BC3K - Appetizers
Silverlock
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:26:57 GMT, ri...@newyork.com (Richard) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:14:16 -0800, Bud Wacaser
><bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>><snip - once said is enough>
>>
>>> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>>> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>>> people like he always has and always will.
>>
>>Answers to your questions:
>>
>>No.
>>
>>Yes.
>>The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
>>previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
>>answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
>>fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
>>passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
>>4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
>>All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
>>intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
>>qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
>>of your question.
>>
>>I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
>
>You didn't. Never in the history of gaming, or in the history of
>computing for that matter, has someone failed so spectacularly. In
>this case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Derek Smart
>will get his act together and deliver what he promised. Frankly, you
>sound like a bitter Macintosh user, still clinging to the interface
>you love while denying that it's obsolete.
I beg to differ. there have been foulups (outpost anyone)
by far larger and more profitable entertprises out there. The fact
that the game has taken so long is a function of the fact that it was
basically done by one man. If the 'team' that worked on Outpost could
deliver such an ill-fated, crappy, incomplete product and take how
long to deliver the final patch (V 1.5 I think) which as I understand
it STILL doesn't put everything promised in the game or fix all the
broken things then I would say DS's efforts and the 3-4 patches he has
put out with help from VOLUNTEERS in the past 5 months show that at
least he has committed to fixing whats broke. That is pretty
convincing evidence to me that he intends to finish it, as well as the
fact he still takes crap from people like you with nothing better to
do. Why don't you give this crusade of yours a rest and go pull the
wings off butterflys or kick your dog or any of the other 'fun' things
you like to do.
--
Silverlock
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Silverlock
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:52:19 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:14:16 -0800, Bud Wacaser
><bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>><snip - once said is enough>
>>
>>> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>>> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>>> people like he always has and always will.
>>
>>Answers to your questions:
>>
>>No.
>>
>>Yes.
>>The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
>>previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
>>answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
>>fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
>>passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
>>4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
>>All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
>>intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
>>qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
>>of your question.
>>
>>I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
>
>Judging from his posts, I think you only confused him some more. I'll
>wager he took off in search of a dictionary.
>
>DS
Hell, he certainly confused me? I mean, speaking technicalese
just to sound superior is one thng but if your gonna do it at least
make the technicalese 'sound' realistically technical and not like he
just gutted a chicken to look at the entrails or something...sheeeesh.
<g>
Bud Wacaser
Gamers in the UK and "Commanders" serve up humble pie appetizers to
Usenet naysayers of BC3K from the mess of GCV EXCELSIOR. In spite of
all of the flame attacks on DS, BC3K and any one who wanted to see the
game finished, things still get a little brighter at Galcom HQ with each
passing day.
Oh, don't misunderstand me there is a lot that still needs to be done,
but there is less than there use to be and some people can clearly see
that. I guess it goes to show that if you have personal integrity and
you push on in spite of adversity (personal attack from some in this
group and two botched releases of the game) you can get it done (Even if
it is mostly just one person with a little help from "supporters"). At
this rate I guess some of you in this NG will be out of "work" come this
summer. Then again I am sure you will find some other "project" to
detract from without ever trying to improve anything...just sit around
and make your snide and vain comments.
Future menu items coming this summer...crow, a hearty humble pie (sure
to fill you up), empty words on the side and bittersweet irony for
dessert. humm, humm good!
Richard
You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
Mr. Woody
Bud Wacaser <bwac...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Are you the same person who wrote a letter to PC Gamer (I think) about
how dare they review the unfinished game?
-MW
Bud Wacaser
Richard wrote:
<snip - once said is enough>
> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
> people like he always has and always will.
Answers to your questions:
Derek Smart
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:45:45 GMT, ri...@newyork.com (Richard) wrote:
<snip>
>
>You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>people like he always has and always will.
I hope you're not in a math intensive environment.
DS
Mark Asher
I think he is. I remember that now. That's a good one. How dare they review
a game that is on the shelves for people to buy. I'm somewhat neutral
towards the Supreme Commander, beyond enjoying getting in some good jabs
here and there. His behavior is pretty unprofessional, however. Too bad is
voracious ego won't let him ignore usenet. He'd be better off.
Derek was quiet there for a few days at the beginning of March when that
legendary manual he promised would be posted failed to appear. Coincidence?
I doubt it. I'm sure he has some excuse. He always does, doesn't he? Things
are never his fault.
Derek, read King Lear and see what his tragic flaw was. It might be
revealing.
Mark Asher
Mr. Woody <dilg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<33293dcf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Bud Wacaser
Mr. Woody wrote:
>
> Bud Wacaser <bwac...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Are you the same person who wrote a letter to PC Gamer (I think) about
> how dare they review the unfinished game?
>
> -MW
Yes. However, for accuracy, the statement was "I was suprised" to see
the review, not "how dare" they review it. I received a nice reply
outlining their reasons for the timing of the review. In addition, they
have stated that they intend to re-review the completed game (Ver 1.1)
once it is released this summer.
I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
Richard
>Richard wrote:
>
><snip - once said is enough>
>
>> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>> people like he always has and always will.
>
>Answers to your questions:
>
>No.
>
>Yes.
>The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
>previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
>answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
>fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
>passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
>4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
>All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
>intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
>qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
>of your question.
>
>I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
You didn't. Never in the history of gaming, or in the history of
Bud Wacaser
Richard wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:14:16 -0800, Bud Wacaser
> <bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Richard wrote:
> >
> ><snip - once said is enough>
> >
> >> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
> >> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
> >> people like he always has and always will.
> >
> >Answers to your questions:
> >
> >No.
> >
> >Yes.
> >The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
> >previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
> >answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
> >fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
> >passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
> >4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
> >All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
> >intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
> >qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
> >of your question.
> >
> >I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
>
> You didn't. Never in the history of gaming, or in the history of
> computing for that matter, has someone failed so spectacularly.
Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
>In
> this case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Derek Smart
> will get his act together and deliver what he promised.
Sure there is...they're called patches and C5 will be out shortly.
>Frankly, you
> sound like a bitter Macintosh user, still clinging to the interface
> you love while denying that it's obsolete.
Nope, like many other things you are wrong about this too. Besides, I
have know 2-3 Mac users and I did not find them bitter at all...really
they were quite pleasant in a quirky sort of way.
In the immortal word of rock n roll..."Reality bites"
Derek Smart
If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
DS
Derek Smart
>Richard wrote:
>
><snip - once said is enough>
>
>> You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>> people like he always has and always will.
>
>Answers to your questions:
>
>No.
>
>Yes.
>The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
>previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
>answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
>fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
>passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
>4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
>All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
>intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
>qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
>of your question.
>
>I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
Judging from his posts, I think you only confused him some more. I'll
Derek Smart
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:26:57 GMT, ri...@newyork.com (Richard) wrote:
<sniiped Bud's post>
>You didn't. Never in the history of gaming, or in the history of
>computing for that matter, has someone failed so spectacularly. In
>this case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Derek Smart
>will get his act together and deliver what he promised. Frankly, you
>sound like a bitter Macintosh user, still clinging to the interface
>you love while denying that it's obsolete.
Define failure o' wise one.
DS
Q. Troung
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, John Betley Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:50:44 GMT, Derek Smart <dsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
> >for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
> >just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
> >I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
> >all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
> >
> >DS
>
> Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Betley Jr. | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth.
I can't believe you would expect DS to give you an answer after addressing
him as a scumbag. One just has to wonder what happened to the "Golden
Rule" they kept shoving down my throat in grade school. Or maybe, that
everyone WANTS to be treated the same way they treat others. :)
Quin A. Troung
Cmdr Krud
Bud Wacaser <bwac...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33279D...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>...
> Gamers in the UK and "Commanders" serve up humble pie appetizers to
> Usenet naysayers of BC3K from the mess of GCV EXCELSIOR. In spite of
> all of the flame attacks on DS, BC3K and any one who wanted to see the
> game finished, things still get a little brighter at Galcom HQ with each
> passing day.
>
> Oh, don't misunderstand me there is a lot that still needs to be done,
> but there is less than there use to be and some people can clearly see
> that. I guess it goes to show that if you have personal integrity and
> you push on in spite of adversity (personal attack from some in this
> group and two botched releases of the game) you can get it done (Even if
> it is mostly just one person with a little help from "supporters"). At
> this rate I guess some of you in this NG will be out of "work" come this
> summer. Then again I am sure you will find some other "project" to
> detract from without ever trying to improve anything...just sit around
> and make your snide and vain comments.
>
> Future menu items coming this summer...crow, a hearty humble pie (sure
> to fill you up), empty words on the side and bittersweet irony for
> dessert. humm, humm good!
>
You all still don't get it. I don't think anyone doesn't want to see BC3K
be everything that it was designed to be. Personally, I've never had a
doubt that Derek would finish the game. I'm looking forward to buying it
again when it's finished. The problem is Derek's mouth. As long as he
continues to abuse his customers he will be flamed for it (and we are *his*
customers whether he likes it or not). There is no excuse for his
attitude.
When Derek decides to grow up and stop feeling sorry for himself and to
start acting like a profesional then the flaming will stop. It's that
simple.
-Krud
Silverlock
On 14 Mar 1997 01:02:02 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>In article <3328512c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:45:45 GMT, ri...@newyork.com (Richard) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>>>made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>>>people like he always has and always will.
>>
>>I hope you're not in a math intensive environment.
>>
>>DS
>
>Your not much of a PhD. You started trying to hype this product back in 1992
>and it was finally released in 1997. While that is not seven years of utter
>failure, it is FIVE YEARS of utter failure.
>
>Your pathetic loser factor just went up by about 100%.
>
>Check out URL:
>
>http://www.gamespot.com/features/vaporware/html/number1.html
>
>For details of just what a Loser Dr. Not-So-Smart is.
>
Bishop do you have a PHd? Have you read DS's
doctoral thesis? No? Then don't talk about what you don't know.
There are a lot of people out there with Phd's that are dumb and there
are a lot of undegreed people out there who are very smart.
The one thing a PHd shows is the determination to do hard work.
Aslo I really doubt DS woke up one morning in 92 and said hey I'm
gonna write a game, I better start promoting it RIGHT NOW!!!
I doubt that anyone promotes a game for which they haven't even
designed or written a line of code. BTW its pretty lame when someone
flames like this, sort of like 'speeling flames'. Aslo in the
numbers department nimrod the game was released in late 96
so who does that make look like they can't read a calender.
Duuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!
Silverlock
Thats the problem though, it won't. DS did stop posting for a while a
month ago and yet there were still a continuing thread during that
time abusing him. I would also question why DS in particular has to
grow up? Are we to assume that the Bishop of Battle and others of his
ilk are all to yuong to be professionals? if not then why do they have
the right to be any less 'professional' then DS? He has stated
clearly that if someone thinks that spending 40 bucks on the game
gives them the right to flame him then he doesn't wnat their money, to
take the game back and shut up. That as the person who is
'benefiting' from the game is his choice.... in this case he obviously
prefers silence over the profit he will get from the sale of the game
to that particular customer. In other words, lets say you are a
door to door salesman and when you visit a certain house
you are given an order and then proceded to be bitched at for faults
in the design of the product. You as the salesman decide to give them
their money back just so you wont have to listen to them bitch. Same
thing here. Now those people who got stuck with the nonworking
US version and couldn't take it back DO have a reason to bitch but
everytime they do they slow the fix of the game down further.
Silverlock
On 14 Mar 1997 01:07:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>In article <332892...@worldnet.att.net>, Bud Wacaser <bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Mr. Woody wrote:
>>>
>>> Bud Wacaser <bwac...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you the same person who wrote a letter to PC Gamer (I think) about
>>> how dare they review the unfinished game?
>>>
>>> -MW
>>
>>Yes. However, for accuracy, the statement was "I was suprised" to see
>>the review, not "how dare" they review it. I received a nice reply
>>outlining their reasons for the timing of the review. In addition, they
>>have stated that they intend to re-review the completed game (Ver 1.1)
>>once it is released this summer.
>>
>>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
>
>
>The problem with v1.1 is that only us SUCKERS will get to play it,
>since BC3000AD is no longer for sale in most stores. It is almost
>impossible to find a copy for sale anywhere anymore and Take 2
>interactive has indicated that they have NO PLANS to release an
>updated version of the game or ship a new Game to Registered
>users.
>
>In fact, I've been hearing from friends at Take 2 that they have even
>begun refusing to take calls from Dr. Not-So-Smart in an attempt to
>distance them from this financial and public relations failure.
>
>
>The Bishop of Battle
>bis...@primenet.com
Ahhh, you have freinds at Take2 do you?
Gee another Impartial voice speaks out.
What a fuckin moron!
I am the Bishop of Piddle and this is my 30 line post.
It's supposed to make up for my lack of ability to post
in more then 1 line. I don't want anyone thinking I have
a problem with Length like in Real life. Oooohhh maybe I
shouldn't have let that slip out? Now people on usenet
might start disliking me or something like my family. Oh
God what have I done? I've let everyone on Usenet
know what a pathetic loser I am. I mean I just chose this
Pawn of Poodles name so I would be liked. I just want
some attention, please God? Just let someone notice me.
Please? I'm so tired of being alone...waaaahhhhhh!!!!!
<Snort sniffle> Ok I'm better now. I just let my utter
desolation at being a pimply faced, loser with no freinds
overwhelm me for a minute. I can't let that happen, after
all I am the Shepherd of Shit...Uhm I mean the Knight of
Nuts...no thats not it either, damn that doctor, dropping
me on my head like that when I was a child! I got it,
I'm the Rook of Retardation, yah that fits my personality
to a T, which as we all know is the letter right between
D and &. Ok, lets see, now that I have babbled on
and wasted everyones time I'm sure the will like me.
Oh wait wasting time is one of those bad things...
it says so here on my arm where my mommy wrote
it before she went out in her fishnets and tubetop
to go to work. Oh no now they are going to hate me
again. Wait I've got it!!! I'll flame Derek Smart some more,
thats sure to make me popular...Won't It?????????
Gotta hurry tho my little brother gets home soon and
I want to have time to beat him up and piss all
over him like my sister does to me.
Silverlock
On 15 Mar 1997 01:22:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
>Manual or Patch.
>
>Derek lied to us again.
>
>
>The Bishop of Battle
>bis...@primenet.com
>---
>Member: Dead NASA Clan
>URL: http://www.primenet.com/~bishop/
>---
>Member: The Alpha Dog Alliance,
> Creators of Strain: Hard Corps
> a Total Conversion for Doom 2.
>---
>Member: -=UDIC=-
> Battle Dragon
>---
>Member: The League of Pirate's,
> an Ultima Online Guild.
