🚀 go-pugleaf

Claus Grøvdal wrote:
> 
> Gordon K Wilson wrote:
> > {snip!}
>
> Obviously this gamerX, whoever they are, have no clue. His review said
> Diablo could only be played on battle.net. Well, do your homework next
> time gamerX; You can play Diablo on Kali too.
> 

Also, the Gamecenter review that he mentions in his posting doesn't
exist.

A review of anthing, game or otherwise should not be one sided or
conclusive. They are simply there to express opinions, or to help the
prospective buyer make up his/her mind. 
Therefore when a review is carried out, should all possible gripes not be
mentioned? Whether they have an explanation or not, they are still
problems that make the game imperfect. This is why there is no such thing
as a perfect game. 
If a reviewer did not mention these downsides that Diablo (most
unfortunately) has, then s/he would not be giving the whole picture.

I really like diablo, but I have to admit that the game does have its
flaws...

Just saying...

J

And remember... Satan loves you!

Satan Lord Of Evil wrote:
> 
> A review of anthing, game or otherwise should not be one sided or
> conclusive. They are simply there to express opinions, or to help the
> prospective buyer make up his/her mind.
> Therefore when a review is carried out, should all possible gripes not be
> mentioned? Whether they have an explanation or not, they are still
> problems that make the game imperfect. This is why there is no such thing
> as a perfect game.
> If a reviewer did not mention these downsides that Diablo (most
> unfortunately) has, then s/he would not be giving the whole picture.
> 
> I really like diablo, but I have to admit that the game does have its
> flaws...


     I agree with you but the problem is the review is extremely one
sided. Why compare battle.net (free) to TEN (pay for play)? Why bitch
about spawned copies? It would not have been so bad if these supposed
negatives were followed with some deserved kudos but they are not. The
review is terribly biased and one sided and I expected more from
Gamecenter.

Gordon Wilson
gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
IronWill on battle.bet and KALI

Gordon K Wilson wrote:
>Why compare battle.net (free) to TEN (pay for play)? Why bitch
> about spawned copies? It would not have been so bad if these supposed
> negatives were followed with some deserved kudos but they are not. The
> review is terribly biased and one sided and I expected more from
> Gamecenter.

Obviously this gamerX, whoever they are, have no clue. His review said
Diablo could only be played on battle.net. Well, do your homework next
time gamerX; You can play Diablo on Kali too.

SuperClaus

ktc...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
> =

> Claus Gr=F8vdal wrote:
> >
> > Gordon K Wilson wrote:
> > > {snip!}
> >
> > Obviously this gamerX, whoever they are, have no clue. His review sai=
d
> > Diablo could only be played on battle.net. Well, do your homework nex=
t
> > time gamerX; You can play Diablo on Kali too.
> >
> =

> Also, the Gamecenter review that he mentions in his posting doesn't
> exist.


     Sadly, it does exist. I did get the address wrong though and for
that I do apologize. The correct address is:
http://www.gamecenter.com/Xperts/Gamerx/013097. Sorry for the confusion.

Gordon Wilson
gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
IronWill on battle.net and KALI

The review I read there was highly positive.  But the initial link you gave
here didnt work so maybe the took off that reveiw and put in a nicer one? 
They did mention some drawbacks of the game but thats what reveiwers are
supposed to do for even the best of games.

Gordon K Wilson <gkwi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<32F8F3...@ix.netcom.com>...
> For any of you who are interested, a negative review of Diablo can
> be found at http://www.gamecenter.com/Xperts/GamerX/013097. Check it
> out. I would like to take this opportunity to answer some of the
> question posed by GamerX in his review.
> 
> 1. Q: One- to four-player multiplayer play?
> 
> A: Yes.
> 
> 2. Q: That's it?
> 
> A: Yes.
> 
> 3. Q: And you can't play it over the Internet unless you use battle.net?
> 
> A: Correct. Be happy you can play it over the Internet at all. It
> (battle.net) is free. Quit bitching.
> 
> 4. Q: Making matters worse, spawned versions and the CD version can't
> see each other.
> 
> A: So? Who says they should? Where on the Diablo packaging is the word
> "spawn" or "spawning" even mentioned? Good luck trying to find it
> because it isn't there.
> 
> 5. Q: And what's up with battle.net allowing only one- to four-player
> contests? I was expecting something meatier, more in line with Meridian
> 59 or TEN's Dark Sun world.
> 
> A: If you were expecting something more then you obviously didn't check
> out the free demo that has been in circulation for about 5 months now.
> You also must have never checked the battle.net forums
> (http://www.battle.net) where the capabilities and the limitations of
> the game are discussed openly and often. Also, Meridian 59 and Dark Sun
> are pay for play services. Battle.net is free. To compare the two is not
> really fair or objective. Also, the play that takes place once players
> join a game from battle.net is peer to peer. The game is not played on
> the battle.net server. I doubt you could get more than four people in a
> game with the lag becoming unbearable. Blizzard realized this as well
> and limited the amount of players to four in a multiplayer contest.
> 
>      Thanks. I feel better now. ;)
> 
> 
> Gordon Wilson
> gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
> IronWill on battle.net and KALI
> 

Craig Fletcher wrote:

> The review I read there was highly positive.  But the initial link you gave
> here didnt work so maybe the took off that reveiw and put in a nicer one?
> They did mention some drawbacks of the game but thats what reveiwers are
> supposed to do for even the best of games.


