BLIND'S PROFILE

More of a feedback question then a showcase of new content - but!

Have any of you had the experience of taking an old game, and substantially revamping its visuals/remaking maps etc?

I'm in the odd situation now, of having to take maps I designed more than 5 years ago, and make them feel consistent/harmonious with the newer content in my project. There's a bit of a gap in quality, though. XD

I used to appreciate the vibrant palette back in 2009, but now I worry it looks too...garish? Not necessarily the mapping itself, but the color palette and the choice of tiles.



Is it worth taking older maps like these, and swapping/editing most of the textures or colors to achieve an effect closer to the screenshots below? Even if it added another 1-3 months of development time?

author=Cherry
I started with a big new feature for the next release last year, and now I'm working on it again to complete it and release it as update... It includes PicPointerPatch and PicsInBattle, but in a native, user-friendly way, and with more extra features and goodies... And it will be backwards-compatible to PicPointerPatch! (Not to PicsInBattle, though.)

Stay tuned...

Wow, that's pretty wonderful news.

Will those two patches mentioned above be the only additions, or will you include additional updates (such as animated monsters, etc)? I can imagine some of the others are a bit trickier to implement natively.

Regardless, very exciting though. XD

author=Dyhalto

author=Craze
until we escape the bipartisan system (put more than just clinton and trump on the debate stage, thanks), "one vote" means you can vote for whoever the rich people have decided gets to run for those votes, if you want your vote to have any meaning whatsoever

Bipartisan is pretty much how democracy will always work. There're only two major paradigms : Left and Right. Everyone else either places themselves relative to the major parties (Libertarians are right of Republicans), or run themselves strictly on an ideological framework (Green Party).

I'm not saying I nescessarily disagree, but what exactly leads you to believe this?

Also, even if that were objectively true, the paradigm kinda disintegrates when the party becomes systematically corrupt (ignoring the true will of the populace), or fights amongst itself (The Republican party this cycle). The false dichotomy has actually led to the situation we now face in this awful election cycle.

Even our founding fathers were a bit ambivalent (at best) on the issue:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." - George Washington

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams

They have a more or less 90% political overlap.

Do they really? I'd have to read up on that more but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.

If they do, then great - but even so, it reads as a bit spineless. Not because of sexist/gender reasons etc., but because it infers she doesn't really stand for anything. She's held no moral compass, no obligation to the greater good, no overall consistency - and certainly no fear of the DNC holding her accountable. She changes her song and dance for whoever will fill up her pockets. But as you said, politics-as-usual, right?

The fact is, she's supported some pretty awful ideas in the past; she worked alongside a politician who voted against the Civil Rights Act, she supports mega-corporations, Wall-Street banks, corrupt industries such as Monsanto and BioAgriculture/Pharmaceuticals etc. She openly opposed gay marriage until as recently as two years ago. I can even agree with Trump that she's been an outright liar in regards to the TPP - she voted for the Bill's passing well over ten times, and now claims to oppose it. Something about that isn't quite right...

I'll probably end up voting for her in the end; but I also don't think she should get a free pass simply because of her opponent.

author=Mog
Whether she genuinely cares about the causes she represents isn't as relevant as whether or not she'll actually enact them, and political maneuvering aside, her long, long record as a politician shows that she's more or less consistent with that in the long term. The idea that she's rubbing her hands together willing to sell out America to the highest bidder is juvenile. Yes, she's shady, but not much more so than the average politician and that's why it's up to us to keep her to task.

I don't blame Hillary for the entirety of the what went down in the primary, but it's pretty obvious she was complicit with it. That alone says quite a lot.

In my point of view, it's not about her "burning down America" as the Republican rhetoric often goes...it's making sure does indeed stick to her promises and push her "progressive" agenda. Believe me, that's all I want too - I don't need to like her as a human being per se.

But yeah, I agree with you overall. Hillary at least will answer to public outcry if she deviates too far from her promises, so it will be up to the educated public to hold her feet to the fire.