Will people ever stop bickering with each other????????????

falcon7o · August 27, 2001, 22:19

When will people understand that there is no such thing as the greatest civilization or the top 16????????? Don't people understand that every civilization on earth that ever existed has contributed something like a unique language, or a form of writing. And just because some civilizations had a greater population, managed to construct more buildings, expanded more, or won more battles, it is more important than the smaller, more peaceful civilizations. That would be like saying that Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam is more important than Judaism and Hinduism; although, Christianity and Islam stem from Judaism, and Buddhism stems from Hinduism. Come on people, your favorite civilization is not more important than any other civilization in the world and if you think so, then you have some serious problems. I really think that the way they picked the civilizations is that they asked a group of people to write down 16 civilizations they know of, so if you have a problem with their picking, then don't buy the game!

Bleyn · August 28, 2001, 02:31

What? Stop bickering? Are you mad? That would leave us with nothing to do at 4:00am but watch Ren & Stimpy reruns. And I don't know about you, but I hate Ren & Stimpy.

Seriously, I doubt it. Thats just life. Some people will always hold dear to personal opinions and beliefs no matter how silly they might be. And others just enjoy stirring up arguments for the sheer devilment of it. Personally, I just try to avoid most of the really ridiculous arguments, and stick with the saner and more reasonable discussions.

Ribannah · August 28, 2001, 06:16

Quote:

Originally posted by falcon7o
When will people understand that there is no such thing as the greatest civilization ...?????????

LOVE HIAWATHA!!

August 28, 2001, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by falcon7o
When will people understand that there is no such thing as the greatest civilization or the top 16????????? Don't people understand that every civilization on earth that ever existed has contributed something like a unique language, or a form of writing. And just because some civilizations had a greater population, managed to construct more buildings, expanded more, or won more battles, it is more important than the smaller, more peaceful civilizations. That would be like saying that Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam is more important than Judaism and Hinduism; although, Christianity and Islam stem from Judaism, and Buddhism stems from Hinduism. Come on people, your favorite civilization is not more important than any other civilization in the world and if you think so, then you have some serious problems. I really think that the way they picked the civilizations is that they asked a group of people to write down 16 civilizations they know of, so if you have a problem with their picking, then don't buy the game!

Actually a very good post, I like it.

Dauphin · August 28, 2001, 11:45

Its not bickering, its debating.

ancient · August 28, 2001, 15:09

why stop, its beter than doing nothing..

YefeiPi · August 28, 2001, 15:32

Well I agree with this thread to a certain extent. Everyone here at Apolyton are from different parts of the world and different nationalities. I mean of couse, every one will favour their own civs. A poll like which the greatest civ can only indicate Apolyton is mainly visited by people from which part of the world!

I mean no matter what other people say, China is the greatest civ in my opinion. The next guy migh say America, and the next say England. I mean it's all about personal opinions and bias.

Lung · August 28, 2001, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Bleyn
What? Stop bickering? Are you mad? That would leave us with nothing to do at 4:00am but watch Ren & Stimpy reruns. And I don't know about you, but I hate Ren & Stimpy.

Speak for yourself! You're just not on the right drugs

My first encounter with Ren & Stimpy was coming home drunk at 5.00am. I couldn't make it to bed, so i crashed on the lounge, but only after turning on the TV. After about a minute of watching Ren & Stimpy, i slowly thought "What the....?

" I think i even swore off the alcohol for a nanosecond or two, but obviously thought better of it

However, much to my surprise, it wasn't the alcohol but the actual show. Whoever made Ren & Stimpy must have been on some heavy sh*t! Then again, whaddya expect from a bunch of Canucks!

Inverse Icarus · August 28, 2001, 18:40

blah @ this thread.

everyone knows that the human race will be the end of this planet.

the world too over 5 billion years to form, and within our 6000 some-odd years, or 200 if you count the industrial wastes as the major cause, we managed to fubar this planet.

EDIT: sorry im just in a bad mood.

DarkCloud · August 28, 2001, 19:31

There is a reason to debating... we NEED to decide which civs are the most deserving so that we can decide whether we will praise Firaxis or scorn them.

