c190# THIS WONDERFULL CONCEPT OF FAITH

MarkG · October 18, 2001, 03:41

190# THIS WONDERFULL CONCEPT OF FAITH
Response to #189

Grumbold · October 18, 2001, 06:05

Everyone has the right to put down their thoughts on paper and send them to a company's customer service representative. Analysing a broad selection of those responses can give any company very valuable feedback on where they are succeeding and where they could do better. It wasn't long ago that every time I opened a game box a company questionnaire would fall out, imploring me to fill it in to become a registered user and acquire some nebulous advantage in return for my opinion of their software or marketing. My opinion was of value to them and their financial welfare.

The difficulty with the internet discussion groups is that not only do the company get to see our thoughts, but all the other members do too. Members with sometimes very different opinions. On creative topics that can promote very healthy discussions. What is culture? What can it achieve and what are its limitations? Discussion of that nature has led to a massive "List" of ideas and even though that is now finalised new members are always keen to offer alternatives or argue that a better choice could have been made.

Unfortunately on emotive topics it can just cause responses totally out of proportion to the question. Civilization is a successful and entertaining software program, not the answer to world peace or a cure for cancer. Call to Power is an offshoot franchise that has proved disappointing, mainly because the publisher chose to rush it to the marketplace before the developer could complete the work. Yet such is the intense focus on this site that trivial changes like Engineers vs Public Works are treated to scathing attacks on differing views as if it is some kind of boxing contest where a winner can be found by virtue of some killer KO verbal punch. Inflammatory and derogatory posts hammer away at each other ineffectually until the topic exhausts itself or the moderator applies the padlock.

Reading this board would be a much more pleasant experience if we could just agree to disagree on some over-debated topics, draw line under them and move on. Starting a new thread every day about whether some part of Civ3 will "rool" or "suck" is just pointless. No-one knows until the game is released and different people are by nature optimistic or pessimistic in advance of solid information. Unfortunately I'm just proving by responding to this article that I can't stay away from all of these endlessly revolving debates myself

All I can ask is that if you find yourself writing a post attacking something you have just read, stop and ask yourself first if what you are writing is part of the solution or part of the problem. Thankyou.

RobC · October 18, 2001, 06:09

Quote:

The companies producing gaming software are aiming at us we are their target group! Anyone knowing even just a bit about marketing should know what that means: They have to listen to us, they have to take into account our reactions, they have to adjust their product to our needs.

The only problem to this is that 'we' (Apolytoners) represent less than 1% of the total Civ3-purchasing population. Therefore, to focus on 'our' high priorities (say, MP-support) and ignore what the 'typical' consumer cares about (maybe nice graphics, ease of play/easy learning curve, cute-looking animated leader pics, whatever) would be stupid and, to be honest, unfair to most of their customers. If you want to talk about the business of making games, then you have to admit that catering to the typical purchaser and getting the game out in time for Christmas is far more imporant than pleasing a small, if vocal minority. This is not to belittle the importance of a dedicated, hard-core fan base, but I would argue that focusing too much on the concerns and criticisms of a vocal few is bad business.

Grumbold · October 18, 2001, 06:30

Absolutely. I can decry their decision as shamelessly commercial while recognising that being a commercial company it's undoubtedly well worth it for them to ruffle some customers sensibilites if it boosts their financial returns

Gyromancer · October 18, 2001, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by RobC

The only problem to this is that 'we' (Apolytoners) represent less than 1% of the total Civ3-purchasing population. Therefore, to focus on 'our' high priorities (say, MP-support) and ignore what the 'typical' consumer cares about (maybe nice graphics, ease of play/easy learning curve, cute-looking animated leader pics, whatever) would be stupid and, to be honest, unfair to most of their customers...

I've heard this argument before, and I don't quite buy it. Sure, the posters here represent less than 1% of the people who will buy the game. (For FIRAXIS' sake, I hope it is a LOT less than 1%

) But, IMHO, we represent _not_ the more NET savvy portion of the population, but the more FANatical. We don't have the monopoly on having internet access, instead, I think we have more of a monopoly on caring enough to track this site down and follow it religiously.

