Either way.

Point being, I'm not saying mainstream games are all shit or anything, but they definitely have their own problems. They're big and flashy and well-produced, but I just don't see them as some kind of ideal that indie stuff "has a long way to go" to reach. They can be their own thing and indie game makers can do their thing best they can.

I just sort of feel that if you're going to make comments saying the best free PC game is still kind of shit in comparison to Uncharted 2, maybe a site dedicated to indie games is not the place for you? I don't know. I'm getting sick of talking about this, but I don't feel it's an unreasonable suggestion.

Too many cooks is just not a hard concept to grasp.

Edit: unless, wait, are you in that band that's constantly mystified by everyday objects? Fucking jokes... how do they work?

I don't even write that shit down anymore. Too many pages of sigmas and epsilons and it just gets confusing. Nowadays I just try to remember the salient points and hope the rest of it isn't too painful.

P.S. I just survived a monster class on homology and am feeling a little shell shocked.

In fact, indie games have got a long, long, long way to go if they want to touch the best of shelf games.

Yeah, indie developers are going to need way more people to answer to with differing ideas of how they want their money to be spent. And way more focus testing. Public surveys indicate the optimal action hero is a combination wizard/space marine accused of exactly 1.37 crimes he did not commit who fights for freedom with the help of his 0.678925 dogs and a love interest who is sassy/demure/caring/indifferent/out-of-reach/approachable/docile/aggressive/forgetful/brilliant/useless/morose/optimistic/helpful, and I think every indie developer needs to drop whatever they're doing and make a 3D platformer based on this concept which reviewers will describe as both cinematic and compelling.

Honestly, I like the big, dumb, flashy commercial games sometimes too, but if you don't think indie stuff will ever match up to something made by a committee, why are you here, on an indie games site about indie games?

What language are you writing in?

Most have support for function pointers, functors or the like, so you could have the button creator pass a callback function to the button which is invoked when the button is clicked. That way the button doesn't have to know anything specific about what it's doing, and the caller doesn't have to know anything about anything going on inside the button.

I think that's the usual method... if I understand your question.

I would say, definitely, too many people (not here, but among the people who speculate about someday making games rather than actually work on it) are like, "I am going to make the next killer FPS with million dollar graphics in my bedroom by myself," and explaining that you have to crawl before you can walk is probably a good thing.

But, I don't know. I think making short games makes you good at making short games. Spending years building sheds does not make you able to build a skyscraper, but you might get good at building a truly badass shed. That's obviously a skill with value in itself.

So I would be inclined to agree if that's your goal, but I don't think making a ton of short little games necessarily makes you better qualified to take on a big project (beyond having the technical chops, if you didn't have those to start with, say). That kind of has its own challenges that you have to take as they come (in my limited experience, anyway).

You read the quote I was replying to, right? I don't even know where to start with that shit.

Apple have their own Flash-like thing, right? That's what this is all about?

What you need to do is lend him your PlayStation and Uncharted 2. "Best free PC game" is like "world's most beautiful Walmart greeter."

Isn't this basically just a big "fuck you" to indie games?

I was working on a game featuring paper cut out stuff when the demo for And Yet It Moves... came out.

Needless to say it killed that idea. Mine even had normal mapping!

I don't know. Overall, the less gimmicky your idea, the less likely it is to be accidentally reproduced somewhere else. It would be a lot more unlikely for someone to come to exactly the same conclusion on a large number of topics than on a single one, and if someone did come up with some of the same stuff, you wouldn't necessarily feel like it wasn't worth developing.

Three dimensions! Actionscript 2! Woo!

Three dimensions!? I'm not convinced that the human mind can be safely exposed to such a large number of dimensions!

Make a game revolving around light driven state machines!

Then you were working on AI.

But enough about vim. How's the rest of 1976? I hear you guys have good bands.

(I kid. I kid...)

I like that you have a story about what's going on here.

I'm so indie that my last game was Roger Ebert.

P.S. You all lost.

Anatomy lesson #1: remember to leave space for organs.

Also, breasts do not defy gravity.

Try pareidolia.

TIGS suffers from a major case of "peniidolia."

I actually really like the original run, although obviously it is breaking a few animation rules.

The idea of the torso just drifting perfectly horizontally while the legs and arms flail is somehow funny to me in a "shower-door effect on the boat salesman in Monkey Island" kind of way.

How is that remotely... no, nevermind.

It looks good, in any case!