Messages

Gathering millions of dollars to accommodate top but expensive professionals, Tim Shafer and Ron Gilbert to produce a fantastic adventure game is something that we could all be excited for. We would expect the best game ever.
Something is wrong or went wrong in the process because there's this "feeling" in the air that the money was misused somehow.

In movies you pay Brad Pitt 30M because he'll grant 100M just by being there. With Broken Age, Shafer takes Pitt's role. It's all very commercial and like Mods said, it looks like it became a business priority first and a top quality game after.
Like someone said before, if Shafer was trying to do the best game he could ever do and publishers/producers where the "bad" guys, we'd be supporting Shafer like he was our family. Who cares about money when a fantastic game is on the making? Right?

Well, although I still think that 5M (or 3M) is more than enough to make several quality point & click games,
if what we are getting here is the top professionals of the trade gathering to make THE point&click game, then yeah, it's going to cost money.

Problem,
you should tell the community who was the guy that doesn't even answer your messages.
What he did is bad and he should know that we all know what he did.

Btw, nice stuff you have there.

This really sounds insane to me. 3M dollars isn't enough to make a point&click adventure game?
Who's getting his pockets full?

Right in the end, we see the "hand" icon doing a Bruce Lee kind of taunt move...cool!

They invented negative numbers to keep up with your IQ!

Yeah, but did they have to invent spandex so that you look that gay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Where you bought that hat, did they have the male version?

(...)and Day of the Tentacle was a massive step backwards in design innovation from the game that coined the term cutscene. Replacing the original, unique Winnick art style with Chuck Jone's CalArts bullshit was a massive-enough disappointment.

I don't agree with you here. What they did regarding backgrounds and sprite work was simply fantastic, a low-res master piece.
But of course, it's a matter of personal taste.

Ottawan - DISCO

Your theatrical moves belong in a Gilbert and Sullivan play!

Yet you fail to beat me every time we clash swords!

---------------------------------------------------

Why don't you start praying, since you're already on your knees?

I smell pixel shaders all around this game!
Yeah it's a 2007 low-end acer laptop with a weak gfx card.
What are the specs to run your game?

Anyway, it's cool, I'll run it on a different PC.

I can't load the game. It shows a error message.

I shall execute your demise like an artist creates a masterpiece!

The only artistic thing in you is the way you cry like Madame Buterfly!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People will remember you as the town idiot!

Not sulky, Khris,
just explaining that ignorance is a adjective that can be taken lightly, while bullshit gets on my nerves. To most people as well, I guess.
You have been considering all I say/write as "magic bullshit" and that's not cool, man.
I've tried my best to explain what I mean and most of the time taking God out of the equation so that we could have a conversation.

All that I'm saying is that quantum mechanics are quickly leaving the nano world and new breakthroughs come up every day.
I am truly sorry to have called you ignorant, honestly, you don't deserve that, but I'm telling you man, it's not what you say but how you say it.
You make me pass as somebody I'm not and your language makes my blood boil.

Sometimes to get an idea pass one must take one step back.
I thought I was doing that: discussing science instead of religion, allowing the debate to be more open minded.
You come with 2 rocks in your hands and that's just not cool.

I'm trying to convince you that people can be religious without being dogmatic, because in the end I value your opinion.

You assume and assume and assume but just don't listen.
At least you know you don't have manners.
Anyway, I will not get down to your level.
Have a nice Sunday.

[According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences:it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time â€" at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.]

1) The possibility of it to happen is not nonsense, how I cannot explain it well may outcome in nonsense sentences.
   I'm quoting "nature" (international weekly journal of science) following the experiment where they managed to submit a visible object in two different places at the same time using quantum mechanics:

According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences:
it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time â€" at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.
There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale that he proposed his famous 'Schrödinger's cat' thought experiment.

2) Quantum mechanics is not just some curious property of small particles, in fact, leading scientists lean on every thing being quantum mechanics and notions like Newton laws to be part of it.
   So, if I'm basing my comments on scientific findings why do you keep calling it "magic" thinking? It doesn't make your point better, in fact it contradicts all you've been writing in this thread.
   I have the feeling that if me, or Monkey, or another person you don't quite like would come up and say that programming is cool you'd be writing essays on why it's not.
   I'll get over it if you stop that "magic" crap.

3) I've found a lot of articles on the subject and the ones that do mention the fact are a bit "general" for me to use as "proof". Meaning they are based on other sites that are also based and so on. So, I guess you're right on this one. But that doesn't mean I'll tolerate your insults. If you want to keep debating with me you have to stop the "crap","magic" and "bullshit" that's always in your so hygienic mouth.
I mean it, Khris. This isn't the rumpus room and no way I'll tolerate your constant lack of education.

