Papyrus please forgive my sins...

Well-known professional racer Burton kf4jrg gurgled: <<Nascar 2 works just fine on my machine. Maybe you need to take up something else. You're definitely not a racer. Burton kf4jrg>> Burton (can't quite pronounce your last name) -- This is the best one yet. Do you actually think you're a "racer" because you sit in front of a computer monitor and make vroom-vroom noises? Sorry, pal -- you're so far into the outer limits I'm not at all surprised you missed the point entirely. I'm delighted NASCAR2 works fine on your machine. It patently does NOT on MANY others. Now, unless Sierra/Papyrus is in business solely for your benefit, the people for whom N1, N2, ICR, and/or ICRII has not and does not work fine on THEIR machines have a legitimate gripe, and Sierra/Pap has been demonstrably unresponsive to these paying customers. Want to take a poll? If someone has configured their computer incorrectly, obviously they have to take responsibility for the consequences. Are you saying that everyone who can't get one, any, or all of these sims to work on their platform has ***ed up their system? Please say "yes" so I can sit back and watch the fireworks. Bart

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Well-known professional racer Burton kf4jrg gurgled: > <<Nascar 2 works just fine on my machine. Maybe you need to take up > something else. You're definitely not a racer. > Burton kf4jrg>> > Burton (can't quite pronounce your last name) -- > This is the best one yet. Do you actually think you're a "racer" because > you sit in front of a computer monitor and make vroom-vroom noises? > Sorry, pal -- you're so far into the outer limits I'm not at all > surprised you missed the point entirely. > I'm delighted NASCAR2 works fine on your machine. It patently does NOT > on MANY others. Now, unless Sierra/Papyrus is in business solely for > your benefit, the people for whom N1, N2, ICR, and/or ICRII has not and > does not work fine on THEIR machines have a legitimate gripe, and > Sierra/Pap has been demonstrably unresponsive to these paying customers. > Want to take a poll? > If someone has configured their computer incorrectly, obviously they > have to take responsibility for the consequences. Are you saying that > everyone who can't get one, any, or all of these sims to work on their > platform has ***ed up their system? Please say "yes" so I can sit > back and watch the fireworks. > Bart

Well Bart , it works fine on my machine so why dont you get a grip and stop your F'ing crying.Thats all you seem to do.Maybe if you fixed your system maybe it would work right.I get tired of you bicthing you sure your name isn't Barb!!

> Well Bart , > it works fine on my machine so why dont you get a grip and stop your > F'ing crying.Thats all you seem to do.Maybe if you fixed your system > maybe it would work right.I get tired of you bicthing you sure your name > isn't Barb!! I know what my name is, but apparently you don't know yours. Or is it just a total lack of balls? Bart

Bart, I work tech support for an Internet provider. To be perfectly honest with you, not just my opinion, but bare facts, 8 out of 10 times something is wrong with a program or someone is ahving trouble with their PC, its because they messed up the setup of it somewhere. I'm not saying this is the case with everyone here, just pointing out that when it comes to computers, the most prevelant answer is USER ERROR. TrenT -- CathMeIfU.......................................Can

N2 took nearly 2 hours to setup on my machine, but now works great!! I bought it on Friday afternoon and spent about 30 min. with tech support and they could not resolve my problem but did give me some clues as to what they could be. (I build computers so I'm not a complete idiot, if that's what you're thinking) It turned out to be a combination of the fact that I needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled. IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to make it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC *** darkages. Don't believe me, then why are there only a handful of 3D enhanced games in the sim genre when 3D cards have been available to the public for nearly a year? Watch how many will flood the market in the next 12 months. If you don't want to have to tweak your hardware then buy a Mac and suffer with no software, or buy a console and sit in front of the TV like we did 15 years ago. Just my opinion, Jason Butler > > Well Bart , > > it works fine on my machine so why dont you get a grip and stop your > > F'ing crying.Thats all you seem to do.Maybe if you fixed your system > > maybe it would work right.I get tired of you bicthing you sure your name > > isn't Barb!! > I know what my name is, but apparently you don't know yours. Or is it > just a total lack of balls? > Bart