Pembleton · August 28, 2001, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
blah @ this thread.

everyone knows that the human race will be the end of this planet.

the world too over 5 billion years to form, and within our 6000 some-odd years, or 200 if you count the industrial wastes as the major cause, we managed to fubar this planet.

A statement you made doesn't have anything to do with a good mood with me. I've been relatively happy the past few years, and also at this very moment, after a very depressed/angry youth, and I agree that what you said is pretty likely. We are currently the virus of our planet. A minority of humans may survive through technology, but this is after we've raped and ravaged the earth's resources. But this will all happen long after we're dead so I'm going to try to enjoy my life while I'm still here.

Christantine The Great · August 28, 2001, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
There is a reason to debating... we NEED to decide which civs are the most deserving so that we can decide whether we will praise Firaxis or scorn them.

500 individual opinions for what "top 16" civs are NEVER going to be considered by Firaxis. You'll never reach a universial conclusion because there isn't one! What is useless is putting up a list of the "top 16", "most deserving", "The true civs", ect. because they are not and never will be a unified front. What is useful is to voice opinions about civilizations in particular, like what they should represent or if their CSU is accurate/useful. Those will (well I hope they will) be heard by Firaxis because they show if Firaxis made a mistake or a potentially unbalancing effect that must be fixed. The civs have already been chosen and I doubt that they will be changed. Deal with it and work with what you have, not what you want.

fred · August 28, 2001, 22:46

Conflict is ultimate solution to resolution.

How would you pick 16 civs without having a conflict?

How do you know what to include and what not to?

Would you live your 16 civs to be cultures you have never before heard of? 1st Civ is Caveman 2nd is The people currently living in Greenland 3rd is some guy living on a deserted island in the south pacific, to scared to build a boat but will have sex with a monkey to incress the population.

Really conflict is how to improve, solve, create, and make sure the CivIII dev team doesnt make CTP blunder of civs. Where they include a bunch of countries that really arent civilizations.

Its the conflict haters that need to re-adjust. Anarchy=bliss

And with out conflict how do you know who the real losers are? they will walk among us and we would never know it ( i might be a loser you decide). The fact is you need conflict and bickering. It helps, it really does.

falcon7o · August 29, 2001, 18:03

I'm just happy that people agree with me and the people who don't just don't like Ren & Stimpy

. I think we should all think not, "Why is my civilization not here?" but rather, "Which, out of these sixteen, is my favorite?" IMHO, it's the Americans

NOTE: Americans is my favorite civ. and I'm in no way saying they are the best. I don't want to start an argument among the 16 civs. now.....

falcon7o · August 29, 2001, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by fred
Conflict is ultimate solution to resolution.

How would you pick 16 civs without having a conflict?

How do you know what to include and what not to?

Would you live your 16 civs to be cultures you have never before heard of? 1st Civ is Caveman 2nd is The people currently living in Greenland 3rd is some guy living on a deserted island in the south pacific, to scared to build a boat but will have sex with a monkey to incress the population.

Really conflict is how to improve, solve, create, and make sure the CivIII dev team doesnt make CTP blunder of civs. Where they include a bunch of countries that really arent civilizations.

Its the conflict haters that need to re-adjust. Anarchy=bliss

And with out conflict how do you know who the real losers are? they will walk among us and we would never know it ( i might be a loser you decide). The fact is you need conflict and bickering. It helps, it really does.

First of all conflict doesn't always help. I just hope you know that. Secondly, I really wouldn't care if there were 3 civs and I had to choose from the guy at 7-11, Bill Gates, and the civilization with no people. IT'S CALLED A GAME. Also, what if I was to say that the wheel never exsisted (probably not true). I can argue, and argue, and argue, and although I'm wrong, THE CONFLICT LED TO NOTHING. So think before you write please....

fred · August 29, 2001, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by falcon7o

First of all conflict doesn't always help. I just hope you know that. Secondly, I really wouldn't care if there were 3 civs and I had to choose from the guy at 7-11, Bill Gates, and the civilization with no people. IT'S CALLED A GAME. Also, what if I was to say that the wheel never exsisted (probably not true). I can argue, and argue, and argue, and although I'm wrong, THE CONFLICT LED TO NOTHING. So think before you write please....

Thanks for continuing to help the point be proven.

