DESERTOPA'S PROFILE

How long a contest is this going to be? I think it would be pretty hard to make a really great villain in a short game (although certainly not undoable.) If all the game entries are short, I think the pickings would probably end up rather slim.

author=nurvuss
If I'm not mistaken I think Lunar 2 just baaaaarely beat Breath of Fire 2 to the punch. They both came out within a couple of months of each other and they both used that trope. They were both interesting takes--BoF2 had the more bizarre and disturbing stuff, but Lunar 2 had the better characterization and look at motivations.

Lunar 2's original release on the Sega CD was in 1995, while Breath of Fire 2 came out in 1994. They may only have been a few months apart, but BoF2 was the earlier of the two.

author=Kaempfer
Electrolytes are useful whenever you've sweat a lot. They aren't NEEDED, but they're useful when you've lost salt via sweat, period. If you sweat profusely while walking, electrolytes and water are better than water. If you run a marathon and you are somehow only a little sweaty, water is more than good enough. You won't die if you don't drink electrolytes, but you will rehydrate slightly faster. Also, Gatorade is delicious. I fuckin' love orange Gatorade.

Rehydration is just... re-hydration. Restoring lost water. Getting electrolytes won't speed it up. Restoring electrolyte balance is a different matter entirely, but people normally get plenty of electrolytes through food, so unless they're losing an exceptional amount, getting more from drinks won't help at all (and it's definitely not the case that you can never have too much.)

If you're trying to lose weight though, stuff like gatorade is actually pretty terrible because it's so loaded with sugar. You could use it to help recover when you're trying to put on muscle, but I'd always prefer a shake or something with some kind of protein source. Also I am frankly dumbfounded that anyone can stand the taste of gatorade because it is basically sweat plus sugar plus the most horribly artificial fruit flavorings known to man.

author=Ratty524
Think of it this way: Why is anyone saying your game sucks? The reason is that you did something wrong or gave them a bad experience, and unfortunately, not everyone is good at relaying exactly why they don't like a game, nor do some people care that much to take the time to thoroughly explain their concerns, but it's not like that individual's opinion is "wrong" or dismissable. If he clearly doesn't like it, then you've done something wrong with your game.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Even the best games, books, movies or whatever, aren't for everyone. You could make a really great game, and some people would still think it was terrible, not because you did a bad job, but because their tastes were totally outside the sort of audience you were targeting to begin with.

The author of xkcd is, as webcomic authors go, very successful; he makes a living off his strip, and has a substantial and enthusiastic fandom. He explicitly bases his writing philosophy on the principle that if you can make something that really appeals to just one percent of the populace, then given wide enough distribution, it'll serve you better than making something that kind of appeals to half the populace. The stuff he makes is never intended to appeal to most people.

On the other hand, it's important not to fall into the trap of convincing yourself that the people who praise your work are the only people whose opinions mattered to begin with. The fact that your work isn't meant to appeal to everyone doesn't equal a carte blanche to dismiss the opinions of the people who didn't enjoy it as irrelevant.

When critics make unqualified statements like "this game sucks" though, it makes it hard for the creator to determine whether they're dissatisfied members of the potential audience whose opinions they should be taking on board, or people who were never really part of the intended audience in the first place.

author=CashmereCat
Can someone tell me if that's a thing? Like, being too small so that body weight exercises is the best thing to do? Or should I go straight to big weights?

Well, you can definitely be small enough that it's a bad idea to try lifting big weights, but if you have regular physical functionality, there's really no point at which it's just a bad idea to lift external weights at all.

You can do a lot of good exercises, and get quite strong, working just with body weight. But a regimen of just pushups, situps and squats (which I used for a while in my teens too) isn't very balanced, since you're not working the muscles that oppose the ones you use in those exercises. If the muscles you use to push (like in a pushup) are strong, but the ones you use to pull (like in tug-of-war or a pullup) are weak, then you'll be more prone to injury.

You can do real beginner workouts at a gym, and it's also good to have a separate place you can go to work out which you don't use for anything else, because it makes it much easier to stay motivated and on task when you're there. So don't avoid going to a gym because you feel like you aren't ready for one yet. But you don't strictly need a gym to put together some effective workouts (there have been times when I've used a mostly-abandoned playground as a workout spot,) so you might get your workouts outside a gym to save money.

If you're not that familiar with exercise though, going to a gym is probably safer, because there will be other people to give you advice on form and such and watch to make sure you don't do anything where you're liable to hurt yourself (it would definitely be a mistake to think that if you don't start doing exercises with big free weights, you're safe from the risk of injury.)