No it's not nonsense.
And the next time you put magic in my words think twice because I didn't. You're just being irritating.
You have a grudge on me and that is becoming childish, to not mention radical.
Scientists just made an experiment where an object visible to the human eye can be at 2 different places at the same time.
Quantum mechanics are developing faster than your ignorance.
Quantum mechanics do depend on your point of view.

Entanglement in quantum mechanics specifically allow molecules to precisely know where the other one is. It's not magic, no.

Btw, the birds don't use magic quantum connections to navigate

again, you're the one thinking quantum mechanics is magic, you keep saying it.
And, excuse me but you say that birds aren't using quantum mechanics to navigate but then you say they maintain entanglement longer? Make up your mind.

And they sure as hell don't have a particle in their eye that's entangled with another at their destination.

Yes they do. It has been studied.

Just google for it my charming friend.

Are they using rightclick-cycle for verbs?

Regarding your "earth is small in relation, so the laws of physics don't apply": that's nonsense. Subatomic particles don't follow Newton's laws of motion, but they still follow the laws of physics.

So, because the Earth is small relative to the universe, and because particles are small relative to us, and they're not affected by physics (which is just ridiculous anyway), one can extrapolate that to the Earth not being subject to the laws of physics? By that logic, any arbitrary planet or star would also be removed from physical laws, because they are all tiny compared to the universe.

Khris and Atelier,
the notion that quantum mechanics is solely in the realm of the nano world is being debated as we speak.
I am no expert and I based my comments on what I watch on TV and read in specific sites. I'm no academic then, just (badly?) informed.
What I found out was that Newtonian Laws are actually a private case of Quantum Mechanics and even at subatomic level Newton Laws can describe (in some cases) the behaviour of particles. But what is accepted this days is that generally all is quantum, not the other way.
This goes to show that, yes, as I write, more and more scientists are assigning quantum mechanics to things like it was considered heretical a few years ago.
Things like photosynthesis (!), where scientist observe that plants, while building the molecules they need using the energy from the sun, its particles appear in more than one place (superposition). Doesn't sound important? Well, plants do it in warm, wet and damp places (!).
More amazing is the way birds use quantum mechanics to navigate. The "entangled" effect applies here, bird eyes molecules are entangled to molecules at the destination point, meaning that both molecules always know where one is. Apparently birds also communicate this information among them.
Even the way we smell is being discussed right now. Here, the "tunnelling" quantum effect is being tested and studied right now.
I do not mean to impose any truth here, I just researched a bit and found out some pretty cool stuff regarding quantum mechanics. It seams that every day scientists are discovering new fantastic stuff about it. Things that may be shaping what is commonly accepted in a very different way.

This said, does it sound that nonsense what I wrote about bigger scale quantum mechanics?
If so, I do apologise for being ridiculous. I don't assume that I know things, I try to find out about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superposition: A particle exists in a number of possible states or locations simultaneously - strictly, an electron might be in the tip of your finger and in the furthest corner of the Universe at the same time. It is only when we observe the particle that it 'chooses' one particular state

Entanglement: Two particles can become entangled so that their properties depend on each other - no matter how far apart they get. A measurement of one seems to affect the measurement of the other instantaneously - an idea even Einstein called "spooky"

Tunnelling: A particle can break through an energy barrier, seeming to disappear on one side of it and reappear on the other. Lots of modern electronics and imaging depends on this effect

You're the worst paid rent-boy in all the seven seas.

Your sister was cheap! Still I did her!

Spoiler

sorry Stu, I say the most hideous things while swordfighting

[close]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Madre Theresa would kick your ass in a minute...blindfolded!

Scavenger,
interesting read. To be able to put things in perspective while being polite and not arrogant is a gift and I think everybody here thanks you.

From my point of view, I'd like to bring some things up:

-considering that humans naturally search for things that are out of reach (beyond the 3rd Dimension),
-and assuming that the One God that is today accepted by the major religions is a result and a product of human faith through time in the divine,
-acknowledging the fact that only fundamentalists will take sacred scriptures literally and that Muslims and Catholics are able to respect themselves and also think about a faith that is beyond the scriptures,
-considering all this, in my opinion, humans will naturally conceive a deity as a being of knowledge, kindness and moral assertiveness.

If humans are since the beginning naturally inclined to accept the divine, if they share their existence with something they cannot see but "feel", then although with many mistakes and false starts, humans do conceive their God as a "good" God.