Please open the mind, and close the stupidity.

If you would like to think, please do I wont stop you. Its not hard just try for once.

What is the point of doing anything, if there is no challenge, no goal? If there is a goal there is a conflict. Because any goal worth doing anything for is a goal 2 or more people will want. Now take your wheel. With out conflict the person\people involved in the invention would not take the time to think up the wheel because what is the point? The only point is to improve yourself so that you are better then your opponent. The reason for doing is conflict, to be better and to beat someone.

And if you argue stupid things, in conflict. A lot is gained. One if you argue and you are wrong, really wrong I know you're stupid and ignorant. Others know this. And You might learn more. Both large bonuses.

And to put it into a game. The only way people will improve the game is through knowing what people want. To know what people want you need sudjestions. Those sudjestions might anger a few. Some might comprimise, making a better sudjestion. More people are happy. And through conflict the design team is now aware of a comprimised idea, that will help sell the game because more people will be happy with new features. And they wont include features that people dont want. Conflict gives the Dev team the ideas that wioll sell the most games and refines them while also killing the ideas that people will hate.

Please pull your conservative head out of the utopia clouds you think you are floating in. Anarchy = wins

DarkCloud · August 29, 2001, 22:33

Good post fred.

Chris- we can always argue for the expansion pack... where there is life (in Firaxis's future) there is hope.

falcon7o · August 30, 2001, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by fred

Thanks for continuing to help the point be proven.

Please open the mind, and close the stupidity.

If you would like to think, please do I wont stop you. Its not hard just try for once.

What is the point of doing anything, if there is no challenge, no goal? If there is a goal there is a conflict. Because any goal worth doing anything for is a goal 2 or more people will want. Now take your wheel. With out conflict the person\people involved in the invention would not take the time to think up the wheel because what is the point? The only point is to improve yourself so that you are better then your opponent. The reason for doing is conflict, to be better and to beat someone.

And if you argue stupid things, in conflict. A lot is gained. One if you argue and you are wrong, really wrong I know you're stupid and ignorant. Others know this. And You might learn more. Both large bonuses.

And to put it into a game. The only way people will improve the game is through knowing what people want. To know what people want you need sudjestions. Those sudjestions might anger a few. Some might comprimise, making a better sudjestion. More people are happy. And through conflict the design team is now aware of a comprimised idea, that will help sell the game because more people will be happy with new features. And they wont include features that people dont want. Conflict gives the Dev team the ideas that wioll sell the most games and refines them while also killing the ideas that people will hate.

Please pull your conservative head out of the utopia clouds you think you are floating in. Anarchy = wins

First of all the conflict you talk about is a different type of conflict you talked about earlier. Obviously, you would need some sort of difficulty for an invention, but when you argue about civilizations, which are all equally important, you are pretty much sayiong this grey wheel is better than this red wheel because its been around longer, or more people know it, or it looks better. Does that accomplish anything? When you are restricted to 16 civs no one should argue about they should of taken this out and put this in, it would be like saying you should take the invention of the wheel out and put the invention of the wheel in to improve this....etc.

falcon7o · August 30, 2001, 02:49

And by the fact that you are so passionate about this, I believe that you are one of the people who got really mad cause you think your fav. civ isn't in the game, but instead of the exapansion. I would rather have the expansion that would focus on gameplay then on civs. I mean who is stupid enough to buy an expansion for maybe $30 that focuses little on gameplay and mainly on adding more civs.

falcon7o · August 30, 2001, 02:57

oh and btw, If people don't like the game for what it is then I have a solution to your problems. DON'T BUY THE GAME! Simple, eh?

tniem · August 30, 2001, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by falcon7o
oh and btw, If people don't like the game for what it is then I have a solution to your problems. DON'T BUY THE GAME! Simple, eh?

But I still have spent the last year and a half talking about the game and the last ten playing the original. There is no way I will get that time back but there is a reason I have, to see Civ III be a great game. It is easier for me to whine about it now and see subtle changes than wait until release. At that point it is too late and I have totally wasted my time.

fred · August 30, 2001, 11:18

I see theres something wrong with your feelings. I dont know if you feel unsecure, or what. But the fact is the arguements prove to be enlightening at the least. If you actually read the arguements you can gain a lot of information passed on by fellow civers. This allows you to develop your information base whichyou can later use. Information is the key to winning.