While the current batch of 3D accelerators (unlike the early Virge and other 3D decelerators of a year or more ago) have only been out for about 7 or 8 months and still really aren't being used on a OEM basis. This is slowly changing however, as as it does so will the software support. Until then, the 3D market just will not be powerful enough to sway many developers. --

take this shit to email

> [The problem] turned out to be a combination of the fact that I > needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to > disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled. > IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to make > it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC *** > darkages. Video card problems are always going to be around; fortunately, they are generally fairly easy to figure out, and downloading new drivers from your video card manufacturer generally solves things. But the real question is: So, you're running a non-Pentium chip, but you've got software loaded that causes a querying program to believe that you've got a genuine Pentium. Then when software checks the CPUID, and finds that you've "got" a Pentium and subsequently crashes on a Pentium instruction (because you don't have a Pentium), that is somehow Papyrus' fault? Just making sure that I understand the problem... ---Jim

> [The problem] turned out to be a combination of the fact that I > needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to > disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled. > IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to make

Quoted text (10 lines)

> it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC *** > darkages. >>But the real question is: >>So, you're running a non-Pentium chip, but you've got software loaded >>that causes a querying program to believe that you've got a genuine >>Pentium. Then when software checks the CPUID, and finds that you've >>"got" a Pentium and subsequently crashes on a Pentium instruction >>(because you don't have a Pentium), that is somehow Papyrus' fault? >>Just making sure that I understand the problem... >>---Jim

Good point Jim, I'm surprised it took tech support 30 minutes to figure that one out. Mike Lewis

Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel products. This isn't my argument, nor am I making one case or the other, just suggesting that Papyrus aren't helping anyone bite into that 85% market share that Intel have... -- Cheers! John (SRN-Europe) (Remove "NOSPAM" from address before replying...)

<snip-a-dip>

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow > predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have > created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel > products. > <snip-o-rama> > -- > Cheers! > John (SRN-Europe)

John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I used too many words. If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE, then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI, Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS ADVERTISED. No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money, and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised out of the box, it's history. Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of "Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers' World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the counter, just to repeat the scenario. All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the "entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets. 'nough said? Bart Brown

Quoted text (46 lines)

><snip-a-dip> >> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow >> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have >> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel >> products. >> <snip-o-rama> >> -- >> Cheers! >> John (SRN-Europe) >John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I >used too many words. >If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE, >then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS >with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI, >Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the >big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child >some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a >false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is >a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch >of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS >ADVERTISED. >No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their >paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have >the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money, >and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised >out of the box, it's history. >Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their >impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of >a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of >"Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for >patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next >Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers' >World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the >counter, just to repeat the scenario. >All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the >"entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they >were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets. >'nough said? >Bart Brown

You only pay 50 dollars for the game. What do you expect

Quoted text (48 lines)

>><snip-a-dip> >>> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow >>> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have >>> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel >>> products. >>> <snip-o-rama> >>> -- >>> Cheers! >>> John (SRN-Europe) >>John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I >>used too many words. >>If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE, >>then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS >>with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI, >>Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the >>big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child >>some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a >>false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is >>a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch >>of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS >>ADVERTISED. >>No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their >>paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have >>the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money, >>and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised >>out of the box, it's history. >>Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their >>impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of >>a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of >>"Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for >>patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next >>Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers' >>World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the >>counter, just to repeat the scenario. >>All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the >>"entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they >>were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets. >>'nough said? >>Bart Brown > You only pay 50 dollars for the game. What do you expect

Tommy $50 is probably about ten weeks of your allowance !

> More like yours. I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars without whining< An I dont even kare if it dont werk! So there, whineypants!!! Do so! Do Not! Do so! Do Not! Do so! Do Not! Do so! Do Not! Oh yeah? Yeah! Oh yeah? Yeah! Oh yeah? Yeah! Oh yeah? Yeah! There, Tommy, I've answered your next 600 posts for you -- just copy and paste the appropriate (look it up) response. Saaaayy...isn't it another school night? Lights out -- and I don't want to catch you reading that Playboy under the blankets with your Voltron flashlight again tonight!! You hear me? TOMMY!!! ANSWER ME YOUNG MAN!!!!!

