203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 276:
Line 276: + + Line 292:
Line 294: + +
Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, March 18, 2008
, 20:13, March 18, 2008→Edit war
:::I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
::::And you're still completely and utterly missing the point, even though I have said it, multiple times, in as clear language as I can. What you obviously think 'fully patched' means is not what 'fully patched' actually means. Got it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
As a professional [[computer programmer]], I can assure you that [[software release]]s tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab [[market share]], but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.
As a professional [[computer programmer]], I can assure you that [[software release]]s tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab [[market share]], but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.
:I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
:I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
:Well, what I was actually somewhat surprised at was that, with the exception of Talk To Action, plus one or two other who seemingly believed Talk To Action's lies, the reaction to the general concept of the game was very positive. Even the negative reviews referred to in the article basically summarise the game as 'good concept, but badly executed'. This even includes the supposedly 'religiously biased' Game Revolution review that said it 'wastes a good premise'. I agree that we don't need to list all the technical issues (and I would even go further and say there is no pressing need to refer to reviews at all), but, if we are going to refer to reviews, we need to make sure that the general thrust of those reviews is accurately reflected, whether we agree with them or not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)