Second I point out the fact that I want to buy Civ III. And the reason for arguing is that if I want to buy the game, I want the game to be the best it possibly can be. Added to the fact of an expansion pack, how is the Civ team going to add a Civ I want into the game if they dont know it? How do they gadge the importance of the civ for the community if there is no conflict? And if there was no arguements that would mean the game is utterly perfect, which it can not be. So if you think everyone should stop arguing you feel the game is perfect. Now please don't be a complete idiot and thinking anything is perfect. Back to conflict improves, not neccesarly competition.

And how do we know gameplay for the expansion if we haven't played the game? About right now the only thing people can argue about is the civs. This also allows the community to stay together while expressing views, sharing knowledge, and possibly latter improving the game while passing time.

Now really I'm not not going to buy Civ III because I don't like all the civ choices, but the civ choices can improve till later. Never be content with a half assed job or even a good job.

And take your own advise, dont read the forums. Pleas if you dont like it don't read it. You have a little hypocracy problem....

falcon7o · August 30, 2001, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by fred
I see theres something wrong with your feelings. I dont know if you feel unsecure, or what. But the fact is the arguements prove to be enlightening at the least. If you actually read the arguements you can gain a lot of information passed on by fellow civers. This allows you to develop your information base whichyou can later use. Information is the key to winning.

Second I point out the fact that I want to buy Civ III. And the reason for arguing is that if I want to buy the game, I want the game to be the best it possibly can be. Added to the fact of an expansion pack, how is the Civ team going to add a Civ I want into the game if they dont know it? How do they gadge the importance of the civ for the community if there is no conflict? And if there was no arguements that would mean the game is utterly perfect, which it can not be. So if you think everyone should stop arguing you feel the game is perfect. Now please don't be a complete idiot and thinking anything is perfect. Back to conflict improves, not neccesarly competition.

And how do we know gameplay for the expansion if we haven't played the game? About right now the only thing people can argue about is the civs. This also allows the community to stay together while expressing views, sharing knowledge, and possibly latter improving the game while passing time.

Now really I'm not not going to buy Civ III because I don't like all the civ choices, but the civ choices can improve till later. Never be content with a half assed job or even a good job.

And take your own advise, dont read the forums. Pleas if you dont like it don't read it. You have a little hypocracy problem....

First of all, most of the arguments are base less. Apparently, you haven't read them. Saying that a civ. is larger, or lasted longer, does not qualify it to be more important than a smaller, less lasting civ. Do you read the arguments at all?????? I mean they keep on saying, "Why did they add two native american civs., why are they important?" or "Why did they America as a civ., we all know it's like England?" or "Why is there no Spanish civ., it was a superpower at some point...." all pointless arguments because once again, EVERY CIVILIZATIONS IS EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE. And I doubt they really care about other peoples opinions, in fact most of them post just for support and not real feedback. And this community is not a peaceloving, intelligent community. Not everyone wants to hear other peoples comments, and just want to pretend to be all smart, go on the internet, find facts about their civ, and say it's better than the other, when no civ. is. Once again, arguing between which civ is more important is like arguing that something that is obviously true, isn't just because you don't like it.

Inverse Icarus · August 30, 2001, 16:56

go ahead and call me a neo-nazi if you want to be closed minded, but im going to quote Hitler here:

"mankind has grown strong in eternal struggle, and will only perish through eternal peace"

fred · August 30, 2001, 19:36

Actually you have said a point I feel and have expressed, unheard, but expressed. The fact is that every culture has had equal affect on the worlds history.

But that aside, there are civs i would rather play then others. I also find some arguements more interesting. If I dont like the thread I stop reading it, dont post and move on. If I feel that the thread is going somplace, or I can commit some knowledge on the subject I provide it. The conflict, i hope, provides the medium for the passing on of knowledge. If its bad knowledge I learn to ignore/flame the person that said it. Then if the person does give good information, worth my attention, I further my own knowledge. It doesnt matter how they got it.

And anyways, what other thing are people going to talk about on the forums?

The forums will go dead if they cant argue.

