However, this thread mentions a "gold beta":Apple Inc. uses the term "golden master" for its release candidates, and the final golden master is used as the general availability release. Other Greek letters, such as gamma and delta, are sometimes used to indicate versions that are substantially complete, but still undergoing testing, with omega or zenith used to indicate final testing versions that are believed to be relatively bug-free, ready for production.
I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.thewood post there?
Over at the wargamer, every game has someone calling it a buggy piece of crap that I had to pay for to beta test. Maybe I exaggerate...
I see no reason at all to retract what I said in response to te J2D quote referenced. Is it true or not that for years now (and I mena years) you have referred to CMSF as beta test that people paid for? You've said it countless time, haven't you? Well, that is exactly the type of post that J2D is referring to being made over at wargamer. Is there a reason that you don't stand by your statements and feel that I have something to retract? What horrible thing did this sycophant beta tester try to say? That you have constantly referred to CMSF as a beta test and maybe expressed that somewhere else as well? The horror! How could Geordie let him get away with such a thing!I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.
I am pretty sick of your passive-aggressive crap. I notice you only post over here again now that CMBN actually is close to release. During the whole "bet with Dale" thing, we didn't see hide nor hair of you.
This isn't BFC's forum where any sychophant beta tester can say whatever he wants.
1) We post about the same nonsense because the game isn't even out. All we have is CMSF to go on..
That is completely untrue. Even when I took a break last summer I was constantly in contact with Dale about the bet. No third party had to chase me down to pay it off. It finally took the murder of a close friend of mine for Dale to finally decide what he wanted. Correct, Dale? Thank you.2) All I remember is a third party had to get involved to get information about the bet from you. You went from posting almost every day to almost nothing.
Really? Which part? Specificlly.3) Your post above was very close to a personal attack.
Then why is pointing that out something that needs to be retracted? Either "own" that opinion or don't.4) I am not the only one who thinks CMSF was a beta for CMBN. I am one who is consistent in pointing out the game still does not work. As long as BFC sells it, I will point it out
See....I'm just going to buy CMBN and assume everything works the way I want it to until I find out differently for myself, and not do what you're doing - assume there are 10 ways to hate it before I even buy it. Life is too short to make myself that miserable. If they have improved these things in CMBN, great - because I don't plan on touching CMSF ever again in any event.I'll end this tirade with a simple question...Do you think QBs work propoerly, consistently in CMSF?
I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.
I am pretty sick of your passive-aggressive crap.
I don't want to hit this too hard, but I will point out you posted these three sentences in the same post. If you take a look at the juxtaposition of the sentences, in the cold light of day, I think you will see a certain irony to them, particularly the way the second sentence relates to the first.This isn't BFC's forum where any sychophant beta tester can say whatever he wants.
That's okay, because had you read and understood but a handful of my posts in the last six months, you would probably have noticed that's exactly my stance. :laugh:And Mr Dorosh. Your having trouble understanding some of the gamers? Wow, after what 4 years of hating the CM2 engine your suddenly excited? Im having trouble understanding that fact. If anyone were to proceed to a new game with cautious optimism I would have thought it would be you.
Your bias against me is on record, so I feel no need to defend myself against this other than to say I'm keeping an open mind on the new product and recommend others do the same.Up until you pre-ordered this game I would say that all of the things you are accusing Wood of doing pretty much summed up your anti-BF attitude.
Anyone is a fool that thinks a forum is about shouting with the loudest voice. And if you have been paying attention at all - and I suspect you haven't - you will see that my objections are not to individual personalities or even the messages, but the lack of messages and indeed lack of substance itself in many of the postings. The forum ceases to have purpose when the messages are about the forum itself and not the topic at hand.The game is nearly here and so I look forward to some more decent conversations about the actual features and who hates the game and whats broken. I have my suspicions about who will be shouting with the loudest voice here.
Those are just as blind who simply refuse to see.I dont think weve entered the personal attack realm yet.
Which is it? "Decent conversations" is how I would characterize much of what has transpired here for the last few years; if it wasn't, I would not participate. Language like "hates" and "broken" and "shouting" though, just runs counter to that idea, and frankly betrays any understanding of what the majority have, in my perception of what this place is about, been doing to pass the time. Unless Elvis is right and it has all been a fraud, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the analysis presented by fellows like Rule_303, Caractacus, dalem, Elvis, thewood, Redwolf and too many others to attempt to name for fear of neglecting someone. There is much collective wisdom here from a variety of perspectives, backgrounds and collective experiences in wargaming, computer programming, etc. The discussions of history, game theory, and related topics has been enjoyable. I'll look forward to more of the same, including first and foremost open, honest reactions to the new game.The game is nearly here and so I look forward to some more decent conversations about the actual features and who hates the game and whats broken. I have my suspicions about who will be shouting with the loudest voice here.
For accuracy's sake, that's not correct. Right around the April/May time period you clocked out for several weeks. I remember because several people made comments to the effect of "Dale's not going to get his beer" and I always answered that you were not that kind of person.And you're wrong about the "bet with Dale". I was extremely active up and through the bet that ended last June.
Oh yeah? Try getting into an argument with him. You'll find some emotions[hirr]Leto;1387547 said:BTW, Elvis is actually Elvius Prime... a sentient BFC created "overmind" that has no real emotions or feelings:
Ahhh, I hadn't looked at it that way before. As usual, you have shown me the way and the light.[hirr]Leto;1387612 said:Much like CMSF and CMBN, they are simulated emotions. The jury is still out on whether you had a fun and wholly satisfactory debating experience.
Okay, more to the topic of this thread, and the one thing that does seem a bit hinkey, though, is the reviewers that are getting these preview copies. I just got the battlefront newlsetter, which finally announces the preview in "gamerswithjobs".
Who are these "no name" indie previewers? Do they carry as much weight as previews done by Gamespot, say?
I can see an argument for the "indies" having more intimate knowledge of niche subject matter - the reference to Catigny Park and the 1st Infantry Division museum kind of suggests that, in this one. Hard to see a 'mainstream' reviewer getting that reference. I know the argument has been made in the past that larger reviewers were reluctant to look at CM material after CM:SF, but I presumed that was because the modules were simply add-ons and not full-blown releases.