> More like yours. I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars > without whining Oh, and Tommy... you don't actually have to quote the last 27 replies of a thread when *your* message adds up to two sentences of blithering vapidity (look it up). Turn off the flashlight now... Bart

Gregg -- Right F*****' On, my man. I think you managed to drag out the answer those of us who were dissatisfied with an incomplete product were looking for: Sierra/Papyrus' position is Love It Or Leave It, and with THAT attitude, I'll definitely leave it. I wonder if they'd actually take back an opened game? Translation for Tommy and his thumbsucking cohorts: Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah!! Was right! Was NOT!! Was right! Was NOT!! Was right! Was NOT!! Was right! Was NOT!!

Quoted text (68 lines)

> <snip-a-dip> > > Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have > somehow > > predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should > have > > created their software such that it runs on something other than > Intel > > products. > > <snip-o-rama> > > -- > > Cheers! > > John (SRN-Europe) > John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess > I > used too many words. > If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or > COMPATIBLE, > then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE > SYSTEMS > with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI, > Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is > the > big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted > child > some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a > false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the > result is > a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and > patch > of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS > ADVERTISED. > No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects > their > paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't > have > the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is > money, > and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as > advertised > out of the box, it's history. > Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their > impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the > strength of > a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy > of > "Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits > for > patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the > Next > Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game > Droolers' > World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the > counter, just to repeat the scenario. > All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the > "entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they > were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets. > 'nough said? > Bart Brown

AMEN!!!!!!

Quoted text (50 lines)

>>><snip-a-dip> >>>> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow >>>> predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have >>>> created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel >>>> products. >>>> <snip-o-rama> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers! >>>> John (SRN-Europe) >>>John -- Praise de lawd! That's what *I* was trying to say -- I guess I >>>used too many words. >>>If it says on the box that the game will run on an IBM PC or COMPATIBLE, >>>then it should be tested on COMMON (Cyrix, AMD, etc.) COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS >>>with COMMON (Intense,Screamin' 3D, Matrox, Creative, Hercules, ATI, >>>Orchid, etc.) GRAPHICS CARDS. What, in the name of good commerce, is the >>>big difficulty with that? Is Sierra too cheap to buy their adopted child >>>some different systems to test their products on? I would think it a >>>false economy to give short-shrift to product testing when the result is >>>a large number of users who are frustrated with each release and patch >>>of a game they paid good money for, thinking IT WOULD WORK AS >>>ADVERTISED. >>>No one in the business software field (except Microsoft) expects their >>>paying customers to also act as beta testers -- businesses don't have >>>the time or resources to nurse software through infancy. Time is money, >>>and, generally speaking, if business software doesn't work as advertised >>>out of the box, it's history. >>>Many "entertainment" software companies, however, know their >>>impulse-driven customers will buy just about anything on the strength of >>>a cool screenshot and some ad hype. When Johnny Dude gets his copy of >>>"Zoomin' 3D Turds" and it's screwed, he weeps and wails and waits for >>>patches that may or may not solve the problem. But as soon as the Next >>>Big Thing is released, with AWESOME! fold-out spreads in Game Droolers' >>>World, he blades on down to the mall and lays his lunch money on the >>>counter, just to repeat the scenario. >>>All I've been asking for is a little responsibility from the >>>"entertainment" software companies -- treat your customers like they >>>were customers, not just disembodied bottomless wallets. >>>'nough said? >>>Bart Brown >> You only pay 50 dollars for the game. What do you expect >Tommy $50 is probably about ten weeks of your allowance !

