[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Rockpsl76

Since this is the only intelligent rebutal I've seen. This is the one I'll reply to.

Hmm personal attacks to a wide audience. Nice start.

Originally Posted by Rockpsl76

My basis for calling the programming poor is the fact that the game had just crashed my system 30 times in the last 10 hours.

So do many various programs on many various systems, does this mean that all of those software applications are poorly programmed as well? To cite an example, a client of mine had Outlook crash with roughly the same frequency as what you've mentioned. What Outlook poorly programmed(all M$ jokes aside)? Actually no, because it was finally determined that the MSI Installer on the system had become corrupt, thus when Outlook was installed, it was installed incorrectly and hence the errors and crashes. Unlike items like simple webpages, apps and what not, operating systems are a complex beast. There are a multitude of items that can and will affect your software's performance at all stages, which is why you're not hearing this issue to be affecting everyone, which it would if it was poorly programmed.

Originally Posted by Rockpsl76

What I find amusing is that so many people are ready to tell me "prove it" when I say its bad programming, but everyone thinks its fine and dandy for the original poster to say it was programmed well.

You are trying to prove a point that is not shared by the majority, as this issue does not affect the majority. Hence why to sway folks to your side and line of thinking, you will need to cite proof that your view is indeed, the correct one. That's just the way debates work, you can't just make staements like "this game was designed by a untrained chimpanzee, I could do better!", or the like and not give examples as to how you would take steps to improve it, unless you just wanted to make broad statements and not care if anyone else saw your view on the subject. Of course as you've seen, that argumentive method is pretty in-effective on message boards, as in life.

Originally Posted by Rockpsl76

Obviously he intended to mean the designers of the game were awesome, but he said programmers, which is a very different thing, thus my response.

HOw do you know this? Has hasn't chaned his title, perhaps a private PM has been exchanged? Right now it looks like he is offering kudos to the programmer of the game (as far as I've heard, there is only one), and it doesn't look like it's changed any. Maybe a PM to him explaining that he probably menat something else could be effective? Make sure to give a reason why it should be so though.

judging by the responses, most folks agree that the game has been programmed well, as evident by the resposes to your original post (#2), and in other threads. Since your opinion was that you felt it was programmed poorly, the onus was on you to prove your opinion if you wanted to convince that yes it was programmed poorly by stating specific examples in the code and providing ways that it could be resolved.

Or you could jsut make broad, almost flame-like statements with no proof or suggestions to back them up and hope that folks would be magically convinced. That usually has a much lower success rate thought.

Then again, my reply to your post was considered "unintelligent" so it will most likely be ignored by it's primary target audience, but at least others will be able to enjoy this for what it's worth.