danien1 said:
Still living on assumptions... And learn better insults than this.
You're still living in your own reality, I see.
LOL. If this was what all those insults and accusations were meant to say, you would be so right. We had just hired programmers with 3D engine development experience and know-how. Programmers working on an internal 3D engine for another project then were also moved over to work on this one. What did you want? A tech demo from them to you personally first? Unfortunately, game developers can't afford to make demos in pre-production just as proof of concept or ability FOR YOU.
The funny thing is that you failed to mention this earlier, instead using the new Interplay tradition of smoke and mirrors. You serve Imperor Herve well, young Dark Jedi.
I'm afraid you still don't see the other side of the coin. The point is nothing was proven at the time, whether for or against.
Here is where I say you're a poor developer and hope the others of your team can keep your random outbursts of stupidity in check. Did working with Chuck before somehow inflict you with his stupid syndrome, or are you just a natural wellspring of amentia? People aren't willing to swallow and follow blind supposition anymore, unless you follow the Romero school of game design. Therefore expecting people to believe that you can do things you haven't proven yet claim you can do it is quite asinine.
You failed to prove that BIS couldn't do it.
You failed to prove that BIS could do it. Which was the point of that topic, shithead. No more straw men. YOU I don't give a shit about because you're an idiot and display the same traits as Caen. You might have some use in scripting but your co-employees haven't had the moral decency to sever your internet connection to save their own face.
Lack of empirical evidence is not empirical evidence.
Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.
This lack does NOT carry any weight. That was the point.
Lack of evidence carries a lot of weight. Especially since vaporware and shovelware has been becoming prevalent in the industry. Blind supposition and "we can do it!" from a developer carries jack shit to fans today, all over the game industry. You might want to learn that.
The only examples I saw were those of Troika, XCA, FOT failing to do it successfully.
Don't forget to add in the later Might and Magic games in there. It DOES happen to be in a genre in which you worked in and is a good example of the nuances between RT, TB, and the impossibility of good, practical design with both. You might want to check these things...just call it a hunch about something called background reference. That helps a lot when looking at design issues.
BIS had not done this before, therefore there is NO evidence to be had.
There was evidence that BIS hadn't and then there was some twit that expected us to believe that BIS could do what others have had failed at, in the time left in IPLY's life expectancy, budget, et al.
So, yes, I was right that BIS couldn't do it in the state the company was in, because it would have taken more time than BIS had.
Forgot that, didn't you? Oops.
Point. Set. Match.
Sad way to win that argument, but as I've said before when FOT turned out to be shit, I hate it when I'm right, and I'm often right.
Nothing pointed to BIS not actually being able to do it other than BIS had never done it. Maybe BIS couldn't have done it and I was wrong. The only thing I was saying, repeatedly, was that we (or at least I) thought we could do it at that time.
Actually, you expected us to believe that BIS could do it where others, many of which have worked together in their teams on combat systems for years, have failed. Sorry, but both as a developer and as a consumer, I have to laugh at your asinine expectations.
You don't have to buy either the argument, or the game for that matter if we failed. I don't recall asking the fans to "believe in us, we can do it". It was a simple statement of my own belief.
Not entirely. Please don't bother to lie, about 7 people here vividly remember following that topic for quite some time.
At least acknowledge that you had no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that BIS couldn't do it.
And they couldn't, simple as that. Sad, yes, but it couldn't be done. I had the evidence that the company was going to hell, as it wasn't quite a big mystery then, which compiled upon the fact that a team that didn't have
team experience in doing what was expected to be swallowed, only pointed out to much more ill fate. All evidence pointed out that either BIS would have been the only development house of IPLY (if they were smart), or that they would go completely into their console infatuation.
Bad memory, Roshambo. Or rather, bad spin on what was actually said. Remember (and I paraphrase) "you've already paid for the Lithtech engine. You can't possibly have time or money to make a new one."? Bold statement, but ultimately specious.
I said it would take a lot more time than BIS likely had, as well as money. Which, given IPLY's financial situation and how BIS is essentially no more, I think I'm right on both counts. IPLY couldn't afford to redo Jefferson with all that was needed, both money and time, plus redesigning it where need be.
An unreleased bit of code is as good as unreleased, simple as that. So no, there technically was no full development of a new engine because it is still in-house and nothing came from it on a production basis. It is dead code in its current state. Such is software development, brutal as it is.
All we were saying then was that people shouldn't assume too much. The internal engine was already in development for Jefferson by this time. These hints were given; some chose to call them spins and lies.
Actually, especting someone to swallow something on blind faith
is spin, especially in the game industry. Educated guesses and predictions can be made, of which I have been pretty accurate even though it is bad news.
Poor assumption but one that seems necessary for you. The statement was not that FO3 was going to be in RT. FO3 NEEDS to be in TB, primarily, in my opinion. If a RT mode was required, I believed at the time that it could have been included, not as a hybrid but as an alternative that meant player choice. Pick one or the other. The argument then turned to whether we could pull off balancing for both. Questionable? Yes. But the focus was always to err in favor of TB.
This is what makes me again doubtful of your ethics as a programmer. You see, most real developers and software designers don't believe in putting half-baked garbage into their code to begin with. That is why most pick one method and try to do it well, namely because hybrid or switched systems do suck miserably.
Sure, they might put in their grocery list, but nothing that has a serious compromising of their code.
Of course, I may be wrong. You may very well be from the new breed of Microsoft programmers.
Did I play my cards to lead you to believe I was in favor of RT? Nope. I played it so you wouldn't know I was in favor of having TB in FO3. Coz I'm an antagonistic bastard sometimes, especially towards people who come to the BIS forum and starts insulting other fans. If you need more opponents who are against TB, you need to find someone else. Perhaps a janitor to argue with.
That explains the various excuses made around with rats, right? Or expecting us to wish upon a star that BIS could pull it off without flaws or to above the level of those who have tried and failed before. One cannot be put in without compromising the other or some other game mechanic, simple as that, because it is two mediums of handling time. If you need to understand how time works, you might want to take some remedial physics.
No, that you preferred TB or RT is irrelevent to the discussion, drop the straw man before I make you wear it.
EDIT: Now, if you're trying to paint me the bad guy by merit of me chewing out a "BIS developar!", you're sadly mistaken. I've already been asked if your title was a mistake on this forum and someone else seemed to be under the impression you're a joke someone here is perpetuating.
. I'll buy it....at some point.
