Zygoptera on 14/8/2009 at 21:53
The public release did happen after they were closed but the beta testers had received their test packages prior to LGS going under. iirc. Its pending release was why I stayed around TTLG (unregistered) after looking for a solution to the inexplicable BotM tooth jumping puzzle.
Enchantermon on 15/8/2009 at 00:38
Hey, I'm glad someone more knowledgeable than I stepped up to the plate, although the grammar could use some tweaking.
EDIT: Hmm...looks like someone changed it yet again and added the misleading article back in as a reference.
Zygoptera on 15/8/2009 at 03:13
Ha, Wikipedia, the only place in existence that thinks CVG/ GameSpot/ IGN et alia are impeccable and reliable sources. That they still cite the 'Godfather' rumour despite that team creating Dead Space (and now Dante's Abortion) since that rumour really says it all.
At least it reads better now.
Kolya on 15/8/2009 at 10:13
Yeah well, see the discussion page. While the old misleading source is back in, at least it says now that ShockEd is the original editor used to create the game.
Enchantermon on 17/8/2009 at 03:59
Quote Posted by Rehevkor
As it was written it didn't imply Sshock2 made the editor anyway.
:weird:
What does he think "third-party" implies?
Kolya on 17/8/2009 at 06:21
That's a misunderstanding. When Rehevkor used the phrase "third party" referred to the (
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=16567) CVG article as a
third party source. The article itself calls ShockEd a "third-party program" which is confusing enough.
nOnsence on 18/8/2009 at 15:28
Quote Posted by Kolya
What have I done.
what have you done?
Enchantermon on 19/8/2009 at 02:05
Quote Posted by Kolya
That's a misunderstanding. When Rehevkor used the phrase "third party" referred to the (
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=16567) CVG article as a
third party source. The article itself calls ShockEd a "third-party program" which is confusing enough.
I was actually thinking that what I quoted was Rehevkor talking about the CVG article, but apparently he was talking about the statement on the Wiki.
In other words, I thought he was saying that the CVG article didn't imply that Sshock2 made the editor, which is completely incorrect.
Still, though, if this were a research paper, you wouldn't include a reference that had blatantly false information inside of it, even if other pieces of the information are true. I don't think his argument justifies the reference being left in the article. But maybe I'm alone in thinking that.
Zygoptera on 19/8/2009 at 02:32
The argument for that reference remaining was that it showed "significance", ie that it showed relevance outside of a narrow fanbase. That isn't really necessary in a research paper where a straight primary source is not only fine, but preferable when available.
Best thing would be to find another article on ShockEd's release which is more accurate. Personally, I think it's minor compared to the SS3 stuff there- whether or not SS3 was or is in production, using two published rumours (one patently false) which are 40+ months old as support is laughable.
Enchantermon on 19/8/2009 at 04:25
Hmm. I guess. But yeah, another source would be preferable.
