"Playing" The Game vs Reading The Final Transcript

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Al

unread,
Mar 7, 2001, 11:14:00 AM3/7/01
to
Recently Stephen posted to his page a repeat of his
excellent piece "The Player Will Get It Wrong"

What is it about difficulty in designing a game that
makes it so hard sometimes for "the player to get it"?

As for the statement:

"And in the meantime no one tells you that you can
write your game but you can't play it."

is so very very true.

Are we missing something in "playing" the game
vs reading the final transcript (assuming we have
invoked the "script" command).

I think if you go back once you have finished/won the
game and read the transcript you are most likely to
discover that you "missed" certain items even though
you read them while you were playing the game ! ! !

Are you "missing the forest for the Trees" while you
play the game and yet going back and reading the
complete transcript of what you have traveled thru,
you can now see "The Forest" (A.K.A. the bigger picture)
that you for some reason was right in front of, or under your
nose but you missed little details that may or may not have
enhanced your enjoyment of the game.

Go back and play the Zorks if you haven't done so in a long
time. How much do you remember of what you originally played.
How did the Thief react this time as opposed to last time? What
other things did you miss the first time that are now "revealed"
in this play session?

Does the game have to be played several times like Once and Future
because it has several different possible endings? How do the
different endings affect what you previously played? Is it wrong
to have different endings because then what you experienced in
Game with Ending A is different than in Game with Ending B or C?

Finally, it would be nice to have a web page where the authors
could post HOW they created the game. The game is definitely
more than just locations, NPCs, and Objects. Isn't it? Story line
and other factors come into play here. Of that I'm very very sure.
What were the author's thoughts when s/he was designing the game
and HOW did the game come to its final assembly status.

I believe that a "HOW I CREATED IT" page would be useful in the design
of future games, and for those who want to write their first game
but haven't yet attempted it.

Spoilers could have a link on the page so that those who
hadn't played the game yet would not have the game ruined for them.
yet the overall design of the game could be presented as an actual
teaching device.

James R. Goodfriend

unread,
Mar 7, 2001, 9:11:29 PM3/7/01
to

Al <rad...@qadas.com> wrote in message news:3AA65E47...@qadas.com...

> I believe that a "HOW I CREATED IT" page would be useful in the design
> of future games, and for those who want to write their first game
> but haven't yet attempted it.
>
> Spoilers could have a link on the page so that those who
> hadn't played the game yet would not have the game ruined for them.
> yet the overall design of the game could be presented as an actual
> teaching device.

Authors' notes are excellent! Always interesting, especially to designers.
Sometimes games have them built in, but you're right, a central page for
such notes is a good idea.

What about source code? I'm surprised that so little source is released.
Is there thinking here I'm missing, or are designers just lazy? Will
writers generally provide it if asked?

-Bob

ems...@mindspring.com

unread,
Mar 7, 2001, 9:55:41 PM3/7/01
to
James R. Goodfriend <ja...@weboffices.com> wrote:

> What about source code? I'm surprised that so little source is released.
> Is there thinking here I'm missing, or are designers just lazy? Will
> writers generally provide it if asked?

Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons not to release source:
sometimes it's a jangly, twisty mess that you don't want anyone to see;
sometimes you want to protect the integrity of the game experience and
not let people ruin it for themselves by reading the code. (My reasons
not to release Galatea source are a little of each of the above.)

-- ES

Al

unread,
Mar 7, 2001, 11:29:06 PM3/7/01
to
Emily Short wrote:

>
>
> Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons not to release source:
> sometimes it's a jangly, twisty mess that you don't want anyone to see;
> sometimes you want to protect the integrity of the game experience and
> not let people ruin it for themselves by reading the code. (My reasons
> not to release Galatea source are a little of each of the above.)
>
>

I never intended for the source code to be posted to the site only
the methods that the authors used in the development of the games.
Although the source code COULD at the author's discretion be placed
there. It would definitely be a TOTAL Spoiler, although if the reader
of the site decided he/she wanted to look at the source or not if would
be up to their (the reader's) discretion on whether or to download the
source code as well.

BTW on FTP there is a whole folder full of source code of games
that are currently posted there already ! ! ! 1

I'll post a follow up on my idea for the web page later.

Heiko Nock

unread,
Mar 8, 2001, 3:23:14 PM3/8/01
to
In article <nVBp6.883$DQ3.89...@den-news1.rmi.net>, James R.
Goodfriend wrote:

>What about source code? I'm surprised that so little source is released.

1. Writers might be afraid of people thinking that their code is
shoddy.

2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
people don't find during playing it.

--
Ciao, Heiko...

