to me.  You'll notice I went beyond and described how marriage includes more than my 'personal' definition, in terms of legal implications and more.  It's important for all of us to understand that we all have our own opinion of what marriage means to us, and that means that everyone else has an opinion, too.  The only people that should be affected by your view of marriage are you and those you aim to marry.  It should not be possible for any one 'personal' definition to dictate policy on a secular, legal level.  This is a case of civil rights.

I'll admit, I do have trouble relating to the idea of polygyny and polyandry, but can understand some of the reasons that it was / is a historical or cultural necessity.  I do not know how I would be reacting if polygamous marriage was the hot topic that homosexual marriage is today, because of the different ways in which I view the issues.  I like to believe that I would support polygamous marriage.  That would not change my 'personal' definition of marriage, because that only applies to myself and anyone I hope to make my wife.

Short answer to the tread title, YES.

Proving that there is no historical case where homosexuals are treated equally merely proves that this discrimination has been going on for millennia.  We are at a unique point in human history where we can correct the mistakes of the past.

I am an atheist, and one day I hope to get married.  To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax. 

I support same-sex marriage, and see those in opposition as villainous.

And I do have a hard time separating the art from the artist (in most cases).

Awesome!

Congratulations to the winners.  You guys deserved the recognition.  But so did so many others.  Great job all around.

I really like this version, but I think the BL is a bit too large.  I don't think it should overlap the bevel in any way, personally.

Same.

But how would you pronounce .gif in Klingon?