The Dink Network

Wel i don't know how it's really deceided if an D-Mod is an Romp, Quest or Epic. I'm building an D-Mod that will either be an Quest or Epic.

Well i guess if you guys(ladies too) read the plot i thinl you can elp with the name so here it is:
By beating Seth. Dink has given Hatred that little push needed to give HER full control the ancient.
And now the world is in even greater danger than before.
But hope is not lost becouse the other ancients send Dink on a quest to retreive some ancient scrolls of an myhical spell tat can remove Hatred's hold on seth. So he will be good again. But it won't be easy becouse even the ancient's don't know where these scrolls are or how to read them.

This is not my first D-Mod(but it is the first one i will release). becouse i had about 4 or 5 experimentation D-Mods .

The category of a D-Mod is decided by the time it takes to finish the game. A Romp is a few minutes to an hour, a Quest is an hour or two hours and an Epic is as long as the original game or longer.

Thanks that is usefull to know

I've always wondered what the standard time for beating the original game is...

There is a litle broblem with your story. Seth killed the other ancients so there are no ancients left. But it doesn't matter.

A few nice names micht be:

Seth's revenge
The resurection of hatred
The ancient scrolls (reminds me of The Elder Scrolls)

FIAT is an ancient...

well even if the ancients are dead why can't they ask anyone for help(even our dead can do that )

Oh realy. Do you see ghosts?

Erm... 'Hatred's Hold'...

In the original dink in the darklands there where ghosts. Sometimes i do have dreams with gandma who's dead but in some tv shows about the paranormal they say it is an atempt to contact us. and So why cant te ancients do that too? Or appear as ghosts in the hall of ancients(what they do in my D-Mod(but shaped like firballs (until i have some cool ancients graphics )))?

Well there surely is some paranormal power. My father had to throw up and think a lot of his father at the moment my grandfather died. My friend saw his niece with blue lips waving to him and saying goodbye in the night before his niece died. My friend's niece drowed in the swimming pool. So in these cases they said goodbye some way. Maybe without even knowing it. I had dreams that show the future. They don't realy tell me anything but they show it. First time I thought it was coincidence but I got more of those dreams. Not much though. Could still be me.

And I don't doupt if the dead ancients can contact Dink. They are ANCIENTS! But normal humans that's just a matter that has jet to be solved.

Actually it's all just delusions in the case of ghosts and coincidence in the case of the "future" dreams. Reason tells us that there is no possible way those things could exist or occur.

I think you're wrong. Riligion may be all nonsence but there is something that cannot be explaint. Something paronormal maybe but those dreams may be coincidence but the knowing that someone is dead thing is not. There are manny cases in wich people just knew someone is dead. I don't realy beleave in ghosts and stuff but there IS something although I do not know what or don't know how to explain the reasons.

The knowing people are dead is also coincidence. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking coincidences don't happen or don't happen often when in fact they can happen often to one person even. That's all luck is really, when random events coincidentally go your way. Rational thinking tells people that anything else cannot possibly be the case. Another common mistake is to think stastical annomilies and improbabibilities don't occur, when in fact they do otherwise they would be called stastical impossibilities.

Beleive wat you want to beleive. But what has this to do whith my D-Mod?

also some of the names are great but others like "Seth's revenge" are a bit to commen or basic. progress is decent but a bit sluggish after finishing the first island i'l release an demo (atleast if i found a name).

This has nothing to do with beleving I'm talking about facts here! This has nothing to do with coincidence! Don't always blame coincidence wait untill it micht hapen to you. I don't know what it is but there are a lot of people wich KNEW that something was wrong with someone.

Oh yeah your D-Mod ehhm.. Could you tell me what the name should be about? Or maybe you should just think of one yourself. It's not hard at all!

