Changes

::::::::::::So... the latter, then. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::So... the latter, then. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:19, 20 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.

: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)

: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)