[x]

Now I have a machine gun. Ho Ho Ho.You know what I've always felt Christmas eve lacks?
Paranoia and a sense of impending doom.
The "party game" I just picked up should do the trick.
Each player gets a Nerf gun, the name of a target and the location in the house where they have to shoot them at some point over the course of the evening.
Nothing says "Christmas" like an assassination contract.
.....yes. I have been playing Hitman too long.

Cold, dead hands.I'm not going to personally voice an opinion on guns in America. I don't live there and as such: I really don't care how its people live their lives.
I will say, however, that guns in general scare the crap out of me. Seeing, with my own eyes, CO19 march past me while in London and SO18 (http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/) patroling Heathrow sent shivvers down my spine, and those are the guys who know exactly how to implement deadly force quickly, but are trained not to.
If I saw a random, untrained guy in the street with a gun (which is unlikely, thankfully, given that gun control laws here make it damn near impossible to buy even toy firearms) I'd probably soil myself.
In light of everything, though, I think attention should be directed to an amusing clip from the very, very dead (and, be warned; foul mouthed) Bill Hicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEzCtyRWP8

Paperman.Astounding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTLySbGoMX0

You know what your D'n'D game needs? Penguins.A little something a talented cohort of mine has been working on: http://www.pureevilminiatures.com/realm-of-lorcraft.html
Ever since "Lorcraft" cropped up in Sequential Art, I've been working on an RPG system for an actual, pen-and-paper Lorcraft game and have a few really good ideas that should (in theory) work.
It's a ways off yet, though. It's the kind of thing that'll need some serious playtesting, and I have a zillion other projects to conclude first (LITTLEVICTORYLITTLEVICTORYLITTLEVICTORY!)

Lara's Adventure on QTE Island.For how many more years am I going to have to put up with new titles pretending that: a cutscene, which you have to watch again and again if you don't press a button at the right time, constitutes as "gameplay"?
It doesn't.
It never has and never will.
It doesn't make a game more cinematic. It doesn't add a sense of thrill. It simply makes viewers (I can't call them "players", as that would imply they are actually permitted to DO something) dread cutscenes, because they have no idea if they're going to be allowed to enjoy them or if they're going to have to watch them 5 times in a row because they fail to hit the random sequence of buttons indicated on the screen.
A game is thrilling ONLY when the player uses the control scheme effectively within the game environment. If the game needs to take control away from the player and lead them by the nose through a cutscene, it's been lazily constructed and as a result: isn't fun.
If you are a games designer and you have proposed a Quick Time

The End of the Twinkie?http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/16/hostess-twinkies-ding-dongs-wonder-bread-going-out-of-business/1708409/
World War 3 may just be months away, with much of the middle east currently being blown apart by missiles and the locals setting their neighbours on fire, but the real news is that the Twinkie, the USA's primary contribution to world cuisine, could cease to be.
"You eat those?" I hear people ask. Hell no. Never eaten one in my life. There's something about their unnatural, chemical-yellow colour and that they have a half-life rather than a use-by date that just sets off one too many alarm-bells.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you read the print on the pack, you'll find asbestos to be a key ingredient.
Even John McClane can't keep one down, and he took out a building full of terrorists with nothing but his bare feet and a Santa hat.
Which leads to my point: Without the Twinkie, there are SO many lines from SO many classic movies that future generations just a

Going full retard."you know anywere to get scans of little victory of free? looks good but I would never pay for such a small comic"
Actual note, to me, and, regardless of the author's obviously diminished mental capacity, winner of my "Ass-hat of the year" award.

