🚀 go-pugleaf

serge@lxnt.info (Serge Semashko) wrote in
news:5b7f9c48.0408062350.2431fd96@posting.google.com: 

> Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> wrote in message
> news:<aoh7h0p604rrosudsqb1rkdksq5vvlsvn7@4ax.com>... 
> 
>> Jon Dowland <jon@frag.ord> wrote:
>> >Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza> wrote in 
>> >news:v572h01aorncbvsonljupi3scocir2gabq@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >You clearly have a very different notion of `finished' to me.
>> >Xenocide and UFO2000 for example, whilst looking promising, are
>> >nowhere near finished at all.
>> 
>> WELL THATS WHY I SAID QUITE A FEW AND NOT ALL DUMBASS.

I didn't see this one - I guess my filter is working after all! If you 
agree they aren't finished, why did you helpfully provide their URLs as 
evidence finished projects existed?

> There is not need to be rude. Jon's notion is probably 'finished' ==
> 'not developed anymore' or even 'finished' == 'dead'. So X-COM is
> finished according to this, but the other projects are not.

Well, I meant finished as in playable, as did Bateau, but -

> Bateau is
> also right as he uses a different characteristic: is the game is
> playable or not. UFO2000 is definitely playable for example. 

Indeed UFO2000 is very playable - but not as an X-COM clone. After all, 
you provide a multiplayer experience that didn't exist in the original 
game!

-- 
Jon Dowland