There is a vast untapped population of AOE, ect MULTIplayers out there. (And not just the ones who regularly log into the zone...) A lot of these guys really couldn't give a flying fig about CIV III. But, you add a multiplayer that actually moves faster than the glaciers of the ice age, and BANG, instant sales.

Now, that said, I believe that they are delaying MP to implement exactly what I mentioned above. Multiplayer can add lots of sales if it has some mass appeal. (I just hope they dont rip the guts out of the game to do that

) Of course, I think there's a snowball's chance in Atta's new home of them releasing it as a free patch ....

Father Beast · October 18, 2001, 08:49

I like the idea that we can be a sounding board for a developer in the process of making a game. Darned if I know if that happened. I probably won't know either, until I actually have the game and see what was listened to on these forums.

Even now, we have so little info on the game itself, that we have to speculate on how we might play it. and the secrets of the game have another week (oct. 22) before they really get revealed. now we just guess.

But maybe we have been some use to Firaxis. we have endlessly debated everything and it's dog to the end of topic, and beyond. a studious browser could indeed find a good feel for the civ community by using us as a representative grouping.

sort of like, each of us would be representative of 100 civers

d_dudy · October 18, 2001, 08:54

damn good article!

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 09:50

Actually I was just trying to point out how misunderstanding of a non-clarified process (the company-consumer circle namely) can have some rather confusing effects.

The truth is that yes, we, the Apolytoners (may I call myself one too? a pesky settler?

) are representing the whole body of the civilization gamers here.

Only the indifferent ("buy it and then bury it in the closet") players are not taking part to these discussions - they don't need to, because they don't care.

Other than that, we are pretty much representative of the whole of the civ community.

Said that, I would like to point out another example. A company did a research in the city I was living a few years ago - a 5 million people town. Their potential customers were about half of them (they are running a fast-food chain) and they had at time about 25 of their shops spread in the town.

They were about to introduce new products and they needed some serious feedback.

They tried to do this via surveys in their shops, but they didn't work out much. So they had to find a better solution. I was doing PR work for a large company fielded in Market Research and they took the job.

You know how many people (out of a potential 2,5 millions consumers in this city) did the company questioned? 900! Statisticaly this was an adequate number - they say - when taking into account factors as who the potential customers are, certain age groups etc. etc.

Let's take this example to our case. The company in question here (Firaxis) is conducting a much larger in percentage survey (not even comparable with the 900 out of 2,5 million) for free (you don't even want me to tell you how much they paid for it) and continuous (feedback throughout the whole process of manufacturing the new product).

I think Firaxis people appreciate very much what is going on here.

And they don't mind some bickering. Even if they would mind, I wouldn't care: It is our right as customers to complain when we need a better product. After all, this is free economy.

...and d_dudy, thank you

orange · October 18, 2001, 10:17

...the author goes out of his way to bash me and my article, yet in princple, he agrees with most of my beliefs. I never said we don't have a right or duty to complain, I never said that we as Civers have to buy Civ III whether we like it or not.

This says it all...

Quote:

They need sane, constructive criticism and they need some 'bickering and moaning too' just so they can understand that the people who buy their products buy them because they are good, not because of the fancy Firaxis logo or Sid's name on the cover.

There were two points to my article:

A) Firaxis deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
B) If you have a complaint to make, make it! It's what has shaped this game. But do it respectfully.

I understand how the market works, I also understand that to get respect from Firaxis, we should give it to them. Many of the issues we "claim" to know about we don't have evidence of, and until we do, we have no business complaining. When we have proof that something we don't like exists, we have the right to complain and should! But it can be done in a nice, constructive manner rather than cursing and *****ing like a bunch of toddlers who haven't gotten their way.

Just incase the author reads this, I'd like to leave you with my last substantial post on the c189 thread created by MarkG...however, I can't seem to locate it at the moment...I'll edit it in later.

