|01,403 notes| Wednesday, Aug 20 at 7:07 pm
via genderoftheday (originally genderoftheday)


Today’s Gender of the day is: a YouTube Poop from 2009

|014,792 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 3:19 am
via glitchbitch (originally aircade-deactivated20140723)
|036,695 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 3:17 am
via glitchbitch (originally catsamazing)
|072 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 12:32 am
via danzoluvr16 (originally hiddenleafpost)

(Source: hiddenleafpost)

|02,550 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 12:32 am
via crazyress (originally makoto-senpai-noticed-you-and)



One time I was drawing a dick because yeah why not and my mom stepped in asking what I was drawing so I morphed the dick into a giraffe and showed her.


She didn’t noticed the dick but said “what a strong giraffe”

o h….OH…..

|047,052 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 12:29 am
via crazyress (originally chdori-has-moved)




please reblog this everyone needs to see this dont stop until its on the tumblr radar

signal boost

Very Important

actually important

(Source: chdori-has-moved)

|05,048 notes| Monday, Aug 18 at 12:24 am
via crazyress (originally officialbreakfast)
|0200,351 notes| Sunday, Aug 17 at 1:44 am
via powerlinesgirl (originally elosilla)







Seize the Day was a calendar program made by in 1994 by Buena Vista software. It features graphics that at the time, were revolutionary because of the way they handled color cycling. These images were static bitmaps, but by changing color values, they appear animated. What is also impressive about these images is that they had full day night cycles built in, rendered also through color cycling.
A few years ago, a html5 version was made. A copy was uncovered online and there is a way to use the program through DOSbox. As well, one of the original programmers for the project, Iam Gilman, has thought of the idea of remaking it, open sourced, for modern machines.

thanks for writing a more elaborate explanation. i’ve seen these pictures be spread like wildfire without mention of the technology behind it.

Oh, I remember the html5 version from a while back.

i really appreciate the WHOLE BACKSTORY ON THIS FUKr

(Source: elosilla)

|03,111 notes| Saturday, Aug 16 at 2:19 pm
via awesomefrench (originally awesomefrench)


Vous vs. Tu, French “you”. 

Chart from the LA Times.

|0453 notes| Saturday, Aug 16 at 12:48 pm
via braingremlin (originally shagpoke)




This has to be one of the most challenging things we’ve ever done. Pictures of the bodysuit on the dummy are included as my model is smaller than the client so the fullsuit pics look baggy. 

This is Jazoray, an A319 aeromorph. I pretty much had to design the character from the ground up, and since I know nothing about planes that was no small feat. But the commissioner knows everything and then some, so that’s good. 

Written details can be found on my FA http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14036381/ and on the other submissions there about it as well. 

As with everything there are things I would change about it and that aren’t perfect, but overall I’m pretty proud of us and really happy that it’s finished and we can get back to our usual furry stuff. 

plane fursuits are the F U T U R E

I’m jealous of whoever now owns this suit

|051 notes| Friday, Aug 15 at 8:34 pm
via foervraengd (originally foervraengd)



Working with screentones in Manga Studio 5 was interesting, I soon realized how much benefit you’ll have from having previous knowledge about how to work with traditional screentones.

If you’re ever going to use digital screentones in Manga Studio 5 then you really must remember some basic rules:

|026 notes| Friday, Aug 15 at 4:23 pm
via askagamedev (originally askagamedev)
There has been a great amount of criticism towards reward schedules in game design nowadays. Do you think rewards in video games are inherently bad then? If not then where do we draw the line?


Like anything, it all depends on how you use it. Here’s the main issue with reward schedules as I see it. It is fully possible to develop a game that is designed to take advantage of its users. We know enough about behavioral psychology to do so. It can happen. But I don’t think that’s how things will play out. Just because it can doesn’t mean it will be the dominant means. If you’re a little confused, allow me to explain. But first, a little bit of biology:


The human brain is a marvelous device. When something good happens (e.g. you get a reward) that you are expecting, your brain triggers a release of a chemical called dopamine. It’s what causes that “Yessssss” feeling when you ace a test because you studied hard and know the answers, or finally get a reward you’ve been working toward. However, other things can cause your brain to trigger that dopamine rush as well. One such trigger is when you discover something you like when you aren’t expecting it. This sort of wonderful windfall causes a much bigger dopamine rush in your brain, which brings you all sorts of pleasure and happiness. This is the rush you get when you find a twenty on the street, somebody calls and surprises you with a gift you’ve always wanted, or you win a jackpot. You weren’t expecting it, but you’re absolutely floored and you have that dopamine rush to thank for it. This is the rush that gamblers get when they win. The anticipation for it builds with each successive game, and when something comes up a winner, they get the rush to keep playing.


