🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:13:33 +0000, Brad Martin
<misterb@nildram.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:17:44 +0100, "Michael Albertsen" <connor@aub.dk>
>wrote:
>
>>> You've been around long enough to know that for many many years, PC
>>> technology had to play catch up to my ideas and the things I wanted to do;
>>> and that it was only after several years and four titles in, that there
>>> were machines powerful enough to even run my games without choking.
>>
>>What's funny is that about the only good thing about the Battlecruiser 
>>games, is that they ran at acceptable framerates on the average hardware 
>>available at the time of release. Then again, I might be remembering it 
>>wrong.
>
>Yes, you might be remembering wrong about the framerates but it's odd
>that you've no such doubts about it being 'the only good thing about
>the Battlecruiser games'. The usual superior bollocks. 
>
>What's actually funny is how many armchair experts are now prepared to
>loftily dismiss the BC series from their collective position of smug
>self importance. There were, and are, many good things about the
>Battlecruiser games from the point of view of a space-sim fan if they
>are willing to look beyond the failings of the developer.

This is one of those posts a response to which requires well
considered repartee.  A finely constructed reply, full of wit, good
humour, intelligence and a smattering of relevance.  So: fuck off you
cockney twat.

Lemming
-- 
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.