illuminatedspace

Just finished Please Don't Touch anything. Has some great art and interesting puzzles. My brothers and I were able to get 18 out of 22 endings without any hints. I beat it in 24 hours, but it was an all day, leave and come back to it kind of deal. Then I immediately went through and got the perfectionist ending by completing the game without any extraneous clicks. I really like the style, the difficulty of the puzzles, and the soundtrack. If you get creeped out easily, it is a little creepy sometimes.

I also found this episode pretty forgettable. I really mostly just remember the gun fight. I'm not entirely sure I can put my finger on the reason, but I really like the way Frank's wife is portrayed. She seems a lot more fleshed out than the standard mob boss wife character. I keep having these mental comparisons between Frank and his wife and Fisk/Vanessa from Daredevil. In comparison, Vanessa seems way more shallow and thin compared to Frank's wife. (Even though I can't remember Frank's wife's name) That freeze frame though. There was one in the first season two, right? After you see the guy with the gas mask in his underwear?

I also love these books. Not as elequent as what you're saying, but it's reminds me of why I read YA books for so long (which I mean in a really good way). It's an epic adventure that is part power fantasy. I can't stress how great the writing is though. I'm waiting for the third book, too. I'd reccommend these books to anyone that likes fantasy.

I love this game! It felt really cool to figure out the mystery. I didn't find the ending to be much of a let down. It's pretty cheap. I reccomend it.

I just finised Her Story. It took me and my boyfriend 3 days. We got almost all the clips without hints. I loved it. Still curious what the writer's actual ending is. According to the PC Gamer interview, he had something specific in mind. I reccomend it. I'm very interested as to how they gated the more juicy clips. Must have been an interesting process of word choices.

Just wanted to throw in some stuff about Punchdrunk, the company that created Sleep No More. I used to be pretty obsessed with them and learnd a lot of suff that might be a little out of date now. First of all they're amazing. I'm pretty positive Sleep No More was workshopped in Boston for a short time before it came to New York, but there are no other actualy Sleep No More venues. The have a seires of shows or events that they put on between the US and England. They're very secretive. I have hear that the turnover on actors and technicians on the show is crazy. I also read an article once about how they lead one of their members on this insane real life scavenger hunt that they designed where they just started sending him keys and creepy letters in the mail, which ended up just leading him to his birthday party. I think I would have called the cops if it had happened to me though. I'll see if I can find the article. (Edit: Here is the article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/fashion/01POSSESSED.html) But also, go see it because it is amazing.

I really hope you guys talk about the part where Velcoro (Colin Farrell) and Frank (Vince Vaugh) raindomly start throwing around the word "Apoplectic." That was so out of character that the two people I was watching with and I, all agreed to pause the show, and look the word up. It's still the most memorable part of that episode for me, maybe even more memorable than the guy in the power blue suit doing karoke.

Hmm. I have noticed that geometry snag thing. I was really into it because I kept having crazy satisfying match wins. However, I think I've finally leveled up into people who are way better than me, and I'm getting my business handed to me. It's not as fun.

My mom loved Myst games. She also really loved playing Syberia. It's more of a third person, point and click, but it does have that human-minimal player interaction.

Has anyone been playing Minimum? I find it particularly interesting because they have a play mode called Titan Mode that has a non player kill goal. It reminded me of some praise many people are giving Splatoon. It's really the only mode I play. It's a minimalist styled (suprise!) FPS. http://store.steampowered.com/app/214190/

Is it a subliminal message that says "Buy More Games, xo Gabe"? Also, How could I not look at them? They were BLINKING!

Played Cook, Serve, Delicious 11 hours since I got it 2 days ago... It's becoming a problem. Has anyone noticed that the monster sale yeti thing yesterday had blinking nipples? Why is this a thing?

Then you are deciding that another human being's time is not worth anything to you. It seems like you're saying "I'm just not willing to compensate them, or even find out if they'd like to be compensated or credited." If the product the artist has made is worth using, then it's worth something to you. If those two values don't add up then you can find a different piece to use. If you're making dinner and you need salt, you can't just walk from your house and until you find any salt and say, "Well I don't know if this is a free sample or it cost something, or belongs to someone else. I want to use this now in my dinner." It's just conditional uses, instead of absolute uses. The ingredient is someone's time and built up skills, as opposed to tomatoes and basil. The ethics are the same as paying for items at the grocery store, it's just easier and less risky to take the font and not bother.

Does anyone play Running with Rifles? I just started playing last week and found it extremely fun. I've only played against bots so far, but I think it might be even more fun with a larger group of people you know so you can really use tactics to win battles.

I think that if you're making something you're not charging for, or getting paid for, the lines are a little blurrier, also there's a lot more content to use that is designated free for non commercial use. However I do find it interesting that It seems like you feel almost opposite from the way I do about this topic. I read this whole thread so far, and I'm still confused on what your actual stance is. So I'll just say what my opinions on the subject are and see if I can better understand you. I see that the examples that you seem to be using are good examples of over reaches of copyright law. I think it's pretty easy to find examples of copyright law that are really ridiculous, and copyright law probably needs a makeover for our current digital age. However I seem to remember that you were more interested in focusing on the ethical aspects of using other artist's work and personal images as opposed to legal. I have also seen you post examples where you say things like, I'm not going to contact the developer that made this program, or the camera manufacturer to get permission. You don't need permission for things like that. For many tools and resources like that, you've already paid for permission to use the computer, or the camera, or the software. This is definitely the case for a program like Photoshop. A program like Gimp though, has been made free. It's kind of an open source tool, and when you use it, you inherently have permission to make things that are your sole property without cost. A bunch of people who know how to make a program like Gimp and would like to use a program like Gimp have worked together to make a tool they need. One person by themselves would spend a lifetime making a Photoshop alternative. However a group of people working together spend less time, get more product, and experience. They have decided it is worth their time. In my mind that's what this whole argument boils down to. The worth of time. Let's say I need something for a project I'm working on, like a font. Sure I suppose it's possible that I could look up some tutorials and make my own font. It doesn't seem worth the time I've put aside to work on this project to make my own font. Someone else decided used their time to make fonts, so now I don't have to. When that artist made their font they may have decided that the distribution, page hit, or experience is enough for the time they spent creating the font. It's also possible that the artist evaluated the time they spent working on that font to be worth money in all uses, or maybe some uses. Let's say you see a font you'd like to use to say, embedd in a website, and the artist that made the font has specifically written that they do not allow that for free. What you are doing is either seeing, what this person has said their time is worth, and decided that you know better what their time is worth than they do, and their time is worth nothing. Or you have decided that you want the font and even spending a couple minutes figuring out what they think their time is worth, is not even worth your time. Ethically, I'd say that means your actions in this hypothetical situation prove that the product that resulted from that time spent is worth using, but the product is worth nothing to you. That, doesn't even make sense. Those two things are contradictory. One other scenario is that someone clearly uses something like a Creative Commons Attribution licence. They'll let you use their product for free, but they just want credit. The result is the same.