I like to mess around with pixels and pretend I'm really good at being creative. I also hike, travel, write songs, play music, make pizza, eat pizza, drink coffee, drink more coffee, and enjoy long walks on the beach.
Classic RPG adventure



Game length and maintaining player interest

early failure is totally something that turns me off.

I believe when someone starts up a game, there's an internal clock that starts ticking. If you don't hook them within the first 10 minutes or so of the opening credits/title screen, you're gonna lose them. In an RPG, a gameover within that time frame is a guaranteed way to lose them and never get them back. Because RPGs require the player to invest so much time into their gameplay, a gameover is devastating. They have to backtrack, they lose items/experience/money and most importantly, their own personal time. Gameovers should be reserved for serious mistakes that are clearly the fault of the player. There are lots of other ways players in RPGs suffer from mistakes besides outright death, since every action is cumulative with consequences popping up later down the line. If a player can't even make it 20 minutes into an RPG without dying, I can't help but view that as a serious design flaw.

need help I have some questions for RM2K3

It's still highly recommended you avoid forced text-speed, especially for cut-scenes where, presumably, that's where the bulk of your dialogue will be.

The official English 2k3 version is out!

I really can not believe Enterbrain actually went along with this.

Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage in US

I think the main problem here is people thinking marriage is this holy trinity between a Man, a Woman, and God, when, it's just simply not. Historically, marriage is a business contract. It's always been a state sanctioned union legitimized by a religious power structure... At least in western Christian societies, where this argument applies directly. Someone already pointed out some number of pages ago that it's only been recently that people have been getting married on the basis of love.

People in power fuck with religion and laws when it behooves them to do so politically. Take for example, just some minor figures in history: Constantine, Martin Luther, King James, John Paul II, etc., etc.

What's my point? Marriage has nothing to do with religion and it never did. Any claim that this fundamentally destroys the sanctity of marriage, or any claim against same-sex marriage based on moral or religious ethics just doesn't apply or matter. You can be upset about it all you want, but marriage is a social construct. It is and should remain outside of the realm of religious influence, regardless of the steeple you kiss under, or the way the organ player rocks those pipes. Maybe a Priest, a Rabbi, or an Imam weds you, but in most US states, they need some sort of official license or documentation to make it legit.

You know, so you can get your marriage license and your 'just married' tax breaks.

Religion helps add that nice shiny layer of veneer, a level of legitimacy to this state function, but it's ultimately just a layer of veneer for what has been a normal human behavior for hundreds of years before the US Supreme Court got to it, or Christianity for that matter.

The Religion thread

There is possible argument that carbon dating is inaccurately calibrated

This is why I think religion and science just don't mesh, at least, if that's the method of approach. This came up once in a discussion about the age of the universe. Someone made the same argument about C14 dating being inaccurate past 6,000 years, which is true except it being more like around 40,000 years. Regardless of the details, I wasn't going to argue against C14 being inaccurate. I instead brought up the science showing that we can positively prove that some stars are more than a couple million light years away from us, meaning that the light has been traveling through space for more than a couple million years, meaning 'existence' as we know it has to be older than 6000 years.

Then someone said God might have made the universe 'appear' that way. Well, that would be a pretty crummy thing for an omnipotent creator to do to the beings they've created, right? He presumably gave us the ability to observe and understand the universe that He created, He wanted us to revel at his universe, why would He then create inconsistencies that we could never possibly prove or know existed?

Also, science just isn't into the business of proving negatives. There is no proof to suggest that starlight is any younger than the distance between Earth and them so that's that. There's no need to investigate and disprove something that there is no proof of ever existing. Such as God or the possible interventions of God.

Of course, people get offended, but that's not a moral statement for or against religion. It just means science can't prove God exists. It's simply stating that science has no business investigating the meta-physical. So the whole idea of using science to prove creationism is just... odd, to say the least.

There's also the problem of the many other, much more accurate, ways of dating objects right here on Earth. Many of which prove that at the very least, the Bible can not be taken literally.

I'm curious though, my mother is a staunch Christian, yet she thinks creationists are out of there mind. She believes that whatever scientists uncover, they're actually just uncovering the methods of God's creations. She also believes the bible could be inaccurate, mistranslated, or purposefully manipulated, as it was recorded by man to the best of their ability in an attempt to understand God, but recorded by imperfect men nonetheless, and so she doesn't take it literally.

This could very well be some new-age hippy crap. As an atheist, the politics never entirely concerned me, but it all seemed rather rational and I'd be curious to know how others feel about such a position.

So yeah mostly I'm a militant atheist.

Militant as in Sam-Harris/Richard Dawkins, or more just like being super stoked about being atheist?

Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage in US

I'm not sure if that's directed at me or about the general thread's response to you. Either way, when you raise an objection, someone may fire back. I don't know what to say about that. I mean, are you surprised? It was not my intent to start a fight but to respond to something you'd said. I didn't think I was being confrontational, even if I did use strong language. Maybe I should have listened to that voice in the back of my head that warned me about commenting in this thread.

But of course, I never listen to that voice in the back of my head. Certainly one of the many things I myself do all the time that isn't right.

Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage in US

I'm not saying race/sex affects who they are. I'm merely saying it's a part of identity that some people embrace and others don't, but a part that society will most certainly not let you forget about. I used the word 'reclaim' specifically to denote taking the power away from society to define it and putting it in the hands of those who it's historically been used to oppress to redefine it.

People reclaiming identities don't do it because they believe in the stereotype. They're not putting themselves down. And obviously, the issue of identity is complicated and nuanced. I don't believe it would be healthy to let one identity consume you, but I certainly don't believe using gender/race/sex as an identity in the face of opposition make them racist/sexist. That's ludicrous.

Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage in US

It all depends what you think the root cause of these identities are. If you believe that these -ism's exist independent of society and are the result of individual bigotry, you would be correct. I don't believe that. I believe they are social constructs legitimized by institutions such as, but not limited to, government and organized religion.

Remember your "Dream Game?" How did that turn out?

I scrapped mine and started over at least fives times. The second to last iteration was a lengthy demo I was quite proud of... then I scrapped it again. I released my last iteration of it as a tech demo and I have no plans to finish it.

But hell, I learned a lot from all those failed attempts and I still have something that, while not aging too well or really anything that spectacular, I'm quite proud of personally.

Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage in US

Honestly? I don't know. I am not well versed in the theory of safer spaces, and I'm sure you can look up stuff on that if you're interested.

I mean, you already pretty much said it but, to reiterate, creating safe spaces requires vigilant negotiation on a case by case basis. You don't want to shut people up, but you certainly don't want to let harmful opinions go unchecked in the name "freedom of speech" or whatever centrist ideology you want to use... cause that would defeat the purpose. So where do you draw the line? I believe that needs to be decided by the community with a huge emphasis on actually listening to the marginalized voices that the community is trying to create a safe space for. It means, for starters, saying things like "race, sex, and gender are not identities" is something that is just not okay. If those things are not identities, then why are there marginalized voices within society at all? They aren't identities in the sense of the individual arbitrarily prescribing the label to themselves, but the broader society placing it on them. It's about the negative effects said labels can have. As so far as people reclaim those identities in an act of defiance, a safe-space community needs to respect that. Denying that erases their history and pretends the discrepancy, the inequality, doesn't exist or it isn't as big a deal as marginalized identities claim it is.

So yeah... that's like, my opinion, man.