Was the original MOO3 concept better?

[TCO]

Originally posted by 13Matt13


And didnt your mother ever tell you what happens when you assume? Especially assume about a situation whose details you were NOT privy to?

I fully agree that I am shooting in the dark. I made the comment about assume to make sure that I differentiated an assertion from an assumption. This is the internet. We don't have all the details. ETc. It is still interesting to chat about. I will throw my "takes" based on limited information ouot there. I might be wrong, but I have a decent smell for this kind of thing. I also commented and cautioned about some of this stuff over a year ago. Read back and it will give you a little persepective. You fiery 13-yearold you.

[TCO]

Originally posted by AminMaalouf


Is this really the case? To sell a game or to found the production of a game is without doubt a commerical activity, a business at the end, should all go round.
Sometimes not everything goes round and commercial decisions give an idea another shape than the intended one. However, I ask myself, wheather the design of a game might be something else (e.g. as well said by the poster before, an integrated project).

It is a business. People investing expect a return. There is no game charity or government subsidy.

[AminMaalouf]

Originally posted by TCO

It is a business. People investing expect a return. There is no game charity or government subsidy.

There is always something between the lines.

[TCO]

Originally posted by AminMaalouf


There is always something between the lines.

That was to one-hand clapping for me. Or were you trying to show that I can't figure out implications while telling others to do so?

[AminMaalouf]

Originally posted by Raion

The spaceship can not be built, if it is not designed well enough, but also can not be built if it can not be built well. It takes both.

True.

[AminMaalouf]

Originally posted by TCO


That was to one-hand clapping for me. Or were you trying to show that I can't figure out implications while telling others to do so?

No, what is between the lines are sad memories.

[DIH49]

Originally posted by TCO


Weasel.

Wonderful! I never thought, nay, dreamed that you would respond with yet another fallacy. I don't often get the chance to lecture over the summer, and i must say your side is providing some exquisite opportunities to do so.

Now, the fallacy in question here is a more well known one: the Ad Hominem. This fallacy works like this:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

this sort of fallacy is most commonly seen in small children, usually with some variation on the word head, as in, stupidhead, or dumbhead, or perhaps dummyhead on occasion. now as to why this is a fallcy. The character of a person making a claim has no bearing on its' veracity.

***

Oh, and matt, I haven't graduated hs yet. I'm a senior this year.

Originally posted by TCO

I fully agree that I am shooting in the dark. I made the comment about assume to make sure that I differentiated an assertion from an assumption. This is the internet. We don't have all the details. ETc. It is still interesting to chat about. I will throw my "takes" based on limited information ouot there. I might be wrong, but I have a decent smell for this kind of thing. I also commented and cautioned about some of this stuff over a year ago. Read back and it will give you a little persepective. You fiery 13-yearold you.

a. matt isn't thirteen, no more than i am 49. that he has numbers in his handle doesn't necessarily mean those represent his age.

b. i think the problem here is that you don't really understand the way game design works. or rather, the way the game designer works. it was said several times on igmoo, and its' beautiful predecessor that there were going to be cuts made, that all games made cuts along the line. This would be ALAN'S job. Except they dropped him and let an art designer take the project. I gave an example to someone a while back about how i expect a painter to paint my house, not build it. I suggest you consider it.

In other words, a designer can design a spaceship, and the design change over the time allowed, but if one can not build it ever, than it will never launch into space.

The spaceship can not be built, if it is not designed well enough, but also can not be built if it can not be built well. It takes both.

And no one has a government grant to build a computer game, or a spaceship, that I know of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3084677.stm

well, there's the grant for computer games.

Working off of your analogy, if the designer designs a spaceship, and then is fired before he can perfect the design and make it fly, is it the designers' fault the spaceship is broken, or those who fired him? likewise, if they put the man in charge of painting numbers on the side of the rocket in charge of designing it, whose fault would it be when it crashed and burned?

[13Matt13]

If the design is too ambitious, that is a fault of the design. If it can't be coded that is a fault. You can't just do the design for a year and than throw it over the fence and take a 50-50 shot that it will be feasible.

If Im hired to design a sandbox, and I take my design to you, and you tell me, "Sure I can build that, give me 3 weeks." Then 6 weeks later you find out you CANT build it, whose fault is it? Common sense dictates that it is YOURS, since you committed to something you COULDNT do.

Read back and it will give you a little persepective. You fiery 13-yearold you.

Man, I sure wouldnt trust a 13 y/o engineer. Or someone who believes that anything in a screen name must be a physical descriptor of the person who uses it. Watch out for that Cereal Killer fellow who used to float around the net back in the olden days, he must be a murderer!

Just b/c I have an affinity for a number, does NOT make me that age. Sigh.....

[Dreadnougat]

"Weasel."

Thanks for conceding the point so easily.

[TCO]

You little frigging leg-monsters. Grow up.

[Hydro]

Gentlemen, please. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

"Golden Rule" anyone?

[TCO]

wimp

[DIH49]

Originally posted by Hydro
Gentlemen, please. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

"Golden Rule" anyone?

WE certainly can. I submit we have won this argument ahnds down. Confirmation will be in the form of another insult.

[TCO]

knob-licker

[Vince278]