This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Random Comments

1256257259261262521

Comments

  • Cyberpulp Adventures is the system/setting, not a subtitle. Otherwise I'd totally agree.

    I think I managed to do something clever with it though in the latest version.

  • My problem is the redundancy. The word "Hardboiled" immediately makes me think "Mystery and Intrigue". If it was hardboiled and didn't contain mystery and intrigue, that would be something to mention.

    Make more of a gap between "Adventures" and "Hardboiled".

    I think the image is awesome though.
  • I sort of want to keep that because, basically, this is the first in a series of games in the same system that escalate from "A Game of Mystery and Intrigue" to "A Game of Exploration and Treachery" for the adventuring game and then another such slogan for the soldiering game. Themed slogans like that feel classy to me, I dunno.
  • If that was a book cover, I'd totally read it. I wouldn't even bother reading the back of the book first.
  • I think you should either lose the moon or blur it out.
  • edited August 2012
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
  • Looking better yet. I like the other shadowy figure, but the motel sign is really jarring. First, motels are out in the country, not in city centers. A motel needs as many parking spaces as there are bedrooms, which doesn't work for a highrise building in a crowded inner city district. Also the sign is very, very large compared to the building. And it's right in the middle of the picture, and very much in focus, so is extra distracting.
  • I like the Motel sign, buuuuuuuut I'd suggest changing it to Hotel (like Luke said, it's the city) and putting it more off to the side.
  • I feel like the guy needs a streetlight or something near him to be providing that illumination.
  • I had a nightmare that at my checkup today the doctor palpated my belly and then told me my son's head was 300 cm around. >_<
  • Today I'm remembering taking psych 101 in college, having to take part in various studies, and essentially trolling every single one of them one way or another.
  • Psych 101 was so easy. It was a web course. The professor barely gave any homework and exams were multiple choice with no way whatsoever to prevent you from using Google.

    Hooray for web courses.
  • So, you basically learned nothing?
  • I hated psych and soc because it all just was basically conjecture.
  • I hated psych and soc because it all just was basically conjecture.
    What? Hardly. There is real research and statistical evidence in both of those fields. Both are far from mere conjecture.

    The empirical side seems to be skipped in into-level classes, I'll give you that. But don't dis misstwo deep fields of study so casually.

  • So, you basically learned nothing?
    Well, I didn't cheat nearly as hard as my classmates, but no I learned very little. In my defense that had as much to do with the curriculum as it had to do with the available exploits. It was a terrible class taught by a fellow from Yale who was either padding his resume or making some kayaking money on the side.
  • I sort of want to keep that because, basically, this is the first in a series of games in the same system that escalate from "A Game of Mystery and Intrigue" to "A Game of Exploration and Treachery" for the adventuring game and then another such slogan for the soldiering game. Themed slogans like that feel classy to me, I dunno.
    If you changed it to something like 'A Game of Mystery, Intrigue, and Robots" it would make it a little bit more interesting.
  • I hated psych and soc because it all just was basically conjecture.
    What, like every other scientific field isn't?
  • edited August 2012
    Sorry, should say "empirically-based scientific field" to exclude, for example, certain subfields of computer science.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • edited August 2012
    I hated psych and soc because it all just was basically conjecture.
    What? Hardly. There is real research and statistical evidence in both of those fields. Both are far from mere conjecture.

    The empirical side seems to be skipped in into-level classes, I'll give you that. But don't dis misstwo deep fields of study so casually.

    Oh of course there is real research and statistical "evidence" and that that all changes through very short periods of time. There are some pretty well "knowns" but those knowns can usually be gleaned from day to day living. I should have also specified that I was talking about intro level classes, I took a upper level soc class which was actually pretty insightful, but was still something that I felt was still fairly interpretive.

    EDIT: conjecture wasn't really the correct word now that I think about it, but I still stand behind my position.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • I hated psych and soc because it all just was basically conjecture.
    What, like every other scientific field isn't?
    Yeah but while human nature is somewhat predictable it's not calculable, much less so than something like the stock market I think.
  • edited August 2012
    Intro level Sociology for me was an exercise in picking the obviously correct answer.
    Post edited by Ruffas on
  • Intro level Sociology for me was an exercise in picking the obviously correct answer.
    Then you had a lousy prof. Mine was very interesting.
  • My psych class I barely remember anything from, but we had to get "credits" for being subjects for various psych graduate research projects. One I don't remember at all (uh oh!).

    Another had two groups. One was primed with alcohol related references/pictures/whatever, the other with neutral references. Then you were asked to rate pictures of people of the opposite sex as attractive on a scale of 1 to 5. All of the images were of actresses, models, and athletes. I was in the neutral group and rated all of them 5 because they were actresses, models, and athletes.

    Another involved being primed by reading a story about death or a neutral story. Then you had to complete some fill in the blank word problems. They were testing whether you responded with death related words or non-death related words. I was in the neutral group, and wrote a whole lot of death words.

    And the best/worst one I'm not even sure what the fuck we were doing and I don't remember what the document explaining the experiment at the end said. I was stuck in a lab-room for three + hours answering "agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree" questions endlessly. I just started jamming the 1 key on the keyboard non-stop pretty much immediately. While it was going on I started to suspect they were just attempting to see how long they could keep a person in a room answering these questions - and I was set on making that time "forever". But I have no idea what ever came of that.
  • Then you had a lousy prof. Mine was very interesting.
    I'll not disagree there. I will cut her some slack for being preggers and having a baby during the class though.
  • I feel like the guy needs a streetlight or something near him to be providing that illumination.
    Maybe car headlights?
  • edited August 2012
    Maybe car headlights?
    If it was headlights, it'd have to be from in front of him or to his left (both out of shot) to illuminate the girl less than him. I think streetlight makes more sense.
    Post edited by Ruffas on
  • Don't add anything more to the design now. Improve it by removing stuff.
  • A streetlight would throw off the contrast. I agree with Luke in that if anything things should be taken away.
  • edited August 2012
    I'd take out the woman, you put her on the far opposite side which opens up a big empty space in the middle. She is also not wearing outdoor clothes, which throws off the mood.

    Also try putting the Cyberpulp Adventures above with a colon.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
Sign In or Register to comment.