More like yours. I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars without whining

Maybe you might have saved back a few allowances but there's still one thing you lack a set of balls!! Pick a side and stay there! I have made the way I feel very clear and will not backtrack it. You however jump the fence alot to stick yourself in the middle of controversy (on the popular side of course.) Matt Marsala did finally E-mail me back on the matter. Basically he confirmed my suspicions (except for the NRO thing ) but he did basically say that the fix was beyond a patch. He also went on to say that If I wasn't happy with the product I should take it back or sell it and hopefully I would like the next line of products. ah what the hell heres the email read it and judge it for yourself Thanks for your comments Gregg. I understand that you are angry that N2 is not Matt I would like to thank you for replying. I can see now that voicing our opinion was useless because there's not going to be a fix unless it comes out in another product. I will not take it back or sell it but instead chalk it up to experience. I probably will never get a fix because I personally don't intend to purchase another Sierra/Papyrus product (which I know will break the company right) but its like I said before had I wanted an arcade type game I would have bought Daytona U.S.A (it does work like they claim.) To the original Nascar Racing design team I say excellent job you really came through with support to fix the bugs in Nascar1. This will be my last post on this matter. So with that I would like to say to you people that really flamed the hell out of us on this matter (and you know who you are without me mentioning names) as you can see we were right all along. There not gonna fix it unless you purchase another product and even thats not promised just implied. So in conclusion Tom maybe we accomplished nothing ( fix wise) by our negative post but we certainly got the attention and answers that we wanted from Papyrus. I've said all along and it still stands true We are customers and we deserve to be treated as such. Matt Thanks again for replying we just wanted answers. You say its beyond a patch I can live with that just hate it because Nascar2 definately could have been the best Sim ever. Still makes a great Arcade game though.

> Of course not - the message is not that Papyrus should have somehow > predicted and allowed for this eventuality, but that they should have > created their software such that it runs on something other than Intel > products. I does, so long as you don't FALSELY claim that you've got an Intel product. (And it happens to work _better_ on the Intel product while using DMA because of the geniune Intel Pentium's PDTSC instruction... But it works on Cyrix and AMD chips...) ---Jim Sokoloff

>> More like yours. I have enough money to let me buy a game for 50 dollars

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> without whining >Oh, and Tommy... you don't actually have to quote the last 27 replies of >a thread when *your* message adds up to two sentences of blithering >vapidity (look it up). Turn off the flashlight now... >Bart

why bother to write long on something like that. You guys want it so perfect, go get together and write a game

>why bother to write long on something like that. You guys want it so > perfect, go get together and write a game That's what I love about you, Tommy -- you always get the point... Bart

> If the Cyrix and AMD chips are COMPATIBLE, then there is no need to test on those systems, because by definition, they will work the same as the genuine Intel product, otherwise they aren't compatible. Period. > ---Jim Sokoloff Jim -- What's this -- engineering by tautology? Since even Intel systems don't perform the same from box to box, due to differing system configurations, your circular reasoning is doubly unsound. What's wrong with Sierra (I noticed in the latest issue of "Interaction" that there is not ONE mention of the name Papyrus, so THAT inevitability came about more quickly than even *I* thought it would) actually real-world testing their product on a number of typical board, chip, RAM, and video card configurations? Takes too much time? How long does it take to write a patch? It is the hallmark of a company that cares nothing about quality that they never take the time to do things right in the first place, but they always seem to have the time to fix it now; free patch (M) months later = business writeoff? Is that the Sierra equation? Goodbye Papyrus, it was nice knowing you pre-Sierra... Bart Brown

