🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Raymond Pat wrote:

> That's fine.  I respect your opinion.  I only have problems with people who go around
> insulting the designer of games, calling her talentless, and an imbecile.  I also have

	I also don't think that should be going on.  Calling someone an
imbecile is ridiculous--calling Roberta Williams talentless, however, is
fair, I feel.

> problems with people who think too highly of themselves and go around criticizing
> others' tastes when he has no reason to.  If some dislike KQ6, that's fine.  But if the
> argument they present against KQ6 is flawed (ie. the lamp is NOT required to win the
> game), then I will defend that game on its merits.  And so far the defendants aren't
> able to produce ONE substantial evidence that proves that the game can't be finished
> without the lamp.

	THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT!  How many times must we explain this?  I
will type in all caps so maybe you have the slightest chance of seeing it
this time:
	IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE LAMP IS NECESSARY TO FINISH
THE GAME--THE PUZZLE IS POORLY DESIGNED BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY FOR
ALEXANDER TO KNOW THE CORRECT LAMP.  ONLY THE OMNISCIENT PLAYER CAN KNOW
THIS BECAUSE OF THE CUT SCENE.  ALEXANDER >>>CANNOT<<<--HE HAS ONLY A 20%
CHANCE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray	    | The script calls for fusing and using our smarts,
			    | And greatness can come from the sum of our parts,
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu	    | From now on I'm with you--
			    | And with you is where I belong!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray |		-David Zippel, City of Angels
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------