Adam J. Thornton

unread,
Mar 8, 2001, 5:20:35 PM3/8/01
to
In article <inp889...@wtal.de>, Heiko Nock <zif...@wtal.de> wrote:
>2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
> people don't find during playing it.

Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.

Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits

Adam Cadre

unread,
Mar 8, 2001, 9:18:33 PM3/8/01
to
>What about source code? I'm surprised that so little source is released.
>Is there thinking here I'm missing, or are designers just lazy? Will
>writers generally provide it if asked?

I don't release source code because the one time I did, someone skimmed
the source, reconstructed the game in her head incorrectly, and then
attacked me on this newsgroup for having written these nonexistent
scenes. And I don't need that kind of crap.

-----
Adam Cadre, Brooklyn, NY
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac

Daniel Barkalow

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 12:27:27 AM3/9/01
to

I think it would be neat if people released source code to mechanisms
which were straightforward inside the game but hard to see how to
implement from outside, especially if it could be easily sanitized of
anything game-specific.

For example, I was interested to see the code for the pluggable toys from
Spider and Web, and also for the various techniques used in Metamorphoses
(the aspects of the physics model and the detailed and complicated
images). In these cases, the puzzles themselves are rather a different
thing from how the puzzles are implemented, so the source code need not
give much away (or the code for the Classes, rather than the actual items,
could be released).

-Iabervon
*This .sig unintentionally changed*

Stephen Granade

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 7:49:23 AM3/9/01
to
Daniel Barkalow <iabe...@iabervon.org> writes:

> On 8 Mar 2001 ems...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > James R. Goodfriend <ja...@weboffices.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What about source code? I'm surprised that so little source is released.
> > > Is there thinking here I'm missing, or are designers just lazy? Will
> > > writers generally provide it if asked?
> >
> > Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons not to release source:
> > sometimes it's a jangly, twisty mess that you don't want anyone to see;
> > sometimes you want to protect the integrity of the game experience and
> > not let people ruin it for themselves by reading the code. (My reasons
> > not to release Galatea source are a little of each of the above.)
>
> I think it would be neat if people released source code to mechanisms
> which were straightforward inside the game but hard to see how to
> implement from outside, especially if it could be easily sanitized of
> anything game-specific.

That's likely to be the nastiest code in the game, in terms of how
clearly it's written. You start out with a simple idea, then add a few
more things, then realize that you've introduced some nasty bugs, and
before you know it you have a serious pile of code on your hands.

Stephen

--
Stephen Granade | Interested in adventure games?
sgra...@phy.duke.edu | Visit About Interactive Fiction
Duke University, Physics Dept | http://interactfiction.about.com

Heiko Nock

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 8:47:04 AM3/9/01
to
In article <9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Adam J. Thornton wrote:

>>2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
>> people don't find during playing it.
>Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.

TXD doesn't show you how to get to that part. Besides, TXD can probably
be blocked by encoding the text in the source code and decoding it in
game.

--
Ciao, Heiko...

Matthew Russotto

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 1:48:22 PM3/9/01
to
In article <osma89...@wtal.de>, Heiko Nock <zif...@wtal.de> wrote:
>In article <9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Adam J. Thornton wrote:
>
>>>2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
>>> people don't find during playing it.
>>Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.
>
>TXD doesn't show you how to get to that part.

Of course it does. TXD shows everything. Well, except how to find
the rape scene in "Big Momma"... but then again, maybe it does show it
and I just don't know how to interpret it :-)

>Besides, TXD can probably be blocked by encoding the text in the
>source code and decoding it in game.

Please, let's not get into wars like that. For any given game, a
motivated decoder has the great advantage of a stationary target. And
there really isn't room in the z-machine to waste putting additional
encoding schemes in.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

Aris Katsaris

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 3:31:52 PM3/9/01
to

Adam J. Thornton <ad...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU...

> In article <inp889...@wtal.de>, Heiko Nock <zif...@wtal.de> wrote:
> >2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
> > people don't find during playing it.
>
> Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.

Which reminds me --
--I dislike the use of TXD. From several reviews in the last IFComp I'm now
under
the belief that its use should be discouraged or forbidden for all voters
there....
(yeah, yeah, such a rule can't be enforced any more than the 2-hour rule.
Still.).

Once again it removes authorial control: Perhaps the author wants you to
know only
about the scenes you'll reach yourself and have you not know about any other
text.
The author's work should be judged by itself, not by technological gadgets
who
break it down into something that it's not...

If an author *wants* you to see all scenes that they've written, then they
can include
walkthroughs with their games. Or transcripts. Or even the source file
itself. That's
fine.