Grumbold · October 18, 2001, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
Firaxis deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
...
Many of the issues we "claim" to know about we don't have evidence of, and until we do, we have no business complaining. When we have proof that something we don't like exists, we have the right to complain and should!

Different people are naturally optimistic or pessimistic. For some people Firaxis' past history with Civ/SMAC is sufficient proof of corporate style to draw negative conclusions from. For others it is a justification for unfettered enthusiasm. You can't justify muzzling one group and not the other.

Quote:

If you have a complaint to make, make it! It's what has shaped this game. But do it respectfully.

Now there I agree with you wholeheartedly. Almost everyone here gets too carried away from time to time

Duckman · October 18, 2001, 12:14

Well I see the comments keep coming. Good. Maybe more people will play the game just to see if it is bad.

I will play the game. I will not disect it. I will not modify it (may be interested in some of the mods, though). I won't put a Firaxis bumpersticker on my car. I don't play the games entirely straight through in one sitting. I will just play, for fun, when I can. And I say again: It is merely a pleasant diversion to take a voyage through history by someone else's design. Fire away, Firaxis.

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
...the author goes out of his way to bash me and my article, yet in princple, he agrees with most of my beliefs

Don't flatter yourself, I didn't got out of my way to either bash you or your article. I was struck by the quote I used in my article and I just had to comment about it - nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

A) Firaxis deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
B) If you have a complaint to make, make it! It's what has shaped this game. But do it respectfully.

Wrong and right. Wrong because they are asking for feedback, so that says it all: They have revealed early many, many details to the civ community and they didn't do so just for the heck of it - they did because they wanted us to tell them what we think. Isn't that reasonable? Of course we can't judge the whole game without adequate information, but fact is that we can judge what is known, no?
Right because I can tell myself how annoying it is when some people here start cursing and shouting without a clue - but it's natural, isn't it? Most people here are in their teens and those older don't allways sound that way

Quote:

I understand how the market works, I also understand that to get respect from Firaxis, we should give it to them. Many of the issues we "claim" to know about we don't have evidence of, and until we do, we have no business complaining.

That is precisely the point we disagree. I say it is our right as customers and semi-self appointed customer representatives to voice our concerns and criticise Firaxis.

You seem to believe they are the weilders of the ultimate truth and "they know what's better for us". Well, the latter might be the truth in some cases, but that doesn't eliminate our right to ask for something we want - hey, we are the buyers, right?

I wasn't bashing you or anything - I can absolutely understand the reasoning behind your article. I just don't like the way you put it and I think the only thing to adjust here is the behaviour factor, not the whole "criticism" thing (as you seem to imply).

Regards
Rosacrux

LarryLard · October 18, 2001, 12:30

Quote:

The gaming community, stripped of it's uniqueness, is nothing more than a body of consumers. Quite sophisticated, if compared with the average consumer and thus more demanding and for a good reason. Still, though, nothing more than a body of consumers.

Well, it's not surprising we are 'nothing more than a body of consumers' since at the start of the paragraph you posited 'stripping [us] of [our] uniqueness'

orange · October 18, 2001, 12:42

Quote:

alls I was trying to say is that Sid and Firaxis deserve our respect. It's my own thought that PR is not up to them entirely, and they probably have better things on their minds, yet they STILL manage to put up a website and put out movies that keep us salivating.

As for the MP issue, I'd much rather have Civ III now with SP only than wait 6 months for both. I *hope* Firaxis has the good judgement to put MP as a patch or free download or something, but if they include it in an XP or make us buy it...it's their choice. If you or anyone wants to fight this by not buying the game - that's your choice, and it's not what I'm protesting against. I'm protesting, as you said, the stuff that's just plain embarassing to the posters at Apolyton.

You're right, you've worked hard, and so has everyone else at getting our thoughts and ideas into this game, so we should expect something damn good (after all, we've waited a good long time ) but I think that before we jump to conclusions, we should wait until we get the game in our hands and on our computers. I think we owe Firaxis the benefit of the doubt on that one, at least. It's not blind faith...it's just showing a little respect.

