violence a bit more real?

Spacecow · September 17, 2001, 15:29

I'm just curious how last week's events have affected people playing Civ. For me, at least, I fear that the sound effect for when your diplomat sabotages something in another person's city will never quite seem the same. I haven't played Civ since then, but I'm curious to find out if I'll have a mental aversion to using diplomats from now on, now that I've come a step closer to realizing what it really signifies... Extrapolating that a bit, it makes me wonder just what my horde of knights strategy really signifies... *ugh*

-Spacecow

Case · September 17, 2001, 17:11

I'm playing Simcity 3000 for the first time in ages (though I wince when given the option to build the WTC in the landmark buildings menu)

I loaded up Quake II last night, and shut it down at the site of 'people' getting shot.

Civ's allright - all the violence is implied, and not shown.

drake · September 18, 2001, 12:26

Though I took a week off from civ last week, it wasn't because of the violence or the thought of killing people in game, it was because I was too sad to play a game.

But I will definetly be playing this week. I really don't think that games are at all disturbing. They are fantasy and an in-game persona isn't at all related to real life.

Violent games are a harmless way to get out ones pent up aggression. It is ok to destroy little pixels on the screen if thats what makes you feel better. It's not sick or twisted to enjoy this or anything. For instance, I rather enjoy playing resident evil (playstation series) and blowing holes in zombies heads with machine guns and killing terrorists in games such as syphon filter. As do millions of others.

Playing a fun game is a good distraction right now imo, but if it disturbs you, definetly sit it down.

Blaupanzer · September 18, 2001, 12:42

Violence in Civ II is actually trivialized. Lots of noise and then unit or building icon disappears. The horrible rubble is not left to be cleaned up or searched for the remains of the fallen. Don't let that level of abstraction bug you. It is worth noting that when your spy plants a nuke, you have now had a glimpse of what the resulting "pollution" would look like. However, games don't kill! Keep civin'

The Andy-Man · September 21, 2001, 12:52

i ofund that it made me want to play civ. all this talk of retaliation and stuff just made me feel like a good game of civ2 to waste sometime till i have a job.

Spacecow · September 23, 2001, 15:26

Yeah, I just went on a Civ binge this weekend, and when it came around to needing to get past the Chinese city walls, I stuck to my old tactic of sending a small horde of diplomats in to raze building after building to the ground until I happened to get the walls... not even a wince. In fact, it was so standard for me, I only realized I had done it AFTER I sabotaged the first city.

-Spacecow

Rasbelin · September 23, 2001, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Violence in Civ II is actually trivialized. Lots of noise and then unit or building icon disappears. The horrible rubble is not left to be cleaned up or searched for the remains of the fallen. Don't let that level of abstraction bug you. It is worth noting that when your spy plants a nuke, you have now had a glimpse of what the resulting "pollution" would look like. However, games don't kill! Keep civin'

It's great when someone else has the same opinion as I.

If you don't want to play Civ, then cry, but don't say that I must cry.
Instead I'll play Civ, beacuse that's more interesting.

Dictatress · September 30, 2001, 15:57

I didn't play Civ for a week or two after September 11. I just began feeling that poisoning the water supply and destroying buildings is being rather flippant with reality. Poisoned water and explosions were too real and too serious for me to view them as part of a game. However, that feeling has passed. I now sabotage right and left, especially those accursed city walls!

However, I've never poisoned the water supply except once.......why would anyone want to?

La Fayette · September 30, 2001, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dictatress
However, I've never poisoned the water supply except once.......why would anyone want to?

In the real world, you might have asked me a few weeks ago, I would have answered 'no one'. Now, I wouldn't, alas.

Playing civ, that poisoning reduces the population (the size of the city) by one, until it gets down to one (which means that you cannot destroy the city by poisoning).
Suppose now that you have a small army and face an enemy capital with many defenders inside. If you poison the water until the city becomes very small, then it won't be able to support many defenders and you will be able to take it swiftly with light casualties (another method is to 'occupy' all shield producing squares around the city; that method #2 is even better if you wish to behold a strong city after taking it; if you don't care, or if you fear to be unable to face a strong counter attack, then poisoning is better).

The Mad Monk · October 3, 2001, 16:32

I always prefered the siege method myself. I've only nuked once and have never poisoned.

Marquis de Sodaq · October 4, 2001, 12:58

I've played games in which I have all my cities produce a few spies instead of freights. I end up with about 150 spies - I send them out in groups ahead of my troops. If I find a fat enemy city that I can not likely keep, I'll poison it down to size one, destroy any courthouse there, and bribe it. For just 200g or so, I get a city with every improvement and a pile of units. (Setting a bad guy next to an AI city will usually bring reinforcements.) Sell an improvement every turn (ending with the city walls, of course), I rake in 1000g. Either I've rehomed all the new units, or they've died trying to kill their former brethren. Very good strategy for spitefully repaying sneak attacks, altho it doesn't help your score much.