Anyone else in favour of forbidding TXD as a tool of IFComp judging?

Aris Katsaris

John Elliott

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 3:45:08 PM3/9/01
to
zif...@wtal.de (Heiko Nock) wrote:
>In article <9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Adam J. Thornton wrote:
>
>>>2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
>>> people don't find during playing it.
>>Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.
>
>TXD doesn't show you how to get to that part.

Well, it does, sort of. You just have to be able to read Z-assembly
language, and work out what all the global variables refer to.

I did actually use this technique to find out how to open the safe in
"Theatre" :-)

--
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 3:47:44 PM3/9/01
to
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:

> Adam J. Thornton <ad...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> news:9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU...
>> In article <inp889...@wtal.de>, Heiko Nock <zif...@wtal.de> wrote:
>> >2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
>> > people don't find during playing it.
>>
>> Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.

> Which reminds me --
> --I dislike the use of TXD.

So don't use it.

Walkthroughs remove authorial control. Allowing people to discuss your
game removes authorial control. Releasing a game in .z5 format, as
opposed to a Windows executable, removes authorial control.

Frankly, authorial control is bunk.

And while I can't stop people from getting into an obfuscation/
deobfuscation war -- compiler tricks versus TXD updates -- I would
like to say that it's a bloody waste of time, and does not contribute
to the world of IF in the slightest degree.

> From several reviews in the last IFComp I'm now under the belief
> that its use should be discouraged or forbidden for all voters
> there.... (yeah, yeah, such a rule can't be enforced any more than
> the 2-hour rule. Still.).

The IFComp does not forbid, or even discourage, any of the practices I
listed above.

Many people *choose* not to discuss the games (or read other people's
thoughts) during judging. Many people choose not to use TXD, too.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.

Aris Katsaris

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 4:36:56 PM3/9/01
to

Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:98bfhg$3dn$1...@news.panix.com...

> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Adam J. Thornton <ad...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9890jj$fja$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU...
> >> In article <inp889...@wtal.de>, Heiko Nock <zif...@wtal.de> wrote:
> >> >2. Writers might not like people seeing parts of the story that most
> >> > people don't find during playing it.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but that's what TXD is for.
>
> > Which reminds me --
> > --I dislike the use of TXD.
>
> So don't use it.
>
> Walkthroughs remove authorial control. Allowing people to discuss your
> game removes authorial control. Releasing a game in .z5 format, as
> opposed to a Windows executable, removes authorial control.

I'm talking about the judging of the yearly IFComp in particular. Two
specific controls have already been placed formally or informally:
"Don't play the game more than two hours before placing your vote."-
"Don't discuss the games in the newsgroup before the contest is
over."

I'm not at all interested in doing compiler tricks to prevent anyone from
TXDing my games - and neither would I advise anyone else to do the
same. I wouldn't have any problem in TXDing other people's games to
see the whole text myself, actually. I simply think that the situation is
different during the IFComp - it adds a factor that shouldn't be a factor
IMO.

Okay, I think that "authorial control" was perhaps the wrong expression
here. The
TXD output is more like an external uncontrollable factor which should be
ignored in the review of the game because it's *not* the game and it's not
provided by the author. The game is what's given by the author to the public
and played through an Inform interpreter.

Using the TXD file to change one's vote about the game is to me similar
to changing one's opinion about the game because someone knows there's
a lack in clarity in the source code... "I saw through TXD that the game had
many beautiful endings that I couldn't reach myself. Kudos!" feels to me
a bit similar to "Through telepathy I know that what the author intended is
much different and better than what he produced. Kudos!"

> > From several reviews in the last IFComp I'm now under the belief
> > that its use should be discouraged or forbidden for all voters
> > there.... (yeah, yeah, such a rule can't be enforced any more than
> > the 2-hour rule. Still.).
>
> The IFComp does not forbid, or even discourage, any of the practices I
> listed above.
>
> Many people *choose* not to discuss the games (or read other people's
> thoughts) during judging. Many people choose not to use TXD, too.

The 2-hour rule exists. And discussion of the games during the judging
period is discouraged by the IF-community. Okay, it's not discouraged
by the IFComp itself. That's a nitpick. Change "IFComp" to
"IF-community" and you'll get my point.

Aris Katsaris

Gunther Schmidl

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 5:06:37 PM3/9/01
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote:

> Frankly, authorial control is bunk.

I couldn't disagree more.

