Good Ol' Adventure CANNOT BE DEAD!

[Brian Provinciano]

People will start using it when it's more complete with more content. Simply text and walking isn't enough to make it more useful than simple text IRC.

When SCI Studio didn't have a template game, people weren't making games (naturally! the template is a hell of a lot more work that most people think). Still, I kept working on it though people weren't making games with it at the time, then when I released the template, people actually started making games. The dilemma right now is that though SCI Studio EGA is complete, nearly everyone has the mindset that they are going to wait for SCI Studio VGA to make their games, so they still aren't making a many. Since I've been doing this for over four years, I often wonder if when I release SCI Studio that makes VGA SCI1 games, people will have the same thoughts as on SCI Studio EGA and say "I'll wait for SCI Studio VGA32" or whatnot. However, the point is, that people mainly want a VGA Sierra game studio. If I release an EGA one, there won't be as many people using it. The case here is that many people want an online adventure game where you can chat and everything, but you can't expect them to use it when it's got no game to it! What the author needs to do is add the game elements to it, because until then, we will never know if there is interest for it. If people can't actually play the game, how can they decide whether or not they want to continue using it?

[Andrew_Baker]

I'll repeat to Joey...  when they support Mozilla, I'll probably go there.  IE is a waste of filespace.

[Brian Provinciano]

I'll repeat to Joey...  when they support Mozilla, I'll probably go there.  IE is a waste of filespace.

On the contrary, as IE is the Windows shell, it does not take up any extra space. Sure, the shell could be smaller without it, but then it wouldn't have all the built in internet technology. 90% of the apps you download for Windows that use the internet use the IE lib.

I used to be anti-Microsoft and anti-IE and only use Netscape/Mozilla, but eventually switched for many reasons. For one, many sites were IE only, yes, I used to blame Microsoft too, but the fact is, it's really the webmaster's fault. If the webmaster decides use the built in IE features instead of being creative with their scripting to make an equivilant for all browsers, it's their fault. Second, I used to think it was a monopoly how Microsoft included all of this stuff such as IE built-in. However, after a number of reformats, I began to really like the fact that I didn't have to reinstall so much as so much was preinstalled. Honestly though, in this day an age, how can you expect an OS not to have built in internet? All the useful Linux/BSD/etc. distros have built in browesers, as do Macs, etc.

Also, because IE is the shell, it just opens up taking up on more space from the page it's viewing and a few inet routines. Mozilla on the other hand will be extra stuff running in the background when you're not using it, slows the boot time, and is slower to load. Plus, I don't like tabbed pages, not XP's optional grouped taskicons. I like my computer clean and simple. If I have a perfectly working browser, I don't want to waste my memory on another.

I also hate skinned apps such as many third party browsers and such. The only good skinned app was WinAmp2. WinAmp3 is too bloated and slow! WinAmp2's skinning was fine because it was just a flat surface with buttons. Something like Netscape on the otherhand has all that custom controls for everything from buttons to text fields. That to me us just useless wasting of memory. All I want to do it browse web pages, I don't need a fancy looking browser. All I need is a simple back button, not a fancy animated waste of memory, and so forth.

Geez, I kinda got off track...my two cents though

[Joey]

well...i just cant wait til everyone goes there again!

[Andrew_Baker]

Uh...  I use Linux, so I should reiterate...  IE *and* Windows are both wastes of filespace.

Just kidding, though, as I use XP for work.