These are my feelings, so before you bash me and my article, know what you're talking about.

Grumbold · October 18, 2001, 12:50

Easy, Orange. His name is at the top of his article and I think he did as polite a rebuttal of your article as you did of the critical ones you were targetting in yours.

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 12:50

Settled, I guess...

orange · October 18, 2001, 13:12

When I first looked at the article, there was no name at the top. I was looking all around to see who wrote it, and couldn't find a name. It wasn't until after I posted that I saw you take credit for it in your post.

I don't know if it was just put there or if I just missed it before or what, but in any event, I apologize. Allow me to edit my post

orange · October 18, 2001, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux
Don't flatter yourself, I didn't got out of my way to either bash you or your article. I was struck by the quote I used in my article and I just had to comment about it - nothing more, nothing less.

It was a response to my article, it stated...

Quote:

And that is because it shows that he who wrote this piece has no sense of what the market is all about. And the gaming market in particular.

That is an attack on me. And so I have responded.

Quote:

Wrong and right. Wrong because they are asking for feedback

I never said they weren't! I'm sure they don't ask for us to yell "hey Firaxis, what the **** is this?" and "Firaxis sucks!", they deserve respect, and we should be big enough to show it to them.

Quote:

so that says it all: They have revealed early many, many details to the civ community and they didn't do so just for the heck of it - they did because they wanted us to tell them what we think. Isn't that reasonable? Of course we can't judge the whole game without adequate information, but fact is that we can judge what is known, no?

Never said this wasn't true either! In fact, I said that they revealed a LOT of information, information they didn't necessarily have to. They do want feedback, they don't want to be insulted!

Quote:

Right because I can tell myself how annoying it is when some people here start cursing and shouting without a clue - but it's natural, isn't it? Most people here are in their teens and those older don't allways sound that way

The fact that intelligent teenagers can't express themselves in a constructive way, and must resort to outright whining and *****ing and cursing is really sad. What they have to say can be said nicely, and respectfully. Especially if you want change in the game. You catch more flies with honey

Quote:

That is precisely the point we disagree. I say it is our right as customers and semi-self appointed customer representatives to voice our concerns and criticise Firaxis.

Wow, yeah we disagree. After all I've been saying this whole time how we should not complain about things we don't like, take what we're given, and live with it.

Right? Wrong. We don't disagree. I agree with this statement and made it in many, many posts.

Quote:

You seem to believe they are the weilders of the ultimate truth and "they know what's better for us". Well, the latter might be the truth in some cases, but that doesn't eliminate our right to ask for something we want - hey, we are the buyers, right?

Now this is just stupid. I never said anything of the sort. This has nothing to do with the game itself. You like to think you understand my stance on the issue, but I don't even think you know what 'the issue' is!

Quote:

I wasn't bashing you or anything - I can absolutely understand the reasoning behind your article. I just don't like the way you put it and I think the only thing to adjust here is the behaviour factor, not the whole "criticism" thing (as you seem to imply).

Never once implied it, unless you skew my words.

Here are some of the things I had to say straight from my article...

Quote:

they're working day in and day out, taking YOUR suggestions, listening to what YOU the gamers have to say.

Quote:

You should be happy that Firaxis cares what you think.

and if you read through the other thread, the one on my article, you'll see all the posts I made that completely back up the point that we should be posting our thoughts. It'll make the game better. The only thing I was saying is "DO IT RESPECTFULLY"

here is the ONE quote from the article that I think you could possibly think "he just wants us to go on blind faith"

Quote:

I for one am faithful that Firaxis and Sid Meier will do what is right for the less-than-loyal civers, because it's what they have always done in the past.

and that quote was in reference to the idea that Firaxis won't charge us for Multiplayer as I go on to say in the very next line.

I feel like you and many other have missed the entire point of the article.

