Long Live the Confederation!
They especially shouldn't be making it look like *I* closed the thread after ranting about asparagus syndrome.
(Ur aLl Stoopid aND ReTArdeD BeCUss U Dont MakE thA Mod fASt enuGH, TherEFOre U MuST hATE uz AlL, yA doMBazsEz I bEt Ur gAMe is IMaGInaRy).
But most of the even remotely intelligent complaints about saga that we see in this thread are presented in several others as well, this one is just embarrasing. I can't see how FleeBalls' post is any better than Saga's own PDF explaination; even though he had one or two good points, the thing as a whole is pretty awful(You obviously hate us all, you havent released anything for a long time, AND YOUR MOD PROBALBY DOESNT EVEN EXIST!).
Bandit LOAF said:Saga has been promising great things since 2001.
Dyret said:The open-source guys have done some amazing things to the engine. It's not really anything like the 1999 version anymore.
About as long as a 1997 engine. What's your point, exactly? The Saga team consists of people who had no idea how to mod the Vision engine, but who knew how to mod the FS2 engine... so what engine did you expect them to use? It's a particularly weird question to ask after Saga's been in development for five years already. What's the point of discussing the advantages/disadvantages of the engine they're using when switching to another engine isn't possible without wasting many, many months converting everything to a new engine?Delance said:Neither is the vision engine. I don't know, for how long will be the 1999 engine a good choice for a mod?
Quarto said:About as long as a 1997 engine. What's your point, exactly?
Uh... yes, there was several pages of heated discussion between Saga team members and non-members. You really shouldn't jump into a thread like this without bothering to read it first.PANI said:I think the Saga-team is to busy with real life to take a stand on this threat.... or does anyone of the mod-team reacted/responded on any post....????
Right, but it doesn't make sense - you could just as well argue that Origin shouldn't have released a game using Vision in 1998, because the engine was already outdated... not having to switch to an all-new engine is a huge advantage in itself.Delance said:My point simply was that the 1999 FS2 Engine was much newer than the 1997 Vision Engine in 2001, but right now that advantage has disapeeared. I don't have anything against the FS2 engine itself, or Saga, or whatever.
Quarto said:Uh... yes, there was several pages of heated discussion between Saga team members and non-members. You really shouldn't jump into a thread like this without bothering to read it first.
Quarto said:Right, but it doesn't make sense - you could just as well argue that Origin shouldn't have released a game using Vision in 1998, because the engine was already outdated... not having to switch to an all-new engine is a huge advantage in itself.
Well, you do have to consider that seven years from 1990 to 1997 were, in terms of gaming technology, a far longer period than the nine years from 1997 up to now. You can see this easily just by looking at WCP - you'll find that it's aged far, far less than WC1 had by 1997.Delance said:No, because Origin always re-use their engines a couple of years later. They did that with WC2, WC4, WCSO, and, really, even with WC3 (because it was used before on Armada). But we are talking about a 7 year old engine here. That's about the same amount of time that separates WCP from WC1! If Origin were to re-use the 1990 WC1 Engine on a game on 1997, I would say that would be a bad idea.