The ultimate result of the randomized reward schedule is something called a Skinner Box. A Skinner Box (or Operant Conditioning Chamber) is something where a switch is placed in a box along with a lab animal (like a rat or a pigeon). When the switch is toggled, something good happens. Eventually, the animal will “learn” that pressing the switch is associated with whatever behavior happens next… such as the dispensation of food or a release of dopamine is physically triggered in their brains. However, if the device is set to dispense a reward when the switch is toggled randomly, the lab animals will keep toggling the switch in hopes of the reward, even if it doesn’t give them one.

So what does this have to do with video games?


Video games often have rewards in them. Some you work towards, and some appear randomly. The random rewards provide a much bigger rush to the player than the known one, because you aren’t expecting it. You’re hoping that it will work itself out, you want it to happen, but you know it might not. So if and when it does, you feel that rush and everything is awesome.

So why is there criticism about it?


An increasing number of games are incorporating microtransactions into their games, and are using these sorts of randomized rewards (i.e. booster pack purchases) as the primary thing they sell. A lot of gamers hate the idea of microtransactions (a separate and ongoing argument), and they see the randomized reward schedule as an unethical way to “program” players to keep playing their games and thus continuing to pay money. By monetizing continued play, they feel it is preying on their customers. Regardless of your feelings on whether continued gameplay should be monetized, everyone can agree that there’s a lot of potential for abuse with something like this.


Here’s the thing. Randomized rewards can also be fun and interesting. Providing compelling rewards to chase extends the life of a game, and it can build a vibrant community if players are allowed to trade and interact with each other in order to get rid of their extras. If you build a system where you can work towards your ultimate goal, it can greatly benefit your game and be fun and engaging for the players without having to be a Skinner Box that simply conditions them to keep chasing that dopamine rush.

Despite what the doomsayers predict, it hasn’t happened yet. We’ve been playing games with these sorts of rewards for decades now, and they haven’t taken over yet. Without a randomized reward system, some beloved games like Magic: the Gathering wouldn’t exist in the way they do today, and Magic came out over 20 years ago. At the very least, sealed deck and draft game types wouldn’t exist anymore.

So let’s talk about line drawing then, hm?


I’ve personally always been a fan of letting people choosing what it is they want for themselves. Let them try something, and if they like it and value it, let them pay for it. Part of this is recognizing that there are going to be games coming out (possibly from your favorite developer, even) that aren’t going to be for you. They’ll be for people who like things you don’t. And you have to realize that that’s ok. Sometimes developers (even the ones you like) will do that. It’s ok not to buy it if you don’t feel interested in it. It’s ok to vote with your wallet, and it’s ok to tell them that you don’t like it and why you don’t like it. Reward games that you feel do randomness well, and call out those who don’t. Because anything else is basically deciding for other people what games they can play, and I’m not cool with that. It stifles creativity, innovation, and experimentation if you try to regulate it that way.

Just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I don’t think there’s something inherently wrong with using randomized reward schedules, just like I don’t think there’s something inherently wrong with microtransactions. I think that what’s important is that we separate the concept from the implementation. I know this can be a difficult concept to grasp for a lot of people, but please hear me out. What normally happens is this:

  • This game has __________ (microtransactions, random rewards, subscription fees, etc.) in it and I hate it

Which leads to this:

  • _________ caused the game to be bad.

This is the traditional way of thinking. But that’s actually faulty logic. Corrolation is not causation. What you should be asking is this:

  • Is it impossible to create a game with ___________ that is good?

If the answer to this is “no”, then it’s the implementation that is at fault. If the answer to that is “yes”, then it’s the concept that can’t be salvaged. In my opinion, by the way, the answer to the question is almost always “no”.

|09,691 notes| Friday, Aug 15 at 2:30 am
via iguanamouth (originally unicorndraws)


it occurred to me I’ve never really drawn a gorgon before and decided i had to remedy that


|07,051 notes| Friday, Aug 15 at 2:30 am
via robotemperor (originally ofmotionpictures)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014, dir. Wes Anderson)

(Source: ofmotionpictures)

|0989 notes| Friday, Aug 15 at 2:28 am
via iguanamouth (originally dovne)


white necked rockfowl