Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, don't pick on him, he never said it was a great way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a really poor solution. A "no music" option in the game takes at most 2-3 minutes to code (if you are a slow coder).

Quote:

after using them quite a bit, they have become much easier to use

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great indication of extremely poor UI design. It should not require quite a bit of time and work for them to become any easier to use.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you perceive MOO3 to be one of the worst games ever made for a pc. No one can argue against your perceptions.
I will agree, there has been a lot of complaints about MOO3, many of these complaints have been addressed. Despite the "extra effort" needed to play this game, I find MOO3 very deep challenging, & fun. Thanks to the forums aiding in understanding this game, as well as "it's" moddability, MOO3 will probably survive for quite sometime.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wasn't picking on him, just MOO3 and QS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you are willing to summarily dismiss all of it's multitude of problems and still claim it is a great game, when it is not. No one can argue against your perceptions. It goes both ways, you know.

I am sure that a few dozen patches down the road, the game will be decent. But it is not there yet. Of course, I assumed the same with Civ 3, and that never panned out. There is always hope though.

[ June 22, 2003, 17:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You may not have been picking on him directly, but you were picking on him, especially as the second post in this thread was a specific request for good reports on MOO3. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you are willing to summarily dismiss all of it's multitude of problems and still claim it is a great game, when it is not. No one can argue against your perceptions. It goes both ways, you know.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He at least didn't have the gall to imply that his perception is the only correct one, as you do: Eddieballgame said "I find MOO3 very deep challenging, & fun" (emphasis added) while you said "it is not" (empahsis added) - he qualifies things to show that it is his own opinion; you use no qualifiers, leaving things as implied absolutes, which denies the possibility that someone else could readonably have a different opinion. You appear to forget that "good" and "bad" when it comes to things designed for entertainment are entierly subjective.

[ June 22, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

It is directly implied with every post made that what is stated in said post is the opinion of the poster with every post that is not obviously direct fact, such as stating that APBs do more damage than DUCs. This is why I do not add a lot of frivolous qualifiers such as "I think" or "it is my honest opinion that" to my Posts. Those qualifiers are implied by the very nature of this medium of communication. You are seeing implications where there are none.

It always amazes me when people that frequently post to forums fail to realize that Posts are opinions by default, not factual reports.

=0=

And now for a mostly disjoint subject. Do not take this as any sort of attempt to distract from anything. That is a direct absolute, by the way; no implications are necessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'd make it a separate post but doing so would just pad my post count even more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Apparently most of the other posters in this thread realize this (point in first section), as they also did not throw "I think" qualifiers onto their Posts. Look at BM's post for a good example. Not once does his post include any such qualifiers. It is filled with alleged "implied absolutes." I see no mention of this in your post Jack. Why is this? Why am I being singled out? Why do my Posts deserve special attack? Is it because you do not agree with me? I would hope not, but that is a very logical conclusion to be drawn from me being singled out here.

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only to you, my friend, only to you.

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, the irony. No, I was not picking on him at all. Why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with his statements is a result of picking on him? That is an unwise assumption to make.

[ June 23, 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing. The format was one of 'no, you are wrong' rather than one of 'I disagree':
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You flat out contradicted him, rather than saying you disagree.

. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, BM's post was a different scenario, as I mentioned. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only to you, my friend, only to you.

=0=

Quote:

You may not have been picking on him directly, but you were picking on him, especially as the second post in this thread was a specific request for good reports on MOO3.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, the irony. No, I was not picking on him at all. Why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with his statements is a result of picking on him? That is an unwise assumption to make.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm clearly not the only one who thought so - Mephisto mentioned it first, as I recall: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Besides, you were saying outright that his solution was a bad one, offering no solution of your own, when he was trying to be helpful (to someone else, no less). How is that not picking on him?

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

You completley missed my points, you know.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How so?

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

My main point was that Posts are statements of opinon, not factual reports. Do you agree or disagree with this?

[ June 23, 2003, 03:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Usually so - however, when specifically disagreeing with someone, especially via quoting, you are implying that the other person is objectively wrong when leaving out qualifiers that modify that nature.

Besides, you used the plural when you said I missed your points; that's only one.

Edit: And come to think of it - I did address that one a bit, I just didn't word it so that it was entierly obvious that I was addressing it: I mentioned that BM's case was a different scenerio and I talked about the format of your post.

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]