I like the image. For a first pixel-art it is quite good.

I think that the front paws should push back a bit further. Also, you might want to consider making the ears more dynamic, since ears that big a bound to be at least a bit floppy.

More!

Hold on. Are we allowed to do that? Because I'd gladly make more as well.

Also, there seem to be a couple of tiny cutoff issues. Both Fatalis67's first picture (the brick wall) and Emtech's last one (the cleft) are only 15x16's. Don't bother asking how I noticed this.

BIG POST WARNING!

Quote from: Rox on August 11, 2008, 12:52:05 am

... I wonder, could I apply that logic to video games, too?

Not really, imo, in that most videogames present a rather unhealthy way to spend time and have the player completely absorbed in attaining some nonexistant (or inconsequential) goal.  Music, on the other hand, is often a social, human force.  Although there's certainly plenty of music that involves wasting time and isolating yourself, i don't think that's the sort of thing they were talking about.  Also, although some games do encourage social interaction, its mostly a perverted form, in the sense of mmos, or an unnecessary form, in the case of party games.

I used to play a lot of videogames, from RPGs to RTS to MMO to FPS and i consider that - essentially - a waste of my life.  It gave me a place to hide but little else.  Again, not to say that people don't sit in their room alone and waste their lives trancing out to music, but that's not to be recommended either.

I love video games, so I'm clearly biased, but I like to see them as a sum of their parts. A good video game (to me) is some nice music, good story, excellent artwork, and a decent challenge all rolled into one nice, neat package. That's just my point of view though. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about books and movies? I'm curious as to where other people draw the line and why. I guess it sort of boils down to the "is it art?" argument, doesn't it? I know that Roger Ebert believes that video games can't be art simply because they're interactive, but I never really understood why that should matter.

I do relate somewhat, with the idea that atheism is empty. Mostly because when I have asked basic philosophical questions to people who declare they are "atheists" they just dont care. Because.....simply that is something that is not engaged in everyday life, and it doesnt deserve any thought, the purpose of being is irrelevant because hey...I dont have time for that, I got to get my paycheck.

Most religious people, dont care either. They believe they already have the answers. Why? because the religous leader said this and that, and it's very clear in passage number xxxx and xxxx.

So what I really have a pickle with, is not really either of the perspectives.But with the fact that they both have in common, that the very purpose of things, doesnt deserve any thought or investigation.

I always considered religion and philosophy to be two entirely separate things in that respect. Extreme theists may throw these sort of questions away because they think that they know all of the answers already, but otherwise it seems to be more a matter of curiosity, which I think is completely independent from most religious views. Everybody has at least some sort of sway towards either atheism or theism, so if you can have a philosophical discussion with anyone then it can't be completely related.

...and animals who THINK they understand what created them and know how they got here: But we don't, and never will. This knowledge isn't attainable, as cynical as it may sound, and our willingness to keep striving for more answers only leads to more questions. Obviously the previous description is silly thinking, as God may not exist, or may be some pig-snake creature somewhere. Point is, I don't know. No body knows. So it'd be nice if we stopped acting like we knew and just lived our lives with one another.

That's the basic premise of agnosticism as I tried to describe it earlier, although I think that you summed it up better.

   Thing about religion is, it's a good way for one to live in social, civilized life with others. Taking it literally word for word is non-sense in my opinion; but I'm ok with people living their lives this way, as long as it doesn't involve "recruiting" others to join them. THAT is effin' annoying.

Seconded.

I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist. I've never tried to "convert" anyone or convince them that my faith and way of life is the right way or the only way. Maybe that makes me a worse Christian for it, not spreading the word, (I'll explain my best if someone asks, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to be like "believe, mudda fukka!") but it doesn't explain why atheists (the ones I've met) argue that religion is just a way of controlling the masses or something, and then they go and try to convert me to their way of thinking. I mean, wtf? You're gonna say religion is bs and then try to convert me to nonreligion? I don't see the difference between a religious leader vehemently arguing against science and a scientist adamantly arguing against religion. They're both trying to convince people that their truth is truth, or at least truthier than the other's truth. So like, religion can be used as a vehicle for power but so then can science, really.

I try not to try to convert people because I recognize that they are the exact same thing. Atheists generally believe that they have a greater right to try and convert you because they base things only off of observation, but an agnostic recognizes that "knowing" that there is no god is impossible, and hence that atheism is almost or just as faith-based as any other religion (that's right, atheism is still a religion).


...I think that about covers all of my thoughts at the moment.

Here's mine:



This is awesomely fun.

But that's the thing now. Do you think anyone would be even one iota less excited for this game if it looked like Megaman 6 or better? Or would they be more excited? Buuuut... which is the easier one to make, and which will generate more instant nostalgia sales?

Point taken, and I definitely agree. I guess the only other point that can be made is that graphics always get better later in the cycle, so maybe the team figured that the simpler it looks, the more retro it feels? That seems like a pretty crappy excuse though.

my only real fear - and it might not be the popular fear on this board - will the GAME be as good as the old ones?  AND - in an age where everyone has emulators and other stuff that already lets them play the old ones for free - what is this game doing to make it worth buying?

I honestly think it's going to end up as collector's item because after the first few thousand people will realize that it's nothing that they didn't have before, and that it was made with half the love.

I'm pretty sure that it will be as good as the old ones. The Megaman formula doesn't seem to be something that you can mess up too much, especially if you're trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. Even so, this will probably end up as a collector's item simply because a retro-styled game like this doesn't seem like something with the mass appeal of some other titles.