JADED CIVERS THREAD; super kewl/radical newbies keep out. - Page 2

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 17:19

Yes, as civ2 was civ 1.1, I want civ 2.1.

Problem is, you're happy with CTP3

HalfLotus · October 31, 2001, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Yes, as civ2 was civ 1.1, I want civ 2.1.

Problem is, you're happy with CTP3

I like Civ3.
You don't.
End of story.

MDA · October 31, 2001, 17:38

You're probably right, since I'm not a Civ2 legend, I'm too stupid to see past your total lack of logical argument for your postition to realize you're opinion is the only correct one.

What's missing from this that was in Civ2?

List what's missing, explain why you feel the way you do about the game! 'Kay?

The Rook · October 31, 2001, 18:02

Started reading this thread and I kinda felt bad for Zylka the way you guys were treating him. I mean he does have a right to his own opinion, and then I read this...

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Like I said, I don't expect any of you morons to understand. The only ones who will agree with me and know what I'm talking about are the legends who know number 2 inside out.

Apparently, we're not at the same level of enlightenment as Zylka here is. Maybe he should have his own Message Board?

HisMajestyBOB · October 31, 2001, 18:28

It seems like hes saying "Everyone's stupid/crazy/wrong except me!"

Eddin · October 31, 2001, 18:34

Quote:

You're probably right, since I'm not a Civ2 legend, I'm too stupid to see past your total lack of logical argument for your postition to realize you're opinion is the only correct one.

That hits the point exactly

Anyway, I think it's rather silly the way you are shooting down Civ3, but, that is your opinion.

What I think is VERY wrong is saying that you and your buddies are better than us when it comes in judging the general fun factor of the game. That actually sickens me. If you really try to spend time here explaining how much better the civ veterans are, becasue they are the only ones that see the goods and the bads.

Example: My sister listens to britney spears, which I think sucks. I say it often to her, that it is not to my taste. Do I try to found my taste by saying that my own tase is better than hers? No, that would be silly and stupid. Too bad the world is filled with such stupidities.

ProfessorPhobos · October 31, 2001, 18:35

>>>They negated the successfull themes of the first two. >>>>>

He's right, y'know. Civilization 3 is about mutant gophers. Everything about that whole "build a civilization- expand, conquer, trade...." all that was false advertising. It's about randy, mutant gophers.

<<<>>

What most people don't realize is that the Civ community has long since past it's computer game roots- it's now a mystery cult, located in southwestern Oregon. Only a handful learned the true mystic secrets behind the old Civ2 combat system. Ergo, Civ3 is more like a bastardized edition of Holye's Book of Games than anything actually containing true Hexes. It's a bit like the paperback edition of the Necronomincon.

(Of course, I was expecting someone to say "who know number 2 inside out" indicated how well you seem to produce bullshit, but hey, I don't want a Flame War.)

<<>>>>

Right. Because success is bad. Age of Empires was for idiots- it never actually produced an enjoyable gaming experience. It's just that the CD case was laced with a powerful dosage of LSD. The masses know nothing- only the handful of secret Civ2 multiplayer experts know how the best game in the world should be. (Which would likely only appeal to a handful of Civ2 multiplayer fanatics...oddly enough....) The masses don't know what is fun. Only you know what is fun.*

Your posts boil down to a lot of vague griping about "stuff" that you can't really seem to explain- because, of course, no one here would approach your level of Civenlightenment. Oh, the angst, the angst, the angst.

*This is, to some extent, true. You know what's fun for YOU. I only take issue when you say that your opinion is somehow "better" than mine, and that everyone else is "morons" for not understanding why Civ3 is so bad.

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 18:47

No, that side of my argument I rather call trolling. Congrats for taking the bait.

All aside, I don't like the game. You do like the game. I voice my complaints, which however "vague" are still a lot more specific than "I LIKE IT CUS IT'S KOOL AND THEY OBVUROSLY POORED THAR HARTS INTO IT I LIKE DEM 3-D GRAPHICS AND SUCH."

Please. Your arguments for why it's good (it's good cuz I like it) are no better. I have compared, contrasted and criticized, you sit, stare, and disagree.

Game over. I win. This game sucks.

albiedamned · October 31, 2001, 18:48

Zylka's diatribe which started this thread was so full of unsubstantiated claims that it reminded me of statements from the Taliban. Quite a few of his claims have already been thrown out (no zoom, can't minimize).

Here's another one we can throw out. Although I was never officially inducted into the Civ2 veteran club by Zylka, I consider myself a Civ2 veteran (as well as Civ1, Colonization, and SMAC). I started playing Civ my freshman year of college, in 1991. At any given time over the past 10 years I've almost always had either a game of Civ, Col, Civ2, or SMAC going. And I win regularly on the hardest difficult levels.

And I love Civ3. So Zylka's assertion that the true veterans will recognize the problems with the game is false.

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 18:49

...and to prove I am specifying complaints, I'll have a point form list for you after I get back from the dentist. Perhaps you'd like to do the same for the pros?

Thought so.

albiedamned · October 31, 2001, 18:49

By the way, if you want specific reasons as to why I like it, check out the I Love Civ3 thread I started.

ProfessorPhobos · October 31, 2001, 18:57

I don't care why you don't like it. You don't care why I like it.

The only thing that got caught in my craw was your implication that anyone who didn't share your opinion was a moron, which, I'm afraid, negates anything worthwhile you could possibly say. It's a derivative of Godwin's Law.

(On a related note: I tried quoting what he said, but it only gives me the <<<>>> in my post. What happened to what he said?)

Alexander's Horse · October 31, 2001, 19:14

All this thread shows is it will take about 2 weeks before people understand the game and its features well enough to assess it.

But the lack of multiplayer is still a big black mark on the game.

Khab · October 31, 2001, 19:53

Erm, I don't know about you guys, but I usually figure that if a game is fun, it's pretty good. If it's a lot of fun, it's a lot of good.

On the other hand, if it's not fun, I reckon it's none too good, either.

But maybe that's just me, eh?

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos

The only thing that got caught in my craw was your implication that anyone who didn't share your opinion was a moron, which, I'm afraid, negates anything worthwhile you could possibly say. It's a derivative of Godwin's Law.
(

Ok, ok. The moron thing was way out of line, it's just I'm cranky and haven't had my paxil for today

I just truly beleive that this game falls short of justified expectations, and that it will not live on as long as civ2 already has.

At a time, civ2 (or civ 1.1) was widely regarded as the greatest computer game of all time. This will in no way be treated the same, and I know why...

*Sniffles*

Alexander's Horse · October 31, 2001, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Khab
Erm, I don't know about you guys, but I usually figure that if a game is fun, it's pretty good. If it's a lot of fun, it's a lot of good.

On the other hand, if it's not fun, I reckon it's none too good, either.

But maybe that's just me, eh?

Typical settler thinking

Döbeln_2001 · October 31, 2001, 21:05

>>At a time, civ2 (or civ 1.1) was widely regarded as the greatest computer game of all time. This will in no way be treated the same, and I know why...<<

Let's be honest here - Civ 2 wasn't *that* good. Great, for certain, but it had far more serious problems than Civ 3 seems to have. (From the hours I've played so far...) Civ 3 is definately a step forward for the Civ series...

Regards / Döbeln 2001

Dis · October 31, 2001, 21:08

this thread sucks

and feel free to call me a newbie. my registration date is not correct (I've had dl's older than this one). I have been around here quite a while

Jason · October 31, 2001, 21:11

I've been playing Civ2 since I was on a Tandy 1000SL. I feel pretty qualified to say that it's too early to judge the game. My first impressions are fine.

Pretentious idiots will always try to appropriate the "coolness" of a game as something unique to their understanding. They know Civ better than Sid Meier, of course.

Doesn't anyone remember how much everyone HATED the Civ2 isometric view and demanded the option to go back to the Civ1 style? I view this the same way. The new visuals and animation are fine. If MP and an editor don't get added soon on their own initative, we'll have to start rioting, and if they try to pull a multiplayer-gold approach we'll just storm the bastille and wipe them out. Apart from that the game seems fine.

My feeling is that Zylka et all are just burned out on Civ and looking for an excuse. Anyone who's played online games like EQ knows that there's a certain demographic of pushy fans who start to think the game has to cater to them personally or it is some kind of monstrous betrayal.

Anyway, /contempt away ya poser

Capt Dizle · October 31, 2001, 21:37

I am quite certain that plenty of people will play for a multiplayer edition of Civ3. If they had given it out for free they would be brain dead.

Morons.

Can't you fruitcakes understand that?

The whole game is a makeover anyway. Give me a break.

Idiots.

If you like it play it and stop posting and leave the trolls to feed on the empty bandwidth.

Shut up!

yin26 · October 31, 2001, 21:41

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason

My feeling is that Zylka et all are just burned out on Civ and looking for an excuse. Anyone who's played online games like EQ knows that there's a certain demographic of pushy fans who start to think the game has to cater to them personally or it is some kind of monstrous betrayal.

Anyway, /contempt away ya poser

You're from the maritimes, and therefore have no relevance in this conversation (I am surprised that you're on a computer though, government cheques?). Go drink some draft, or pick a fight, or stand in the social services line for a while.

You suck.
Eastern Canada sucks.
CTP 3 sucks.

The whole damn world sucks

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 22:12

P.S.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

TCO · October 31, 2001, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Perhaps we're playing a different game, because mine most definately does not have the above options you've mentioned. And let's not kid ourselves, aside from the horrible display configuration, this game lacks in solid abstracts and realistic mechanics. It does not have the magic one and two did, only the greats of multiplayer (Kaak, Strategicking, Sean, Woke, Markus etc. etc.) who know this game inside out will ever understand that.

BOOOO-URNS on Sid!!!

You just mentioned all the biggest losers in the MP scene...

Ming · November 1, 2001, 00:07

Well Zylka... In some ways, you are right. It doesn't feel like the civ we are used to playing. But then again, I'm not comfortable with the game yet. This will take time. I keep finding myself hitting a key, and nothing happens... or worse, something different happens

Also, the game seems to develop slower... and there are many dull periods early in the game.

But, you also have to remember that we played CivII a million times over the years. Most things were automatic, we didn't really have to think, we just knew. It allowed us to concetrate on the game, and not "how the heck do I do this" or "what the heck is that". We had strategies that worked... granted there were many to choose from, but we knew the implications of each, and how to execute them. Time wasn't wasted on "what do I do next"

I really don't like the game yet... but I expected that it would take me time to get to the stage we had attained at CivII. I'm still optimistic that I will get there, and that I will enjoy the game.

I'm not as optimistic about MP yet. The more I play, the more I realize that this may be the best Civ SP game ever. But, most of the things that will probably make it the best SP game aren't good for MP.

Only time and experience will tell the tale...

But, there are enough new features to bring back the awe of discovery... something we haven't had with Civ II in a long time... with the exception of a few new tricks we kept figuring out.

Zylka... give it a chance.

Keep on Civin'

Zylka · November 1, 2001, 00:19

I'm trying... and I'm still playing. It's got some neat aspects... but I dearly doubt it has that timeless quality we so looked forward to.

See you in mp nonetheless, at least for a while

Ming · November 1, 2001, 00:24

Well... that's where I will disagree. I think it can have that timeless quality.

We have a friend that comes over on Fridays... and he watches Rah play mp. He's learned a lot, but he still has no clue. Civ II to somebody that hasn't seen Civ before is a complex game that takes time to figure out. Civ III is just the same. It still has many of the things that make Civ a special kind of game. I find myself wanting to play just one more turn...

Keep on Civin'

Alexander's Horse · November 1, 2001, 00:33

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am quite certain that plenty of people will play for a multiplayer edition of Civ3. If they had given it out for free they would be brain dead.

Morons.

Can't you fruitcakes understand that?

The whole game is a makeover anyway. Give me a break.

Idiots.

If you like it play it and stop posting and leave the trolls to feed on the empty bandwidth.

Shut up!

Are you an intellectual or something?

Jason · November 1, 2001, 00:54

Quote:

You're from the maritimes, and therefore have no relevance in this conversation (I am surprised that you're on a computer though, government cheques?). Go drink some draft, or pick a fight, or stand in the social services line for a while.

LOL, I honestly assumed you were at least of high school age or something. Here's the Reform Party's demographic right in a nutshell. Very nuanced view of the world. Actually, my P3 with DSL is bought and paid for by me, working at my **** job, because academic scholarships helped me pay for my honours degree in history.

I'm assuming the ad hominem attack was your admission that you didn't have any (intelligent) response to what I was saying? Or shall we have a lovely "my town is better than your town" debate followed by nap time and milk and cookies?

Zanzin · November 1, 2001, 01:07

I think Zykla better go back to playing Civ2.