Messages

Amen, dude!

I can't tell what muff means in Portuguese, because...You know.

Okay Snarky, sounds fair. I'll reserve this space for my background.
Not posting now because I have objects in the room that I'll incorporate into the background.

Edit: this background is fresh, finished it today (26th April) and it happens to be "right" for the theme. I wouldn't ask to join if it was something I had stored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So,




as you can see there's still some line work to perfect. But I will not work on it a lot more. So I may or not keep working on it... And with this last interesting phrase I wish all the participants good luck and happy inspirations!

I've just finished a background that I'm going to use in a game. Can I submit it here?

Snot?

BEEP!

Forget about Green Peace, another bad example. But their premise and origins were noble at least. There was a big scandal in Portugal some years ago about a Aids Support Foundation called "Abraço". Money got in the way.

I guess community efforts FOR the community are easily maintained and controlled and people actually see where their money is being invested. Once it gets nation wide or bigger that's when the vile metal starts corrupting.
Individuals can make a difference (limited) if they change their habits: recycle, energy-saver lights, less plastic and so on. But it reminds me of another scandal in my country where people thought they were recycling but in the end the trash was being dumped in the same place: glass, paper, metal, etc...

I really don't know, and I'm a man of faith (literally) but I think that men have the strength to be gentle and kind no matter their social status. But stepping up the ladder of success irreversibly makes them see the bigger picture like you do. And I wonder, if you had a sudden power to control a civilization, having to deal with percentages and figures, would you make efforts to cut down on technology in order to lower resource consumption? Google spends electricity enough to provide 200,000 houses. Would you go "against" Google? Maybe it's just another one of my bad examples, but you get the point.
How much political and economical pressure crush good ideals while a man steps up that ladder?

Well said. I now understand the full extent of your opinions. What can I say? It's all true from your perspective witch is a much bigger  than mine.
I was thinking about the individual, the father, the worker who has basically to survive while having that bit of comfort, but who also has close to nothing chances of, well, changing anything.

When I said that clever people do the best they can with what is given to them is also a way to protect oneself psychologically. I tend to be very determined into things that I want, need or like to do, and if I was to dedicate my thoughts into the state of the world I would probably be a different person. Less happier, for sure.

But, going back to your post, I was never insulted by your comments. Again, I was thinking that you were being extremely zealous on matters far away from "games". I can see now how you relate all things and how you think.

How can people be convinced that the world is reaching a critical point if, for example, Dan Brown writes about overpopulation (reaching millions of people around the globe) and people read it like a curiosity fact. Maybe Dan Brown is a bad example and people will always read "him" like a curiosity fact    but what about music bands who address such issues, TV shows, National Geographic, etc? They all have a clear message and it's accessible to everyone.
It looks like it's cool to be "green" but people are just wearing a shirt, nothing else. Like the photo seen on this thread.
It's like Green Peace, everybody loves them, but who has actually supported them?
It leaves governments to "force" things to happen. And we all know how little pedagogical they can be. That means restrictions to what people are used to and that leads to "less freedom" for populations. It's in a sense, a step back.

Maybe we should enjoy while we can, be just a little bit more selfish with our moral side. And that's just to have brief moments of happiness.
And, Janos, thanks for bearing with me.

SLURP?

Thanks for your advice, Miguel, but I don't think you know that much about me. I think you just want me to shut up, because this conversation annoys you.

Just thought I could help. Dumb me.

But you have no faith in people at all, Janos. Things change slowly but they do change and in my opinion for the better.
You have valuable and even noble notions of how men should be with nature and the world we live and you are obviously a educated person. What you are not is someone with the skills to lead a "radical cultural change". And maybe it is harmful to you if you believe you're that man.
Sometimes we must humble ourselves, with dignity, in order to enjoy the things that life provides.

Do your change, Janos. Just take it easy on yourself and it will show.

It's like going back to a Atari console! ARggghhhh!!!!!

Red Sonja?

Smart people learn how to cope with what they have. The trick is to go as far as rules go, bend them if we can and just try to be happy.
If I'm not being treated like shit, if I have a job to provide my family with enough comfort, if I have political and religious freedom and if I have time to create then why should I really be miserable and complain about society, famine and the rest?
Honestly, if I do complain then I'm just being an hypocrite. If I really care then I should just take a plane to Africa and help people in need.
Talk, talk, talk, talk. We are all the same. Sorry, Janos.

Gnarlllr!

Janos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures, but:

Not at all. It was not negative, you just didn't like it.