>---
>Creator: ENFORCER QUAKE
> a 15 level Quake TC.
>---
>Creator: Two Ships
> A Team Fortress Quake Arena.
>---
>Creator: Into the Myst
> A Team Fortress Quake Arena.
>---
>"Thus would I speak to myself of Cathuria,
>but ever would the bearded man warn me to
>turn back to the happy shores of Sona-Nyl;
>for Sona-Nyl is known of men, while none
>hath ever beheld Cathuria."
>---
>
MORON!
John Betley Jr.
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:50:44 GMT, Derek Smart <dsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
>for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
>just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
>I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
>all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
>
>DS
Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Betley Jr. | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth.
ver...@interactive.net | but most times he will pick himself up and
| carry on..." - Winston Churchill -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smart
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 00:57:53 GMT, ver...@interactive.net (John Betley
Jr.) wrote:
<snip>
>
> Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
>
Scumbag huh? See what I mean guys....
I'm going to pass on this one - for now.
I guess your id says it all, Vermin. I rest my case.
DS
Derek Smart
>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, John Betley Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:50:44 GMT, Derek Smart <dsm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
>> >for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
>> >just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
>> >I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
>> >all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
>> >
>> >DS
>>
>> Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> John Betley Jr. | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth.
>
>
>I can't believe you would expect DS to give you an answer after addressing
>him as a scumbag. One just has to wonder what happened to the "Golden
>Rule" they kept shoving down my throat in grade school. Or maybe, that
>everyone WANTS to be treated the same way they treat others. :)
>
>Quin A. Troung
>
Forget him Quin. When God said "love thy neighbor" I didn't think he
expected me to blow him too. Once again someone calls me names and if
I respond, I am said to be 'abusive'. People tend to forget how it all
started.
DS
The Bishop of Battle
In article <3328512c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:45:45 GMT, ri...@newyork.com (Richard) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>You're kidding, right? You think seven years of utter failure will be
>>made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
>>people like he always has and always will.
>
>I hope you're not in a math intensive environment.
>
>DS
Your not much of a PhD. You started trying to hype this product back in 1992
and it was finally released in 1997. While that is not seven years of utter
failure, it is FIVE YEARS of utter failure.
Your pathetic loser factor just went up by about 100%.
Check out URL:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/vaporware/html/number1.html
For details of just what a Loser Dr. Not-So-Smart is.
The Bishop of Battle
In article <332892...@worldnet.att.net>, Bud Wacaser <bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Mr. Woody wrote:
>>
>> Bud Wacaser <bwac...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are you the same person who wrote a letter to PC Gamer (I think) about
>> how dare they review the unfinished game?
>>
>> -MW
>
>Yes. However, for accuracy, the statement was "I was suprised" to see
>the review, not "how dare" they review it. I received a nice reply
>outlining their reasons for the timing of the review. In addition, they
>have stated that they intend to re-review the completed game (Ver 1.1)
>once it is released this summer.
>
>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
The problem with v1.1 is that only us SUCKERS will get to play it,
since BC3000AD is no longer for sale in most stores. It is almost
impossible to find a copy for sale anywhere anymore and Take 2
interactive has indicated that they have NO PLANS to release an
updated version of the game or ship a new Game to Registered
users.
In fact, I've been hearing from friends at Take 2 that they have even
begun refusing to take calls from Dr. Not-So-Smart in an attempt to
distance them from this financial and public relations failure.
Bud Wacaser
Silverlock wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:52:19 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:14:16 -0800, Bud Wacaser
> ><bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Richard wrote:
> >>
> >><snip - once said is enough>
> >>
> >>> made up in three months? DS is still around here verbally abusing
> >>> people like he always has and always will.
> >>
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>The main point of your second question asks if the end result aborts the
> >>previous occurences in regard to whether or not something fails. The
> >>answer by definition is, yes it does. The definition of fail is 1) to
> >>fall short of sucess in something expected, 2) to receive less than a
> >>passing grade, 3) to be insufficient or absent,
> >>4) to dwindle or die away, 5) to become weaker, 6) to stop functioning.
> >>All of these conditions are based solely on the outcome, not the
> >>intermediary state of something. In addition, your choice of the
> >>qualifier "utter" strenghtens and intensifies the "outcome" connotation
> >>of your question.
> >>
> >>I am glad that I was able clear up this confusion for you.
> >
> >Judging from his posts, I think you only confused him some more. I'll
> >wager he took off in search of a dictionary.
> >
> >DS
>
> just to sound superior is one thng but if your gonna do it at least
> make the technicalese 'sound' realistically technical and not like he
> just gutted a chicken to look at the entrails or something...sheeeesh.
> <g>
> --
Shit, did that happen again...I meant to speak english. Besides, I am
sure that it was an ancient evil spirit, I must have blacked out.<G>
I protest, I don't do animals...tea leaves, channeling, and crystals are
much cleaner and they can be used anywhere. Well, the crystals can
anyway.
Derek Smart
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 05:35:15 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Forget him Quin. When God said "love thy neighbor" I didn't think he
>expected me to blow him too. Once again someone calls me names and if
>I respond, I am said to be 'abusive'. People tend to forget how it all
>started.
>
>DS
Got the joke wrong (thanks for the e-mail Mark)
When God said "love thy neighbor", did he mean I should jerk him off
too?
- Rodney Dangerfield
DS
Derek Smart
On 14 Mar 1997 01:07:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
<snip>
>The problem with v1.1 is that only us SUCKERS will get to play it,
>since BC3000AD is no longer for sale in most stores. It is almost
>impossible to find a copy for sale anywhere anymore and Take 2
>interactive has indicated that they have NO PLANS to release an
>updated version of the game or ship a new Game to Registered
>users.
I've forwarded this to Take2 pal. Now you're involved in slander too?
The LAST thing Take2 wants is to piss me off pal. Trust me on this.
You don't know the half of it.
>In fact, I've been hearing from friends at Take 2 that they have even
>begun refusing to take calls from Dr. Not-So-Smart in an attempt to
>distance them from this financial and public relations failure.
'friends'. Are you trying to make yourself feel important ? (not that
having friends at Take2 makes anyone important but then again...)
First of all, I have NOTHING to do with Take2. Second, I deal with the
CEO directly. My association with Take2 is limited to the bug reports
they forward. It has been this way since last year. Goes to show how
much you know.
I DEFY you to name ONE of your 'friends at Take2' Unlike you, I am NOT
afraid of ANYONE and if I were in the same position, I would name
names and break out the body bags.
DON'T get the few innocent Take2 folks into this. Everyone acts under
orders. I'm not going to be taking vacations with my original Take2
'team' anytime soon, but LEAVE these guys out of this. I REFUSE to get
them involved in a messy flame war. The CEO is responsible for this
farce. That's who my beef is with, Take2 THE COMPANY. Personal
conflicts aside, this is business and BAD business is war.
As for v1.1, I don't give a rat's ass if they release it or not. All I
know is, the game will be patched to v1.1 and on-line users would
already have downloaded it by the Summer. BC3K v1.1 was meant to be
shipped to registered users (manual, cd-rom, navchart, key template)
due to the Take2 fuck-up. If they don't re-release it, registered
users can bitch at them. I'm only here to make it happen and have NO
control over Take2's end of the deal. And I do NOT expect them to keep
their end of the bargain. If they do, it will be a miracle and I will
eat my words, something I rarely do.
My sole purpose now is to concentrate on the UK and European releases
with Gametek because until a miracle happens and as long as Take2 are
the US publishers, BC3K in the US is a LOST cause as far as publishing
goes. I have asked Take2 for the license to BC3K v1.00 back but due
to contractual obligations (read: Take2 owes EVERYONE money on the
title), I cannot have it. Since their deal is restricted to v1.00
which they 'accepted' when they shipped it, the rest of the license is
safe in my hands. My contract requries me to patch v1.00 if there are
bugs and I have been holding my end of the deal. I was only fighting
for a commercial re-release of v1.1 because I did not support the
v1.00 release in which US owners ended up getting shafted over and it
was released INCOMPLETE. Also, I wanted US owners to have a manual.
Since I am now including it in C5, the pain of v1.1 not been
re-released will be somewhat alleviated for some owners. I am sure
that users who do not have on-line access will get the latest patch
and manual from Take2 directly as this has always been the case. I
have done my best. If they say they won't re-release v1.1, who are
they screwing? Me? I DON'T think so somehow.
And just so you know (I'm not giving ANY details) [BC3K testers: DO
NOT DIVULGE THIS INFORMATION]. I am already working out a plan with a
new publisher for a new BC3K title. Contrary to what you 'think', BC3K
is a hot title and it will NEVER die as long as I'm around. Period. I
have learned from my mistakes and now savvy to all the
development+publishing fuck-ups that can occur behind your back.
Once v1.1 is out, I am burying the current iteration of BC3K and
moving on to other aspects of the license. It will continue to patch
v1.1 as long as it has bugs. But anyone who wants to go beyond BC3K
v1.1 will have to wait for the next line of titles which will augment
and enhance the original release.
I have to END this farce at some point and draw the line. I now choose
to draw this line. It's my game, it's my title and I can do ANYTHING I
want.
<snipped this fool's sig>
DS
Derek Smart
On 14 Mar 1997 01:02:02 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>
>http://www.gamespot.com/features/vaporware/html/number1.html
>
>For details of just what a Loser Dr. Not-So-Smart is.
>
GIVE IT UP!
Why don't you point to other URLs which have favourable BC3K reviews
rather than OLD, BIASED and MISINFORMATIVE ones which simply refer to
the original game, which as far as I know, no longer exists and which
I acknowledged was buggy and incomplete.
DS
Dave Lewis
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:47:49 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>GIVE IT UP!
>
>Why don't you point to other URLs which have favourable BC3K reviews
>rather than OLD, BIASED and MISINFORMATIVE ones which simply refer to
>the original game, which as far as I know, no longer exists and which
>I acknowledged was buggy and incomplete.
Probably because, unless you or your little friends wrote it, there is
nothing good said about the game (or you, for that matter).
Dave Lewis
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:45:40 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>I've forwarded this to Take2 pal. Now you're involved in slander too?
Slander requires that a statement is a lie. From your lengthy and
arrogant post, it seems that you've acknowledged a significant amount
of truth to his post.
>And just so you know (I'm not giving ANY details) [BC3K testers: DO
>NOT DIVULGE THIS INFORMATION]. I am already working out a plan with a
>new publisher for a new BC3K title.
Uh, guess what Sherlock, you've already mentioned that several days
ago.
>Contrary to what you 'think', BC3K
>is a hot title and it will NEVER die as long as I'm around.
Yeah, I guess all those press reports, bad reviews and recalled boxes
don't indicate that BC3K is a complete dog. It's hot, I tell ya,
HOT!!
> I have learned from my mistakes and now savvy to all the
>development+publishing fuck-ups that can occur behind your back.
Apparently not. You're still here, screaming at other people and
ranting about nonexistent manuals, etc. Say, it's mid-March, anyone
seen the manual that was promised?
>I have to END this farce at some point and draw the line. I now choose
>to draw this line. It's my game, it's my title and I can do ANYTHING I
>want.
You've proven that a thousand times over. It's a free country. You can
make as much a fool out of yourself as you feel.
Chris Wallner
>Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
>looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
>quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
>purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
>
DS is not going to quit on the game, that much is obvious. But the
big problem is, NO ONE IS CARRYING IT!! In order, I called and asked
the following stores if the Denver metro area if they have this game:
1. CompUSA - no
2. ComputerCity - no
3. Best Buy - person didn't know, which doesn't surprise me, Best Buy
would hire a homeless wineo if one applied
4. Egghead - no, they sent their copies back
5. EBoutique - yes, a few copies
So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
Doesn't this tell you something?
Chris
Bud Wacaser
Yes.
It tells me that major chains, computer magazines writers, and gamers in
general don't appreciate publishers releasing unfinshed products.
Q. Troung
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Dave Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:47:49 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
> wrote:
>
> >GIVE IT UP!
> >
> >Why don't you point to other URLs which have favourable BC3K reviews
> >rather than OLD, BIASED and MISINFORMATIVE ones which simply refer to
> >the original game, which as far as I know, no longer exists and which
> >I acknowledged was buggy and incomplete.
>
> Probably because, unless you or your little friends wrote it, there is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> nothing good said about the game (or you, for that matter).
>
>
There is nothing wrong with being vertically challenged (short). Perhaps
you're thinking supporters of DS are like the smurfs. But, remember, the
smurfs won the day against big, bad Gargamel every episode. I'd also like
to point out that the Imperial Japanese Army of WWII, though on average
shorter than U.S. troops, fought tenaciously and in some battles even
better than American GIs. I hope that while being the schoolyard
bully as you must have been, someone along the way gave you good cause to
dislike "little people" even more by standing up and working you over with
a nice "little" metal pipe. It's amazing what you can find on a
construction site after school. I never had anymore problems from 7th
grade onwards. :)
What does this have to do with BC3K? Well, admittedly not much, but since
when have people been posting anything constructive about the game in this
newsgroup anyway?
What's the point of reading reviews if you know there are going to be two
kinds:
1. Those who have been flamed by DS will undoubtedly write a bad review of
the game, and maybe a bad review of DS's personality as well. Though why
they would include that in a game review is beyond me.
2. Those who may or may not have been flamed by DS, chose to ignore it,
and write a review informing everyone about the game's incompleteness, but
also about the continued dedicated support. Maybe they'll include the
fact that the game is quite stable at C4, that no game-stopping bugs seem
to remain, and that the missing features are now being implemented.
So. Choose your poison. In fact, I recommend (in my opinion) that no one
should buy this game until version 1.1. You ask," What about those
without Internet access?" There are some things ordinary mortals can't
do, and one of them is provide everyone with net access. So, just as I
won't think twice of buying stuff on sale at the store, I also won't
think even ONCE for those starving people in Somalia who didn't get the
store's sale ads. This may not be morally right, but don't worry about my
soul, worry about your own.
Quin
Jonathan Normington
Bud Wacaser recently wrote:
>Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
>looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
>quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
>purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
At the moment, the game is a failure. It's as simple as that. Derek's
grand seven year-old vision has so far amounted to a sub-LucasArts
flight engine and a bit of formulaic sci-fi backstory. Nobody knows what
the game is going to end up like, since even mighty Derek can't see into
the future. We'll just have to wait and see.
--
Jonathan Normington
Jonathan Normington
Chris Wallner recently wrote:
>So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
>Doesn't this tell you something?
What amazes me, from a UK point of view, is Derek's continuing reliance
on the fact that the game apparently entered the chart at number 12 when
it was released. Of the seven major software-carrying chains around here
(Virgin Megastore, HMV, Game, Electronic Boutique, Virtual Reality,
Dixons and Woolworths), only *one* of them is carrying it. When I bought
the game from this particular store, about a week ago, there were two
copies. I went back in on my lunch hour today, and guess what? Yep, the
other copy is still sat there miserably on the top shelf.