Jim, I am not saying that it (my CPU mis-identifier) is Papy's fault. I think that you focused too heavily on the specifics of MY problem and lost sight of the general consensus that N2 has been a problem install for a large number of people as evidenced by the volume of postings that are titled something like "N2 help please". This IMHO is partly because of the vast number of devices that can be made from any of hundreds of different manufacturers in one person's computer; a standardization problem and once again not Papy's fault. With regard to my ATI card, the tech support at Sierra never asked me what kind of graphics card I had; I happened to volunteer the information. In the Install guide for N2 it specifically mentions problems with Matrox video cards, but not ATI. That is an oversight probably stemming from lack of development time in order to release the product by Christmas (or any other commercial holiday). This brings me to support of the point (mine and others) that Papy released the product before it was finished. How many patches have been released already two or three? There is no "Save Game" feature, but it supposedly will be included in a future update; likewise no random assignment of pit stalls, no 2 day qualifying, no double-file restarts. For more information on these topics, please contact Dave Sparks your name as a person to send suggestions to about Nascar 3. Personally, I don't BLAME anyone for these types of omissions. Software development is a business and when the suits say "Jim, this product better be ready to ship before Christmas", Jim gets it ready to ship because its his ass if he doesn't. (By "Jim" I mean no specific person) Anyway, I firmly believe that you can't please all of the people all of the time; and when you develop a product as fun, well packaged, well documented, and downright realistic as Nascar 2, people (myself included) have to find something derogatory to say about it. That is also magnified by the fact that the best games in each genre lead to a following nearly religious in its devotion to the game and simultaneously rabid in its attempt to the criticize the developers. As far as software goes, I am willing to wait through endless patches and updates just as long as the game gets a little better each and every time. I have stayed up every night since I got the game until 3 am because I agree with its "Game of the Year" honors. Hell, Rome wasn't built in a day and if software can be compared to an ancient city Nascar2 is definitely in the running for Rome (or at least NasCarthage). Regards, Jason Butler > > [The problem] turned out to be a combination of the fact that I > > needed a VBE driver for my ATI video card and the toggler that I use to > > disguise my Cyrix 6x86 chip as an Intel Pentium needed to be disabled. > > IMHO Papy should have done more testing on their product in order to make > > it more hardware compatible, but we are just coming out of the PC ***

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > darkages. > Video card problems are always going to be around; fortunately, they are > generally fairly easy to figure out, and downloading new drivers from > your video card manufacturer generally solves things. > But the real question is: > So, you're running a non-Pentium chip, but you've got software loaded > that causes a querying program to believe that you've got a genuine > Pentium. Then when software checks the CPUID, and finds that you've > "got" a Pentium and subsequently crashes on a Pentium instruction > (because you don't have a Pentium), that is somehow Papyrus' fault? > Just making sure that I understand the problem... > ---Jim

After reading your last three posts Bart.....I am near to recalling my apology.... re-read your own posts and time how long it takes you to realizer how utterly STUPID they are. sheesh. Some people never figure things out. TrenT -- Driver of the #15 Cincinnati Bengals Pontiac N2STRS NSRA-S Division CatchMeIfU.........................Can

> After reading your last three posts Bart.....I am near to recalling my > apology.... re-read your own posts and time how long it takes you to > realizer how utterly STUPID they are. Golly TrenT, an "apology recall"? Even GM doesn't do that! I read my posts BEFORE I send them -- that's why I have so few spelling errors, as I'm sure you realizer. I haven't yet realizered how utterly STUPID they are -- what could be wrong with me? Ain't THAT the truth! BarT PS -- if you didn't like my last three posts, you probably won't like my latest ones, either. Why not do yourself a favor: check the message header -- if my name's on it, you are hereby declared "not obligated to read it". I won't take offense, honest.

>Sierra/Papyrus' position is Love It Or Leave It, and with > THAT attitude, I'll definitely leave it. I wonder if they'd actually > take back an opened game? Yes they will. http://www.sierra.com/support/customer/refunds.html ---Jim Sokoloff

: What's wrong with Sierra (I noticed in the latest issue of "Interaction" : that there is not ONE mention of the name Papyrus, so THAT inevitability : came about more quickly than even *I* thought it would) actually : real-world testing their product on a number of typical board, chip, : RAM, and video card configurations? Takes too much time? How long does <snip> : Goodbye Papyrus, it was nice knowing you pre-Sierra... Well, I just received my copy of Interaction and my copy must not be the same as the "special redacted" version you recieved. pg 12: "Upcoming Issues" "Watch for future interviews with ... *Papyrus'* head speed demon, Dave Kaemmer." pg 88: "***ed to SODA" "We live for the next big *Papryus* racing release. That's why we went into mourning when the *Papyrus* developers recently let us know that Grand Prix Legends wouldn't be available until Spring 1998. . . pre-alpha version of *Papyrus'* new SODA Off-Road Racing..." pg 89: same article "The folks at *Papyrus* have big plans... We've made *Papyrus* promise..." Funny, you are right there was "not ONE mention of the name Papyrus". There where at least 6 that I found in just a few minutes. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=