I'm an atheist, so I won't fall back on religion... but I can give you at least 2 possible reasons...
1)Its a known fact that we only use a tiny percentage of our brains, what if our subconcious or the unused portion can be utilised in ways we don't fully understand? Who's to say that we don't subconciously affect what happens to us by what we think about? That is, if you don't believe you can see something before it happens, is it possible we cause something to happen by envisioning it? (That could be controversial... hmmm,I don't mean if you imagine a relative dying they're going to die... but seeing yourself working in a new place for example... or finding money in the street...)Also, we don't really understand a lot of things regarding how we die, who's to say that we don't send out subconcious 'sh*t, tragedy coming' signals to those who are close to us?

2)We could have travelled to the future, seen what had happened, had our minds wiped by alien frog creatures, but their mindwiping tissues didn't work properly and memories got stuck as dreams.

Ok... it sounds ridiculous. The point is, reason can be found in almost anything... and by saying that other people's opinions or beliefs, and their motives for having them, are devoid of all reason makes you sound not only condescending, but extremely naive.

EDIT: That was aimed at Draconic Dink by the way...

Its a known fact that we only use a tiny percentage of our brains

The idea that we use a tiny percentage of our brains is an urban legend.

'Could you tell me what the name should be about?'

If i knew that i would have told you but but one thing is certain it has o blend in with the D-Mod.
The best neme yet is "hatred's reserection".

Also i need some new gaphics(i suck at that).
I was thinking of this for new ones:

A shadowy figure of seth the old person and dink and the transformaition b'twean each(for Hatred. Also you can choose your own main look but it has to be a girl for that).

A new title screen(but that can wait until i have found a name or choose on of of the submitted ones )

and new spells(i think anyone wants that in a new D-Mod)

Actually what it is is that we only use 9-11% for concious thought. We do use all of our brain, it just that the rest is used only for subconconcious thoughts like ythat required for running our hearts, lungs, liver, stomace, kidneys, etc.

By the way this post is in response to redink1 and IceDomina.

No reason cannot be found in anything. Reason can be rephrased as "rational thinking". Reason can only tell us the way reality really is, nothing to do with what we think it is or what we want it to be. Anything else is either a failed attempt at reason, therefore not reason, or the lack of an attempt to use reason. There is no middle ground.

To recognise reality for what it is is far from "condescending and extremely naive". In fact it is quite the reverse.

Draconic: Show me. As far as I know, there have not been any studies to determine what percentage of the brain is used for conscious thought. The whole 10% thing seems to be a social meme with no scientific basis.

If you could point to a source supporting your belief, it would be very much appreciated.

So how do you 'recognise reality for what it is', Draconic? I work in the pshych ward of an old folks home, and sometimes I feel awfully insecure about my ability to perceive reality.

It's not only old people either. My anorexic best friend is convinced she's fat, but in reality is very close to death.

I assume your mind is also human, and as clumsy as anybody else's?

I think this thread might end up like a certain thread we had last year, so I really shouldn't post much in this thread, but I can't resist...

Don't you believe that a rational human mind is pretty supernatural? To understand something you have to be 'on a higher level' then what you are studying. I can say a lot more about religion because I think your thinking has a pretty fundamental fault, but I don't think it will convince anybody, so it's pretty useless to post that.

'but I don't think it will convince anybody, so it's pretty useless to post that.'

Good point and lets GET BACK ON TOPIC. Please and if you wan't to keep chatting about supernatural beleives open a topic in off topic.

No I'm not getting back on topic! So figuere a name out yourself and let us talk about nonsense.

Hmmm.. How rude.

merder: This site generally supports threads that go gently off-topic. The off-topic replies to this post flowed from the original subject in a fairly interesting manner.

It wasn't like someone popped in and started asking how to get past the bulldozer in "Dink Fights the Suburbs."

I don't think Seth managed to kill all of the Ancients. It seems a few managed to escape Seth, like FIAT. In one of my many upcoming D-mods, a few Ancients are still alive... Well, at least one, anyway. And hey, there are many alternate Dinkiverses around.

It's not nececary that you go on exactly like it was in the original Dink. If in your D-Mod the ancients are alive then they are alive it doesn't matter that much. Although I like to stay realistic. But other things like a nice D-Mod are just much more important. If you create a good D-Mod and the story doesn't realy fit in because of what happned in the original Dink, who cares! Aslong as it is a good story and a good D-Mod then nothing is wrong.