And its funny

cause u can laugh at some of the really stupid comments and then flame the person. Then they try and defend themselves. Its funny

yin26 · August 30, 2001, 20:20

Quote:

EVERY CIVILIZATIONS IS EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE.

What a silly, uninformed thing to say. In a perfect world, people are people and we are contribute equally to the world around us. But has a history book even fallen on your head?

Now arguing about the 'value' of a civ based on its total landmass or something like that is a slippery slope to say the least, but not all civs are equal and have an equal place in history. Not by a longshot.

Now, while many of the debates here are based on pure conjecture with people pulling "thoughts" out of their backsides, there are some genuine realizations being made...things nobody ever considered before or heard about XYZ civ. This is important. In fact, it's rather vital to fostering understanding among people. Also, Firaxis DOES listen to these kinds of things. They have to do their homework, too, you know.

So, learn to distinguish the comments based on research vs. b.s. comments that are worthless or even misrepresentative. Of course, this takes effort and a willingness to do more than say: ALL CIVS ARE EQUAL! They aren't. Never have been. Never will be. Wanting them to be or turning off your brain won't change that.

If you mean, however, we should try to respect all civs for what they have offered the world, even if it has been in a rather small way, then I totally agree with you. But how will we learn those things unless we debate them?

Hmmm. Take a few moments to ponder that.

DarkCloud · August 30, 2001, 21:02

Despite the fact that this statement goes against my philosophy "ALL CIVS HAVE NOT CONTRIBUITED THE SAME AMOUNT OF CULTURE TO THE WORLD"

I have to say it... despite the fact that I believe everyone is the same... I have to say that.

falcon- would you say that the Easter Island civilization was important? It WAS a civilization but did it really contribuite to the world? Would you say that Polynesia has contribuited as much to the "ENTIRE WORLD" as Egypt did in its heyday or England/China/Russia/America did in the post 1700 world?

fred · August 30, 2001, 23:22

There is something missing from your complete understanding. My point of view on this is that they are all equal in creating our history and our present.

I base my arguement on the simple fact that if removed, every civilization, every culture will have drastic repercusions on the out come of history. That is to say if you removed Easter Island from the timeline you would earevicably (I can't spell, please don't hold it against my arguement

) aulter the history and culture of many people and places. It would cause the same change as say removing the greeks. Because the ending becomes desimilar to our own the effect is thus equal but have a different result. Now all arguements I have seen have been about cause and effect. I have just proven that the cause and effect of the civilization, no matter how unimportant they seem in a text book are equal.

That is also not to say I will admire every culture equal in their achievements. But when you come down to it they have had equal effect on our timeline and culture through fact of influence. Its hard to comprehend and explain my point of view on this, and this was my best effort with a limited grade 10 vocabulary, but I hope some will understand.

fred · August 30, 2001, 23:29

Oh and to add to the easter island people. Their culture might have acted as a bridge between those of the South Pacific and of present day latin america. The actual affect of Easter Island is really unknown since many of the America's stories (if in book form) were destroyed or killed out (un written stories). So the actual contact between South America and the South Pacific is unknown. But evidence has placed South Americans on Easter Island as well as a population from the South Pacific.

Peak Population on Easter Island= 10 000 (est)

Population was whipped out by over population of the island which led to deforestation which in turn leads to other problems.

http://www.mysteriousplaces.com/Easter_Island/

yin26 · August 31, 2001, 00:18

Quote:

I base my arguement on the simple fact that if removed, every civilization, every culture will have drastic repercusions on the out come of history.

It's a nice thought, and it certainly makes a person want to believe in the 'Web of Humanity,' but there are some problems with your wording. "Fact" is in dispute. "Every" is too strong a word, and so is "Drastic." If you altered your statement like this, however, I could support you:

Quote:

The unfolding of human history is based on a delicate balance of often unseen influences that can stretch over vast expanses of space and time. In the same way that even a stable ecosystem could be almost instantly shattered by the removal of even a seemingly 'insignifant' plant or animal, so, too, could human history as we know it be irrevocably altered by even the smallest elimination or addition of even the smallest influence from even the most remote reaches of the earth.

A bit wordy, so forgive me. But notice the difference.