PP. wrote:We can't reduce it to 5900 ok, so we 'll let it to 32040?... Is this your logic?
Until such time as we have three people that confirm it only plays back to that score, yes. The reason for this is because, historically, there have been games where some people can play back to the advertised score, some can play back to the 'same' lesser score, and some people can never play it back. That's the whole reason why we wait until there are 3 people in the same
category before adjusting the score for a game, either to zero or to a reduced score to which 3 or more people can reliably replay that inp.
PP. wrote:I didn't ask for the dictionary definition, I asked you what is antagonizing in my posts.
No, you simply asked "What is antagonising?" and I answered that question. If you'd said "What is antagonising in my posts?" then that would have been a different question altogether, and somewhat superfluous given that I had already given you an example of said antoganising wording.
PP. wrote:I've made threads for many games, I couldn't know for which one you were talking about.
There's only 1 thread where you asked if the manual scan was for the arcade version of the game. It's not that hard to remember the game for which you asked that very specific question... surely?!?
PP. wrote:2.Many gamers do the same, but I don't hear you blame them too.
I've not seen many recently going on and on about the games on which they have reported playback issues. Yes, many people report problems with playbacks, and that is fine. What is not fine is repeatedly asking why nothing has been done yet, given that this site is run by volunteers who have non-gaming related activities taking up their precious time. Especially as we've already told you that it's not necessarily being ignored but more likely that people have other more important real life activities demanding their time. However, the more you repeatedly ask, the more the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome will kick in and the more I, and probably others, will start ignoring those type of posts from you.
sense of humor.
Yes, I have a sense of humour. I never said that I didn't.
PP. wrote:I'm probably much older and more experienced than you.
Interesting assumption to make. I don't assume who's older or more experienced as I have no idea of your age or the amount of life and/or gaming experience you have.
PP. wrote:5.I said I'll hear, not I'll accept. I'll accept only useful and right things.
So why are you so unwilling to accept the evidence presented to you that Pacmania difficulty C is in fact harder than difficulty B. That is both 'useful' and 'right' information?