Meaning I had a negative opinion. And you'll keep at it until I agree with you, right? But, believe me: It was negative.

the game shows how OTHER games change the way we think. It's only because you played so many games that are about killing people that you saw no problem in shooting another one, see?

A FPS will rarely change the way I think about anything, it's just me role playing a cool guy that saves the day. And because I thought I was playing a proper game I had no problem shooting.

It's not depressing, it's art!

And art can't be depressing? How does unveiling the ludo-logic barrier to the point that the player feels "guilty" about something he wasn't prepared is not depressing?

Just no "cowboys and indians" because pretending you are killing indians here is really, how you say, "depressing"

Now you're trying to be a smart ass, Janos. And not really answering any questions. You seem intelligent enough to understand what I said.

I don't get it. Why more GAMES if families are starving? Why not more FOOD? From where will the food come from?

It's not more games, it's more jobs available in the gaming industry. More jobs mean families can pay for their food.
You sincerely don't think that the gaming industry is stopping people from turning into agriculture, right?
People will always buy food and then games and governments will produce food or buy food if it's less expensive. Unless you're a politician with the means to change anything you'll produce food or buy it like everybody else. Yes, it's really almost sinful that some countries don't have a proper meal a day, but if you are really concerned just join the Red Cross or something like that.
Talking here isn't going to solve anything.

And, please, when you mix things like famine with video games the outcome will not be nor rigorous or even coherent.

Janos, about the game you linked: you found it strange that I gave a negative opinion or you wanted my opinion to match yours?
You also say

I think it's awesome! It shows how games change the way we think.

. Well, honestly, the game didn't change the way I think, not even for a moment. I'd never shoot a man because I'm perfectly aware of the consequences. I shoot 35472 enemies to complete a game if I have to.
Like I said, the game was surprising in the way it backfires on the player. But it is very depressing dude.

No cowboys and indians, really? You never played like you were Bruce Lee or a super hero? That just sucks.

Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families?

Are you serious? Do you work, Janos?

Why would someone force families to work on MORE unnecessary options instead of growing food?

Huh? People search for available jobs, if agriculture pays well they'll do it. The same with game making.
If there's a lot of oranges in the market but still some land owner pays me to pick oranges, I'll do it. It doesn't matter if I think that Bananas are more necessary than oranges.

[Did you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?]

Miguel, what do you think of this game? Does it qualifies as a game to you?

Jesse Venbrux is one the best game makers in my opinion. I also have more games than time to play them. But I'm not nostalgic. My favorite games are very recent. The thing is: You may have 100 good games to play only this year, but do you know how many games are produced each year?

We are talking about games "like any art", but the commodification of art remains.

Janos I'm afraid the download link is kaput!...Wait...I got it from another place. Okay, played, shot the wall and floor and then the poor guy. Lost. I probably should play again... Okay, got it.
Let me tell you what I think: it's a really depressing game and I would not call it a game. It fails miserably on my conceptions. It clearly slaps me in the face for something I didn't want to happen. It's an experiment and a clever one. Call it art if you want, to me is just too modern art. Just like some underground movies where things are shown too much (Elephant and the likes)...
It's not my cup of tea.

Did you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?


And what's that with too many games being produced every year? Is that bad? It means jobs, industry, families fed. And consumers are given lots to chose from.

Basically you have static levels with platforms, puzzle solving using spells and items. The player doesn't run or is controlled via keyboard. There's time to think about actions, there's an option to restart the level. The more difficult levels may involve 2 to 3 rooms and a bit of going back and forward.
Think goblins with just a hint of RPG elements.

As a game consumer it was never this cheap to play top fabulous games than now. With the PS4 in the market I can get the best PS3 games ever made at fantastic prices. I've got more games than time to play them.
The notion that games are worse than before is simply wrong to me, it's the contrary. It's normal to have fond memories from a time when we'd play games for hours and hours without worrying about kids, bills and all that.

Dactylopus, I played the first CIV when I was about 13 or something and I do own CIV IV, yes great games indeed, and I know that there were some good excellent games in the past. But I maintain what I said without wanting to disrespect the people that worked to create such classic games. See, FF were cool (played until XIII-II) but the plot is just too much teenager oriented to me. And Paragons suck! I preferred Junctions! (hello Icey?)

Anyway, after re-reading this thread I think I can answer the original topic question:
A game must:
- challenge me in a clever way;
- take me to some place different than my ordinary life;
- offer me the possibility of victory;
- reward me with cool graphics and if possible a rich plot;
- make me want to have made the game;