clyde

I'm fascinated by how real-estate in London is being used as currency or bonds or investments or whatever you would call it. This is an odd side-effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjHo5BZM7V0

Indeed, there is an element of self-centeredness in conspiracy theories but not only in personifying great machinations as your personal antagonist. To me, the weirdest part is that there are actual conspiracies that have plenty of evidence and are far more nefarious that something like faking a moon-landing (or a faking the moon itself I guess), but conspiracy theorist are invested in you believing their wild ideas; it's about whether or not you believe them. They don't want to know the truth, they want to believe something kinda off mainstream and have someone else trust them enough to believe it too. It's a companionship/attention thing.

Gawd I hope no one has a kid just to gain legitimacy to their opinion.

I must have been. They were communicating with me through my own memories.

I kinda want to see nature documentaries narrated by Jake and Chris Remo. I was just watching flying insects flying in spirals over a creek for a while and a narration by Chris Remo started playing in my head. It was like:

This type of stuff is so appealing to me. Just in the 2d browser, I get a neat sense of being on the tour. https://littlstar.com/videos/31dece3e ---------------------------------- Also: Hands. http://blog.leapmotion.com/image-hands-bring-your-own-hands-into-virtual-reality/

Here's an interesting intersection between feminism, the war on poverty, and on law-enforcement. Note: There are some horrific anecdotes in this one involving rape.

Now I'm starting to understand the problem. I'm not sure if I need to do a better job of communicating what I find most valuable about art (things I find valuable about conversation), or if I should concentrate on finding folks who make it for the same reasons that I do. I probably need to do both.

I don't think "minigame" has the common-sense definition you claim it has and that this is where your confusion on the initial question is rooted. It seems like you are using "minigame" to describe the gameplay mechanics which you feel are the most incongruous after the fact, rather than asking what makes them incongruous in the first place.

How do you determine what is a minigame? In a rpg, couldn't combat be considered a minigame? Even if it's the change in perspective and mechanics, combat in JRPGs would be a minigame. Or shopping, or dialogue choices might be considered one.

I just read Construct2's explanation about sound and music files in browser games. I'm starting to see the limitations of browser games. Now I can see why I was having trouble with audio in TyranoBuilder. Unity spoiled me. I like not having to worry about when to preload sounds and such. I'm starting to think that the accessibility of browser games without downloads might not be worth it to me. I guess it really depends on who the intended audience is. I think Unity is probably still the closest thing to what I need even though it requires a plug-in and non-Chrome. If anyone really wants to play my game, they'll download the desktop version. I just thought I could have it all if I knew which engine to use. I don't know.

Murder in Neo New England

It depends on the game. I hate first-person platforming because I can't see my feet. Over the shoulder-cam when shooting guns makes it harder for me to aim.

I asked @alienmelon for suggestions since they made Tetrageddon Games http://tetrageddon.com/ And this was the link I was given: http://www.nathalielawhead.com/candybox/tutorial-building-a-game-in-edge-animate-offender

I'm interested in trying that out Dinosaursssssss, but I'm not sure where to start. Would EaselJS be a place to start with that? Or should I look up something else?

The idea of having to wrangle the insides of an engine is very intimidating to me and just not really what I want to spend my game-dev time on. I'm not sure if that's what would be happening here, but that's what it sounds like. I'd rather have something very stable.

My furniture loves the stuff. edit: wait, did someone really rename instant-breakfast "soylent"? That's kinda funny.

Here's some more robot news.

Why bother making sure that they have the means to feed themselves (besides for funsies)? I don't see the potential dehumanization of the poor necessarily being intentional. But why would a company care about inadvertently poisoning the water supply the poor are using when trying to mine the last bit of gold? That type of decision being made all the time without any concern of getting hit back would slowly starve the poor out or worse. I think Merus's point is worth considering too, as wealth (property) becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer these things could happen to more and more people. It's not necessarily a 1 to 100 ratio. It could be 1 to 10,000 for instance. To be honest, I kinda think the world is already this way and just getting more extreme. ----------------------------------------- Here's a short documentary on how land just accumulates into the hands of those with the most capital.

I just don't understand what that would mean. I looked around the EaselJS website, but I have no foundational knowledge of what a javascript library or framework is.

I don't see it as hate. I see it as allocation of resources.

They would certainly come up with rationalizations for it. They'd make up a race or gender or something and then explain how we cause all the world's problems. I don't expect compassion from those in power.

I was thinking Croissant. But no, it doesn't have to be a city in order to be owned and for those property-rights to be enforced by dominant power.

Well the idea is that the rich would control the smartest robot. That may work the first time, but then the technology of control would be developed by whoever accumulates the most capital the next time, so it would get harder (maybe).

In this scenario, all of the property and means of production would be owned by the rich. So there would be no where to live and no land to grow your own food or whatever. It would be owned by landlords. In order to produce many necessary things you need raw resources which assumably the rich would control all of due to their advantage of capital.