From: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kelvin Leung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: Wing Commander flames and fun
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:23:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

rlt20429@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Psycho) writes:

>Well I have recived a lot of nice flames for my posting, and I do appreciate
>the mail, but please people using 'fuck' in most contexts is no way to win
>a debate.  While this belongs more on advocacy, it started here, its about
>the amiga as a game machine, and I'm ending it here, (unless of course the
>fun mail gets even better :-) )

No offense, but I think the fact that you have received so many "hate"
mail does indicate something... perhaps you should take the *advocacy junk
to somewhere else.

>1.  I don't care if C= come out with a $50 60mhz super machine, they could'nt
>sell it if their lives depended on it.  After I don't remember how many years
>of poor to shit advertizing I doubt that it will get much better (when did
>the 1000 come out anyways ?)  I was a 'loyal' commodore owner since the c64
>but finaly had enough.
>2.  If I want to play a nice arcade type game I'll by a sega for $100, who
>cares if pc games don't use sprites?  The day of the blasto gamo is dead for
>PC's (note this for all personal comps, not just ibm types)

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but people reading this newsgroup in general
want to read about Amiga games--or else they will be reading another news-
group.  The fact is, we could care less if you go out and buy an Atari
2600 and play Pac-Man all day.  If you don't want to talk about Amiga 
games--or if you don't want to read about _AMIGA_ games, please find
some other newsgroup to read.

>3. Yes the missions are ok but lets face its, WC for the amiga is not as good
>as the ibm version.  The letters claiming otherwise are quite silly.  Just read
>all the posts about the game.  Hell play both versions.

Look... we really don't care how good WC is on the IBM.  We have an Amiga--
and we want to know if the Amiga WC version is any good.  We can talk
about Defender if we want, though the game is ancient (on many many 
computer formats).  We talk about them because we want to know what's up
with the Amiga game scene, OK?  so, if you don't think you are in the
right newsgroup, perhaps you really aren't reading the right newsgroup.

>4.  This was my favorite btw... Yes when I play WC I have to turn off my cache
>to get it to run slow enough to play, this is not bad about IBM's this just 
>means that origin made a goof.  They did'nt think of the potential increases 
>in the adverage ibm owners speed, in wing commander II this has been fixed.

So?  I don't have an IBM nor do I have WC-2.  So, in other words, I don't
care if your IBM can run 5 WC-3s together, taking advantage of your 500Mhz
686.  If I want to know about that stuff, I will be go and read *ibm.*

>5.  They won't start making AGA games until there are enough AGA machines out t there.  There are few enough Amigas out there, the last thing a software 
>producer wants to do is make it smaller.

So, what's your point?

Sorry if I am too harsh on you--but if you truly don't find the Amiga 
interesting, perhaps you should really read another newsgroup.  I know 
I have repeated this sentence for >4 times... but I want to make sure
you get my point.  I am sure I am not the only one here who feels this way.
If we want to switch computers, we will.  You don't need to come and try
to convince us.  I personally still cherish different type of computers--
I ocasionally read *.apple2, *atari.st, etc.  I seldom talk about the
Amiga over there.  If people over there want an Amiga, they will read
the Amiga newsgroups.  

thanks for listening.  Sorry for wasting the bandwidth.  

Yours Sincerely,
kelvin
e-mail: abs0@coos.dartmouth.edu