--
Jonathan Normington
Cato Dølvik
ch...@calvin.uchsc.edu (Chris Wallner) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:09:08 -0800, Bud Wacaser
><bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
>>looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
>>quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
>>purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
>>
>DS is not going to quit on the game, that much is obvious. But the
>big problem is, NO ONE IS CARRYING IT!! In order, I called and asked
>the following stores if the Denver metro area if they have this game:
> 1. CompUSA - no
> 2. ComputerCity - no
> 3. Best Buy - person didn't know, which doesn't surprise me, Best Buy
> would hire a homeless wineo if one applied
> 4. Egghead - no, they sent their copies back
> 5. EBoutique - yes, a few copies
>So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
>Doesn't this tell you something?
>Chris
I'm still in Norway and have no trouble whatsoever to get a copy of
the US version. So I guess you didn't try that hard, or did you do a
survey first to make sure they didn't have it?
Cato
Mark Clouden
Cato Dølvik <cdo...@online.no> wrote in article
<5gc9ge$rdi$1...@o.online.no>...
<stuff - sorry you missed it. It was really really good. Meaning of life
type stuff. Oh well.>
> >DS is not going to quit on the game, that much is obvious. But the
> >big problem is, NO ONE IS CARRYING IT!! In order, I called and asked
> >the following stores if the Denver metro area if they have this game:
>
> > 1. CompUSA - no
> > 2. ComputerCity - no
> > 3. Best Buy - person didn't know, which doesn't surprise me, Best Buy
> > would hire a homeless wineo if one applied
> > 4. Egghead - no, they sent their copies back
> > 5. EBoutique - yes, a few copies
Add to the list of 'not carried' Software Etc and Media Play (bowles &
wadsworth)
In fact I have yet to see the game. God knows the web site is no help. My
only information on the game at all is from this newsgroup - and we all
know thats been overwhelmingly supportive :)
Bud Wacaser
Jonathan Normington wrote:
>
> Chris Wallner recently wrote:
>
> >So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
> >Doesn't this tell you something?
>
> on the fact that the game apparently entered the chart at number 12 when
> it was released. Of the seven major software-carrying chains around here
> (Virgin Megastore, HMV, Game, Electronic Boutique, Virtual Reality,
> Dixons and Woolworths), only *one* of them is carrying it. When I bought
> the game from this particular store, about a week ago, there were two
> copies. I went back in on my lunch hour today, and guess what? Yep, the
> other copy is still sat there miserably on the top shelf.
>
Jonathan, did you sprinkle some of your magic fairie dust on the boxes
to make sure that it was the same box a week later? Oh, never mind it's
not important.
> Jonathan Normington
Bud Wacaser
Jonathan Normington wrote:
>
> Bud Wacaser recently wrote:
>
> >Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
> >looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
> >quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
> >purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
>
Well, at least this point is arguable, but hey it is Friday afternoon
and I am feeling charitable.
>Derek's
> grand seven year-old vision has so far amounted to a sub-LucasArts
> flight engine and a bit of formulaic sci-fi backstory.
Individual opinions of the game by people who are PLAYING it are
freebies. There is simply no accounting for individual tastes. (you
have played it...right?)
>Nobody knows what
> the game is going to end up like, since even mighty Derek can't see into
> the future. We'll just have to wait and see.
MY point exactly. Anything beyond the "here" and "now" is hope, faith,
belief, and all of that metaphysical stuff. So we wait...
Charles A Smith
dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) writes:
....
>>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
>If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
>for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
>just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
>I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
>all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
>DS
"When I'm done with him...." Ooooo, Derek, why don't you live up to your
name and stop the arrogant, testosterone-pumping posts and get to work on
your game, or crawl back to your Supreme Commander chair and wave blessings
to your sycophant crowd. I was actually starting to feel some sympathy for
you and beginning to entertain some thought of getting your game. But your
repeated blustery posts, your self-portrayal as some great crusader on some
holy war has helped me come to my senses. You remind me of a saying, "Every
stink that fights the ventilator thinks it's Don Quixote." I will never
put a penny into your blowhard pocket. "...he'll wish he'd just left me
alone." The mark of any true professional is to maintain poise and to act
with class, even under difficult circumstances. I would not put you among
that company. Geeze.
To my friends, I'm Chuck Smith
You can refer to me as:
Dr. Charles A. Smith, Ph.D.
Psychologist
Degree: Purdue University
Derek Smart
>Chris Wallner recently wrote:
>
>>So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
>>Doesn't this tell you something?
>
>What amazes me, from a UK point of view, is Derek's continuing reliance
>on the fact that the game apparently entered the chart at number 12 when
>it was released. Of the seven major software-carrying chains around here
>(Virgin Megastore, HMV, Game, Electronic Boutique, Virtual Reality,
>Dixons and Woolworths), only *one* of them is carrying it. When I bought
>the game from this particular store, about a week ago, there were two
>copies. I went back in on my lunch hour today, and guess what? Yep, the
>other copy is still sat there miserably on the top shelf.
>
>--
>Jonathan Normington
Ha, ha. You've sunk to the level of posting LIES now too?? Are you
forgetting that (a) I am half British and have access to that market
and can 'know' things with a phone call (b) I have a distributor over
there?
Get a grip man, get a grip!
Today Gametek told me that since the game was released, tech support
only got 2-3 calls with regards to video boards (Millenium) and this
was solved using my /v param. Before that 75% of the calls were about
my stance wrt to NOT supporting it, which prompted some returns. My
press release was circulated by Gametek to the retailers and life goes
on. In fact pal, the German market, the largest, are PISSED that they
have to wait until the end of March to get the translation. I was NOT
going to do a Spanish version but that market has said that the
Spanish copies would sell more than English copies in Spanish
countries. Man o man, I wonder where you get YOUR info from.
DS
Derek Smart
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:01:24 -0800, Bud Wacaser
<bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Chris Wallner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:09:08 -0800, Bud Wacaser
>> <bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Richard, buy a dictionary, maybe you can find the word that you are
>> >looking for, but failed isn't it. Unless DS has announced that he is
>> >quitting, both publishers have dropped the game or no copies are being
>> >purchased you will have to use another word to describe the situation.
>> >
>>
>> DS is not going to quit on the game, that much is obvious. But the
>> big problem is, NO ONE IS CARRYING IT!! In order, I called and asked
>> the following stores if the Denver metro area if they have this game:
>>
>> 1. CompUSA - no
>> 2. ComputerCity - no
>> 3. Best Buy - person didn't know, which doesn't surprise me, Best Buy
>> would hire a homeless wineo if one applied
>> 4. Egghead - no, they sent their copies back
>> 5. EBoutique - yes, a few copies
>>
>> So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
>> Doesn't this tell you something?
>>
>> Chris
>
>Yes.
>It tells me that major chains, computer magazines writers, and gamers in
>general don't appreciate publishers releasing unfinshed products.
<ROTFLMAO>
The post was clearly meant to cause grievious bodily harm...
Derek Smart
On 14 Mar 1997 20:51:23 GMT, "Mark Clouden" <clou...@polk.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>In fact I have yet to see the game. God knows the web site is no help. My
>only information on the game at all is from this newsgroup - and we all
>know thats been overwhelmingly supportive :)
<snip>
whaaaaaaat???
You're _really_ losing it man. The web site is the BEST place for
feedback. Hey Cato, is this fool even registered there? Please check
the reg database and let me know or ask Damiano.
DS
Derek Smart
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:02:11 GMT, dr...@nynrix.net (Dave Lewis) wrote:
<snip>
>>And just so you know (I'm not giving ANY details) [BC3K testers: DO
>>NOT DIVULGE THIS INFORMATION]. I am already working out a plan with a
>>new publisher for a new BC3K title.
>
>Uh, guess what Sherlock, you've already mentioned that several days
>ago.
Just goes to show that in your case, your IQ doesn't have to exceed
your waistline to post crap. If you're talking about Gametek, you're
more of a fool than the other asses posting crap here because I have
NOT announced a new publisher yet.
DS
Derek Smart
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 18:48:26 GMT, dr...@nynrix.net (Dave Lewis) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:47:49 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
>wrote:
>
>>GIVE IT UP!
>>
>>Why don't you point to other URLs which have favourable BC3K reviews
>>rather than OLD, BIASED and MISINFORMATIVE ones which simply refer to
>>the original game, which as far as I know, no longer exists and which
>>I acknowledged was buggy and incomplete.
>
>Probably because, unless you or your little friends wrote it, there is
>nothing good said about the game (or you, for that matter).
There's one born each day. I say burn 'em!!!!!!
Hey, here's one written AFTER the C4 patch which is the current
version. There ARE more coming. I can post them if you'd like.
EVERY negative press about this game you've read addressed the
ORIGINAL v1.00 release. This is the FIRST post-C4 review.
http://www.game-over.co.uk/current/bc3000.htm
DS
The Bishop of Battle
In article <332c9f01...@news.alt.net>, dr...@nynrix.net (Dave Lewis) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:45:40 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
>wrote:
>
>>I've forwarded this to Take2 pal. Now you're involved in slander too?
>
>Slander requires that a statement is a lie. From your lengthy and
>arrogant post, it seems that you've acknowledged a significant amount
>of truth to his post.
>
>>NOT DIVULGE THIS INFORMATION]. I am already working out a plan with a
>>new publisher for a new BC3K title.
>
This is the funny part to me. I didn't have to make stuff up - the truth
hurts real bad when your a half assed programmer who can't get even get
his publisher to return his phone calls or sign his contracts.
The Bishop of Battle
I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
Manual or Patch.
Derek lied to us again.
The Bishop of Battle
In article <3329f4f5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 18:48:26 GMT, dr...@nynrix.net (Dave Lewis) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:47:49 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>GIVE IT UP!
>>>
>>>Why don't you point to other URLs which have favourable BC3K reviews
>>>rather than OLD, BIASED and MISINFORMATIVE ones which simply refer to
>>>the original game, which as far as I know, no longer exists and which
>>>I acknowledged was buggy and incomplete.
>>
>>Probably because, unless you or your little friends wrote it, there is
>>nothing good said about the game (or you, for that matter).
>
>There's one born each day. I say burn 'em!!!!!!
>
>Hey, here's one written AFTER the C4 patch which is the current
>version. There ARE more coming. I can post them if you'd like.
>
>EVERY negative press about this game you've read addressed the
>ORIGINAL v1.00 release. This is the FIRST post-C4 review.
>
>http://www.game-over.co.uk/current/bc3000.htm
>
>DS
Interesting Review...notice how it doesn't really tell you anything about the
gameplay...it reads more like the back of the box than a review..nothing about
the tons of crashes and the fact that it doesn't contain a manual. Derek,
Did you write this review?
Its pretty much useless...they don't even rate it...not at all...no ratings of
graphics, or features, or playablilty...just a straight description of what
the game would be like if you owned the Manual...which no one does.
Did I mention that Today is Saturday and We still don't have the Manual
and Patch that Derek has been bragging about all week.
Derek Smart lied again.
The Bishop of Battle
In article <33295d90...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>On 14 Mar 1997 01:07:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
>Battle) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>The problem with v1.1 is that only us SUCKERS will get to play it,
>>since BC3000AD is no longer for sale in most stores. It is almost
>>impossible to find a copy for sale anywhere anymore and Take 2
>>interactive has indicated that they have NO PLANS to release an
>>updated version of the game or ship a new Game to Registered
>>users.
>
<snipped useless Dr. Smart ranting>
Hit a nerve there didn't I, Derek? I'll bet it just burns your ass that
Take 2 won't sign a new contract with you (or even return your phone
calls).
Ha.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that it is Saturday, and we have no sign
of a new patch or Manual.
You lied again.
No wonder no one returns your calls.
Stuart Park
Silverlock (cro...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> >Judging from his posts, I think you only confused him some more. I'll
> >wager he took off in search of a dictionary.
> >
> >DS
> Hell, he certainly confused me? I mean, speaking technicalese
> just to sound superior is one thng but if your gonna do it at least
> make the technicalese 'sound' realistically technical and not like he
> just gutted a chicken to look at the entrails or something...sheeeesh.
"technicalese"?? Is that a word?
Sounds like you also need to search for a dictionary.. :)
--
"It was clear the joke was lethal.. no-one could read it and live"
- Monty Python
Stuart Park
E-Mail: stuart @ banana.psd.com.au Melbourne, Australia
Stuart Park
Derek Smart (dsm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
> for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
> just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
> I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
> all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
Hey I'll be watching out for this battle, it'll be good!
I can just imagine the discussion.. something like this:
TLM: Your game was full of bugs, and was unfinished.
DS: Well you know what.. FUCK YOU!
Stuart Park
Derek Smart (dsm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> Define failure o' wise one.
Ok, dictionary time..
fail v.i. to be insufficient, to disappoint
Hmm.. I definitely would say that BC3K was disappointing
(and insufficient).
--
"If only he used his talent for niceness, instead of evil"
- Get Smart
Jonathan Normington
Derek Smart recently wrote:
>Hey, here's one written AFTER the C4 patch which is the current
>version. There ARE more coming. I can post them if you'd like.
Please do.
--
Jonathan Normington
Jonathan Normington
Bud Wacaser recently wrote:
>Jonathan, did you sprinkle some of your magic fairie dust on the boxes
>to make sure that it was the same box a week later? Oh, never mind it's
>not important.
It isn't hard to tell. I walk past the same shop twice every day, on my
way to and from work, and in most cases a third time on my lunch hour.
--
Jonathan Normington
Jonathan Normington
Derek Smart recently wrote:
>Ha, ha. You've sunk to the level of posting LIES now too?? Are you
>forgetting that (a) I am half British and have access to that market
>and can 'know' things with a phone call (b) I have a distributor over
>there?Man o man, I wonder where you get YOUR info from.
Are you forgetting that I *live* here? I'll tell you where I get my info
from; I walk out of my front door and I *look*.
--
Jonathan Normington
Jonathan Normington
Bud Wacaser recently wrote:
>Individual opinions of the game by people who are PLAYING it are
>freebies. There is simply no accounting for individual tastes. (you
>have played it...right?)
I bought the C4 version when it was released here.
--
Jonathan Normington
Cato Dølvik
dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
><snip>
>whaaaaaaat???
>DS
Will do, I can't say I've seen any questions from this guy at the
site. Unless he's the one without a name, who wanted a reply from you
and only you. But you can always copy my reply and post it to him,
maybe that will make him happy.