Rosacrux · October 18, 2001, 13:48

Your attitude seems rather irritating, but again I shall try to put things calmly and without any unecessary ranting.

Here are the points in your article that express a "let them do what they know, they know better" spirit.

Quote:

How easily we forget the genuine people at Firaxis who have been so good to us in the past, and continue to be good to us even now when we've turned our backs and thumbed our noses.

and this

Quote:

Shocking as this may come: it seems Firaxis does have some idea of what civers want. After all, they're all civers themselves.

this also

Quote:

Firaxis has no obligation whatsoever to give you ANY information at all. They could very easily produce this game, put it on the shelves, and say like it or leave it.

not to mention this

Quote:

The truth is, instead, of 'conspiring' to rip you off as the popular assumption goes, they're working day in and day out, taking YOUR suggestions, listening to what YOU the gamers have to say. None of this is required. You should be happy that Firaxis cares what you think.

And most of all, this:

Quote:

Plain and simple - if you don't like what you hear, cancel your order...but how dare any of you 'righteously' make rude and unproven statements that defame a man, a company, a myth, and a legend.

Those comments of yours (actully, more than 1/3 of the article) show a rather... compromising attitude, like you believe a divine aura to coat our dear friend Sid and his partners.

Sorry, I am not religious myself, never been never will. And idolizing someone is not my game either. They are more than adequate professionals (Sid is much more than adequate actually, he is Great!) but that doesn't mean great people don't do mistakes.

One more time: I am not attacking or bashing you - hell, why would I? Do we have past deals? Do I envy you for something? Have we had any problems previously? I am relatively new to this board, so that wouldn't be possible.

Learn to take critisism, it ain't bad.

To the bottom line, we are saying the same thing - you just seem to let your personal view of Sid/Firaxis get between you and your aim. I don't.

Friends?

orange · October 18, 2001, 13:50

the article is not about the game itself...

it was written when everyone was complaining about the MP issue. That's what the majority of those quotes refer to. Not the game.

That's what I meant by "you don't even know what 'the issue' is!"

Edit: and now I must run to class, forgive me if I don't respond for a few hours

Ozymandous · October 18, 2001, 15:24

Quote:

Originally posted by RobC

The only problem to this is that 'we' (Apolytoners) represent less than 1% of the total Civ3-purchasing population. Therefore, to focus on 'our' high priorities (say, MP-support) and ignore what the 'typical' consumer cares about (maybe nice graphics, ease of play/easy learning curve, cute-looking animated leader pics, whatever) would be stupid and, to be honest, unfair to most of their customers. If you want to talk about the business of making games, then you have to admit that catering to the typical purchaser and getting the game out in time for Christmas is far more imporant than pleasing a small, if vocal minority. This is not to belittle the importance of a dedicated, hard-core fan base, but I would argue that focusing too much on the concerns and criticisms of a vocal few is bad business.

The is an inherant flaw in your logic in making a game only for the "masses" and this is the over-all quality of the game.

For example, I was somewhat heavily involved in Age of Empires when it came out. I cruised the Internet looking for tips and hints on how to play better. Eventually I found a web site devoted to the top-tier of players in the world. These players would post strategies and other great stuff that helped a lot of people get better at the game. These experts would also LOUDLY blast the game as being inately unbalanced and flawed on a deep level.

The argument is as follows: If the game was balanced and designed to offer equal advantages and disadvantages to even the hard-core players then the "average" player, who may never even understand how finely tuned the game was, would benefit from this balance.

This concept is easy to understand but difficult for people to accept, especially if they are anxiously awaiting the next installment of their beloved series. Nevertheless it is still a sound principle.

Designing and balancing a game so that the top tier of players find it balanced simply means that everyone benefits from the surperb craftsmanship that went into making the game in the first place. An example of how well this concept works is found in the second "Age" game. Ensemble studios hired several of the top ranked people in the world to beta test Age of Kings. While not perfectly balanced it was pretty close and everyone was able to have a legitimate chance or winning in it (depending on their skill level) regardless of map type, etc. The further refinement of the Conquerors expansion pack only made the game more balanced and even better.