     I am sorry about the link. The correct address is
http://www.gamecenter.com/Xperts/Gamerx/013097. I understand that
reviewers must see both sides of the coin but I thought the review was
terribly one sided. Even the link to that page from the Gamecenter home
page states "GamerX busts on Diablo!". Tell me what you think.

Gordon Wilson
gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
IronWill on battle.net and KALI

On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 22:25:05 -0700, Gordon K Wilson
<gkwi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> > Obviously this gamerX, whoever they are, have no clue. His review said
>> > Diablo could only be played on battle.net. Well, do your homework next
>> > time gamerX; You can play Diablo on Kali too.
>> >
>> 
>> Also, the Gamecenter review that he mentions in his posting doesn't
>> exist.
>
>     Sadly, it does exist. I did get the address wrong though and for
>that I do apologize. The correct address is:
>http://www.gamecenter.com/Xperts/Gamerx/013097. Sorry for the confusion.


Gord,  you're still confused (no offense) but that *ISN'T* the
Gamecenter review.  The actual review was written by Hugh Falk and may
be found, funnily enough, in the Reviews section. :)

Here's the URL for the review, which btw gave Diablo a GamerX rating
of *FIVE* Xs (out of 5).
http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,470,00.html

The article you're referring to addresses several disappointments
GamerX (whoever that is) had with Diablo, meaning, to my mind s/he
just expected more out of the multiplayer implementation.  Don't know
why you're so upset with the comments anyways as the writer seems
clearly to have tongue firmly in cheek, what with lines like "OK, so
Diablo's a mighty fine game otherwise" and "when I finally get to
level 666 (rumor also has it there are this many levels of hell)".

And to address another poster's comment re: playing Diablo over the
internet using Kali, when Diablo was first released in early January,
Kali couldn't work with it out of the box.  Now with the 1.1 betas, it
does but with varying degrees of success.  So far in my experience,
games initiated via Battlenet seem to work better than ones started
using Kali.  However, that may change as Kali continues to be tweaked
by its programmers.  GamerX is no doubt referring to the fact that
Quake has already set a precedent by allowing internet games without
requiring logging into a single specific server (or a third-party
program like Kali which GamerX forgot about).

Homer Simpson wrote:

> Gord,  you're still confused (no offense) but that *ISN'T* the
> Gamecenter review.  The actual review was written by Hugh Falk and may
> be found, funnily enough, in the Reviews section. :)

     I saw that review also and was pretty impressed with it. It
complimented the game on its strengths and also mentioned that (as far
as the reviewer was concerned) a few things could also use some
improving. It was a balanced review. This GamerX wrote an alternative
review and ignored a great many things. Since the URL for the GamerX
review is also at Gamercenter I mentioned that it was a Gamercenter
review. It seems that there are two of them. One at Gamercenter/Reviews
and another at Gamecenter/Xperts. Oh well!

> And to address another poster's comment re: playing Diablo over the
> internet using Kali, when Diablo was first released in early January,
> Kali couldn't work with it out of the box.  Now with the 1.1 betas, it
> does but with varying degrees of success.  So far in my experience,
> games initiated via Battlenet seem to work better than ones started
> using Kali.  However, that may change as Kali continues to be tweaked
> by its programmers.  GamerX is no doubt referring to the fact that
> Quake has already set a precedent by allowing internet games without
> requiring logging into a single specific server (or a third-party
> program like Kali which GamerX forgot about).

     I also have had problems with KALI and Diablo. I have yet to get it
to work to my satisfaction. Thankfully I have never had any problems
getting onto battle.net and using KALI has not become a necessity for
me.

     QUAKE is a great game and a lot of fun when played on a server. But
try getting 4 people together (all with 28.8 modems) and have one person
be the "server" and everyone else connect to his IP. The "server" will
run around and blast the hell out of everyone while the "clients" can
barely move at all. It doesn't work very well.