My mistake... the percentage of the brain we actually use for conscious thought is more important to my argument than the amount of the brain we use in general... but what I was thinking about as I wrote it (in my exhausted state) was not the brain itself... but the 'mind' (whether they're the same thing is a philosophical debate for another time) or even perhaps the subconscious... does anyone here argue that we still don't understand much of the workings of the subconscious?

'Seeing reality for what it is' is just the sort of statement that makes you sound so condescending and naive! Where do you draw the line between the real and the unreal? And who are you to say that what's real for you is real for everybody else? 'One truth' Right/Wrong philosophy has been the root of many of history's greatest atrocities... and emphasises the ignorance of the masses. I don't want to get into a philosophical argument with you though Draconic Dink... I just... would ask that you're not so presumptuous in future... (a fault I share, perhaps?)

I think that any philosophy is ultimately based on axioms (call them beliefs, or whatever you want), statements that cannot be proven.

In this discussion about reason and rationality and reality and stuff, I believe there is no possible way one can think 100% rationally. Also I believe in multiple realities, at least one for everyone existing.

E.g.: DraconicDink's reality is that there is one way reality really is, which can be found using reason. My reality is that there is no way of pure reason, and that there is no way reality really is. On this we have a slight disagreement. That's the point of philosophy anyway, to question ways of thinking

And, for the record, I agree with IceDomina that we still don't understand much of the workings of the subconscious.

This about there only being one way for reality to reminds me about a thread a while back about Objectivism... gah, that thread was silly. Parts of it really makes me twitch.

Which is exactly what metatarasal said a few posts up. Shame on you Alex.

Oh, shoo!

He cannot expect me to actually click on a link so unspecific, nor belive that I out of nowhere will know he thought about the same thread. My link, on the other hand, along with my description, is rather non-ambiguous, I think.

All my typing useless!?

Atleast you should act like your interested in similar threads if you post a link to one yourself...

No, no. Not useless. I was just not able to connect "a certain thread" to the objectivism thread when I read through. So I figured I needed to link there myself. In any case, more than one link to the same thread within another thread isn't that bad, now is it? I could in theory have written "The thread which metatarasal linked to really made me twitch", but I'd rather just link there myself, even if so previously done by others.

How do I recognise reality for what it is? I do it in a very literal way. By ignoring my opinions, desires and fears (the most common human faults that get in the way of people observing reality correctly) and not letting them dictate my view on reality.. Instead I observe reality I observe reality.

Presumptious? Me deciding what's real? You clearly don't get my point. My point that I don't "decide" I let reality do that for me (by observing what it tells me). Reality is that what exists/that which is real, not that which is real for each person. The fact is that regardless of what we think there is only ONE reality.

Well, I was able to connect "a certain thread" to the objectivism thread, so there

"The fact is that regardless of what we think there is only ONE reality."
You're confirming my theory more and more this way, my friend

How do you know for sure that what reality tells you is real, is told to everyone as real?

For example, reality tells you grass is green, but reality tells everyone else that grass is in fact orange. How do you know you are the one which is told the correct colour of the grass, and not all the others?

I expect an answer along the lines of "reality tells everyone the same, truly real thing", so here comes another story:

I'm colourblind, and if for some reason the "grass is green" info gets wiped from my brain, I will see it as orange again, as I did 15 years ago. The only way I 'know' grass is green, is because everyone kept telling me it is. That's like propaganda, isn't it? In my case, reality told me grass is orange. Also, I did never "decide" that grass is orange, reality told me. Everyone else told me it was green.

I expect an answer along the lines of "yes, but thanks to your colourblindness, you don't get reality the true way", so here comes another story:

What if not I, but all the others see reality incorrectly? What if I see all the colours the way they really are, and all the others just think there are more colours, and in that way they interpret reality wrongly. The idea that only one person (against 7 billion others) percieves reality the real way is just a statistical improbability, not an impossibility.

