Talk:Left 4 Dead 2: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
TomEdwards (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
"stick it on Wikipedia, or maybe Wikimoans if it exists" | "stick it on Wikipedia, or maybe Wikimoans if it exists" | ||
Shouldn't VDC contain all Valve/Steam/Source related information useful in modding and game researching? I'd say the most noticeable thing about L4D2 uptil now has been the controversy of the players, and leaving out information about the demo when it is such a unique case seems narrow-minded as well. Is there actually any reason not to have the information there? Feel free to correct me if I wasn't subjective enough (although I was careful while writing), but simply removing everything seems irrational. | Shouldn't VDC contain all Valve/Steam/Source related information useful in modding and game researching? I'd say the most noticeable thing about L4D2 uptil now has been the controversy of the players, and leaving out information about the demo when it is such a unique case seems narrow-minded as well. Is there actually any reason not to have the information there? Feel free to correct me if I wasn't subjective enough (although I was careful while writing), but simply removing everything seems irrational. | ||
: This site is about developing games using Source. Historic information about release dates belongs on Wikipedia, where people will see it. --[[user:TomEdwards|TomEdwards]] 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 28 October 2009
Why were the sections I added earlier removed? The discussion page is (was) empty, and it's rather poor practice to immediately remove content without leaving at least a note.
The brief description by user:TomEdwards says: "stick it on Wikipedia, or maybe Wikimoans if it exists" Shouldn't VDC contain all Valve/Steam/Source related information useful in modding and game researching? I'd say the most noticeable thing about L4D2 uptil now has been the controversy of the players, and leaving out information about the demo when it is such a unique case seems narrow-minded as well. Is there actually any reason not to have the information there? Feel free to correct me if I wasn't subjective enough (although I was careful while writing), but simply removing everything seems irrational.
- This site is about developing games using Source. Historic information about release dates belongs on Wikipedia, where people will see it. --TomEdwards 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)