And that is, simply, not true. You have no idea.
Concerning the "classic" arts:

1) In many cases only "the final versions" have survived. Though sometimes not only them, and that disproves it already.
2) Almost all of those pieces of art (painting, sculptures, music... you name it) were contract work, not a form of individual expression, which came a lot later. Of course these were rarely reworked, because they were done and paid for. The artisan moved on to a new project, which would fill their belly.

Nowadays art has split up into "contract artists", like "made musicians" (casting show winners, boy bands...), designers ("contract painters") and on the other side "real artists". For the latter individual expression and communication of their ideas is the foremost ideal, even if it means to be the "starving artist". Of course there's no clear cut border. Some artists are ok with adapting to the tastes of the audience more, others won't do any compromise that would "pollute" their work.

What I want to say is, that the concept of art/artist today is very different from the one in the past. The focus for the "real artists" is to express their own ideas. Some of them create pieces, and move on. Some of them are obsessed by certain images and always return to them. Different versions of a painting, a sculpture, a movie... that's very common today. It's probably most obvious with musicians, who often make new versions of the old songs they still identify with (hell I was so flashed when I heard the version of Fly on the Windscreen (1998) on the Devotional tour (1993)).
You should get one of the blue people here (Staff) and have you made yellow (Dev).

AND thank for the explanations.

It's not supposed to be writing, though -- it's a text representation of informal speech. In this context, it's fine.

Also, glass houses and stones. ; )

Good writing is, if the character would say that. If it sounds strange to you, maybe people in the England talk like that?

I understand this, but my guess is that the writer who wrote that informal speech didn't know any better, and had they, they wouldn't have written it like that. I know, it's only a guess, but I see it SO often that I can only think it was not intentional. Poor writing like this simply perpetuates people speaking incorrectly. And I'm not some grammar fascist either, I simply want people to be able to say what they mean, know what they are saying, and be intelligent with it. It's not too much to ask, is it?

Also, my posts are not a product to be bought, but what exactly is poorly written in my post?

I'm not saying this is an impossibility, but from what I "see" happening is more evidence to the contrary, the the writer just doesn't know any better, and then they hide behind this excuse rather than admit to their ignorance.

maybe you can file a bug report to get it fixed :)
Also I kinda liked your post, without it I wouldn't even have known that this isn't a perfectly useable sentence.

But now that I do, I can go on telling people to "go in various rooms", fully knowing the implicit meaning and not twitching a muscle whilst laughing hysterically on the inside :D thanks for that.
Finally not knowing the language that good, is good for something ;)

To be honest, I wouldn't know. English is not my native language, and my sense of what is proper and good and acceptable as "natural language" has been thoroughly meddled with by communicating with "native speaker" with all sorts of backgrounds - different areas of Britain, the US, Australia... I mean I enjoy my Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Pratchett, Whedon, Tarantino... And they're all so different I couldn't determine poor from good writing from one single sentence, or even a few.

Maybe the game is poorly written. But I'm kind of sick that people come here and the first thing they do is complain. And often about things they have no clue about (see art debate above). Where does all that negativity come from? Why do people always feel the need to feel somehow cheated? Why can't people just say "Hey, good it's here, but not my thing, but luckily there's ~1,300 other games to choose from"?

The original Downfall was by far the most disturbing game I have ever played.
Really, it's like slowly drawning in complete madness, and the whole game can make you anxious. It's not scary in the "classic" horror sense, what is really terrifying is what you have to do to progress, trying even the most absurdly gruesome and apparently futile things just to gain a glimpse of hope. And the ending... masterpiece.

Are you really saying that you could not understand that sentence? I mean, I get the broad strokes of what you're saying in that post, don't get me wrong. There are definitely games (and many other things) that have truly awful translation, and people that couldn't construct a coherent sentence if their lives depended on it. But that's not the case here. This is a fairly common way of phrasing things in some regions, and, while you're right that people should understand that it's non-standard, it's not something I can imagine anyone being legitimately confused about the meaning of. This sounds like more of a pet peeve (a phrase which is itself a pet peeve of mine) of yours than a real complaint about intelligibility.

Not much in that post specifically (though I could nitpick =P), but personally, I try not to point out minor faults (real or perceived) in other people's speech or writing, because 1.) I find it annoying when people do it to me, and 2.) I'm a human, therefore imperfect; I make, and will continue to make, mistakes myself, and I'd rather not have a whole cavalcade of people that I've previously criticized jumping on my back the moment they see me do or say something dumb (turnabout being fair play and all). In short: I pick my battles. If someone has major problems with sentence structure, or even just expressing a coherent thought (see any post TStael has made in this forum, ever), that might be worth commenting on; but things that merely annoy me (people writing/saying "anyways", for example) generally get a pass.

Just so you know, the reason I stopped the discussion with you is not because I think you're right or that "I have no clue".

I just feel that it's completely pointless, moreso because it was straying far away from my initial complaint & into something I don't have much of an interest of.

But thanks for staying classy. ;)

Edit: Typos. Don't like them. I'm a typoist. Typist?

This game seems to have a library game ID different from the catalogue game ID. MaGog needs the library game ID in order to scan its files report changes.

If you happen to have a bought the game and have a wiki account, please upload your library to the wiki and let me know, so I can update MaGog's tables.

Cheers.

EDIT: Already done by toxicTom (and foxworks).

Well you can just admit that I'm right :-P

No, seriously. I'm just sick of all the negativity and nitpicking, like I wrote to drealmer7.

You just definitely picked the wrong game. I'm not even a "fan" of Downfall (never even came around to play it). I like "The Cat Lady" very much, since it's probably one of the best games ever made that deal with depression.

And I'm totally with you what all the cashing-in concerns. Take LotR... there's the DVD release, Special Edition, Extended Special Edtion (released not on one date, no, a fews months in between...) and then please buy again on BlueRay. Soon in 4k, certainly.

And games, please pre-order for a bonus. One gazillion DLC to extra pay for. Silver Edition, Gold Edition, Platinum Edition, GotY Edition, Ultimate Edition, Director's/Developers' Cut, ... Remastered (with brand new bugs!).

Yes, it's an issue. Make me wanna puke too, sometimes. But not here, wrong game. ;-)
-> chat

Yeah, that's also my sentiment, and the pub's comment didn't change it one bit.


EDIT: After doing the maths, there's not much difference in treatment between paying owners of the original and new comers to the game, $1 USD to be precise.

I had that concern too & addressed it in my first post.

But then they had someone show up, blatantly saying that they "convinced" the guy to remake the game so their "working relationship wouldn't suffer", because they were making no money from the original game.

What else do you want?

I mean, I'd applaud the the sheer lack of shame, but all of this was buried under the poorest marketspeak I've read to date, so you'll forgive me if I feel a little nauseous.

But you go ahead & applaud. Positivity is a great thing, sure.

I still don't understand why they had to remove the original game from the catalogue.

They weren't making money off of it.

They said quite clearly.