Cato
Derek Smart
On 15 Mar 1997 01:34:07 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
<snipped post from the Bishop of Bitching>
>Hit a nerve there didn't I, Derek? I'll bet it just burns your ass that
>Take 2 won't sign a new contract with you (or even return your phone
>calls).
>
>Ha.
>
>Oh, I almost forgot to mention that it is Saturday, and we have no sign
>of a new patch or Manual.
>
>You lied again.
>
>No wonder no one returns your calls.
>
My o my. I HAVE a contract fool. A contract which Take2 is in breach
of in more places than one. The amended contract I'm waiting for is
one which_only_ FORCES them to re-release the game in the Summer and
send to registered users with a printed manual. I noticed you ignored
the post in which I addressed this because you KNOW I'm frigging
right. I don't give a shit if they released it or not, they have their
customers to deal with.
<snipped the Bishop of Bitching's sig>
Derek Smart
On 15 Mar 1997 01:29:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Interesting Review...notice how it doesn't really tell you anything about the
>gameplay...it reads more like the back of the box than a review..nothing about
>the tons of crashes and the fact that it doesn't contain a manual. Derek,
>Did you write this review?
>
>Its pretty much useless...they don't even rate it...not at all...no ratings of
>graphics, or features, or playablilty...just a straight description of what
>the game would be like if you owned the Manual...which no one does.
>
>Did I mention that Today is Saturday and We still don't have the Manual
>and Patch that Derek has been bragging about all week.
>
>Derek Smart lied again.
>
Hey jackass, that was a _preview_. They _know_ the game is not
finished and will REVIEW it when it is. This is the stance the
_entire_ press has taken. What, you forgot how to read..sorry, you
don't know how to read. Pardon me.
As for that manual, give it up. The first time you set eyes on it will
be when I release it. Until then, waste your bandwidth boy.
<snip...shit, now I've done gone broken my scissors>
Derek Smart
On 15 Mar 1997 01:22:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
>Manual or Patch.
>
>Derek lied to us again.
>
Bitch, we meet again.
Derek Smart
On 15 Mar 1997 01:36:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
<snip>
>This is the funny part to me. I didn't have to make stuff up - the truth
>hurts real bad when your a half assed programmer who can't get even get
>his publisher to return his phone calls or sign his contracts.
<snipped some fool who _thinks_ he's sig is impressing anyone>
heh heh,. Just goes to show how much you know pal.
Derek Smart
On 13 Mar 1997 16:14:45 GMT, "Cmdr Krud" <r...@bayserve.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You all still don't get it. I don't think anyone doesn't want to see BC3K
>be everything that it was designed to be. Personally, I've never had a
>doubt that Derek would finish the game. I'm looking forward to buying it
>again when it's finished. The problem is Derek's mouth. As long as he
>continues to abuse his customers he will be flamed for it (and we are *his*
>customers whether he likes it or not). There is no excuse for his
>attitude.
>
>When Derek decides to grow up and stop feeling sorry for himself and to
>start acting like a profesional then the flaming will stop. It's that
>simple.
>
>-Krud
Hey Krud, that's the first mature post I've seen from you since we
butt heads on AOL. Your mom must have decided to send you to that
evening daycare center after all since the morning sessions weren't
helping <g>
However, you _still_ miss it by a loooooong shot. (a) I don't insult
anyone until they insult me first (b) I don't give a rat's ass about
an insulting customer. He should've saved his $40 for bandaids instead
of buying the game only to flame me (c) I have a VERY high self-esteem
and believe it or not, none of this crap even makes a dent in my
mindset. So the term 'feeling sorry for himself' doesn't even apply.
Think about it if you will.
DS
ps
Don't even _think_ of flaming me. We've been down that road and last
time I looked, you lost - miserably. The first para of my post was
meant in jest.
Derek Smart
On 14 Mar 1997 20:05:35 -0600, cas...@ksu.edu (Charles A Smith)
wrote:
>dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) writes:
>
>....
>
>>>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
>
>>If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
>>for me. As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
>>just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me. As
>>I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
>>all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
>
>>DS
>
>"When I'm done with him...." Ooooo, Derek, why don't you live up to your
>name and stop the arrogant, testosterone-pumping posts and get to work on
>your game, or crawl back to your Supreme Commander chair and wave blessings
>to your sycophant crowd. I was actually starting to feel some sympathy for
>you and beginning to entertain some thought of getting your game. But your
>repeated blustery posts, your self-portrayal as some great crusader on some
>holy war has helped me come to my senses. You remind me of a saying, "Every
>stink that fights the ventilator thinks it's Don Quixote." I will never
>put a penny into your blowhard pocket. "...he'll wish he'd just left me
>alone." The mark of any true professional is to maintain poise and to act
>with class, even under difficult circumstances. I would not put you among
>that company. Geeze.
>
>To my friends, I'm Chuck Smith
>
>You can refer to me as:
>
>Dr. Charles A. Smith, Ph.D.
>Psychologist
>Degree: Purdue University
>
I _have_ to laugh at _this_ one. Folks _please_ take note. Here we
have a Psychologist refering to others as SYCOPHANT?????
What's wrong with this picture?
As for getting my game, PLEASE don't. I couldn't handle another moron
stalking me. Bishop's already got the job.
David Thompson
Funny how you keep referring us all to the same review by some
gaming site in the UK. This review was written a while ago, as it's
still talking about the UK version coming out "at the end of
February". It also reads more like a feature list than a real review
of gameplay. It refers to things like trade and inflation which you've
specifically posted on saying they don't work, even in the newest
patch.
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 01:05:22 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>
>There's one born each day. I say burn 'em!!!!!!
>
>Hey, here's one written AFTER the C4 patch which is the current
>version. There ARE more coming. I can post them if you'd like.
>
>EVERY negative press about this game you've read addressed the
>ORIGINAL v1.00 release. This is the FIRST post-C4 review.
>
>http://www.game-over.co.uk/current/bc3000.htm
>
>DS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some women wait for Jesus, and some women wait for Cain.
So I hang upon my altar, and I hoist my axe again.
- Leonard Cohen, "Last Year's Man"
Stuart Park
>From: dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 22:29:48 GMT
>
>As for the others who are posting garbage and flaming me,
>I'm not even going to respond.
Derek Smart (dsm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
> >
>
> Scumbag huh? See what I mean guys....
> I'm going to pass on this one - for now.
>
> I guess your id says it all, Vermin. I rest my case.
> DS
Cato Dølvik
meph...@netcom.ca (David Thompson) wrote:
> Funny how you keep referring us all to the same review by some
>gaming site in the UK. This review was written a while ago, as it's
>still talking about the UK version coming out "at the end of
>February". It also reads more like a feature list than a real review
>of gameplay. It refers to things like trade and inflation which you've
>specifically posted on saying they don't work, even in the newest
>patch.
It's because this is the only one written after the C4 patch was
released and it really isn't a review more like a preview of the UK
version. As far as i recall it say so on the site, but I might confuse
it with some mail I got about it.
Cato
Derek Smart
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:44:47 GMT, meph...@netcom.ca (David Thompson)
wrote:
>
> Funny how you keep referring us all to the same review by some
>gaming site in the UK. This review was written a while ago, as it's
>still talking about the UK version coming out "at the end of
>February". It also reads more like a feature list than a real review
>of gameplay. It refers to things like trade and inflation which you've
>specifically posted on saying they don't work, even in the newest
>patch.
>
Hey Sherlock!
go back and read my post. It WAS a preview NOT a review because the
game is NOT finished.
As for those trade+inflation bugs, they're fixed in C5.
The preview referenced C4 which was released in Feb.
Damn it, if you're gonna post, read and understand what you read.
And the UK version did come out in the first week of March.
DS
Derek Smart
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 19:12:32 GMT, sahr...@smartt.com (Eric Sahrmann)
wrote:
<snip>
>Derek, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that the first
>few times you threw a wobbly in public, it was funny. The next few
>times weren't quite so amusing (especially the TOEFL crack). Now it's
>just plain annoying and a big waste of bandwidth.
>
>As people point out time and again, if you would just ignore the
>people trying to bait you, they'd get bored and move onto other
>things.
>
>I bet that someone could do a great Master's Thesis (hell, why stop
>there, maybe a PhD) in the field of Communications with the reams of
>messages generated in this newsgroup alone.
>
>Please, you say you want to finish your game, good on you. It's nice
>to see that kind of conviction. Just ignore the bait (surely you see
>that's what 99% of these insulting posts are) and get on with your
>life. I figure that if you spent half the time it took to post all
>those messages defending yourself and your game, you'd have turned out
>a highly polished product by now and that's my real point. Actions
>speak louder than words. If you want to defend yourself, finish the
>game and show these people you can do it!
>
Acknowledged.
Thanks!
Sean Hardiman
On 15 Mar 1997 01:22:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
>Manual or Patch.
>
>Derek lied to us again.
>
>
>The Bishop of Battle
>bis...@primenet.com
>---
<Meaningless sig lines deleted>
You've posted this same message at least 15 times, and I for one am
sick of it! Why not post a new message instead of clogging the
newsgroup with the same crap followed by all your meaningless sigs!
Create a web page that you can use to glorify yourself instead! At
least that way, I
What the hell is your problem anyway? Is this the only way you find
happiness in the world is to berate someone constantly? FYI, Saturday
isn't quite over yet, so he's not quite ready to be crucified.
This is not about the game or even DS, but the fact that you cannot
leave well enough alone. If DS is going to sewer himself, then LET
HIM! Why waste your time slagging him? Find something else to do!
You are quite a case, Bishop.
--
Sean Hardiman - Seanh*@UVic.Ca
UVic Kinesiology - Victoria, British Columbia
Please remove the asterisk from my e-mail address;
Included to foil spam bots!
Scott K. Stafford
> Hey, here's one written AFTER the C4 patch which is the current
> version. There ARE more coming. I can post them if you'd like.
>
> EVERY negative press about this game you've read addressed the
> ORIGINAL v1.00 release. This is the FIRST post-C4 review.
>
> http://www.game-over.co.uk/current/bc3000.htm
This one is old news--and obviously written by someone who is:
a] a notorious Derek Smart lickspittle, or
b] a paid shill for the snake-oil salesman.
--
Scott K. Stafford <sco...@together.net>
***********************************************
"You move at your peril, for I have two pistols
here; I know one of them isn't loaded anymore,
but the other one is."
***********************************************
Silverlock
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 20:01:20 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:23:25 GMT, dilg...@ix.netcom.com (Mr. Woody)
>wrote:
>
>>dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>>
>>->
>>->Heck, that's good enough for me Dan! Just don't go reviewing
>>anything
>>->I didn't send you <g>
>>->
>>->As for BC3K v1.1 Developer's Edition, you can forget it. I'm NOT
>>->confident that Take2 will do a commercial re-release of it,
>>regardless
>>->of what the CEO signs. He claims that he will, but I'll believe it
>>->when I see it.
>>
>>WAIT!?!?!?
>>
>>Derek! Is this really true? Are you saying that those of us who
>>purchased the game and either a)kept it because we were promised a
>>re-release with a new manual and CD or b)Returned it and are waiting
>>for the re-release before we buy it again......
>>
>>are getting SCREWED!?!?!?
>
>If they don't do a commercial re-release, that's right. The ONLY way
>you will EVER see v1.1 or a manual is if you have used the patches
>from me and printed the manual released with C5.
>
>>But then I see this....
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>->They are required, by contract,
>>->to master the cd-rom from the one I send and to print a manual from
>>->the manuscript I finished over two weeks ago. Box the whole thing
>>->replace existing v1.00 units and sent the package to registered
>>owners
>>->as well.
>>->
>
>That's what the existing contract which the CEO has NOT signed
>requires as an out of court settlement. I was poised to sue them for
>ruining my life's work and shipping a game they KNEW was incomplete
>and did NOT have a manual, thereby causing me <insert the most
>ridiculous and blatantly confusing attorney speak you can think of>
>
If it REQUIRES it as an out of court settlement Derek, yet the CEO
hasn't signed it and you are not currently pursuing legal action then
why should they sign it? If they can get away with this because you
aren't willing to press your lawsuit then they will do so. They must
either feel they have a good case, that you will never make good on
your threat, or that the financial loss from losing such a case would
be less then the cost or the rerelease. Did you specify a time-limit
for the signing of this contract? If so has it passed? If so have you
initiated Legal action? If you didn't include a signing time limit why
not? And will you now include one in your next contact with Take2?
In the end DS, what it comes down to is that its your move, Take2
has called your bluff and either you make good on your threat of legal
action or you have to fold and admit that there is Zero chance of a
rerelease. In that case all inet users can do is dl the patches and
update the manual, everyone else is just plain screwed.
>>And I get confused again. Maybe I didn't read closely enough. Are you
>>saying that they (Take2) are required to do this, but might say screw
>>it? Or are you talking about a contract that is not yet signed....
>
>See above. They breached my contract when they shipped v1.00
>incomplete and without a manual. Why would they want to do a
>commercial re-release of v1.1 if it's going to cost money to produce?
>If they're smart, they'll do it because they don't have to do any
>work. All they need is the cd-rom and manual manuscript.
>
>>I'm confused. How about clearing it up, if you get a chance....
>
>I hope I did.
>
>DS
--
Silverlock
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Silverlock
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:13:40 GMT, gd...@hotmail.com (Critical Bill)
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:54:23 GMT, cro...@earthlink.net (Silverlock)
>wrote:
>
>>He has stated
>>clearly that if someone thinks that spending 40 bucks on the game
>>gives them the right to flame him then he doesn't wnat their money, to
>>take the game back and shut up.
>
>Would that it were that easy.... For people in Canada, software
>returns are not permitted.
That just plain sucks CB. And yes as i say below anyone who gets
stuck with a nonfunctional game has the right to bitch.
>
>>Now those people who got stuck with the nonworking
>>US version and couldn't take it back DO have a reason to bitch but
>>everytime they do they slow the fix of the game down further.
>
>Too bad, I doubt the game will EVER be completed to an acceptable
>level, and if it ends up never getting fixed, please don't blame the
>posters.
>
I don't, DS has spent at least 5-6 months tryng to correct the flaws
and I have no doubt that eventually a stable product will emerge.
Whether or not it's a great game is another matter, but I will judge
it based on the completed product not on what it was released as.
If it ends up never getting fixed I would in no way blame the posters,
I simply think they are delaying the fix that is occuring. if DS said
today screw you all Im giving up and not gonna fix it I would flame
his but too.
> Mr. Smart is a classic example of someone of vision who is more
>interested in the concept of his imagination than the down-and-dirty
>aspects of the project. It's very common in highly intelligent (though
>undisciplined) people. Talk to your friendly neighbourhood
>psychologist, he'll tell you all about it.
>
Agree, or a perfectionist who would never have released a finished
project becuse he continued to tinker with it and 'improve it'.