Esentially, the point is this: Just because a game is built and balanced for the hard-core fan doesn't mean the average player can't jump right in and have fun. It simply means that at all levels the game is a surperb example of craftsmanship.

The Templar · October 18, 2001, 15:39

Firaxis is only a company, and Sid is only some guy. The faith they deserve is only proportional to their delivery in the past. Plain and simple. While I have enjoyed the civ series very much, I've never really been able to get into Sid's other games (well, the ones I've actually played). But I have gotten the most enjoyment out of civ-type games. So I have faith that Civ3 will at least be good. HOWEVER, because faith should only be proportional to past performance, I would describe myself as somewhat wary of Firaxis (mostly on my SMAC experience).

Bugs ****ing Bunny · October 18, 2001, 17:47

On the plus side, Orange's column was responsible for this...

"I just canceled my "subscription" to your email. If you are simply
going to act as a shill for Firaxis, I don't see any reason to
subscribe to this.

Personally, my experience in the past says don't buy the first
version of the game that comes out. The system is designed to
rip-off the people who are so anxious to buy the game at its first
release.

There's no doubt by now that Firaxis knows how to make a multi-player
for Civ3 work. Its in their other games. But now, surprise,
surprise, its not in the first Civ3. More surprises, you'll have to
buy some sort of Expansion pak, X-version later on to get the full
version of the game.

Personally, I'll just wait till the X-version comes out later.

But I really don't appreciate your emails basically acting as a front
for Firaxis and trying to tell me that I should just run out and
pre-order the game right now.

Marc"

I don't know about anyone else but I fell off my chair and howled with laughter on reading that. If Marc thinks that the column is the "official voice of Apolyton" Christ only knows what the poor sap made of my columns.

Admiral PJ · October 18, 2001, 18:10

From what i make of the articles points , its stating that you should believe one man -Sid Meier , can automatically make a great game , inspiring all the workers on the project to make another smash game.
I disagree that a game is just related to a mans personal fame, it now takes a large team , and new original ideas which are rare to come.
Civilisation may well be a victim of its own success.. civ3 has a lot to live upto with the previous incarnations, but maybe it will all come together in a miracle of game history.. but maybe we shouldn't expect a great leap of faith

orange · October 18, 2001, 18:36

then you misunderstood the article. Read it more carefully.

Laz - yes I too laughed my ass off when I heard that from Markos

MarkG · October 18, 2001, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
I don't know about anyone else but I fell off my chair and howled with laughter on reading that. If Marc thinks that the column is the "official voice of Apolyton" Christ only knows what the poor sap made of my columns.

OH MY GOD!!!

Master Marcus · October 18, 2001, 19:57

Just want to say here that the last columns ( 186 to 190 ) AND their replies tend to reflect the general stressed feeling the community seem to have regarding the so long awaited Civ III : the awaiting situation combined with too many months of pure speculation has started to get some of us on our nerves. At last, after the game release, we're going to talk about concrete things like bugs, fix lists, strategies, and so on...these are normal things for every complex PC game.

On the pure speculation and fiction era, I prefer MoO3 forums ( here and sometime elsewhere ). The way Alan and the team are asking their fans is an example to follow, and so far the criticism is essentially constructive, not destructively pessimist. Criticism is essential, pessimism is destructive and always leads to nothing - we don't need that. That's why I've avoided most of the time posting in CivIII hot topics...the pessimists have made an invasion and judged the game before having playing it. Typical. That will be finally settled in a month. Play it before making a final judgement.

Civ III may be better than you expect, and if not, that does not mean the civ tradition is dead. Why not be exceedingly optimistic and encourage the work of progress of upcoming great games like MoO3 ( that's civ in space! ) ? That one is going to revolutionize something, believe me, but this is sci-fi. Unfortunately Apolyton, although my HQ posting, is not the ideal platform to promote such a game - originally this is a traditional civ site.

