PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Long-awaited and not very good...
September 1st 2000, 00:28 CEST by andy

That's my review of Sanity I'm talking about. I'm quite bad at writing reviews, okay? So let's get that one out of the way right now. But is the game itself any good? You'd better read the review and find out.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Long-awaited and not very good...

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-01 00:29:06
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
First
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Valeyard"
2000-09-01 00:51:01
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
I thought the review was well written, but what do I know.

My only complaint is that you tested the game on a system that is considerably below the minimum system specs.  Bear with me...

A lot of thought can go into determining a minimum system requirement.  When the box calls for a P2-300, that doesn't just signify a processor speed, it signifies a point in time.

The quality and capabilities of the hardware that was available when most P2-233 machines were manufactured is significantly different from the hardware that was available when P2-300 machines started shipping.  It's a rough guess that says, "The odds are very good that if you have a P2-300+, the performance of the entire system should be sufficient for this game."

It's great that you were able to run it, but how can you be sure that your complaints were valid?  I understand that you have to test it with the machine available...but if you're going to post a <b>public</b> review of a game, you should really be required to run it on a machine that meets the minimum system requirements.

I'd also be interested in knowing what video card you used.  The rendering issues you noted may be due to the card/drivers instead of the game.  Did the box state video requirements?

Having said all that, a review is STILL just a report of one user's experience.  And this certainly qualifies.  You were fair and descriptive with the report, but your testing methodology might not have been very fair, and that could be a problem.

-Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "Jack"
2000-09-01 00:51:09
<quote>Another oddity to be found before you get into the game is the credits screen, which for some reason lists Fox producers before the Monolith developers. This seems a bit backwards to me, but I suppose we can put it down to company politics.</quote>

Um, why is this in the review?  Why would the gamers reading this review care about the credits order?  How does this affect their purchasing decision of Sanity?

I think the 3DRealms guy was right about Andy--he loves to make mountains out of mole hills.
#4 by "Dethstryk"
2000-09-01 00:55:59
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
I've been playing Sanity, and I think it's a pretty good game. Enough said. :)


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#5 by "Paul"
2000-09-01 00:56:29
paul@paulbullman.com http://www.paulbullman.com
Andy, I generally like you, but I have to ask: are you on crack?

You give it a 7(dock it 2 whole points) because of loading times?

- Paul
#6 by "Jeremy"
2000-09-01 00:56:39
jnthornh@eos.ncsu.edu
From the review, the game sounds pretty good, and I'm glad to hear it; I've always had the impression that Monolith/Lithtech has some real potential, and I hope they can show it off now.

Overall, the review itself seemed just fine, with one exception.  My question is this:  Andy, do you really think it's fair to penalize the game's score by <i>20 percent</i> for the poor loading times?

You admitted in the article that:
<quote>Minimum specification is a P2-300 64Mb. My system is P2-233 128Mb so it falls below the minimum spec</quote>

If I had a system under spec like that, I'd be happy to have the game run at anything better than a slideshow; and I'd be <i>very</i> hesitant to publish any complaints about performance.

Jeremy
--
Despite your efforts to be a romantic hero, you will gradually evolve into a postmodern plot device. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#7 by "Jeremy"
2000-09-01 00:58:13
jnthornh@eos.ncsu.edu
Jesus, I'm too slow, #2 and #5 already made my same point :(

Jeremy
--
Despite your efforts to be a romantic hero, you will gradually evolve into a postmodern plot device. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Jan Michael"
2000-09-01 00:59:02
Jan.Pearson@attws.com
jack dude in #3,

I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill of Andy's review, jeez, he's making a review, he supposed to find all the little things... It didn't hurt his opinion on the game, it was just an interesting thing that he found.

go peddle your hate mongering somewhere else.

Valeyard makes a good point in #2 about testing with a system below recs. I think that if your system had been at rec or above you probably would have found your load times faster.

Good review, sounds like a good game to try out.

