> > You mean like Sierra have destroyed Half-Life, Homeworld and the Blizzard
> > titles? Moron.
> I hate their guts just for the stupid "Sierra Utilities" and for not allowing
> me to install the game where I want! (X:\SIERRA\XXX)
--
Kirk Lane
ICQ: 28171652
>>I just fear that Papyrus is not the company we all knew they were...
Those
>>people are not corporate business man. They are young guns, with talent,
>>the leads in the industry that kept pushing the limits of racing
simulation
>>all those years and developing technology. This is the Papyrus that we
>>know.
>>From the E3 reports, it has disappeared, probably under the shiny wax of
>>Sierra Sports (a.k.a. the Business corporation).
>This is exactly the sort of post we saw 18 months ago. But GPL didn't
>disappoint now did it? <g>
>If N3 turns out to be nothing more than a minor update to N2 then many of
>us indeed will be disappointed. But I haven't seen any statement to that
>effect. Just because it won't be using the GPL physics doesn't have to mean
>that it will be using an inferior version. At the end of the day it's how
>the damn thing drives that matters, not how it is coded.
>Let's wait and see before booking the hearse....
>Cheers,
>Richard
>--
>We all bump into each other every day of our lives, and we render our
opinions
>whether we know anything or not, and if anybody catches us out we lie...
M
>> > You mean like Sierra have destroyed Half-Life, Homeworld and the
>> > Blizzard titles? Moron.
>> I hate their guts just for the stupid "Sierra Utilities" and for not
>> allowing me to install the game where I want! (X:\SIERRA\XXX)
>What are you talking about? I installed N1999 in the following directory
>without any problems: c:\N1999... Granted, the stupid Sierra utilies
>installs itself automatically. Like I need more garbage on my hard disk.
Will someone please change the name of this thread? If I have to see the
phrase "has just digged" a couple more times I think my head is going to
explode.
neurotic,
~daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
--
Ian Parker
ICQ 21772592
Well, it is an improvement, but I am still not sure if Papyrus is singular
or plural. I mean, is Papyrus to be treated as a single entity or as a group of
persons? Reminds me of the fish/fishes thing. A pond full of only bluegills
may be referred to as containing many 'fish', but if you add in another species,
the pond then contains many 'fishes'.
Help me Spock,
~daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Well, I was never very good at English anyway.
--
Ian Parker
ICQ 21772592
> Well, it is an improvement, but I am still not sure if Papyrus is
singular
> or plural. I mean, is Papyrus to be treated as a single entity or as a
group of
> persons? Reminds me of the fish/fishes thing. A pond full of only
bluegills
> may be referred to as containing many 'fish', but if you add in another
species,
> the pond then contains many 'fishes'.
> Help me Spock,
> ~daxe
Well, I was never very good at English anyway.
--
Ian Parker
ICQ 21772592
> Well, it is an improvement, but I am still not sure if Papyrus is
singular
> or plural. I mean, is Papyrus to be treated as a single entity or as a
group of
> persons? Reminds me of the fish/fishes thing. A pond full of only
bluegills
> may be referred to as containing many 'fish', but if you add in another
species,
> the pond then contains many 'fishes'.
> Help me Spock,
> ~daxe