Okay, so it has been 'proven' colourblindness is a malfunctioning of the brain/eyes/neural-connection-system (I'm not thát deep into biology, but the idea is that it's 'proven' that it's a malfunctioning). This is also relative. What if, at a certain moment a long, long time ago, everyone saw reality as I do (with orange grass and the inability to discern red berries from green shrubs when running past), and then someone said "Dudes, look! There are red berries in these shrubs! And the grass is green, not orange, you're all wrong, man!". It would have been thought the person was a madman, and locked away or killed (we're talking primitive society here).
Later, when we have the equipment to 'see' the difference between colourblindness (the presumed 'real' case) and non-colourblindness (the hallucinating people), a difference in the brain (or wherever) becomes clear. The non-colourblindness would be labeled as malfunctioning of the brain/eyes/neural-connection-system (or whatever), which makes people see things that aren't there.

Of course, if you don't meet my expectations, feel free to discuss further. You have to admit you like the discussion (at least, I do)

(For the people who think I've double-posted, switch to 'nested', the way this board 'really' is (bad attempt at comic relief, I know)).

You manage to ignore all your opinions, fears, hopes, biases etc? Wow, could you teach me how? ... Plato suggested that we couldn't possibly access the 'real world' using only our five senses... we could only detect it and gain true knowledge through meditation, learning, and detaching from what the world, or more accurately, our eyes, ears, fingers etc, tell us... (what a convoluted sentence that one was!)... I quite like Plato... He may or may not be right, but its an interesting thought... and my desire, or perhaps my need to explore such thoughts drives me to disapprove of a 'this is right, I just know it, so the rest of you go home and hug a banana' mentality.

I'm sorry Draconic Dink... but first impressions last, and everything you have said so far has, in my reality, contributed to my opinion of you being close-minded... and rather naive. Your having an opinion doesn't bother me in the slightest; in fact, I think you're quite entitled to it... but yet you insist that its not an 'opinion', (cause you 'ignore' your opinions) and that you're just right. Cause after all, you're just 'keeping it real'

Besides the reason we see certain colours the way they we do (bar colour blindness) is because that is the colour of light that object reflects (due to chemical pigments that is part of what it is made up of) and all other light colours are absorbed by that object. This is simple science that is taught at high school in the first year. So your example of previously seeing things as a different colour is ridiculous, cos it can't of been the case.

And no I don't have to admit I enjoy this. I am getting annoyed with it, cos I'm sick of arguing with people who refuse to think rationaly. And as such I've had enough of this discussion and have no intention in taking part in it anymore unless it heads in a new direction.

Actually that's not quite what I said.

Also unlike you I'm not confortable with letting my desires decide things. That's not to say that I don't have them (I am still human after all), just that I block them out. And trust me when I say that's not as hard as people think (and I'd know since I have experience at it). A lot of people let their emotions rule them and don't give themselves enough control over who they are. I do not. That is because I long ago learnt that we have full control over who we are. Not our chemicals or emotions. They are given too much power, power they don't have. They are just influencers, not deciders. Due to my realisation of that I am capable of things most people are not capable of, such as blocking out my desires when I try to figure things out. Instead I use only rational thinking and evidence.

As for Plato, what he says makes no sense at all. The reason creatures evolved our senses was so that we could better idea of reality than their evolutionary relatives could (though they still had other things that worked like sense some of our they weren't as good). Plato and Aristotle are responsible for destroying the minds of many people, especially in Europe, even in modern times.

You're really avoiding magicman's questions now, really. Maybe because you can't properly answer them?

Also, you're growing sick of arguing with people who refuse to think rationally? That's like, 98% of the world population, dude. It isn't much of a discussion when you have that motivation. And you started the argument in the first place.

No I'm not avoiding them. Abd it's not cos of lack of answers. It's cos of lack of desire to waste my time doing so. And so what if I started the argument? Doesn't mean I should continue it?

Also, you're growing sick of arguing with people who refuse to think rationally? That's like, 98% of the world population, dude.
Sadly that statement is all too true.

Thinking rationally is dull. Let your emotions take control, baby!

During trying times like these, I ask myself: WWWCD? (What would WC do?)