>Remember, D. Smart has a choice; he can either sit on here and flame
>people or he can get back to fixing the game. No one is holding a gun
>to his head and making him stay here.
>
I don't think its a gun thing, I think it's a personality/mindset
thing, but I believe that has pretty much the same effect in certain
situations and cases, this being one of them.
>Just think of going to work and explaining why a large project wasn't
>finished on time. "But some guy on the Internet was flaming me!!".
True but that doesn't wash here since he IS his own boss. In fact
since he has already admitted that he has lost time and money on this
project, and will probably never recover from the trashing his rep
took during the initial release and subsequent flamewars, and he is
his own boss, and he could probably quit now without any more
financial or time loss (he might get sued but then there would
inevitably be a countersuit), it says to me that the reason he is
continuing to fix the game is a commitment on his part to doing so.
Silverlock
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 03:54:29 GMT, dan...@netwiz.net (Dan Bennett)
wrote
:
SNIP
>You responded to those accusations in very strong tones, Derek --
>tones that occasionally approached obscenity. Now you claim you don't
Approach?? hehehe I don't know what your definition of obscenity is
but whatever it is DS can 'approach' it with the best of them...hehe.
>understand why I would be insulted when you say that what I do is only
>about selling magazines? I refuse to believe you're that obtuse.
SNIP
>
>Dan Bennett
>Editor, PC Gamer
Silverlock
On 17 Mar 1997 12:29:44 GMT, sf...@cus.cam.ac.uk (S. Fong) wrote:
>> Now those people who got stuck with the nonworking
>> US version and couldn't take it back DO have a reason to bitch but
>> everytime they do they slow the fix of the game down further.
>> --
>> Silverlock
>
>Well, still I tend to believe that the game owners take the
>thought that the game was finished but is broken, so they
>bitch, but I for one, take it as unfinished and DS and
>his fellows are trying (with reasonable progress) to finish
>it sometime this year.
>
>SF
>
>
>
Of course. Your average gamer isn't on the internet, or at east the
vast majority aren't and so would have no idea of the initial reviews
that showed up here. No they have to judge based on the box (which
some have claimed had misleading pictures) and magazine reviews that
are usually a month or two late except in the case of 'killer games'.
If I had bought the game based on inacurate box pix and a description
which was totally false, got it home and couldn't play it I would be
really pissed. Just like I was at Sierra for Outpost. Even though I
returned the game and got my money back the thought that they had the
gall and disrespect for their users to release such trash made me mad
for a long time. If I had bought BC3k I would have been equally mad.
The difference is I wouldn't have blamed DS, but Take2. In my opinion,
it is the publishers responsibility to make sure that what they ship
works. They are the one with the capital and connections to get it
put out to the shelves. If I as a mechanic suck then I shouldn't be
hired and my 'wares' certainly shouldn't be passed on to the public.
Programmers vary in talents and abilities and if a concept is bought
based on the sales pitch of the programmer or a demo then it becomes
the publishers responsibility to judge whether the game is worthy of
publication and if not then they either eat the loss or pressure the
author, IMHO there is/are NO justifications for a publisher to release
an unfinished product.
Silverlock
On 17 Mar 1997 12:23:35 GMT, sf...@cus.cam.ac.uk (S. Fong) wrote:
>>broken things then I would say DS's efforts and the 3-4 patches he has
>>put out with help from VOLUNTEERS in the past 5 months show that at
>>least he has committed to fixing whats broke. That is pretty
>>convincing evidence to me that he intends to finish it, as well as the
>>fact he still takes crap from people like you with nothing better to
>>do. Why don't you give this crusade of yours a rest and go pull the
>>wings off butterflys or kick your dog or any of the other 'fun' things
>>you like to do.
>
>>--
>>Silverlock
>
>
>Oh well.. I would like to say it is just unfinished rather than
>broken
>
>
>SF
>
Ok that I can agree to. It is unfinished. Hopefully it will be
completed and a demo released and hopefully when completed it will be
worth buying.
Silverlock
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:33:23 -0800, Tim McBride <mi...@swlink.net>
wrote:
>Silverlock wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Mar 1997 01:22:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
>> Battle) wrote:
>>
>> >I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
>> >Manual or Patch.
>> >
>> >Derek lied to us again.
>> >
>> >
>> >The Bishop of Battle
>> >bis...@primenet.com
>> >---
>> >Member: Dead NASA Clan
>> >URL: http://www.primenet.com/~bishop/
>> >---
>> >Member: The Alpha Dog Alliance,
>> > Creators of Strain: Hard Corps
>> > a Total Conversion for Doom 2.
>> >---
>> >Member: -=UDIC=-
>> > Battle Dragon
>> >---
>> >Member: The League of Pirate's,
>> > an Ultima Online Guild.
>> >---
>> >Creator: ENFORCER QUAKE
>> > a 15 level Quake TC.
>> >---
>> >Creator: Two Ships
>> > A Team Fortress Quake Arena.
>> >---
>> >Creator: Into the Myst
>> > A Team Fortress Quake Arena.
>> >---
>> >"Thus would I speak to myself of Cathuria,
>> >but ever would the bearded man warn me to
>> >turn back to the happy shores of Sona-Nyl;
>> >for Sona-Nyl is known of men, while none
>> >hath ever beheld Cathuria."
>> >---
>> >
>>
>> MORON!
>>
>> I am the Bishop of Piddle and this is my 30 line post.
>> It's supposed to make up for my lack of ability to post
>> in more then 1 line. I don't want anyone thinking I have
>> a problem with Length like in Real life. Oooohhh maybe I
>> shouldn't have let that slip out? Now people on usenet
>> might start disliking me or something like my family. Oh
>> God what have I done? I've let everyone on Usenet
>> know what a pathetic loser I am. I mean I just chose this
>> Pawn of Poodles name so I would be liked. I just want
>> some attention, please God? Just let someone notice me.
>> Please? I'm so tired of being alone...waaaahhhhhh!!!!!
>> <Snort sniffle> Ok I'm better now. I just let my utter
>> desolation at being a pimply faced, loser with no freinds
>> overwhelm me for a minute. I can't let that happen, after
>> all I am the Shepherd of Shit...Uhm I mean the Knight of
>> Nuts...no thats not it either, damn that doctor, dropping
>> me on my head like that when I was a child! I got it,
>> I'm the Rook of Retardation, yah that fits my personality
>> to a T, which as we all know is the letter right between
>> D and &. Ok, lets see, now that I have babbled on
>> and wasted everyones time I'm sure the will like me.
>> Oh wait wasting time is one of those bad things...
>> it says so here on my arm where my mommy wrote
>> it before she went out in her fishnets and tubetop
>> to go to work. Oh no now they are going to hate me
>> again. Wait I've got it!!! I'll flame Derek Smart some more,
>> thats sure to make me popular...Won't It?????????
>> Gotta hurry tho my little brother gets home soon and
>> I want to have time to beat him up and piss all
>> over him like my sister does to me.
>
>Man you're acting just as stupid, or even more so than This other guy. I
>know you were being sourcastic, but for the love of god get a grip. You
>have no Idea who this guy is, so anything you said just makes you sound
>completly stupid. Geez, can't Derek just finsih the game and leave
>c.s.i.p.g.s.
> Tim
>--
>Tim McBride
>Editor-In-Chief, The Age of Rifles NewsLetter
>AZ-801st, Arizona's AFJROTC Honor unit 4 years running
>E-Mail: mi...@swlink.net
>Tims AOR Web Page http://www.swlink.net/~milo/aor/
>---I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me
>liberty or give me death! 猶atrick Henry
I don't think a valid flame is acting stupid. I didn't post 30 1 line
posts with 30 line sigs to this newgroup. If I wanted to be stupid I
would immitate the Bishop and post that sig to ALL of my posts, each
of which would be a one line post and to which I would post to EVERY
SINGLE SUBTHREAD in EVERY SINGLE THREAD regarding BC3K
or DS. That is IMHO spam and I get riled reading and dl it. My answer
to it is to spam back and yes I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but
I am a stubborn prick when I get mad and have no other retaliatory
option. Thats life on usenet right? Sorry if I pissed you off, i just
wish all these BC3k and DS threads would just die and the next post by
DS would be an announcement of the completion of the D patch or V1.1
or the annoncement of a demo, all posted politely, no sarcasm then
silence. Barring that my attitude is gonna be spammers, Bring it
on!!!
Narco
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 01:14:26 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. CompUSA - no
>>> 2. ComputerCity - no
>>> 3. Best Buy - person didn't know, which doesn't surprise me, Best Buy
>>> would hire a homeless wineo if one applied
>>> 4. Egghead - no, they sent their copies back
>>> 5. EBoutique - yes, a few copies
>>>
>>> So out of 5 major national computer stores, only one carries it.
>>> Doesn't this tell you something?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>Yes.
>>It tells me that major chains, computer magazines writers, and gamers in
>>general don't appreciate publishers releasing unfinshed products.
>
><ROTFLMAO>
>
>The post was clearly meant to cause grievious bodily harm...
I didn't find it offensive at all, Derek. If you fuck up, you don't
get supported. You've definitely fucked up.
Bud Wacaser
Stuart Park wrote:
>
> Derek Smart (dsm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > Define failure o' wise one.
>
> Ok, dictionary time..
>
> fail v.i. to be insufficient, to disappoint
>
> Hmm.. I definitely would say that BC3K was disappointing
> (and insufficient).
To get the "full" meaning of a word you really should consider ALL of
the listed definitions and not just pick the one the suits your
argument. That is why I posted 5 common definitions, instead of picking
"part" of the third most common definition of the word. In addition, in
the origianl post the word "utter" clearly points to the definitions
that favor final outcomes. And on that we will have to wait and see...
> "If only he used his talent for niceness, instead of evil"
I like this better that the "lethal joke" tag you have been (and still
are) using. ;)
> Stuart Park
> E-Mail: stuart @ banana.psd.com.au Melbourne, Australia
So nice of you to drop by Stuart I was beginning to think that you
didn't care.<g>
Wholehog
Doc Derek wrote:
>If you mean TLM, don't worry about 'him'. He's _absolutely_ NO match
>for me.
I assume you mean T. Liam McDonald. In what arena is he no match for you,
Derek? Intelligence? Integrity? Grammar, spelling, punctuation? (Nah,
can't be any of those.) Marksmanship (say, vs. a vending machine)?
>As I've said before, when I'm done with him, he'll wish he'd
>just left me alone. Until v1.1 is out, he won't be hearing from me.
So can we assume Mr. McDonald is safe until hell freezes over?
>As
>I have said before my work will soon be published in a magazine and
>all those other 'experts' he summoned won't have leg to stand on.
You're referring, I assume, to the programmers who pointed out that BC3K
contains nothing resembling any accepted definition of neural net
technology? In which magazine will you be vindicated? In what issue? I'm
sure we'd all be interesed in seeing it.
Wholehog
Doc Derek wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:42:21 -0800, "Q. Troung"
><qb...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, John Betley Jr. wrote:
>>> Hey scumbag, where is that manual you promised?
>>I can't believe you would expect DS to give you an answer after
addressing
>>him as a scumbag.
>Forget him Quin. When God said "love thy neighbor" I didn't think he
>expected me to blow him too.
I'll just bet M. Troung would be willing to forego the blow in exchange
for the manual the game should've had in the first place. That's been
promised for quite some time....
Dan Bennett
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 15:47:26 -0800, Bud Wacaser
<bwac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yes. However, for accuracy, the statement was "I was suprised" to see
>the review, not "how dare" they review it. I received a nice reply
>outlining their reasons for the timing of the review. In addition, they
>have stated that they intend to re-review the completed game (Ver 1.1)
>once it is released this summer.
In the interest of clearing things up:
I wrote that reply, Bud, and I never said PC Gamer would re-review
BC3K when and if version 1.1 is released. I seem to recall seeing a
post from Dr. Derek in which he insisted PC Gamer would do another
review of BC3K when it was finished (and that we would say it was a
great game), but Derek didn't get that information from me, and he was
very much mistaken. It's a long-standing policy that we don't run new
reviews of patched games. If the 1.1 patch is evaluated in the pages
of PC Gamer, it'll be where all patches are addressed -- in the
Extended Play column.
>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
I assume you mean T. Liam McDonald. As the author of the Extended Play
column, he will indeed be the man to write about the 1.1 patch, if PC
Gamer addresses it. And because I know Tom McDonald, I can assure you
of one thing: If a patched version of Battlecruiser 3000AD, be it v1.1
or v9.6, turns out to be an enjoyable game that does what it was
purported to do in the first place, that does it consistently, and
that does it well, Tom will not only say so in his column, he'll be
genuinely happy to do it.
Wholehog
Doc Derek wrote:
>On 14 Mar 1997 01:07:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
>Battle) wrote:
><snip>
>>The problem with v1.1 is that only us SUCKERS will get to play it,
>>since BC3000AD is no longer for sale in most stores. It is almost
>>impossible to find a copy for sale anywhere anymore and Take 2
>>interactive has indicated that they have NO PLANS to release an
>>updated version of the game or ship a new Game to Registered
>>users.
>I've forwarded this to Take2 pal. Now you're involved in slander too?
You may have forgotten, Derek, that the best defense against charges of
slander is truth. Has Bishop said anything that's untrue?
>First of all, I have NOTHING to do with Take2. Second, I deal with the
>CEO directly.
[snip]
>I DEFY you to name ONE of your 'friends at Take2' Unlike you, I am NOT
>afraid of ANYONE and if I were in the same position, I would name
>names and break out the body bags.
So why is it that you refer to Take 2's CEO repeatedly without giving his
name?
> And I do NOT expect them to keep
>their end of the bargain. If they do, it will be a miracle and I will
>eat my words, something I rarely do.
So you're admitting, then, that even you don't believe Take 2 will ship
v1.1 to registered users? If that's so, then what part of Bishop's post
was slander?
>My sole purpose now is to concentrate on the UK and European releases
>with Gametek because until a miracle happens and as long as Take2 are
>the US publishers, BC3K in the US is a LOST cause as far as publishing
>goes.
And it's better with Gametek? Is that why you're warning people not to buy
the current Gametek release of BC3K? (And while we're on the subject, why
didn't you warn us not to buy the Take 2 release of BC3K?)
>My contract requries me to patch v1.00 if there are
>bugs and I have been holding my end of the deal.
Have you? Four months after the game was released, you're saying it'll be
finished some time this summer. Is that holding up your end of the deal?
> I am already working out a plan with a
>new publisher for a new BC3K title.
Which would seem to prove P.T. Barnum's assertion that there's a sucker
born every minute.
>Contrary to what you 'think', BC3K
>is a hot title and it will NEVER die as long as I'm around.
You must have an interesting definition of a "hot title." A game that was
in the works for something like seven years, which was unfinished upon
release, which may or may not be completely patched a year after its
release, and which is currently unavailable in most software outlets is a
"hot title"? That's amazing.
>Once v1.1 is out, I am burying the current iteration of BC3K and
>moving on to other aspects of the license. It will continue to patch
>v1.1 as long as it has bugs. But anyone who wants to go beyond BC3K
>v1.1 will have to wait for the next line of titles which will augment
>and enhance the original release.
Can I request a clarification here? I find the above paragraph incredibly
confusing. Will v1.1 be the end of the current iteration of BC3K, or will
you continue to patch it? Will v1.1 do everything that was promised for
BC3K, or will we have to wait for this "next line of titles" to see the
promise realized?
Derek Smart
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:11:37 GMT, dan...@earthlink.net (Dan Bennett)
wrote:
<snipped Bud's stuff>
>In the interest of clearing things up:
>I wrote that reply, Bud, and I never said PC Gamer would re-review
>BC3K when and if version 1.1 is released. I seem to recall seeing a
>post from Dr. Derek in which he insisted PC Gamer would do another
>review of BC3K when it was finished (and that we would say it was a
>great game), but Derek didn't get that information from me, and he was
>very much mistaken. It's a long-standing policy that we don't run new
>reviews of patched games. If the 1.1 patch is evaluated in the pages
>of PC Gamer, it'll be where all patches are addressed -- in the
>Extended Play column.
er, excuse me Dan, but I don't remember _ever_ contacting you or
ANYONE at PC Gamer. Last year I did a bulk mail to the press regarding
the state of BC3K and it did NOT contain what you cite here. In fact,
the press KNEW about the BC3K condition _before_ it went public but
most of you decided to trash it anyway. I shall be posting the
_entire_ letter here since there is nothing confidential about it.
Heck, I don't even know who you are! The only PC Gamer writer I know
and who contacted me last December was Scott Wolf. He had just
finished doing the JF3 book and wanted to know which patches he needed
to get BC3K running. His EXACT concluding words were :
"This is for my own personal information, not for publication (unless
you want it to be). I'm still willing to give the game a chance."
Note: This was in Dec '96 and pre-C4
I also saw Bud's letter to PC Gamer and the PC Gamer reply.
IF you have this post from me, PLEASE send it. I keep an archive of
ALL my mail and I can pretty much back up EVERYTHING I say and write.
It seems mags pick on the BC3K thread because (a) everyone wants to
join the Derek+BC3K+Take2 bashing bandwagon and (b) it sells mags. I
mean come on! I would like to clear this up with PC Gamer forthwith. I
have always said that BC3K stands on it's own merits. To imply that I
asked PC Gamer to say that it was a great game is ludicrous at best
and those who know me are probably just laughing while reading this.
Needless to say, I am shocked and surprised but hopefully, we can
clear this up amicably and in plain sight.
I was recently telling TLM that while Boot has some _excellent_
articles (fwiw, I personally think it's a good mag), my opinion takes
a dive when a writer decides to go on a personal vendetta against a
developer because of an e-mail disagreement, thereby misusing the very
premise of the media. Then again, that's the press for you. I find it
ludicrous that a writer would write stuff with NO conclusive evidence.
Makes me think of supermarket tabloids and even [they] get it write
every now and then. I passed the _entire_ thread regarding the AILOG
engine in BC3K and TLM's responses (they were not confidential) on to
my BC3K mailing list. We all (over 50 people) saw the exchange. It
wasn't pretty. Whilst it wasn't a flamefest as one would expect, I
simply questioned his sources and why he would conclude that there was
no neural net in BC3K without checking in with me. In one mail he
denies that this was his conclusion and in the next (after I provided
EXTENSIVE explanation, code, samples etc) he starts to ask questions
which I responded to - in DETAIL. The next thing I know, it's goes
personal when I read his Feb article in Boot which went out BEFORE he
contacted me. The March issue followed and it was just as ludicrous
and attacking as the first, only this time, he pulled in 'experts' who
wouldn't know a neural net engine if it was embedded in their coffee
machine and spewing tea. No offense and disrespect Keith, but it's
obvious that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about
wrt BC3K. Your concept of a NN implementation in a game is also
questionable and I am sure other developers who read the article would
be frowning. Heck, even my friends in the industry who know what I'm
doing and how breathe NN, wonder what the heck is going on. Because
you know one way to write an algorithm does not mean that there is no
other way to do it. If this were the case, we'd still be back in the
days of flat shaded polygons or worse, Pong type games. When I started
BC3K, neither the software nor the hardware technology was available
to support what I wanted to do. Rather than alter the design, I simply
re-invented the wheel and developed what I needed all the while
playing catch up with the Jones. Can anyone playing BC3K imagine it
running on a 386? When I started BC3K, Jetfighter was one of the top
games for the 286 and my original machine was an Amstrad which I
upgraded to a Viglen (I lived in England then).
Here is Keith Zabalaoui's quote from Mar issue of Boot. Let everyone
draw their own conclusions.
"The concept of training [neural nets] to do complex tasks required in
a game is inconceivable. It's mumbo jumbo. I guarantee you that if
there is a functioning neural net that does anything in [BC3K] this
man would be in the Computer Science Hall of Fame"
- Keith Zabalaoui - Atomic Games
I ask you, what the heck is that about????
BC3K never has and never will have a real time trained engine. Can I
do it yes, and so can anyone with a 'working knowledge' of the
technology. It does NOT need it and, yes, it would be a computing hog.
It's bad enough having to update the entire system (91 space regions,
145 moons, 76 planets) in REAL TIME! That's what a 'supervised and
pre-trained' engine is for. Heck, AILOG even generates it's OWN code
in a COMPLETELY compatible C/C++ language which can later be tweaked
to support templates, virtual functions etc. There are NUMEROUS
aspects of neural net technology which, like Fuzzy Logic (which BC3K
also has in varying degrees and implementation), can be applied in
several aspects of gaming technology. What would you use pattern
recognition for? Then again, has any [developer] wondered what a BAM
would do for their game's ai? How about Back Propagation and a SOM
model?
TLM's 'pirated' and 'modified' definition of a neural net:
"A neural net can be defined as: "a computer system made up of a
number of simple, highly interconnected processing elements, which
processes information by it's dynamic state response to external
inputs"
Did I mention that the above quote came from one of the numerous books
that I have on the subject? It came from Chapter 1 page 2 of C++
Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic by Valluru B. Rao & Hayagriva V. Rao.
Published by MIS press, ISBN 1-55828-298-X Price: $39.95
If TLM had read the book, he would see that on page 6, the authors
EXPLAIN how a supervised/unsupervised network is implemented.
Oh yea, the book comes with a disk and C++ source code.
In case anyone was wondering, my Ph.D. is in Computer Science and my
thesis was on "Artificial Intelligence & the art of computerized
thinking" A subject which, until a few years ago, was in it's
infancy. Where from? I'll let you do the research. The results will be
stunning at best. Trust me on this. Funny thing, I never knew Keith
and his colleague were at NASA. Curious, but then again, NASA employs
a host of consultants from all areas of technology. See, beyond BC3K
'Derek Smart, Ph.D.' remains a mystery and all it takes is time to
figure out who I am and why I am. I choose to remain a mystery and so
be it. So, when one decides to make a personal attack on someone's
integrity, it's VERY important that one does the homework. It saves so
much hassles. I have never bothered to push my achievements into the
laps of gamers. I opted to remain 'The BC3K guy' because that's ALL I
wanted to be. I have no desire to be or do anything else. If I spent 7
yrs on BC3K, I consider it a 7 year research experiment and unless you
conclude the experiment, you will never know the results. If BC3K
fails or succeeds when it's COMPLETED, that's the conclusion of the
experiment. This is why financial gain has never been the motivation
(else I would have quit by now) and I have always considered the money
spent (my own and that of publishers) a grant, to do what I want with.
Think about it. I know what I'm doing as I did many years ago.
Anyway, TLM goes on to say, "the net learns by example, so it must be
trained on real inputs" Then he goes to explain how a NN engine can be
used in handwriting recognition. Go figure.
In conclusion, TLM says...
"The term 'neural net' just makes BC3K's AI sound like it's more than
it really is: a complex set of algorithms, potentially with more depth
than some games, but certainly not a truly thinking, learning
artificial intelligence. BC3K may deal with different symbols and
metaphors than, for example, a chess computer such as "Fritz"
(available as Extreme Chess), but at their heart these are simple
causes and effects that trigger certain actions and reactions. It may
appear to "think" but it does what the programmer has already told it
to do in a given situation."
His conclusion to the article is even more dramatic and blatantly
derogatory
"So inflated claims and outright falsehoods can be added to the long
list of BC3K sins. Games that are bad are usually consigned to
oblivion by the marketplace, but in the case of BC3K, maybe it's the
creators who should be consigned to oblivion. Or at least and endless
session of their own game.
That is if it actually ran."
Draw your own conclusions. Get the March issue of Boot mag to see the
whole article. Over 75% of it is filled with personal attacks. You can
also see it on-line at:
http://www.bootnet.com/voices/game_theory.htm
Oh yeah, I'm supposed to be egotistical, TLM calls himself the 'god of
gaming'
In my conclusion, it is CLEAR that I am considered an outsider,
outcast, volatile etc. I don't give a shit. That's who I am and I make
NO excuses for it. I don't want to be a kiss ass model citizen. I just
wanted to be a game developer and went about it the HARD way. I admit
to ALL of my mistakes, learn from them and move on. I REFUSE to quit
and if nothing stopped me in the really tough days, what's to stop me
now so close to the finishing line?
Anyway, as to what's in BC3K, you'll have to read 'my' column in an
upcoming magazine. That's what I meant by 'taking on TLM' and his
ridiculous claims and as always, I WILL have the last laugh. I may not
be a 'people person' but I can assure you, I know my stuff.
>>I just hope that LTM is not the one to do the review this summer. ;)
>
>I assume you mean T. Liam McDonald. As the author of the Extended Play
>column, he will indeed be the man to write about the 1.1 patch, if PC
>Gamer addresses it. And because I know Tom McDonald, I can assure you
>of one thing: If a patched version of Battlecruiser 3000AD, be it v1.1
>or v9.6, turns out to be an enjoyable game that does what it was
>purported to do in the first place, that does it consistently, and
>that does it well, Tom will not only say so in his column, he'll be
>genuinely happy to do it.
We'll have to wait and see won't we Dan <g>
DS
Derek Smart
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:38:30 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
<snipped all my own stuff>
Here is what I sent to ALL the press last year. They KNEW of BC3K's
condition...draw your own conclusions.
Written and sent out in December of 1996.
=======
Dear Friends,
Some of you may already be aware of the Battlecruiser release fiasco
and the adverse effects it had on the game itself and indeed the
credibilty of 3000AD and Take2.
I have worked very hard on this game. I put half of my professional
career and earnings behind this game. I was never disillusioned by
technological advances. I was compelled to keep track of these
advancements in order to keep my game at the cutting edge of
technology. I never quit.
Sure, the game was tardy which itself hurt not only the game's
credibility but also my own credibility and that of my publishers.
This is all in the past as I fully intend to fix my game and 'finish'
it as I intended. I have no interest in doing anything else until my
game is able to stand by it's own merits. I cannot do this without
your help (reviewers/editors).
Some of you who have seen games come and go will no doubt agree that
Battlecruiser has the most impressive array of features, technology
and potential than any other game in it's class. From the Dynamic
Motion System, DMS, engine to the technology advanced Space Traversal
Engine, STE, the Planetary Traversal Engine, PTE, and the neural
net/fuzzy logic driven Artificial Intelligence & LOGistics, AILOG,
engine which 'holds it all together'.
Battlecruser was designed from the ground up, written from scratch,
with the only third party modules being the compiler/assembler (Watcom
C++, TASM), sound library (SOS) and 2D graphics library (Fastgraph).
Everything else was developed in-house, most of it acquired
knowledge. Back when I started, I couldn't draw a 3D box on a display
if my life depended on it. Today, through trial and error, experience
and tapping into the knowledge base of a small team of friends and
colleagues, I can not only design and implement an entire 3D display
system, complete with advanced technology such a perspective correct
texture mapping, light source shading etc but I can also design an
entire AI system that surpasses anything the industry has ever
seen.
Heck, there wasn't a platform on the planet that could support what I
wanted to do with BC3K when I started. The 286 came and went, I was
still here. The 386 came and went, I was still here. The 486 came and
went, I was still here. Sound cards came and went, 256K graphics cards
came and went, 50MB hard drives came and went and I was still here. I
tried and tried and tried. I invested thousands of dollars on books,
software, seminars, courses etc. Those of you who have visited me will
no doubt agree that I have the most impressive array of books,
software and reference material short of an archive. I just turned
around and glanced at a copy of Echelon by Access Software. I can see,
Star Fleet 1&2, Hacker 11. Heck, there's Skyfox 2, Elite, Falcon AT,
Jetfighter 1&2, Star Command, Sentinel Worlds and of course every
title written by Infocom, Microprose etc. On the next shelf I can see
the Lucas Arts titles, all four Wing Commander titles nestled between
Sierra's earlier titles such a Leisure Suit Larry, KQ1-4 etc. If I'm
not mistaken, over 1000 titles. But that's not all, there's an
_entire_ shelf devoted to compilers, from the Microsoft Quick C
compiler down to the latest Watcom C++ 10.6 upgrade. Let's not talk
about books. There are THREE editions of the Foley and vanDam classic,
nestled between 50 other books on compilers, assemblers, graphics,
sound, networking etc. All sitting there, taking their place in
history. Testament not only to our own history and technological
advancements but also to the ideas of those that have survived -
history and these technological advances.
Battlecruiser:3000AD and I were here when it all started. We're still
here.
Some of you who have followed this saga know that the design of BC3K
has not changed, only the technology within it has. It's the same BC3K
I designed years ago. I wanted space and planet flight, I wanted a
free form universe, I wanted resource management, and most of all, I
wanted 'complete freedom' for the player. I also wanted it to be fun,
an experience and most of all, a game by which all others would be
judged. A dream like this can only be realized if you have the will to
survive in the midst of the most adverse of circumstances. I have
survived a divorce, bankrupt publishers, near-bankruptcy and even
Hurricane Andrew! I'm still here.
The Academy Of Arts and Sciences (www.tron.org), in a show of support
immediately sponsored the development of a www site for the support
and testing of BC3K. Through this support, we now have our own www
site at www.bc3000ad.com, touted as one of the 'coolest sites' on the
Internet. Here, you will find answers to many questions, tips, tricks
and techniques. There's also live chat which I attend every Sunday to
keep in touch with the few who have decided to hang in there.
By the time you got this far, you may have been wondering why I am
sending you this mail. It's simple, I don't have a clue. What I do
know is that mistakes were made not only in the execution
design and management of Battlecruiser:3000AD, but also in it's
release. To design, develop and test a game of this magnitude where so
may engines and technologies co-exist takes time, effort and money.
For me, it's taken a lifetime. I bet my life and career on this game.
Now, it is dying a slow death. We can speculate all day long and never
find an answer as to whose fault this mess was. Some may say Take2 got
fed up and simply shipped what they had. Some might say 3000AD and
Take2 knew what they were shipping. We made mistakes, HUGE ones and
we're paying for it. One thing remains, we're still here fighting hard
to rectify the situation with 3000AD still handling development and
Take2 doing damage control, tech support and researching new ideas for
re-releasing the game. We are currently working out a plan to not only
do a swap-out recall of the v1.0 release but also re-release the
'Developer's Edition' of Battlecruiser:3000AD early next year with new
manuals, keyboard layouts etc. This version, v1.1 will be the result
of several patches, extended testing AND, will probably be send to the
National Testing Software Labs for testing. In short, BC3K will
survive and we will support it. GameTek, 3000AD and Take2 are taking
significant losses as a result of these issues, but in the end, it
will pay off.
There are reviews sprouting up all over the place. None of them
flattering but the fact remains, this is my game and I intend to do
what's right for it. I have spent the past 7+ years part-time and
full-time working on it. I have _absolutely_ no intentions of
abandoning it. For me, abandoning this game is a fate worse than
death. If I have to die trying to fix my game, then I guess my fate is
sealed.
As reviewers, write what you want, say what you want. That's your job.
You can also help me by being fair, constructive and objective. Why
would you want to help me?? Well, I'll let you answer that but you
won't be helping me. You will be helping all those developers out
there who never got the chance to do this. You can give hope to that
recently graduated art or Computer Science student looking for a job
and something to help him explore his creativity. Most of all you will
make your readers understand what it takes to bring a title to the
shelves and why publishers, while not all scrupulous, sometimes do the
things they do, ie release incomplete games.
One day, this dust will settle and I will be but a memory, but BC3K
will live on, testament to where we've come from, where we are, where
we're going and how hard it can sometimes be to get there.
All I ask is, please don't let my game die a premature death.
Derek Smart, Ph.D.
President - 3000AD
=============
Thomas Davie
In article <332a98e3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart) wrote:
>I don't insult
>anyone until they insult me first
Sorry Derek, you are wrong on this. I've seen people( admittedly small numbers
)ask you what appeared to be a sincere question, and then you've given a
fliipant insulting response
>I don't give a rat's ass about
>an insulting customer. He should've saved his $40 for bandaids instead
>of buying the game only to flame me
Thats too bad. So, what happens when I buy the game( it's going on sale next
week in my city for 20$ ), apply the latest patch, test it out and then
publish an honest but unfavorable review here? Do you shrug and say "I'm sorry
you feel that way', or do I get called an idiot who obviously misunderstands
the game?
Tom
'Teamwork will only take you so far,
and then the truly evolved man makes
that extra grab for personal glory'
Montgomery Burns-sometime in the 90's
David Thompson
You posted the same stupid message about 20 times, you moron. All
you've managed to do is deflect any substantive criticism of Derek
Smart and BC3000 A.D. and reduce all discussions about the game to
the 10 year old level. You couldn't have more effectively deflated it
all if you'd been hired by Derek to do so.
On 15 Mar 1997 01:22:03 -0700, bis...@primenet.com (The Bishop of
Battle) wrote:
>I just thought I would point out that Today is Saturday...and we have no
>Manual or Patch.
>
>Derek lied to us again.
>
>
<ridiculous sig snipped>
Dan Bennett
>>In the interest of clearing things up:
>>I wrote that reply, Bud, and I never said PC Gamer would re-review
>>BC3K when and if version 1.1 is released. I seem to recall seeing a
>>post from Dr. Derek in which he insisted PC Gamer would do another
>>review of BC3K when it was finished (and that we would say it was a
>>great game), but Derek didn't get that information from me, and he was
>>very much mistaken. It's a long-standing policy that we don't run new
>>reviews of patched games. If the 1.1 patch is evaluated in the pages
>>of PC Gamer, it'll be where all patches are addressed -- in the
>>Extended Play column.
>
>er, excuse me Dan, but I don't remember _ever_ contacting you or
>ANYONE at PC Gamer.
Er, Derek...I didn't say you ever contaced anyone at PC Gamer. In
fact, the attempts we made to contact you when BC3K was in the news
went unanswered.
I *did* see a post in this newsgroup, though, that basically assured
people PCG would review the patched version of BC3K and give it an
Editor's choice. When I said "I seem to recall" a post from you along
those lines, I was mistaken. I've since checked DejaNews, and there
was such a post, but it was from Ted Saint -- who was such a vocal
supporter of yours in the early days of this saga that I think it's
understandable if I mistook a post of his for one of yours.
Here's what he said, from a post dated 12/11/96:
"Be assured that PCG will review the game again in the coming months
and I'd be very surprised if it weren't an 'Editor's Choice'."
I assume Bud Wacaser must've seen that post, too, and that's what led
Bud to believe PC Gamer would do a new review of when the patch came
out, because he certainly didn't get that from me.
For the record, I only posted the message you've quoted above to clear
up Bud's misconception that PC Gamer would do a new review of BC3K. I
simply don't want any readers (or game publishers, for that matter) to
think we've promised to make BC3K an exception to our policy. I have
absolutely zero interest in getting into an argument about whether or
not you and I have communicated before -- especially since we agree we
haven't.
>In fact,
>the press KNEW about the BC3K condition _before_ it went public but
>most of you decided to trash it anyway.
I can't speak for all of the gaming press, but I didn't "decide to
trash" BC3K. I did what I do with every game I review: I spent many
hours playing it (or, in the case of BC3K, *trying* to play it), and I
gave it as accurate a review as I could. If the review came off as
"trashing" BC3K, it's only because BC3K was a very, very troubled
product.
And whether or not the press knew about "the BC3K condition" doesn't
enter the picture. The game was released in that condition, it was
sold in that condition -- so it was reviewed in that condition.
> Heck, I don't even know who you are!
No reason you should, save that I'm the editor of a magazine that
covers PC games.
> It seems mags pick on the BC3K thread because (a) everyone wants to
>join the Derek+BC3K+Take2 bashing bandwagon and (b) it sells mags.
No, Derek, that's wrong. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, and I'm not
picking on this thread. I posted *one* message here to correct a
misconception about the magazine I edit. And while I don't have any
market research to back this up, I feel pretty safe in saying that my
participation in this thread wouldn't be a very effective way of
boosting PC Gamer's sales. I don't think *that* many people are still
interested in BC3K.
(As for the rest of your reply -- the bulk of it, really -- it's got
nothing to do with me or my reasons for posting here. I find your
sweeping generalization about "the press" pretty insulting, but since
I don't work on Boot and I'm not Tom or Keith, it's not my place to
respond.)
>>I assume you mean T. Liam McDonald. As the author of the Extended Play
>>column, he will indeed be the man to write about the 1.1 patch, if PC
>>Gamer addresses it. And because I know Tom McDonald, I can assure you
>>of one thing: If a patched version of Battlecruiser 3000AD, be it v1.1
>>or v9.6, turns out to be an enjoyable game that does what it was
>>purported to do in the first place, that does it consistently, and
>>that does it well, Tom will not only say so in his column, he'll be
>>genuinely happy to do it.
>
>We'll have to wait and see won't we Dan <g>
Certainly. As a computer gaming journalist, I'm used to waiting.
Dan Bennett
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:56:36 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
wrote:
>Here is what I sent to ALL the press last year. They KNEW of BC3K's
>condition...draw your own conclusions.
>
>Written and sent out in December of 1996.
Again, I won't speak for the press at large, but if this was sent out
in December 1996, it was sent out several weeks *after* I received a
boxed copy of BC3K, wrote the review, and put that issue of PC Gamer
(Jan 1997) to bed.
But as I said in my last post, the story you told the press -- and
whether or not you told it before we reviewed the game -- is
completely irrelevant. All that matters is that BC3K was on the
shelves and being sold to actual gamers for actual money. When games
are released for sale, they're fair game for review -- and unfinished
games get negative reviews.
I don't know why BC3K was released when it was far from being
finished, and I don't really care. I'm not interested in laying blame.
But I object very strongly to your suggestion that we who reviewed
BC3K made a conscious decision to "trash it." BC3K got negative
reviews because it *deserved* negative reviews, not because anyone was
out to get Derek Smart.
Keith Zabalaoui
<much snippage>
>Here is Keith Zabalaoui's quote from Mar issue of Boot. Let everyone
>draw their own conclusions.
>
>"The concept of training [neural nets] to do complex tasks required in
>a game is inconceivable. It's mumbo jumbo. I guarantee you that if
>there is a functioning neural net that does anything in [BC3K] this
>man would be in the Computer Science Hall of Fame"
> - Keith Zabalaoui - Atomic Games
>
>I ask you, what the heck is that about????
>
><snip>
>
>In case anyone was wondering, my Ph.D. is in Computer Science and my
>thesis was on "Artificial Intelligence & the art of computerized
>thinking" A subject which, until a few years ago, was in it's
>infancy. Where from? I'll let you do the research. The results will be
>stunning at best. Trust me on this. Funny thing, I never knew Keith
>and his colleague were at NASA. Curious, but then again, NASA employs
>a host of consultants from all areas of technology. See, beyond BC3K
>'Derek Smart, Ph.D.' remains a mystery and all it takes is time to
>figure out who I am and why I am. I choose to remain a mystery and so
>be it. So, when one decides to make a personal attack on someone's
>integrity, it's VERY important that one does the homework. It saves so
>much hassles. I have never bothered to push my achievements into the
>laps of gamers. I opted to remain 'The BC3K guy' because that's ALL I
>wanted to be. I have no desire to be or do anything else. If I spent 7
>yrs on BC3K, I consider it a 7 year research experiment and unless you
>conclude the experiment, you will never know the results. If BC3K
>fails or succeeds when it's COMPLETED, that's the conclusion of the
>experiment. This is why financial gain has never been the motivation
>(else I would have quit by now) and I have always considered the money
>spent (my own and that of publishers) a grant, to do what I want with.
>Think about it. I know what I'm doing as I did many years ago.
<snip>
Derek. I stand by my quote. From my own experiences, neural nets have
very specific and inflexible uses. I did work for Rockwell for about 6
years at the Johnson Space Center and Gary, who was also quoted, worked for
NASA itself in the AI Systems Division at the Johnson Space Center. If you
care, I have a Bachelors of Science from the University of Houston in
Cognitive Psychology with an emphasis on Artificial Intelligence. I saw
the print outs you sent Tom and read your "extensive" commentary. What I
saw was, in fact, function declarations and not code. There was absolutely
nothing there that even resembled a neural network. Maybe I didn't see
everything you sent. I don't know. Whatever the case, my statement was
based on my personal knowledge and experience. Am I the world's best
programmer? No. Do I know all there is to know about neural nets? No.
Do I have a PhD? No. Was I being vindictive? No. I meant exactly what I
said. If you have put a neural net in the game and it does anything of any
significance, then you deserve the accolades of the computer world.
To be clear, I have no personal motivation for commenting on this issue at
all. I met Derek once and he was gracious and terribly self-confident. I
think I still owe him a drink or two, in fact. I have gone through some of
what he has experienced and I certainly share his pain of giving birth to a
love child. Derek, you mentioned that you've written an article for a
magazine, that describes your techniques and applications. Please let me
know which magazine and which issue. I'd very much like to read the
article.
Keith
--
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
.__;""";, \__/ \__/ \_
\ ""--_:., "I don't know the secret of success, but the \__/ \__/
:: __;:""~ secret of failure is trying to please everyone" \__/ \_
."._:"" : \__/
_"' `---' --------- V for Victory € World at War € Close Combat ----------
S. Fong
S. Fong
S. Fong
>The one thing a PHd shows is the determination to do hard work.
Can't agree with you anymore Sliverlock.
It kinda make me work liked slave from time to time.
Oops, we are supposed to talk about games here ain't we :)
SF
S. Fong
>MORON!
>I am the Bishop of Piddle and this is my 30 line post.
>It's supposed to make up for my lack of ability to post
>in more then 1 line. I don't want anyone thinking I have
>a problem with Length like in Real life. Oooohhh maybe I
>shouldn't have let that slip out? Now people on usenet
>might start disliking me or something like my family. Oh
>God what have I done? I've let everyone on Usenet
>know what a pathetic loser I am. I mean I just chose this
>Pawn of Poodles name so I would be liked. I just want
>some attention, please God? Just let someone notice me.
>Please? I'm so tired of being alone...waaaahhhhhh!!!!!
><Snort sniffle> Ok I'm better now. I just let my utter
>odesolation at being a pimply faced, loser with no freinds
>overwhelm me for a minute. I can't let that happen, after
>all I am the Shepherd of Shit...Uhm I mean the Knight of
>Nuts...no thats not it either, damn that doctor, dropping
>me on my head like that when I was a child! I got it,
>I'm the Rook of Retardation, yah that fits my personality
>to a T, which as we all know is the letter right between
>D and &. Ok, lets see, now that I have babbled on
>and wasted everyones time I'm sure the will like me.
>Oh wait wasting time is one of those bad things...
>it says so here on my arm where my mommy wrote
>it before she went out in her fishnets and tubetop
>to go to work. Oh no now they are going to hate me
>again. Wait I've got it!!! I'll flame Derek Smart some more,
>thats sure to make me popular...Won't It?????????
>Gotta hurry tho my little brother gets home soon and
><I want to have time to beat him up and piss all
>over him like my sister does to me.
ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL!!!
ooops, sorry I am wasting bandwidth here, again...
SF
S. Fong
>To my friends, I'm Chuck Smith
>You can refer to me as:
>Dr. Charles A. Smith, Ph.D.
>Psychologist
>Degree: Purdue University
I was thinking a psychologist could do better in understanding
human nature and post something more constructive here...
But then again, maybe my pea-brain is even smaller than a pea? or
perhaps a real psychologist can do better?
SF
Bud Wacaser
Dan Bennett wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:38:30 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
> wrote:
>
> >>In the interest of clearing things up:
> >>I wrote that reply, Bud, and I never said PC Gamer would re-review
> >>BC3K when and if version 1.1 is released. I seem to recall seeing a
> >>post from Dr. Derek in which he insisted PC Gamer would do another
> >>review of BC3K when it was finished (and that we would say it was a
> >>great game), but Derek didn't get that information from me, and he was
> >>very much mistaken. It's a long-standing policy that we don't run new
> >>reviews of patched games. If the 1.1 patch is evaluated in the pages
> >>of PC Gamer, it'll be where all patches are addressed -- in the
> >>Extended Play column.