Grow some balls.I don't mind people voicing that they don't like my work or the content of my silly little cartoons. Most of the time I find it funny! But what really grates is when the individual doesn't have the spine to do so via their day-to-day DA profile.
They set up a new one. One which they use to rattle off whatever flatulance they believe passes as worthwhile commentary in the real world, most likely in the wake of mummy and daddy slapping them on the wrist over something - angsty, juvenile pricks that they are.
And juvenile they must be, as anyone with a mite more experience would realise that any weight you hope your words might have is completely lost when someone visits your "slander" profile and reads the numbers "0 Deviations", "0 Favourites", "0 Watchers", "No Journal entries", etc.
It renders your words as vacuous as your gallery.
So if you're going to type stuff like "I feel like some of the smut you draw takes away from the credibility of your art as a whole." or

Gullibility. I haz it.Nothing invalidates your argument more effectively than referring to a hoax as fact.
During a little debate as to which news station broadcasts less BS (BBC News or Fox News), I, like a good little TV License holder, sang the Beeb's praise and slagged off Fox by pointing at a screen-grab containing one of their hilariously deranged headlines.
Said headline was, actually, a photoshop job.
Guess who feels a bit of a moron?
The only thing that saves me from being a "total moron" is that Fox News has such a reputation already that I (and other, it would seem) saw the hoax as completely believable.
The Internet: don't trust it.
If anyone wants me, I'll be in the Box of Shame……

Modern games are crap.They're beautiful things. Crafted by numerous artists and fanatical designers, they present glorious and wonderful worlds for us to explore.
I sink hours of my time into them, so I can say with a degree of authority: modern games are complete and utter manure.
Why?
Because they're never finished.
In the race to get them out the door, and thanks in total to broadband connections, they are buggy and full of holes.
You never get a complete game for the huge sum of money you're expected to pay for them.
Case in point: Borderlands 2.
I've just encountered a bug that renders a mission impossible to complete (The "Get to know Jack" mission), meaning I won't be able to fully complete the game…..not that I could anyway, because the game I own isn't actually finished.
When was the last time any of us bought a title that didn't contain huge chunks missing, held back for the sake of DLC?
Well, I didn't buy any for Borderlands (so I've no idea who the f**k Moxxi is or why I should give

EjaculationThat got your attention

Now who dares click the link?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z99xbwrFWoc
Ahhh, language.

Had the Urge...…to write this because I'm getting repeated questions that are pretty much along the same lines and rather than direct each one to my FAQ, I have a different way to answer the question, which is basically:
"Why am I not getting anywhere in my art? What can I do to get better? No one is liking my work, how can I get more people to like my work so they can pay me?"
The real question you should be asking yourselves is:
"Why am I drawing?"
I mean, I take a look all the time at people who may not be skilled or whatever, and I'm sure they don't feel the best about their work (or they may), but they always have something to say that made them feel good while drawing it. Saw a sunset beach picture earlier that someone drew/painted and of course, it's not professional-looking at all. What ringed to me was the fact that in their comments, they said they "enjoyed it and was a relaxing piece". Not complaining about how the sand looks too crappy or the colors in the s

PuritanArt"Your deviation Sonic Screw(driver) was reported for Explicit Pornography. The report was reviewed by a member of the Staff and action was taken, deleting the deviation and marking the report as Resolved.
Additionally, the following comment was provided:
A member of staff has reviewed this deviation and has determined that the theme itself, or one or more details present in the scene, has made the work unacceptable for submission here.
As such this deviation has been removed in accordance with our policies and should not be resubmitted."
"Explicit Pornography"?! Aw, jeez, guys. You must have the worst collection of porn on the planet to think that was explicit.
A 90s Rochelle Swanson outing was more explicit that that pic, and that stuff got aired, uncut, on terrestrial UK TV (god bless you Channel 5, you made the young Jack jolly).
I believe that, for something to be labelled "explicit", SOMETHING must be visibly going in SOMEWHERE. Such was not the case in the offending image,

Browse More Like This

more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Not currently featured in any groups.

Details

Submitted: December 17, 2012

Link

Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 511
Favourites: 115 [who?]
Views: 12,596 (0 today)

[x]

Learning to read, with Jolly Jack.

by *jollyjack, Dec 17, 2012, 11:39:25 PM
Journals / Personal

Well, that was fun.