-- Gunther


J. Robinson Wheeler

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 12:24:42 AM3/10/01
to
Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> I'm not at all interested in doing compiler tricks to prevent
> anyone from TXDing my games - and neither would I advise anyone
> else to do the same. I wouldn't have any problem in TXDing other
> people's games to see the whole text myself, actually. I simply
> think that the situation is different during the IFComp - it
> adds a factor that shouldn't be a factor IMO.

Actually, if we were now to ban the use of TXD in the Comp,
we would be subtracting a factor which has been a factor all
along. Shall we annul the results of the last six comps and
start with a clean slate, untainted by TXD?

Another option is for authors to assert their authorial control
over the language they use, and program in something other than
Inform.

--
J. Robinson Wheeler http://thekroneexperiment.com
whe...@jump.net

Elise Stone

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 3:57:24 PM3/10/01
to
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:36:56 +0200, "Aris Katsaris"
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:

>Using the TXD file to change one's vote about the game is to me similar
>to changing one's opinion about the game because someone knows there's
>a lack in clarity in the source code... "I saw through TXD that the game had
>many beautiful endings that I couldn't reach myself. Kudos!" feels to me
>a bit similar to "Through telepathy I know that what the author intended is
>much different and better than what he produced. Kudos!"
>

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the regulars in favor of using
TXD, I have to agree with Aris. To me, the work is a game that is
meant to be played. It should be judged by how it plays, not by what
is hidden within.

I recently watched the movie "What Dreams May Come". One of the extras
on the DVD was an alternate ending that, in my opinion, was much more
satisfying than the one that actually ended the movie. Should I judge
the movie based on the theatrical release or on the (better) alternate
ending? I know the producer or director had a better idea so, even if
that wasn't the one the movie actually ended with, should I rate the
movie higher?

Similarly, if no one reaches those 'beautiful endings', should they
be included in the rating of the game?

Lucian P. Smith

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 7:09:34 PM3/10/01
to
Elise Stone (emla...@mediaone.net) wrote in <3aaa8ea5...@news.ne.mediaone.net>:

: To me, the work is a game that is


: meant to be played. It should be judged by how it plays, not by what
: is hidden within.

Well, of course it's *meant* to be played. Nobody's arguing that. But
just because someone designed a pencil to write on a piece of paper
doesn't mean I can't use it to flip dip switches on my computer. Or throw
at the ceiling until it sticks. After it reaches my hands, I can do with
it whatever I want.

: I recently watched the movie "What Dreams May Come". One of the extras


: on the DVD was an alternate ending that, in my opinion, was much more
: satisfying than the one that actually ended the movie. Should I judge
: the movie based on the theatrical release or on the (better) alternate
: ending? I know the producer or director had a better idea so, even if
: that wasn't the one the movie actually ended with, should I rate the
: movie higher?

Who's asking you to rate the movie? Who cares? Why can't you just tell
people, "I liked the alternate ending of the movie on the DVD version I
have."?

For the comp, the rules are left purposely vague regarding how to assign
numbers. There are probably as many ways to assign them as there are
judges. All of them are valid. Judging the games, while it has the side
effect of vaguely ordering them according to worthiness, is mostly so the
prizes can be distributed. If you want a much more accurate view of
whether you personally will enjoy a game, read the reviews. They'll tell
you stuff like "I used TXD" and you can relate that to your own potential
enjoyment accordingly.

-Lucian

Matthew Russotto

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 10:58:34 PM3/11/01
to
In article <3AA9BA9B...@jump.net>,

J. Robinson Wheeler <whe...@jump.net> wrote:
>
>Another option is for authors to assert their authorial control
>over the language they use, and program in something other than
>Inform.

Not TADS either. I have a tool to decrypt TADS game files (possibly
not current versions), and I used to be able to sight-read enough of
the opcodes to figure out what was going on.

Also not Windows executables, as there's plenty of disassemblers for
that around.

Adam J. Thornton

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 10:23:28 PM3/16/01
to
In article <98efnu$iua$1...@joe.rice.edu>,

Lucian P. Smith <lps...@rice.edu> wrote:
>Well, of course it's *meant* to be played. Nobody's arguing that. But
>just because someone designed a pencil to write on a piece of paper
>doesn't mean I can't use it to flip dip switches on my computer. Or throw
>at the ceiling until it sticks. After it reaches my hands, I can do with
>it whatever I want.

Not if the RIAA has anything to do with it. You don't own that pencil,
buddy. You are merely licensing it under the condition that you will
not think of using it in an Unauthorized Fashion, and by touching it,
you grant the RIAA the right to come into your house, murder your
family, rape your dog, and eat your baseboards if they so desire.

And besides, by writing with it you might Subvert Copyright by using it
to transcribe Copyrighted Works--in fact, you're almost certainly
plotting to do that *right now*--so for the good of society, we're going
to cut off your hands.