<snip>
> I *did* see a post in this newsgroup, though, that basically assured
> people PCG would review the patched version of BC3K and give it an
> Editor's choice. When I said "I seem to recall" a post from you along
> those lines, I was mistaken. I've since checked DejaNews, and there
> was such a post, but it was from Ted Saint -- who was such a vocal
> supporter of yours in the early days of this saga that I think it's
> understandable if I mistook a post of his for one of yours.
>
> Here's what he said, from a post dated 12/11/96:
> "Be assured that PCG will review the game again in the coming months
> and I'd be very surprised if it weren't an 'Editor's Choice'."
>
> I assume Bud Wacaser must've seen that post, too, and that's what led
> Bud to believe PC Gamer would do a new review of when the patch came
> out, because he certainly didn't get that from me.
>
> For the record, I only posted the message you've quoted above to clear
> up Bud's misconception that PC Gamer would do a new review of BC3K. I
> simply don't want any readers (or game publishers, for that matter) to
> think we've promised to make BC3K an exception to our policy. I have
> absolutely zero interest in getting into an argument about whether or
> not you and I have communicated before -- especially since we agree we
> haven't.
<snip>
>
> > Heck, I don't even know who you are!
<snip>
> Dan Bennett
> Editor, PC Gamer
Dan,
That may have been the post that I was refering to I am not sure because
I don't save news posts or mail (I don't believe in carrying a lot of
excess baggage, but some are in a differnent position and may need such
info.) that I don't have an immediate need to save. However, (I may be
wrong, it will take awhile to look at the back issues to see) I seem to
remember that "Daggerfall" was reviewed twice in the review section of
PC Gamer (got a 90% the second time). I know of many titles that have
only been mentioned in the extended play section after being patched,
but I keep having a vague idea that there was another game other than
Daggerfall that was reviewed twice as well.
Derek Smart
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:59:02 GMT, dan...@earthlink.net (Dan Bennett)
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:56:36 GMT, dsm...@ix.netcom.com (Derek Smart)
>wrote:
>
>>Here is what I sent to ALL the press last year. They KNEW of BC3K's
>>condition...draw your own conclusions.
>>
>>Written and sent out in December of 1996.
>
>Again, I won't speak for the press at large, but if this was sent out
>in December 1996, it was sent out several weeks *after* I received a
>boxed copy of BC3K, wrote the review, and put that issue of PC Gamer
>(Jan 1997) to bed.
>
>But as I said in my last post, the story you told the press -- and
>whether or not you told it before we reviewed the game -- is
>completely irrelevant. All that matters is that BC3K was on the
>shelves and being sold to actual gamers for actual money. When games
>are released for sale, they're fair game for review -- and unfinished
>games get negative reviews.
>
>I don't know why BC3K was released when it was far from being
>finished, and I don't really care. I'm not interested in laying blame.
>But I object very strongly to your suggestion that we who reviewed
>BC3K made a conscious decision to "trash it." BC3K got negative
>reviews because it *deserved* negative reviews, not because anyone was
>out to get Derek Smart.
>
>Dan Bennett
>Editor, PC Gamer
Dan
I understand and agree with your entire post. I must add though that
what I meant was that the press knew of the game's condition.
Nevertheless, the press reported on 'what was shipped' and I KNOW what
was shipped. My beef is that not even ONE review focused on the
support I was giving the game, the 50 or so testers that I assembled
(all professionals in there own field _inluding_ members of press who
act as observers). Everyone had a theory without consulting me. Only
John Withers even bothered to pick up the phone and went 'what the
heck is going on Derek?'. He spoke to me, my attorney and Take2 before
doing his story.
BC3K clearly did NOT work out of the box and I _knew_ that it wouldn't
before I left Latrobe to return to Miami. There was NOTHING I could
about it.
Derek Smart
Designer/Lead Developer
Derek Smart
<snip>
>
>Derek. I stand by my quote. From my own experiences, neural nets have
>very specific and inflexible uses. I did work for Rockwell for about 6
>years at the Johnson Space Center and Gary, who was also quoted, worked for
>NASA itself in the AI Systems Division at the Johnson Space Center. If you
>care, I have a Bachelors of Science from the University of Houston in
>Cognitive Psychology with an emphasis on Artificial Intelligence. I saw
>the print outs you sent Tom and read your "extensive" commentary. What I
>saw was, in fact, function declarations and not code. There was absolutely
>nothing there that even resembled a neural network. Maybe I didn't see
>everything you sent. I don't know. Whatever the case, my statement was
>based on my personal knowledge and experience. Am I the world's best
>programmer? No. Do I know all there is to know about neural nets? No.
>Do I have a PhD? No. Was I being vindictive? No. I meant exactly what I
>said. If you have put a neural net in the game and it does anything of any
>significance, then you deserve the accolades of the computer world.
Understood.
>To be clear, I have no personal motivation for commenting on this issue at
>all. I met Derek once and he was gracious and terribly self-confident. I
>think I still owe him a drink or two, in fact. I have gone through some of
>what he has experienced and I certainly share his pain of giving birth to a
>love child. Derek, you mentioned that you've written an article for a
>magazine, that describes your techniques and applications. Please let me
>know which magazine and which issue. I'd very much like to read the
>article.
>
>Keith
I'll take you up on that Keith!
And yes, I'll send it to you once it's finished. I am planning on
sending it to PC AI but I think programmers would benefit more if I
sent it to Game Developer magazine since I think more programmers read
Game Developer.
Cheers!
DS
S. Fong
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:36:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: "S. Fong" <sf...@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: cas...@ksu.edu
Subject: Re: BC3K - Appetizers
> Glad to see *you* made such a "constructive" post to the group. Pray tell
> me, what's constructive about *your* response?
>
I didn't claim I was posting constructive response, but I didn't
post destructive flames liked what assholes did as well.
> I posted that ending because I'm sick of Smart flaunting his mailorder
> Ph.D. here and there.
>
I hope you have followed the whole story from the very beginning before
you judged, and stop insulting the others title without prove, otherwise
people will take you having your brain even smaller than a small pea.
> Anyway, you won't see any more posts from me in that group. Smart is gradually
> becoming an unstable cult-like leader with followers who have stopped
> thinking.
Nay, people thought before sided with him, but those fanatically flammed
him probably didn't.
> Not sure if you are one of those or not. If so, I wish you well
> and an eventual rehabilitation.
>
>
Thanks for the concerns, I am getting better.
I am not one of his followers, but I believe we all (real gamers,
not those taking pleasure from flamming the others without good cause - I
don't think flamming his PhD title is a good idea, afterall, it is
just part of his sig, and his sig is very short which doesn't waste too
much of the bandwidth) should step back a little bit, keep ourself
neutral and give his game a chance.
> Cheers!
>
> Chuck
>
> >>Dr. Charles A. Smith, Ph.D.
> >>Psychologist
> >>Degree: Purdue University
>
>
Cheers, Mr Ph.D - mail ordered or not, it doesn't make a difference
comes to personality, many have the title but are assholes.
SF
Derek Smart
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:42:01 GMT, dan...@earthlink.net (Dan Bennett)
wrote:
<snip>
>>In fact,
>>the press KNEW about the BC3K condition _before_ it went public but
>>most of you decided to trash it anyway.
>
>I can't speak for all of the gaming press, but I didn't "decide to
>trash" BC3K. I did what I do with every game I review: I spent many
>hours playing it (or, in the case of BC3K, *trying* to play it), and I
>gave it as accurate a review as I could. If the review came off as
>"trashing" BC3K, it's only because BC3K was a very, very troubled
>product.
That much I think we ALL agree on Dan. No questions there.
>And whether or not the press knew about "the BC3K condition" doesn't
>enter the picture. The game was released in that condition, it was
>sold in that condition -- so it was reviewed in that condition.
Again, I understand and agree 100%
>> Heck, I don't even know who you are!
>
>No reason you should, save that I'm the editor of a magazine that
>covers PC games.
Forgive me for not taking the time to use better language+prose. Let
me clear this up, what I meant was, I don't know who you are wrt the
press. I know that Gary is EIC and I also know a few of the
contributing writers. If I 'knew' who you were, our paths would've
crossed by now in some form or another (conference, e-mail, review
queries etc). Heck, I have writers and editors who reviewed BC3K for
what it was and they were invited to join the BC3K mailing list as
observers. They've been there since and are privvy to what has been
going on. I hold no grudge because the press reviewed a game that was
'crap' when it shipped. I've been saying this since Oct of 1996 and
_everyone_ knows this. My team and the BC3K testers (Derek's Dirty
Double Dozen <g>) have all screamed in frustration about the same
thing (a) the game was NOT finished when it shipped (b) the game has
more potential and depth than _any_ game _ever_ written in it's class
(c) we're fixing it and doing a damn good job of supporting it.
Surely, you, as editor should know that no matter what you print,
there are readers who will _still_ buy the game. Don't [they] deserve
to know what's being done about that 'crappy & buggy' game they
bought?
And yes, I saw Bud's post and he was right. PC Gamer HAS reviewed a
'buggy' product on more than one occassion. I keep ALL my magazines
(check your subscription dept. and see how long I've been a
subscriber) and I can prove this quite easily if you'd like. Let me
caution you: I suggest that you check your archives before challenging
me on this. You won't win.
In conclusion, I agree with you that the press should NOT review a
product more than once in certain situations because like you said,
the publishers WILL misuse this and continue to offload crap on the
unsuspectiing gamer. I don't give a damn about ANY publisher out there
and if I go looking for a job to ANY one of them, they are welcome to
show me the door. The fact of the matter is, this [gaming] industy we
have strived SO frigging hard to bring to what it is today is slowly
becoming a farce and a nightmare for the consumer. It's rarely about
fun anymore, it's about the dollar sign. If a GOOD game goes out there
it's more than likely that the developers pushed the limit in order
that the mat not get swept off from under their feet. No developer
get's open season on how long it takes to develop a game UNLESS you're
helming it. Look at ID, Apogee, 3Drealms etc. These guys are at the
cutting frigging edge of technology and yet still we can expect good
games from them no matter how long it takes. When the ID guys adpoted
the 'it's ready when it's ready', the press took jabs at them. When I
did it, I was sent to the gallows. Not that I am comparing myself to
ID (far from it) but the premise is the same.
A game should NOT be released until it's completed. Take2 KNEW the
frigging game was NOT finished. I DARE anyone at Take2 to come on-line
(which they have NOT done since October) and say that this is not
true. Was it late? Yep! Did we have deadlines? Yep! Was the work
getting done? Yep! I was the one who had to leave Miami,FL and go up
to Latrobe, PA for over 7 MISERABLE months. All for what? Because I
was told that if I did not go, my contract would be cancelled and that
I would NOT get the BC3K license back to shop it to another publisher.
They felt that if the game was brought 'in house' it would be done
'right'. You've seen the game they shipped in Oct of 1996 and you've
seen what I have done since then with ME back in control.
This is NOT about pointing the finger. I have my faults. I am human. I
am also a damn good developer and a dedicated one at that. I could've
chopped this game a LONG time ago and moved on. Had I done that, it
would NOT have been the game that I was pushing so hard. I would've
lied and misled the very people I was asking to buy it. Rather than be
seen in this light, I gave up EVERYTHING to get it done the way I said
it would be. The rest, is history.
Did I hype BC3K? Hell yeah! Why shouldn't I? Regardless of what
_anyone_ says, BC3K does _exactly_ what I said it would do 7 years
ago. Has anyone bothered to check? Nope!
If I am guilty of anything, it's for taking on too much at one time
and for being over ambitious. I have paid for this. This, naturally,
caused the development to longer than necessary.
Has BC3K failed? Who cares anymore? All I know is, I will NOT quit as
long as there is ONE user out there who feels like he paid for an
INCOMPLETE game out of the box. I will fix it, patch it, modify it,
toss it, turn it until I say BC3K is completed as I intended.
>> It seems mags pick on the BC3K thread because (a) everyone wants to
>>join the Derek+BC3K+Take2 bashing bandwagon and (b) it sells mags.
>
>No, Derek, that's wrong. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, and I'm not
>picking on this thread. I posted *one* message here to correct a
>misconception about the magazine I edit. And while I don't have any
>market research to back this up, I feel pretty safe in saying that my
>participation in this thread wouldn't be a very effective way of
>boosting PC Gamer's sales. I don't think *that* many people are still
>interested in BC3K.
Understood.
>(As for the rest of your reply -- the bulk of it, really -- it's got
>nothing to do with me or my reasons for posting here. I find your
>sweeping generalization about "the press" pretty insulting, but since
>I don't work on Boot and I'm not Tom or Keith, it's not my place to
>respond.)
Insulting??? That's curious. Since when did press, any press for that
matter, care about such issues? After all, it's about selling mags is
it not? Gimme a break Dan, surely you don't think I hopped on this
bandwagon last week.
As for Boot, I actually wrote to Brad and complained. I wrote to PC
Games and Steve responded. EVERYONE responded in their own way and I
have NEVER got into a fight with ANY editor or writer as a result of
their review of BC3K. TLM went over board and I found it ludicrous
that he was not writing about BC3K but about Derek Smart. He has
trashed me in EVERY article he has ever written for BC3K. What would
you think? TLM, after I contacted him and asking why he was doing this
to me, simply sent me a letter (after several exchanges) saying that I
was 'harassing him' and that I should 'cease and desist' from sending
our e-mail exchange to my mailing list; knowing fully well that HE was
passing MY mail around! Go figure.
Wanna know something _really_ funny. After I had a one time banter
with Keith (which we settled via e-mail), I had SEVERAL e-mail
messages telling me that he was considered 'one of the boys' because
he sits in on military simulation related meetings with govt.
officials etc. I still have mails. What the HELL is going on out
there?
I JUST WANTED TO WRITE A GAME FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!!!!!!!!
>>>I assume you mean T. Liam McDonald. As the author of the Extended Play
>>>column, he will indeed be the man to write about the 1.1 patch, if PC
>>>Gamer addresses it. And because I know Tom McDonald, I can assure you
>>>of one thing: If a patched version of Battlecruiser 3000AD, be it v1.1
>>>or v9.6, turns out to be an enjoyable game that does what it was
>>>purported to do in the first place, that does it consistently, and
>>>that does it well, Tom will not only say so in his column, he'll be
>>>genuinely happy to do it.
>>
>>We'll have to wait and see won't we Dan <g>
>
>Certainly. As a computer gaming journalist, I'm used to waiting.
>
>Dan Bennett
>Editor, PC Gamer
This, I've GOT to see. <g>
DS