Cute analogy, but nowhere near correct.
To respond with another analogy, if you were trying to hit the nail on the head all you've done is smack yourself in the eye with the back swing.
LFS as game and as a project I have never become bored of. Bored of the current state? Yes. Concerned about the future? Yes. Bored of LFS as a game/project? No.
Anyway, you seem to struggle to comprehend these things. Not sure why.
I totally agree with your point here, and also with the fact a lot of people seem not to understand the difference between the concept of LFS and its state, and thus flame people who are bored with what LFS is now.
As I said earlier, I am 100% behind the devs, as opposed to people who are only 50% and just criticize LFS for the sake of criticizing. But being at 100% is not accepting what I think is a mistake in the development process. Being at 100% means that sometimes you stand up to point out some things that could be done differently/better, as long as you stay within the borders of reason and usefulness for Live For Speed.
To come back to what farcar said, people who follow blindly the lead of the devs tend to assimilate the people who behave like I do (described in my previous paragraph) with those whiners who bitch about everything.
I, like many people in this thread, allow myself (ourselves) to offer friendly analysis on what we perceive LFS is going toward, and give advices that we guess are appropriate to make it avoid those obstacles.
As if you suspected a friend of yours of doing heroin, would you do nothing saying that it isn't your business and that he will make the right choices because it is his life and he managed his way through it up to now ? Or would you stand up, try to know more, and eventually helping him out ?
This is a similar situation, and I prefer acting the second way. And to thoses who have nothing to do but comment on the itallic words' meaning : yes, I know it isn't the same situation, and that my analogy was limited to the context of doing drugs, and that a program can do drugs, bla bla. Please pass your way unless you have a valuable arguement to be constructive to the debate, I meant it.
I appreciate the effort you've gone to with your post, but a person's point of view does not necessarily represent the actual truth. To say that LFS development has stagnated is not the truth, regardless of how many people say that it has or how they say they feel about it. The truth is that development continues and the Devs continue to work hard on their project. The term 'stagnation' doesn't even apply to this situation.
Over-reactive and dramatic words and statements won't change the truth, though they may contribute greatly to poor morale and propagate naysaying.
The truth never really needs defending, and ultimately it is probably a waste of time doing so.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I trust that when the pudding arrives that most members of the community will enjoy the taste tremendously.
People complain that they know nothing about the development cycle and in almost the same breath say the development cycle has stagnated. I'm curious to know exactly how that sort of logic works, I suppose.
Quite interesting point, but I beg to differ. What's the difference between you and people demanding more "drift features" or "tunable cars"? Grammar, and you're a tad less annoying. That's it. Both groups want something that, when regarding the history of how Scawen handles things, are not going to happen.
Well, there is another difference: I wouldn't mind more info, while I'd propably stop playing lFs if "tuning" would be in ^^. Thing is though, while wouldn't mind more info, I too don't mind if the communications concept of LfS stays the way it is.
But then, trying to convince you of this point is much like asking for more info: a fight against windmills. Come on, Rosinante, there's a lot of work to do
And I'm curious to know where I complained that I know nothing about the development cycle?
I've also never suggested that my thoughts on the state of development are the cold, hard truth. They are observations, opinions and speculation as are yours (unless the your harboring secret information :really. This, being the game's forum I figure is an appropriate place to vent such things.
In regards to the rest of your post, there's not much point in continuing to debate the differences between 'stagnation' from a developer's point of view versus an end-user's point of view, but I've not been over-reactive or dramatic in my posts. I guess emotion and tone can be difficult to pick up in forums. For example your phrase "..dramatic words and statements won't change the truth, though they may contribute greatly to poor morale and propagate nay saying..." might well sound over-reactive or dramatic depending on how you read it. Read it aloud in a Winston Churchill voice and you'll know what I mean.
I never said that you had complained. I said "people", not referring to any one person directly - I was simply continuing with my opinion of this whole useless and dissenting thread.
And of course you never said that your statements are cold hard truth, you don't know the truth (since nobody has told you of it) and so are not able to comment about the truth, which is not your fault.
However, their is no stagnation of the development of LFS, and the meaning of that word is quite clear when used in any context that I can think of. Opinions have nothing to do with truth, which is why an opinion can never be 'wrong'. The truth is that stagnation of development is not occurring. This is not my opinion.
The word "stagnate" is dramatic and over-reactive when used in complete absence of information about the truth. It is so because it is completely irrelevant and out of context with any reality in regards to LFS development. Even if there were no patches for two years it would not be a definite indicator that development was stagnant, all you could say for certain is that updates had become much less prevalent. Any comments about the development cycle would be pure speculation. Of course I have given an extreme and unlikely example to make my point.
Thank you for discussing things in a civil manner, it makes it easier to share our thoughts with each other.
Thank you with the comparison with Don Quijote, you got a good point here ! I usually like to destroy windmills, since pissing the crap out of the country men is funny. However, my proud stallion is called "Hey you" (easier to say...).
You obviously did not understand what I say, because I, obviously as well, wasn't clear in my description of "people who bitch about anything". In that expression I referred to people stating that LFS is already dead, or people who, in the Scirocco thread that has been locked, were criticizing its implementation.
I am sorry if my "tuning" suggestion has upset you, as it wasn't its goal. I made a long post suggesting what I think would be nice to see in Live For Speed and describing it to the maximum I could, people did not like it, end of the story, I am not chasing ghosts
There is a difference in my thread and the usual "SpOiLeRz AnD BoDyKiDz PLZZZZ 111!" requests, and this difference is even more noticeable in the thread we are currently discussing in. I told that main difference in my post, the one you were too lazy enough to quote in its integrity (which means that either you only listen to what you want to, either you try to reduce my argument to a single sentence, which is a rhetorical techniques that is too simple to work here).
The difference is that people who ask for 20' rims or spoilers ask something that could be harmful to the game. Does telling more information about what is under development now is harmful? I don't think so, and since you seem to be a senseful person, you won't think so as well.
You might be scared of having people complaining all the time. Of course, the whiners. But, seriously, why should you care? And if you do care, just look at some posts here of people being whining LFS is dead. If you do care, you are obliged to think that seeing those kind of comments are more annoying that "good improvement, but we still don't have scratches on the rims". If you do care, then you'll agree with me about the fact that having more information is better than not having any.
Oh, I'm extremely stupid since you told me that you would not mind extra information?
Then, maybe you just wanted to be aggressive toward me and other people ? Because in your post, except in the sentence in which you agree with what I said : "More information would be good", you resume my post either as a crusade to get more information or an advertisement to motivate people to join that crusade.
In my previous posts in that thread, I was just stating some facts and defending them among other players, nothing like copypasting this in a mini-essay I would send to Scavier.
So, as an advice, please keep your aggro out of the forums. If you wife annoys you, beat her, or simply go play LFS at the bangers section, but stop doing freely comparing people to thing they are not if you agree with them I don't care about your critics toward me, but some people might not be able to make the difference between a (poor, by the way,) sarcasm and a real opinion, which will lead to more aggro. As I said in my previous post that you did not read till the end : haters, please pass, as this is a debate between serious people concerned about LFS and that don't need some (childish) ad hominem attack to express their points