Correct, however we've already established that it's not an amiga low-res mode screenshot since the horizontal resolution is greater than 350. In hi-res mode I'm relatively sure the maximum number of simultaneous colours is 16.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're forgetting overscan. PAL overscan can be as wide as 360.

<Ahem> Let me put it this way, since it's been a day now. It's an amiga screenshot. Of a game which had a commercial release.

An OCS amiga can display 32 colours simultaneously in low-res mode, without any special tricks like half-bright or HAM! What do you think it is, an Atari ST?   

By the way, the game-that-isn't-supersprint that you are all wondering about is 'Indy Heat'.

For those of you who hate reading anything other than the last three posts, here is the current one you have to guess.



You still have about 12 hours before I start dropping hints. But I think the image itself gives enough clues for the amateur detectives amongst you.

Booooooo, no one attempted mine

That's because you have to guess one correctly before you can post one. 

I'm supposed to wait a day or so before I give out hints. 

I love you! So who's the third one?

Probably the author's mum? It bombed, even though it got quite positive reviews. But I must admit, I bought almost every voxel game: Outcast, Command And Conquer 2, Bladerunner, Magic Carpet, etc. Outcast was the best one. I wish we had gotten voxel accelerators instead of stupid old polygon rubbish. Phooey!

Ok this is the new one. This should be gettable. You still count as the winner if you guess the first image though:

Hmm, maybe I've made this one too hard anyway. Should I change it for a slightly easier one?

Stop posting out of turn!

You have to win a round to get to post a picture.  

I guessed the last one, it is Vangers.

So I get to post the next one. I'm going to make it an indie game, since that seems appropriate:



If you are really indie, you will get this one  :D

Vangers! I must be one of about 3 people who bought that game  :D

[Nailing Jelly To A Tree]

How about this: "Nailing Jelly To A Tree"

In almost every game you can change the world, save the world, or at least achieve some sort of positive outcome. In this compo, you are engaged in a futile exercise. Maybe you're taking on an immortal enemy. Maybe you're using sandbags to stem the tide of a rising flood. Maybe you're bailing water out of a leaky boat, and the leak keeps getting bigger. Maybe you're trying to save the life of a patient with multiple organ failure. Whatever you're trying to do, it won't work.

Tetris is an example of an exercise in futility. But simply producing a score-attack game with no ending will not fully express the theme of the compo. It would have to be Tetris where every block is a complex, 12-square puzzle piece, which doesn't fit together with the other ones.

For what it's worth, I'm for either the one minute compo or my sport game idea. I'm pretty sure no-goal will generate more wack games than good ones.

Here's a related idea: a "games you regret making" compo. :D

Amirite, Sigvatr?

I wish we would have a compo that forces everyone to make games that indie developers would never normally make:

- edugame compo
- advergame/sellout compo
- sequels compo
- ultra-casual games (I know this was more or less suggested already)
- sports games (what is it about indie devs and sports games, anyway?)
- games which improve your self-esteem
- uncool games

I would love to see what you all would come up with if you were forced to do sports games. Which is normally the province of game developers so jaded, so crushed under the boot of commerce, so castrated by the yoke of yearly deadlines, so lost in the hubbub of a thousand-man-team, so railroaded by the legacy of iterations past, so dominated by the leadership of questionably-competent industry titans, so scrutinized under the lens of 'quality' as perceived by 13-year-old playstation fans, so riven between the twin runaway racehorses of technology and audience size, so benighted by the enormous disparity in their customer base, and so bereft of any kind of pleasure or joy in the creative process, that the games are really a lot worse than they ought to be.

I know you all remember 'sensible soccer', and some of you may know 'Off the wall' by Sente, which both go to show that the best sports games are made by one or two people, for the love of it, much like the best indie games.

Donger

Wow, sounds like I should be careful! 

You should have included a null-modem-cable option for multiplayer.  :D

the C64 look

 

It's not called Death Star because you expect everyone on it to die. It's called Death Star because everyone everywhere else is going to die. So, I don't think it's crazy to take your family to live there. Especially if they are living on Alderaan!

Oh. Then why did I bother to write out that lengthy rant?  :D

Genius idea. Also, I would like to commend you for your work on LostWinds, which I loved.

Of course it is inherently bad. It is by definition punishing innocent people for something they haven't personally done. Making people afraid of you in order to push your agenda is bad in every imaginable way. I find it incredible that you think that it could be argued any other way.

Let's begin with the normal definition of terrorism: attacks against civilians to achieve political goals. Didn't you realise the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars are technically terrorists on this definition? I guess you thought that all the people on the humongous Death Star were soldiers, and that there were no cooks, cleaners or families.

Didn't you realise that Cloud Strife is a terrorist? I guess you thought that by exploding a power reactor that took up one sixth of the world's biggest city, only combatants would be killed, and not power reactor staff, nearby residents and random bystanders?

Or, to take a real-world example, that the French resistance in the Second World War were terrorists? Didn't you realise the South-African ANC under apartheid were terrorists? Do you really think there's no argument in favour of any of these groups?

Or maybe you define 'terrorism' as 'using fear as a tool for achieving political or military goals'. In which case, didn't you realise that the US government's 'Shock and Awe' campaign in Iraq was designed for this purpose? Didn't you realise that Batman is a terrorist, on this definition? Didn't you realise that the whole point of any guerrilla resistance is to decrease enemy morale, in other words, to inflict fear?

I'm not defending any of these groups in particular. I'm a pacifist, and I think all violence is bad. But your claim that it cannot be argued any other way is completely incredible.