Author Topic: ROFLMAO! (Read 2824 times)

Gadfly · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2001, 09:43:00 PM »

Actually, it is not user configuration PROBLEMS, it is user configuration, PERIOD.

In today's environment of computer use, I know that it is hersey to say this, but the bottom line is that it is the users responsability to get the software to work on their unique operating hardware/software system.

It is in the coders interest to make the program as simple as possible, but the ultimate job of getting the software to perform on your computer is up to you.

This used to be a given.

edit-spelling

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Gadfly ]

SOB · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:45:00 PM »

I'm sorry, but you've got it completely bass-ackwards there Liz. As computers just continue to get more and more mainstream, it's falls even more to the developers of the software to make it work. People who buy computers because they like to tinker with them, adjust their settings, and spend hours getting their joystick files right and their system optimized are in the vast minority. Most people today buy computers because they like what they do, not how they do it. They want to play games, or cruise the internet, or any number of things not related to actually knowing or caring how anything on the system works.

Any developer, including the rats, who want to mass market their software should be doing their damnest to make it work on as many systems as possible. If there are CTDs because the software doesn't work with certain system configurations, then it is the software's fault, period. With the notable exception, of course, if the system it's running on is unstable (NOT unoptimized or untweaked). That said, I kind of doubt the rats would agree with you and would bet that they're doing their best to make it compatible with more configurations. If not because it's their responsibility, then because of the tech support phone calls that they could avoid.

In any case, I hope the do well, and I look forward to giving it a try when I have more time on my hands.

SOB

Gadfly · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:59:00 PM »

One word, "console"

Vulcan · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2001, 12:12:00 AM »

So what your saying is CRS announcing their own servers have TCP/IP stack problems is complete BS and the real issue is the client machines?

Quote

Originally posted by Gadfly:
I still think they are, in fact, I know that they are. There are many without them, ergo, the ones with them have a problem on their end. The server has no preference, and if it was random, we would all suffer them more or less equally.

Gadfly · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2001, 12:27:00 AM »

No, I'm saying that there is something on some systems that causes the sever to puke(in this instance), but not all.

Creamo · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2001, 06:47:00 AM »

By user "Configuration" Glad, you mean the last time you posted you system specs you had a whopping 512meg, now you have in just a few short weeks later 768?!

CRS has you configuring that puppy alright.

WWIIOL has huge potential, it's 12+ months away from being there. As it stands now, it's hideous.

Gadfly · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2001, 07:18:00 AM »

Yep, and I paid a whopping 32$ for that memory. I also bought a new video card. So what? If you will notice I put a date in the lower right corner. That is because I constantly upgrade and reconfigure my systems.

Creamo · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2001, 07:46:00 AM »

So what? SO WHAT?

Hello?

Didn't you say "In today's environment of computer use, I know that it is hersey to say this, but the bottom line is that it is the users responsability to get the software to work on their unique operating hardware/software system.

It is in the coders interest to make the program as simple as possible, but the ultimate job of getting the software to perform on your computer is up to you.

?!!!!!

You think someone with say a 600mhz machine and 256ram is unique? Good God, that's is absurd.

What is unique, is guys like you that will upgrade to 768 meg of ram, and a 64meg GeForce because the quote "ultimate job of getting the software to perform on your computer is up to you."

Hey, if you dig the game and are willing to try and buy "Deep Blue" on Ebay to get it run, that's fine. But don't try and argue in thia forum that it's 99% of the users fault CRS can't program the game to run on their computers.

Oh man...

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2001, 07:58:00 AM »

I'd agree with Gadfly about users having to configure the systems to get the software working...

IF THE SOFTWARE WAS STABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Which it isn't.

You know another game that CTD'd a lot? It was also released half-assed. It was assumed CTDs were the user's end because it wasn't "reproducible"... B17-II. 2 patches later, numerous tweak programs and hours of reconfiguring my PC... it still blows goats.

In today's market software needs to be written for a wide margin of PCs. How many people do you know have identical hardware and software in their PC? Probably 2 people for every 300 you meet.

WWIIOl is written for the PC first, it should be able to perform on a wide variety of systems without crapping out. If it doesn't, it tells me a lot of things: and none of those things are good.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #24 on:** July 26, 2001, 08:06:00 AM »

Well, as alittle test, when in beta the last week, I loaded it onto 3 of my boxes.

All machines had latest drivers for sound, vid, OS, Bios, etc etc.

P233,Win 98,128meg Ram VOODOO 3 16 meg card:
CTD's

P450,Win ME, 384 meg ram, TNT2 32 meg card:
CTD's

P800EB, Win 98, 512k ram, GeForce 2 Pro 32 meg card:
CTD's.

All these machines are stripped of everything for maximum efficiency for co-processing.

Convinced me that this software was not ready for primetime.

no, haven't tried anything since that release.

Dowding · « **Reply #25 on:** July 26, 2001, 08:12:00 AM »

lol Gadfly. Too funny.

I'm sorry, mate, you're making excuses either for the shodiness of their product or their ineptness at creating said product.

I'm just not sure of the exact proportions of the two.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 26, 2001, 09:22:00 AM »

I like it for what it is and I'm willing to give them the same chance I gave AH and WB.

I think some people are expecting to much.
Have fun with what they have and try not to be bitter with what they don't have.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #27 on:** July 26, 2001, 09:32:00 AM »

this "customer review" *g* on ebgames is useless, like this WW2ol discussion here on the AH board *g*

there will be allways 2 different perspectives, no matter what people enjoy it or not. So what, life goes on.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #28 on:** July 26, 2001, 09:36:00 AM »

Personally, I think it rates as "Has Potential when they work the bugs out, not ready for prime time (Meaning only a cross section of computers can handle it).

I do remember some probs with AH when in open beta, but not nearly the probs I personally encountered with WW2 Online. The diff is, HTC had Severity 1 probs fixed within a couple days in beta, not so with CRS.

Creamo · « **Reply #29 on:** July 26, 2001, 09:50:00 AM »

PC GAMER rated it 50%.

That's not too bad.