and the ending of The Rudest Fucking Party Guest was a big mistake on my part. it required foreknowledge of the short story "The Masque of the Red Death" by Edgar Allan Poe, and I had overestimated the amount of people who had actually read it.

That is a lot of faith to have in American literacy.

i think that's the most abuse-able system, and also boring (just hitting the air 1000 times to gain your strength or jumping 1000 times to increase your jump height is boring) -- i've never played a game where it worked out well

How about if your skills began to "atrophy" if you weren't constantly using them. You would have to regularly "work out", bringing the real life practice/exercise simulation full circle.

ya, a lot of people don't recognize sarcasm on the internet, and tend to assume other people are monsters rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. i do think they tend to play up their games, but it's definitely half-joking, and intended to attract attention, like with bob from bob's game. they don't seriously think it'll be the best indie game ever (even after super meat boy)

I think such an attitude would be much more welcome after they had developed a few dynamite game releases.

I don't think everybody knows that.

I'm not sure what happens. I try to eat the person at the 3rd drop and there are a few white bursts but it doesn't seem to work then I get a game failed.

Also, I think the click spam is unnecessary when you should be able to hold it to "eat" unless I am not using the controls right.

As a hint I can only say that human body is not intended to be eaten by the Creature (main game character)

I was wondering if this was the case but still had no idea what else I could do.

FFT gave you EXP for everything you did. If you didn't have anything to do on a turn, you would be a fool not to at least throw a rock at your other party members.

How hard or difficult do you think it would be to create a game that has many "Elements" or pieces of machinery that themselves have "Hard Coded" behaviours however the way they react to other things is not hard coded. For instance you could create two "Behaviours" and apply them to two things with a liquid "Behaviour" One would be hot, one would be cold.

No idea what you are saying here.

Then you would take the hot and cold behaviours, give them ranges of hotness or coldness and then code how the "Middle Hot" and "Middle Cold" react and give the program examples on what happens with variations. Then you could apply these two things to a wide variety of others.

Programming is very abstract so it all depends on what the goal is for the implementation and how the whole system will work as a whole. Its difficult to understand what you mean here though.

You could give things a hardness behaviour that would make it (Assuming there's physics) that if you dropped something harder or heavier on another object the bottom one would shatter. And instead of programming how those two specific entities that are hitting each other react to one another, you're simply giving them the behaviour to follow when interacting with other objects that have the same or other behaviours.

It sounds like you're talking talking about inheritance/composition and/or polymorphism, which involves having different objects share traits by being based off of or possessing a root object, and allowing different objects to be interchangeable as long as they have the same interfaces. Such features are fundamental to modern day programming.
As far as games go, however, it gets a bit more complicated due to having to work visually. If you want an object to break into pieces without specifying how to do so, then you would need an algorithm to do it for you. A 3D model would have to be replaced with geometrically divided pieces of the original. A sprite would have to have a similar operation performed, making multiple sprite parts from the single one. Such operations might not look great without some tuning and modifications.

Either way, programming these kinds of things can be easy or difficult based on the amount of detail and features it has.

-the hell are you talking about.

Yeah, according to whatever I read, he became a YouTube partner and so his own work became much more valuable.

The top selling products don't need Steam as much...because they are top selling.

I think that is Egoraptor's work.

Surprising. Also, the game don't look half bad either.

Basically what they've done is that they've created a console on the PC.

I wish Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft would do this instead of having consoles.

Well, having a lower tier would not mean they could not charge for listing on it or have other costs since it would actually cost money to host and manage each game even if the system were automated. They could charge a modest fee to cover costs, make a profit, and support independent developers in the process.

I've always kind of wondered why Valve/Apple haven't implemented a tiered approach to handle this. Good applications and games get a seal of approval from the company and more exposure while other games and applications end up in a separate area so search results and browsing are muddled so quality is maintained. The lower tier has a lot more competition as well as garbage which would have to be filtered by the community more or less via ratings.
Even though developers wouldn't get to be in THE store they wanted (or not right away without modifications suggested/required by the company), you're still basically next door where a great deal of people will still be looking for software. Even in the worst of circumstances surrounded by horrible games and broken apps, I would think it would be better than just having no decent distribution option at all.

Massive props to the control scheme. I am so used to playing wasd/mouse as human characters that your alternative control scheme reinforced my belief that I was some sort of parasite or monster, and not human. Perhaps unintentional but I thought that was a pretty neat touch.

Translation: Only a monster would use this control scheme.

1) Generation Y, I guess?

2) Finland and some African country.

3) 0%. 

[100xp points for each level]

Why not simply require 100xp points for each level?
It's much simplier for a player to estimate xp reward this way.
You can easily assign xp values for quest and monsters in terms of monsters per level.

The reason no RPG does this, is because it makes your first encounters have the same value as the final boss.

Not sure if he meant it, but it it sound like Xecutor is saying both static monster exp and static points per level. As well, the "monsters per level" makes it sound like every monster gives the same amount of exp no matter whether it is a boss or grunt.

Would probably help if you explained it at all. There are some interesting mechanics at play in the game like with objects jumping when you duck but the controls are a bit difficult, especially with out easy it is to die (a landing from a super jump at the same height you left at will kill you).
I ended up getting stuck right below what looks like some kind of science equipment on the left side because I can't figure out how to stop the bird from being interested in the bread way high up instead of the bread in my hand.

Really, it seems like one of the best thing you can do is to form a strong community around your game(s) to the point where people actually want to buy your game and support you. You just need more incentives to purchase.