Gordon Wilson
gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
IronWill on battle.net and KALI

Homer Simpson wrote:

> Kali couldn't work with it out of the box.  Now with the 1.1 betas, it
> does but with varying degrees of success.  So far in my experience,
> games initiated via Battlenet seem to work better than ones started
> using Kali.  However, that may change as Kali continues to be tweaked
> by its programmers.  GamerX is no doubt referring to the fact that
> Quake has already set a precedent by allowing internet games without
> requiring logging into a single specific server (or a third-party
> program like Kali which GamerX forgot about).

Well, I think Kali handles Diablo far better than battle.net - Obviously
bnet generated a bit more traffic than Blizzard expected, so they need
to upgrade their servers and connections.

Mail me your Kali name, and let's run a few tests next time we meet.

Claus
Bnet, Kali, etc: SuperClaus

-- 
Kinetik - http://origo.no/kinetik/

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:14:36 +0000, Satan Lord Of Evil 
>
>And remember... Satan loves you!
>
>
Woo, is that a storm cloud gathering above your head?

I think I see lightening heading your way.

In article <32FB4C...@ix.netcom.com>, gkwi...@ix.netcom.com says...
> Homer Simpson wrote:
> 
> > Gord,  you're still confused (no offense) but that *ISN'T* the
> > Gamecenter review.  The actual review was written by Hugh Falk and may
> > be found, funnily enough, in the Reviews section. :)
> 
>      I saw that review also and was pretty impressed with it. It
> complimented the game on its strengths and also mentioned that (as far
> as the reviewer was concerned) a few things could also use some
> improving. It was a balanced review. This GamerX wrote an alternative
> review and ignored a great many things. Since the URL for the GamerX
> review is also at Gamercenter I mentioned that it was a Gamercenter
> review. It seems that there are two of them. One at Gamercenter/Reviews
> and another at Gamecenter/Xperts. Oh well!

Seems the regular GameCenter reviewer is smarter than the "Xpert"?

On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:07:48 -0800, b...@best.com (Bryant Fong) wrote:

>In article <32FB4C...@ix.netcom.com>, gkwi...@ix.netcom.com says...
>> Homer Simpson wrote:
>> 
>> > Gord,  you're still confused (no offense) but that *ISN'T* the
>> > Gamecenter review.  The actual review was written by Hugh Falk and may
>> > be found, funnily enough, in the Reviews section. :)

>> improving. It was a balanced review. This GamerX wrote an alternative
>> review and ignored a great many things. Since the URL for the GamerX
>> review is also at Gamercenter I mentioned that it was a Gamercenter
>> review. It seems that there are two of them. One at Gamercenter/Reviews
>> and another at Gamecenter/Xperts. Oh well!
>
>Seems the regular GameCenter reviewer is smarter than the "Xpert"?

There is no "regular" Gamecenter reviewer, as far as I can tell.
Gamecenter employs several reviewers.  I suspect "GamerX" is not
actually a single individual but either a group effort or various
reviewers taking turns writing editorials under that pseudonym.  After
all, each game review receives a "GamerX Rating".

In any case, I think you guys are reading too much into the brief
article by GamerX on Diablo.  It seemed to me that it focused SOLELY
on the multiplayer implementation of the game, nothing more, nothing
less, and as such isn't a formal review at all.

Homer Simpson (gd...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:07:48 -0800, b...@best.com (Bryant Fong) wrote:

: >
: >Seems the regular GameCenter reviewer is smarter than the "Xpert"?

: There is no "regular" Gamecenter reviewer, as far as I can tell.
: Gamecenter employs several reviewers.  I suspect "GamerX" is not
: actually a single individual but either a group effort or various
: reviewers taking turns writing editorials under that pseudonym.  After
: all, each game review receives a "GamerX Rating".

: In any case, I think you guys are reading too much into the brief
: article by GamerX on Diablo.  It seemed to me that it focused SOLELY
: on the multiplayer implementation of the game, nothing more, nothing
: less, and as such isn't a formal review at all.



Bottom of the line, after wading through the gamerx tirades
I would take anything posted under that name with a grain of
salt. The only thing I saw that was written by gamerx that
was edible for public consumtion was an ask gamerx question.
All of the areticles and the about column were rude and
berating.

-Terry

-------

On 12 Feb 1997 00:29:18 GMT, ter...@Sun.COM (Twinkster) wrote:

>Bottom of the line, after wading through the gamerx tirades
>I would take anything posted under that name with a grain of
>salt. The only thing I saw that was written by gamerx that
>was edible for public consumtion was an ask gamerx question.
>All of the areticles and the about column were rude and
>berating.

Geez!  When did everyone in these GAMING newsgroups become SOOO
serious and politically-correct?

Ever heard of "tongue-in-cheek"?

Quick note:

U can play over the Net in several forms.	

Kali	
Bnet	
Mplayer

and there might be more.