Let's just go over what I posted yesterday: I voiced that I have no opinion on guns in America, because I don't live there and as such; don't care. I said that I, personally, am afraid of guns and think they're industrial killing machines. And I posed a vague, hypothetical question that could have been applied to any situation where an old law/doctrine is in effect.

That's it. Nothing more. Harshest word in there was "change" followed by a question mark. Not "ban", not "make guns illegal" and certainly not "outlaw free speech and trial by jury", which some people with a slightly looser grasp on reality seem to think go hand in hand with owning the firearms I said I don't care about.

Well, today, I am going to post an opinion: if you're the kind of insecure, paranoid little twit that flies off the handle when someone poses a simple question, and who holds weapons and the laws that permit them with such religious reverence that you perceive that question as nothing short of an inexcusable, blasphemous attack, you probably shouldn't be trusted with a pointed stick let alone a gun.

Get a grip.

511 Comments

Listening to: Booming Orchestral Scores
Reading: Assorted comics.
Watching: TV
Playing: Hitman: Absolution
Eating: Pasta
Drinking: Water.

Learning to read, with Jolly Jack.by *jollyjack

~Randimaxis Apr 10, 2013 Hobbyist General Artist

I read your post, too...

I don't believe you said anything that warranted such an attack.

I DO believe, however, that life is full of idiocy, and that one person's opinion ALWAYS has the potential of getting an idiot's ire up.

I've always thought that guns are DANGEROUS TOOLS - and nothing more. I don't own one, and I respect them enough to leave them alone. Their presence has a tendency to escalate situations FAR too quickly, and except for shooting one, you can't really do much else with a gun. Firearms are HIGHLY overrated.

... but idiots, in an ironic twist, DO make great targets.

In conclusion, let 'em say what they want - if they don't like what YOU have to say, then tough.

~weird-coma Jan 27, 2013 Hobbyist Filmographer

My argument on gun control comes down to this: The American founding fathers placed the right to bear arms in the constitution to allow the people to do two things. First, remove the standing government from power should they abuse their station, and second, protect one's home and self from criminal invasion. That's all fine and good, but it's not 1776 anymore folks, the government has cruise missiles and smart bombs. I don't care how many ak-47's you've got stashed away in that "bunker" made of Bison poop you and Jim-Bob build in the woods last summer, if Uncle Sam wants your ass, he's getting your ass.

And Uncle Sam's got a big dick. If you don't believe me, wait till tax season....and stock up on lube.

The second reason for the freedom to bear arms is a little more reasonable, even in today's age. I own a gun myself....let me restate that. I own A gun...not GUNS. Now, I have a lot of hunters in my family, and I've gone a few times myself (Sorry to all the PETA people and what not, but I can't shake the need for meat), but even they only own 2-3 guns, and their hunting rifles and such, not AR-15's or MP-5's. There isn't an animal alive that requires a .50 caliber sniper rifle firing a round that can punch through tank armor.

Look, I believe in the right to bear arms, but you have to be reasonable. We need to be more stringent on who can buy a gun, what kind of gun, and how many. There are more homicidal ass-holes out there now than ever before, thanks to Viagra, Barry White and the anti-depressant Paxill. The population of the earth exploded in the last century, and unfortunately most of the offspring are inbred mouth breathers so intellectually and socially crippled they should have an expiration date stamped on their forehead. Thanks Octo-mom.

~Seaview123 Jan 3, 2013 Hobbyist Digital Artist

Well said.

~Lupenzo Dec 31, 2012

Well said sir.

~Majatek Dec 22, 2012 Hobbyist General Artist

Of course people will react if you deliberately troll users with polls that have vague questions.

And then calling them paranoid twits? Sure there's free speech and all that, but you're beginning to come off as someone who has little self control who results to namecalling when people call you out on your crap. Yeah, you're real mature more so than a "paranoid little twit that flies off the handle when someone poses a simple question".