Jan Michael<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#9 by "Paul"
2000-09-01 01:03:24
paul@paulbullman.com http://www.paulbullman.com
One suggestion from now on would be a percentage system.

If you had the system requirements, and had very long load times I may understand docking it 5(out of 100) points, but as mentioned by someone much smarter than me, 20(out of 100) would be nuts.

I'm not sure when I read your review, if it's a 9 game on my computer(i've got a p3 450 128) or if it's a 7 here too.

I believe the goal of a review is to be as "to the point" about the game, with a broad expectation of users, thus providing the most accurate review possible.

- Paul
Shrinkweb.com(will we have a review of sanity.. maybe?)
#10 by "crash"
2000-09-01 01:03:58
crash@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
well-written. would have been tighter if the actual review would have started earlier than paragraph five, though. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Paul"
2000-09-01 01:10:01
paul@paulbullman.com http://www.paulbullman.com
another thing I can't figure out is the grading system.

7+8+9+9 = 33
33/4 = 8.25

So wouldn't it be a 8.25/10?

If you're going to dock it for not having multiplay(which i guess is what's happening here, the numbers don't crunch right w/o giving multiplay a 2) then you might as well wait until others have it.

I don't feel I'm being overly critical, I just believe you gotta give a product a fair shake, and I'm 99.5% sure you didn't. And that's with an error of plus or minus %.5.

- Paul
Shrinkweb.com
#12 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 01:15:47
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
How did I guess... :-)

Sanity runs exceptionally well on my machine. This shows that Lith/Fox are being remarkably honest about the minimum specs, so respect to them for that.

I've discussed the loading times with Jason Hall and he explained that the times I've experienced are not exceptionally high. The loading screen even warns you that processing lightmaps may take a long time, so this is obviously something that is known to Monolith and can not be avoided.

Another problem I experienced was due entirely to my machine being slightly slower than the minimum spec, so that wasn't mentioned at all.

The long loading times affect the gameplay in a major way, and there is no reason to think that a faster machine would eliminate the problem. Suppose a min spec machine reduced a five minute load time to four minutes, or a much faster machine reduced the load time to two minutes. That sort of delay will still deter some people from exploring or trying anything dangerous.

If someone feels it was unfair to knock the overall score down by two points then fine, they can treat it as a 9/10 score and buy the game based on that. But if they find their enjoyment is seriously affected by the long loading times then they can't complain that they weren't warned.

Valeyard: My video card is an ATI All-In-Wonder 128. I haven't seen the box, but neither the readme file nor the manual suggest there would be any problem with this card.

Paul: The overall rating was just that, an overall rating, not an average. Overall I thought the game was great, but the loading times kept me at arms length from really getting into it.
#13 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 01:19:17
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Ok ill be ohonest, I took opne of my friends keys for sanity.. But thats only cuz he didn't want it.. But I ran sanity very well on my machine, at least the beta.  The loading times were VERY nice, and all seemed to go well.. I'm not too sure exactly what this conversation is about, but I'm sure I'll make some sense by the end of the night.


-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 01:19:24
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Ok ill be ohonest, I took opne of my friends keys for sanity.. But thats only cuz he didn't want it.. But I ran sanity very well on my machine, at least the beta.  The loading times were VERY nice, and all seemed to go well.. I'm not too sure exactly what this conversation is about, but I'm sure I'll make some sense by the end of the night.


-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 01:19:48
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Bah.. sorry for the dual post and typos.



-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 01:21:51
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
Oh, and the lack of multiplayer testing didn't affect the score at all. I realise that this is somewhat risky, given Monolith's track record, but I didn't have much choice. I'm more into single player games anyway, so that's what I reviewed it as.
#17 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-09-01 01:29:13
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
OK. This isn't meant to dump on Monolith, but if they spend 4 or 5 minutes rendering lightmaps on each load, I think there's a problem. No not a bug, but a design problem. Right off the top of my head I can think of several quick solutions. They could cache the generated lightmaps on disk and load from there instead of recalcing them. Or they could have an option to use precalced lightmaps that are stretched from some predetermined resolution to the proper resolution for your current settings. Yes it might be somewhat visually degrading to the graphics, but really I think that a 20% scale up is an acceptable trade off against 5 minutes of my life.
#18 by "Dethstryk"
2000-09-01 01:35:10
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
I'd just like to let everyone know that Andy has a much more severe problem with loading time than I do, on my P2-450 machine. This four or five minutes thing is insane, because I doubt I've ever waited on more than a minute for Sanity to load ANYTHING, including this lightmap stuff.


--
Dethstryk
Damage Gaming
#19 by "Apache"
2000-09-01 01:40:25
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
7/10 is not a bad score; average.
#20 by "Apache"
2000-09-01 01:43:28
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
Although after reading this:

<quote>Some people believe that you shouldn't review a game until you've played it all the way through. I believe you should play it for as long as you want, and then review it based on your experience up to that point. I've played about a fifth of Sanity, and although I'll no doubt go back to it in future, for now I've given up because of the long loading times.</quote>

That pretty much killed the review for me. Why? You can't write an accurate review playing 1/5th of the game.
#21 by "JohnQuincyBadass"
2000-09-01 01:44:01
shannon2@beer.com
It's irresponsible to review a game without using a test machine that meets the minimum system requirements.  I wouldn't expect you to forgive a developer for obvious glaring bugs, and I wouldn't expect a developer to forgive a reviewer for a low rating because the reviewer's system wasn't up to snuff.  One of the first lessons a computer user learns is 'if you can't meet the minimum requirements, don't buy it'.  Saying that "there is no reason to think that a faster machine would eliminate the problem" is just plain lazy.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "George Broussard"
2000-09-01 01:45:24
georgeb@3drealms.com
This isn't directed at Andy, but something struck me as funny.  With the rise in "web reviews" where anyone can slap up a page and play reviewer I think we're going to see problems.  The FAKK 2 review over at FiringSquad comes to mind.  Jesus did they nitpick over non-issues and play armchair developer.

In the old days, it was real reviewers/journalists that did reviews and they kinda meant something.  At least they kinda went by rules.  Today web reivews will forget the basic question "was the game fun" and focus on some trivial annoyance to them.  Forgetting that in the scheme of things, the masses won't care about their little nitpick.

So, what was my thought as to web reivews that made me snicker?

"Web Reviews of games are like assholes.  Everyone's got one and most of them stink."

Sorry, just had to share ;)

George Broussard, 3D Realms
#23 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 02:00:58
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
Knowing my tendency to exaggerate, here are some proper figures. Test conditions? I think not! I rebooted and unloaded any system tray apps, and that's as close to test conditions as you're going to get from me.

Anyway, to get from the desktop to the Sanity menu screen, skipping the intro videos, took 38 seconds. To load a saved game from the menu took 120 seconds. This is with a partial install so some data is being loaded from the CD. With a full install, I remember loading times being slightly faster.

Not much more I can say about this. I reviewed the game based on my experience of it. My experience was that it played great on my machine but levels take two long to load. I'd recommend it to people, but I want them to know about the loading times.


Apache:

I didn't review the whole game. I reviewed my experience of the game, made that clear, and explained why I hadn't played it all.

If a game sucked so bad that nobody could stand to play it for more than five minutes, I suppose that means nobody should review it, eh?
#24 by "err head"
2000-09-01 02:02:38
err_head@yahoo.com
There may be downsides to web reviews
 But a lot of magazine reviews suck just as much, if not more.
 And at least most web reviews don't depend on game ads for their revenue and game previews and exclusives for their readership. So it's a choice, amateurism vs. conflicted interests

I'll stick with web reviews because their cheaper, and it's not that hard to figure out the reviewers POV and filter out the information I need to decide whether or not I would like the game.

I would like to see some more information on load times vs. MHz.
So far we have:
Andy's 233 taking 4-5 minutes
Dethstryk's 450 taking under 1 minute
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "Apache"
2000-09-01 02:07:35
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
Andy said
<quote>I didn't review the whole game. I reviewed my experience of the game, made that clear, and explained why I hadn't played it all.

If a game sucked so bad that nobody could stand to play it for more than five minutes, I suppose that means nobody should review it, eh?</quote>

That's what first impressions articles are for. You should be able to convey your feelings about a game without scoring it, as it (to be honest) makes no sense to grade an impressions article. Make sense?

George said:
<quote>In the old days, it was real reviewers/journalists that did reviews and they kinda meant something. At least they kinda went by rules. Today web reivews will forget the basic question "was the game fun" and focus on some trivial annoyance to them. Forgetting that in the scheme of things, the masses won't care about their little nitpick.</quote>

Yup, and I remember the days when I had to walk <b>20</b> miles (using best loud old man voice) through the snow just to go to school every day.... sheesh.
#26 by "Thorbar"
2000-09-01 02:10:05
finod@iol.ie
3drealms employees are like arseholes.  Everyone hates them and most of them stink.
#27 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 02:14:23
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Heh. Neat.  Thats funny, I can honestly and knowingly disagree with that.  I'm a tester, and work with these people all the time, although I'll agree they're confused alot, stinky "arseholes" isn't the right term :).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "Jason Hall"
2000-09-01 02:14:44
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Ok... I will comment.

#1) I am very pleased that Sanity seemed to run well for Andy even though his system was way under minimum spec. We did not test Sanity against the spec of his machine, and it is comforting to know that Sanity was at least functional for him.

#2) 4 - 5 minute load times is not the norm for Sanity when running on a recommended system. I really can't comment on Andy's experience with long load times because I have never seen Sanity played on a machine with such a low spec, so I have to believe him when he says that it takes a while - but my personal experience with Sanity (along with the testers)has the load times well under a minute - normally around 30 secs on my home machine (p450).

If you want to check load times on your machine, you can just download the demo and see how long it takes. You can check the inital load of a level, and then check how long it takes to re-load when you die.

Jace
#29 by "Thorbar"
2000-09-01 02:15:15
finod@iol.ie
Andy said
<quote>
I didn't review the whole game. I reviewed my experience of the game, made that clear, and explained why I hadn't played it all.

If a game sucked so bad that nobody could stand to play it for more than five minutes, I suppose that means nobody should review it, eh?
</quote>

I know a fella who worked for a real gamer mag and he said the one thing he hated about his job was playing the whole way though awful games and then having to remain objective at the end of it.  But considering what some people do for money i.e. posting on forums like this defending their company he didn't have it so bad.

Also if your looking for some high quality gaming reviews take a look at www.gamespot.com or .co.uk two very good sites and I think most of the reviewers work for real gaming mags.
#30 by "Jason Hall"
2000-09-01 02:19:26
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Andy -

With the new information that you posted in message #23, you may want to adjust your review a bit to reflect the new accuracy.

When you say it takes 4 -5 minutes to load, that really makes a negative statement about the game, and if it really didn't take that long, it would probably be best to remove the inaccurate information.

Up to you though, it is your review!

Jace
#31 by "GPFault_Lith"
2000-09-01 02:19:54
kevin@lith.com http://www.users.lith.com/~kevin/
Hey Andy, thanks for the great review! :)

One thing I'd like to add is that we didn't even test Sanity on machines that were below the minimum specification so we're really glad to hear that you not only got it to run, but it sounds like it ran pretty well on your machine. So that's great news! :)

Sanity was tested on minimum spec machines (and above), and as other people and reviewers who have played the full version have already mentioned, the load times on a recommended machine shouldn't be anywhere near the load times that you experienced on your machine.

Anyhow, thanks again for taking the time to play the game. Let us know if you ever want to have a Sanity multiplayer brawl. I'm sure we can round up a few Sanity vets here to join in with ya. :)

GPF.
#32 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 02:20:10
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Can anyone hear me or am I babbling into empty air?


-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Thorbar"
2000-09-01 02:22:31
finod@iol.ie
jason said

<quote>it would probably be best to remove the inaccurate information.</quote>

CONTROL THE MASSES!!!

Andy ve have vays and means of making you conform *implied threat*

ah I think that's the finest misquoting i've ever achieved.
#34 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-09-01 02:25:35
warmonger87@hotmail.com
Here's a little fun you guys can have with Sanity. First, go and play through a few of the levels with lightmapping on.
Then, go to your console (~ for the uninitiated) and type in "lightmap 0" without the quotes. Look at the quality difference. Now, I played the Sanity demo, and I'd say that considering the levels are about 10 megs each, and offer probably 45 minutes on average, 1 minute for paging lightmaps is not that big of a deal. Go grab something to eat when it's loading or something. It's unfortunate that is does take so long to load the lightmaps, but I'll take the quality of lightmaps the way they are in Sanity over the increase in load time without it implemented the way it is.

This is really strange though, cause Shogo and Blood 2 loaded MUCH faster with lightmapping, so I must assume that there's been some overhaul with lightmapping in LT1.5.

Oh, and I didn't read the review yet, or even all of the posts. I'm catching up right now.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 02:26:26
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#28</b>, Jason Hall:
<QUOTE>
<A href="spy-internal:Load/147#1">#1</A>) I am very pleased that Sanity seemed to run well for Andy even though <b>his system was way under minimum spec</b>. We did not test Sanity against the spec of his machine, and it is comforting to know that Sanity was at least functional for him.
</QUOTE>
Well now hang on a minute... :-)

This is the minimum spec, cut+pasted from the manual:
<quote>
300 MHz Pentium II
Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows 2000 with DirectX 7.0a or later.
64MB RAM
4x CD-ROM
400 MB free Hard Disk Space
8 MB Direct3D-compatible hardware accelerated video card
DirectX compatible 16-bit sound card
Mouse and Keyboard
</quote>
I'm using a P2-233, Win95, DX7.0a, 128Mb, 32X CD-ROM, 800Mb free space before install (and I defragged that partition first), 16Mb D3D card, Ensoniq AudioPCI... and yeah, I've got a mouse and keyboard too!

So the processor is what, *one step* lower than the min spec? But everything else is higher than you say is necessary. So while I accept that my machine is, strictly speaking, below spec, let's not act like I was playing on some clunky old antique.
<quote>
If you want to check load times on your machine, you can just download the demo and see how long it takes. You can check the inital load of a level, and then check how long it takes to re-load when you die.
</QUOTE>
That would seem to be the best advice.
#36 by "DanM[Lith]"
2000-09-01 02:28:30
miller@lith.com
233, 266, 300.... looks like two steps.
#37 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 02:29:18
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Hey GPF, want to round up a few people for a Sanity MP brawl with the demo?  I'll play with you guys.. if the invitation was extended to me :)


-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "DanM[Lith]"
2000-09-01 02:30:34
miller@lith.com
To finish my thought, Andy. I'm glad you enjoyed our game.

The offer is open if you are interested in some multiplayer mayhem sometime. Jason is a little bitch with his Talent combos though ;)
#39 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 02:32:44
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#30</b>, Jason Hall:
<QUOTE>
With the new information that you posted in message <A href="spy-internal:Load/147#23">#23</A>, you may want to adjust your review a bit to reflect the new accuracy.
</QUOTE>
The saved game I loaded (from the DNPC headquarters) loaded a lot faster than, for example, starting a new game, but I just picked a save game at random and timed it. I'm not trying to prove anything here so I didn't want to start hunting around for the longest loading time I could find. I did try starting a new game but it said my saved games would be wiped out, so I cancelled that.

You'll note that I said "up to five minutes" in the review, which is correct. That was referring to the worst times. I said "several minutes" when I was talking generally.
#40 by "Paul"
2000-09-01 02:33:39
paul@paulbullman.com http://www.paulbullman.com
Andy:
When people read a "game review" they generally want to read a "game review." Instead you reviewed part of a game.

That's no fun. Imagine playing 1/5 of Half-Life and then coming up with a response.

From now on I'm going to read 1/5 of the article, and then respond.

George:
I agree for the most part. I find myself hovering around 3 or 4 different sites who do reviews, and no more.

Paul
Shrinkweb.com
#41 by "Jason Hall"
2000-09-01 02:35:06
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Andy:

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but, if I can remember properly, there are several types of P233s and 266s that have a different motherboard and bus speed configuration that is MUCH slower than the required minimum motherboard for a P300.

Because of this, there are many motherboards for 233s and 266s that simply can not have a p2300 plugged into them. The new motherboards that were made for p300s typically have greater bus speeds and also different memmory configuration (faster ram access), so it is possible that the slowness you experienced is not merely a product of your slower CPU, but also a combination of a number of factors.

I dunno. On the minimum spec machine, it does not take anwhere near 4 - 5 minutes to laod stuff, so something must be different.

Jace
#42 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 02:36:28
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#36</b>, DanM[Lith]:
<QUOTE>
233, 266, 300.... looks like two steps.
</QUOTE>
You're right, I forgot about 266's.

Can anyone explain (in layman's terms) how much faster a p2-300 is than a p2-233? To me, it looks like it should be around 20% faster. Is that right?
#43 by "Jason Hall"
2000-09-01 02:38:57
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
umm... everywhere in my above message where I say "p300" replace it with "P2-300"

Thanks.


Also Andy, it is tough to expect great performance from a game when you are running under minimum spec. Heck, it is tough to expect a game to work at all when running under minimum spec. Sanity was not advertised as being able to work with your computer at all!

But believe me, I'm glad it did!

Jace
#44 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-09-01 02:41:22
warmonger87@hotmail.com
WHY?? Why does no one respond to me? :( I feel so lonely...






Anyway, here's another fun console command for your Sanity enjoyment: "drawflat 1"
I'm sure you'll enjoy this one a lot!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "George Broussard"
2000-09-01 02:41:40
georgeb@3drealms.com http://www.3drealms.com
It should be fairly common knowledge these days that the minimum requirement in most games' cases means "barely playable".  When you dip below that, you should expect major pain and suffering in terms of framerates, load times and whatever.

George Broussard, 3D Realms<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "Andy"
2000-09-01 02:42:28
andy@planetcrap.com http://www.meejahor.com/
<b>#41</b>, Jason Hall:

Confuse me with techno babble if you must (!) but I've played quite a few games recently that have a min spec *higher* that my machine and they all perform very well. Sanity is another example of this.

Also, it's a Gateway machine, so I would have thought the component parts should have been chosen to work best with each other? Am I wrote about this? The only thing I've changed about the configuration is that I've changed the graphics card, added a SCSI card and added a CD burner, which shouldn't really hit the processor speed, should it?
#47 by "DanM[Lith]"
2000-09-01 02:42:54
miller@lith.com
Hi Warmonger.

!

:)
#48 by "Boco"
2000-09-01 02:43:45
jddevane@hotmail.com http://listen.to/jdradio
Hey Dan, think you could round up some people tonight for a quick demo match?

-JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "DanM[Lith]"
2000-09-01 02:46:27
miller@lith.com
Boco, I'd be game, but I've been working tons lately and my wife is starting to tire of it. (Do I hear a whipping sound?). Email me (miller@lith.com) and we'll set up a game sometime.
#50 by "GPFault_Lith"
2000-09-01 02:47:44
kevin@lith.com http://www.users.lith.com/~kevin/
<b>#32 Boco:</b>

Sure! The Monolith Sanity Demo Server is up and running. Come on in, the water's warm... hmm... and kinda yellow. :P

GPF.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Long-awaited and not very good...

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]