We must admit that Firaxis may have missed the link with the fans considering the general feeling about Civ III. So far, Quicksilver is making the right thing about MoO3 and the fans, this positive feeling brings better ideas - yet the developers have the same deadlines and limited budgets.

Btw, column 190 is a good one.

LordGrey · October 19, 2001, 11:43

Firaxis' performance as it regards creating a good game

and

Firaxis' performance as it regards making money

I am getting the idea that the company is being extremely open to feedback about the first issue, creating a good game as based on what the fans think, and extremely self-seeking in the second issue, it sounds like they are ignoring what we think because they want to make a bundle of money.

They are a business, but some concession to the fans economically might generate them better publicity and sales, even. I for one know that I am more likely to buy something if it looks like the company is not out to rip me off. If they are withholding multiplayer at first that is what looks like they are trying to do. I plan to wait and see.

My hope is that the game will entrance and stimulate thoughtful discussion among gamers the world over as the first 2 have. I believe that its chances are good.

I thank Orange and Rosacrux for their columns stimulating this discussion, and everyone participating in the discussion itself.

Happy conquest to all!

jones · October 20, 2001, 22:21

I'll be the first to admit I don't read this board as closely and as thoroughly as I might. Perhaps as a result of my negligence, I have not seen much -- in fact hardly any -- of the much-ballyhooed pessimism.

What I have seen is postings in which people are highly upset that the game is shipping without certain features that were never concretely confirmed or denied, but were in my view "evaded'' in such a way that many came to feel the game would in fact ship with said features. It's been pointed out that they do know how to do multiplayer; where do the large majority of MP civ-style game players on the net hang out?

In this light, it's easy for me to claim that the "pro-faith"-ers are the ones wedded to their notions. If what I have seen is vile, evil pessimism at or near its destructive worst, then I suggest that they are breathing a highly rarefied air that those of us who read other game forums on the net are unfamiliar with.

In short,

Quote:

Crazy. You "blind faith"-ers make me sick, too.

PS: Go back to CTP :P

Walking Target · October 22, 2001, 16:07

Obviously I am new to these boards and as such I do not suffer from the same frustrations that many others do. However, I would like to voice my opinions on this topic.

First of all, it seems that this topic has become a battle of egos and people are becoming upset with one another over a relatively trivial matter. People, please take a step back and realize that in 8 days the game will be released and these boards will become a very different kind of forum. Anticipation will no longer be the name of the game, it will be analysis and debate over the decisions our gods at Firaxis have made.

Secondly, whether or not the gods at Firaxis are paying any attention at all to these sites is in question as well because they are reading the rantings of people who haven't run up against the final product. Clearly there are some topics which Firaxis will take into consideration, such as the response to the loss of the Vikings as a civilization.

On the topic of MP in Civ 3. Well it is quite obvious that this is a small minority represented here. We are the people who are internet savvy and are likely to play games online. However, for the majority of the population that is not the case. Most people are not playing online and are merely interested in the game for personal enjoyment battliing the AI. Thus, if Firaxis wants to incorporate that in the game they can either produce a MP version or an expansion pack for the internet addicts. Regardless, I would be will ing to guarantee that Firaxis realizes that there is an audience out there for MP games, however they also realize that making a game that is fast paced enough for MP games is altogether another challenge which they may not want to tackle. So, we the wanting consumers must sit back and hope. We can post all that we want and mail Firaxis a note a day in hopes that they do produce one. However, this is not an issue which effects those that do not plan on playing online and thus they should not complain about this in the least. If they do, then they are just looking to be a pain and should be ignored.

Overall, I think that people need to take a step back and look at this topic objectively and they will realize that many of these issues they are debating are not really that big of a deal. They will also realize that not everyone is going to agree and when it comes down to it they may just have to agree to disagree. Thus, my long winded rant is over and I am sure that I can expect to see my words in blue quotes as people martyr me upon these boards as well.

In the words of G.W. "Thank you and God bless."

PS Do y'all know what bin Laden is going to be for Halloween?

DEAD