I didn't posted to this topic before, because I thought I might offend somebody with my belifs. But since everebody posted here, exposing their theories, I'll express my opinion too.
First of all, I'm Christian, and orthodox(not catolic), and I do belive in God and everything my religion sais. I don't think many of you are orthodox, I know some people here are atheists, so I won't try to convince everybody my religion is good. God should be felt, not proven.

How do you know for sure that what reality tells you is real, is told to everyone as real?
Let's say reality tells everybody that if you throw yourself in front of the train, you die, but reality tells you something else. There is only one way to find out who is right.
I also want to tell you a little joke about this:
A young student tells his father that he studied philosophy, and he can prove him that he's not there. The father don't belive him, so the child starts to prove him. After he finished, his father slaped him.
"Why did you hit me father?"
"I didn't. If you're not here, how could I have hit you?"

Edit: Can you belive the title of this topic is "New quest or epic without a name yet"?

stfu n00b!

Make that fourth year (university 2nd if you include the quantum explanation (though introduction of the quantum explanation was given in 5th grade)). But it was merely an example. You áre avoiding the question, muthsera.

"And trust me when I say that's not as hard as people think"

Just as math isn't difficult. It's like I prove Fermat's Last Theorem every night five minutes before I go to sleep. It isn't difficult for "some" people, not for "all" of them.

Which noob? (And no, clearly I don't view the board in nested mode)...
Does anyone find it at all ironic that a guy who insists he is totally in tune with reality spends enough time playing a game with dragons and stone giants that he is a somewhat prominent member of the board? Undoubtedly, that's going to get quite the rebuttal... while, quite frankly, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief. Draconic Dink... I'll leave you to your reality. And hey, leave Plato alone. He's dead, k?
As for you Cypry, thanks for not preaching

Well the reason I am willing to play fantasy stuff like Dink (and read fantasy books) is that since they aren't reality (and I doubt anyone would agrue with me on that point) unrealistic things can be put it there.

Sorry to disappoint you but no rebuttal.

And where did you get the idea that I am a "somewhat prominent member of the board"?

Because you tend to post a lot in one thread.

That isn't enough by itself, but oh well.

There's a little thing called sarcasm... that relates to a little thing called reality...

A 'somewhat' prominent member of the board = prominent as in CONSPICUOUS... thrusting yourself into attention by saying things that COULD perhaps be interpreted as closeminded or naive. Or perhaps not. Each to their own. I wasn't overestimating your importance. You're hardly a stranger to the DN though.

Well I have been here for just over a year now so no stranger indeed. And didn't realise you meant prominent in that way. I've never known the word to be used in that way, though thinking about it it seems a valid use (I know quite a bit about that sort of thing). I've only known it to be used in the way you said you weren't using it.

It is definitely a valid use for the word... and it also follows logic, yes. You know quite a bit about that sort of thing? What would that be... etymology, grammar, how to read a dictionary?

I mean to say that I know a lot about grammer, spelling and structure (as well of a lot of advanced words).

'Advanced words'? If you don't mind me asking, in your reality... what counts as an advanced word?

I don't call them advanced words based on "my reality" I do it based on the meaning of that term. Usually these are words normal people dont know, though this isn't always true as this is a side effect of the meaning not the meaning itself. The meaning basically is: words with complex meanings.

All the 'in your reality' references are just taking the p*ss after your other posts... just ignore the sarcasm.

EDIT: I was interested in what you considered an 'advanced word' though...

*Hands not-so-very-smyley-even-though-its-not-quite-smiley a hankie*

Ad I've said a few times now: that is a meaningless, pointless and annoying posts! It's also an abuse of your posting privaliges and rude!

You're quite right. It was the first one I'd read though... fair enough?

Draconic, no offense, but are you a spy bot?

Ooooohhhhh.... you added a name this time! You're so creative! *wishes there was a little eye-rolling smiley... although maybe not, cause then it would be ABUSED by a certain misspelled fool*

Umm, no, why? *Confused expression on my face right now*

Wow

merder

you could include some philosophycal discussion in your Dmod

Be sure to make my side of the discussion win