Have a nice day.

Will Grzanich

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 1:25:13 AM3/17/01
to
"Adam J. Thornton" wrote:
>
> Not if the RIAA has anything to do with it. You don't own that pencil,
> buddy. You are merely licensing it under the condition that you will
> not think of using it in an Unauthorized Fashion, and by touching it,
> you grant the RIAA the right to come into your house, murder your
> family, rape your dog, and eat your baseboards if they so desire.
>
> And besides, by writing with it you might Subvert Copyright by using it
> to transcribe Copyrighted Works--in fact, you're almost certainly
> plotting to do that *right now*--so for the good of society, we're going
> to cut off your hands.
>
> Have a nice day.

Dude. Who pissed in your Cheerios?

*ahem*

-Will

John Colagioia

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 8:30:42 AM3/15/01
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote:

> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> > Which reminds me --
> > --I dislike the use of TXD.
> So don't use it.

[...]

> And while I can't stop people from getting into an obfuscation/
> deobfuscation war -- compiler tricks versus TXD updates -- I would
> like to say that it's a bloody waste of time, and does not contribute
> to the world of IF in the slightest degree.

For what it's worth, I agree with just about everything you said except this
particular sub-comment. While it's true that the average person who plays (or
writes) games wouldn't see a direct benefit, the "geekier" end of the community
ends up with a better-stocked toolbelt. Specifically, a TXD that can understand
more possibilities, and a better understanding of some of the odder parts of the
Z-Machine.

Besides, an arms race can be darn fun to watch, when the arms aren't of the sort
that kill people...


Matthew W. Miller

unread,
Mar 20, 2001, 4:52:02 AM3/20/01
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:30:42 -0500, John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>> While I can't stop people from getting into an obfuscation/

>> deobfuscation war -- compiler tricks versus TXD updates -- I would like
>> to say that it's a bloody waste of time, and does not contribute to the
>> world of IF in the slightest degree.
>While it's true that the average person who plays (or writes) games
>wouldn't see a direct benefit, the "geekier" end of the community ends up
>with a better-stocked toolbelt. Specifically, a TXD that can understand
>more possibilities, and a better understanding of some of the odder parts
>of the Z-Machine.

This is true-- it's not like the Implementer-Gods of Infocom came down
from Heaven (or Massachusetts) and blessed Graham Nelson with full
knowledge of the Z-machine's inner workings in the first place, now is it?

>Besides, an arms race can be darn fun to watch, when the arms aren't of
>the sort that kill people...

I understand what you are saying, and I disagree.
Mind you, I'm one of the veterans of the 1980's eight-bit
copy-protection wars. Already-slow disk drives were dragged down further
by tricksy formatting naughtiness. The slightest suspicious behavior (in
the omniscient [or at least it thought it was] eyes of the program) would
result in a reboot, a corrupted saved game, or worse.
I really don't want to see hobbyist IF dragged into the crackers-
vs-protectors pit that Activision, Electronic Arts, and other publishers
fell into. I've never bothered to complete the latter publisher's Amnesia
because waiting for the loader to drag on and on and on is so very
tedious, especially when it suddenly decides something is up and forces a
reboot.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com

John Colagioia

unread,
Mar 21, 2001, 8:45:56 AM3/21/01
to
"Matthew W. Miller" wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:30:42 -0500, John Colagioia <JCola...@csi.com> wrote:

[...]

> >Besides, an arms race can be darn fun to watch, when the arms aren't of
> >the sort that kill people...
>
> I understand what you are saying, and I disagree.
> Mind you, I'm one of the veterans of the 1980's eight-bit
> copy-protection wars. Already-slow disk drives were dragged down further
> by tricksy formatting naughtiness. The slightest suspicious behavior (in
> the omniscient [or at least it thought it was] eyes of the program) would
> result in a reboot, a corrupted saved game, or worse.
> I really don't want to see hobbyist IF dragged into the crackers-
> vs-protectors pit that Activision, Electronic Arts, and other publishers
> fell into. I've never bothered to complete the latter publisher's Amnesia
> because waiting for the loader to drag on and on and on is so very
> tedious, especially when it suddenly decides something is up and forces a
> reboot.

OK, point taken. I remember that sort of thing, too. I just was never enough of
a gamer to worry about it, and moved on to the next "project." But I see your
point.

So...uhm...anyone getting wrapped up in one of these escalation wars, keep it
clean: Heh--No hitting below the belt (crashing the system), no biting
(corrupting data), and no name-calling (causing slowdows), 'K...?


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages