Quote Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
@Aure, forget it. There are many people out there who can neither be tolerant of the view points of others nor be able to see the other sides of the picture. .com moderators have always been viewed as facists since the Purge (or even before). Nothing can be said that will change the impression of others. .com are the official forums and certain standards have to be enforced. Some cannot accept this fact. It is a fact of life, else why is there never peace in this world?
Calling modeators of an internet forums fascists is just... wrong. Fascism (sided by communism) is a single most evil creation of the human mind in its recorded history. Humans following these evil ideologies killed millions of other human beings without any justifiable reason and changed the history and the spirits of whole nations in a way that these nations will never be the same.

Whatever one does on an internet forum just cannot be compared to that. It is wrong even if the word "fascist" is used as a parabola because some words just must not be abused. In fact I consider using this word in such a stupid context an insult for all those who suffered because of and who fought against this evil.

This beeing said, I want to ask you, Meada, to think about the policies of the moderators on the .com forum. This is not a flame. And please don't tell me you don't care. You should care about the opinion people have about that forum because you give that forum a shape.

Such a forum must be moderated - there is no doubt of it. There are enough people in the world who behave like morons when anonymity protects them. Taking part in unmoderated forums is just a waste of time. But there is another opposite and it is also bad, and the .com is close to that opposite. There were important things said in some threads that disappeared. True, some of the posts in the mentioned threads were far from being mature, but a moderator has tools to remove/edit single posts rather than an entire thread. As it happened - the threads containing info on the flaws of the product were de-facto removed - and this creates a bad air. Combined with some posts by the developers, which even with a best of goodwill could be understood equivocally, this created a _very_ bad air.
Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?
Fact: there is a bug that needs fixing.
In other words, if RTW is to ever have a 1.3 patch, the devs would have to work on their own time (on top of their work on the expansion).
Fact: if I break something I usually repair it.
Activision paid CA for the development. You paid Activision for the game.
Yes I paid for a software product and I expect it to function. A software with a dysfunctional save-load feature is a dysfunctional software unless it is a demo.
I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?
Let me propose a revolutional solution: both SP and MP should work...!