Whiners vs. Fanboys: This Sunday at the Thunderdome!

[Daveraver]

Ok, so I'm a whiner. But a whiner still stuck playing this wonderful but horrendously flawed game.

My point for discussion is this: All the fanboys seem to say is that we are whining about wanting the ability to win everytime. I think this is the central topic to the debate surrounding this game.

I, personally, don't want to win everytime, not with EASE at least. What we're talking about is the sacrifice of fun for challenge. And illogical tedious challenge at that.

I've came of age as computer games came of age, and well, shoot me if this is wrong... but I thought games were supposed to be fun.

That's my dos posetas for the day. Sit, discuss, no big whoop.

[Libertarian]

I like what I perceive as the game's core intent. I do not like the tedium of late-game play. It's a fun game to play for a bit, but not for a long time. You're right, though. Games are supposed to be fun.

[Dis]

2 men enter. 1 man leave

[DaShi]

Personally, I don't like games where winning is based more strongly on chance than on skill. That's why I prefer poker to blackjack. You can always bluff, if you get dealt a bad hand.

On a side note, are there any unwinable games in Freecell? Some seem impossible, but I always feel that there is some unorthodox way to beat them. Like going around aces instead of for them.

[Libertarian]

I've never lost a game of Freecell. Do you have a game number in mind?

[DaShi]

No, I usually get up to about 15 in a row then get stumped. After any loss, I clear my statistics (can't accept less than perfect ). Perhaps I just get too reckless sometimes.

[Code Monkey]

I just haven't seen anything from the whiners that I find a convincing argument.

The key points from whiners seem to be:

The randomness of strategic resources.
If they weren't random, they wouldn't be very strategic, would they?

The ability of "lesser" units to beat later age units.
The costs of units takes into account the simplified combat system already: a tank only costs 10X what an ancient warrior costs, has the same maintenance cost, and has 16X the attack strength and 8X the defense. It's already balanced, unit costs and maintenance costs would have to all be retooled to achieve realistic results and that would kill the fun because no one would have modern armies bigger than a few units.

The inability to rush wonders.
Gods forbid the game rules put you and the AI on even ground for something...

Crippling corruption beyond a certain empire size.
It might benefit from some tweaking, but it's a good game mechanic that makes you think strategically about expansion. Besides there's already an ingame way to handle large empires, it's called communism. What people want is the ability to gain all the benefits of a democratic government in a globe spanning empire, and that hardly reflects anything other than their meglomania .

So, yes, it does largely boil down to a "I want to win when I say I'll win" issue no matter how you try to sugar coat it with statements about how you just don't like mechanics that force challenge at the expense of fun. Challenge is fun if implemented properly and I've seen nothing to suggest the above elements weren't thought out.

[Libertarian]

Just goes to show that you see whatever you want to see.

How about the proliferation of bugs, some of which have yet to be acknowledged? For example, recon missions wipe out each others' effects. If you recon such that there is overlap, then the overlapped area surprisingly goes dark. Heck, you'd think that the overlap area would glow like the noonday sun.

How about late-game tedium? For example, if you have a hundred workers (due to the game-design decision that workers would do public works) building railroads in newly conquered territory, you will spend literally hours doing this: click... scroll... bump... click... scroll... scroll... click... bump... lather, rinse, repeat.

How about crippling interface issues? For example, you're in the trading screen. You're offered X for Y. What is the value of X? Where is Y located? Oops! Can't get to the civilopedia from here. Can't locate cities either.

How about Neanderthal design decisions that cause important messages to fly by you faster than any human can read them, while the Domestic Nag makes you wade through countless modal windows telling her the same thing a hundred times over?

If you cared to see what you're staring at, you'd see that these are not issues that help us win, but issues that help us play.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Just goes to show that you see whatever you want to see.

How about the proliferation of bugs, some of which have yet to be acknowledged? For example, recon missions wipe out each others' effects. If you recon such that there is overlap, then the overlapped area surprisingly goes dark. Heck, you'd think that the overlap area would glow like the noonday sun.

How about late-game tedium? For example, if you have a hundred workers (due to the game-design decision that workers would do public works) building railroads in newly conquered territory, you will spend literally hours doing this: click... scroll... bump... click... scroll... scroll... click... bump... lather, rinse, repeat.

How about crippling interface issues? For example, you're in the trading screen. You're offered X for Y. What is the value of X? Where is Y located? Oops! Can't get to the civilopedia from here. Can't locate cities either.

How about Neanderthal design decisions that cause important messages to fly by you faster than any human can read them, while the Domestic Nag makes you wade through countless modal windows telling her the same thing a hundred times over?

If you cared to see what you're staring at, you'd see that these are not issues that help us win, but issues that help us play.

These are not the main thrusts of the majority of whiners, nor are any of them game breaking to the point that people go on thousand post tirades (except maybe 3-4 people on these boards)

There are small bugs here and there. I've said repeatedly that the interface issues are many. None of that changes the fact that it's a damn good game and has sucked up all my free time since it came out.

[Libertarian]

Then you should elocute more precisely.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Then you should elocute more precisely.

Because "The key points from whiners seem to be:" isn't precise enough...

[Libertarian]

That's right. It isn't. By implication, you've lumped together in one convenient bag those who want the game to cheat for their sake with those who want the game improved.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
That's right. It isn't. By implication, you've lumped together in one convenient bag those who want the game to cheat for their sake with those who want the game improved.

And how did I accomplish this?

I outlined four specific points that I say are 100% undiluted whining.

If you spend your time and efforts complaining about things that in my opinion are well designed game mechanics then I do lump you in the whiner category. Altering them will not improve the game, merely a vocal group's percentage of winning on their terms.

If you spend your time constructively pointing genuine bugs or places the interface can be improved, that merely makes you a critic (potentially even a useful critic). I didn't blur the lines, you did.

[rid102]

If you spend your time and efforts complaining about things that in my opinion are well designed game mechanics then I do lump you in the whiner category.

Then don't be surprised if other's stick a Firaxis Fanboi(tm) badge on you and classify everything you post as newbie nonsense, for spending your time and efforts asserting your opinion of "well designed game mechanics" is superior.

[Libertarian]

You drew a dichotomy as fallacious as any other bifurcation. No, you didn't blur the lines, and that's the problem. You drew a bold, solid, heavy line. And only one.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by rid102


Then don't be surprised if other's stick a Firaxis Fanboi(tm) badge on you and classify everything you post as newbie nonsense, for spending your time and efforts asserting your opinion of "well designed game mechanics" is superior.

Like I'll be losing sleep over it

It's a game, nothing more.

I have fun with the game, I enjoy discussing games, I enjoy intelligent debate, ergo, I'm here posting.

The "Civ3 is a good game"/"Civ3 is not a good game" camps are so philosophically divided that it would take divine intervention for anyone on either side of the fence to convince the other of anything.

FWIW, I hardly said my view was superior, only that I have a view that did not lump constructive criticism with whining by my definition. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the four points I outlined as representative of most whining. Since my view apparently coincides with the game designer's views, I guess that makes me a fanboy in the eyes of people who disagree with me.

Oh, how shall I ever face the world tomorrow?

[Be Quicker]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I've never lost a game of Freecell. Do you have a game number in mind?

617 is pretty difficult

[Libertarian]

I'll check it out.

[Libertarian]

Freecell 617

Start with this:

8-2
8-F1
8-2
8-7
8-F2
F2-8
2-3
2-F2
2-1
2-8
7-8
4-F3
4-6
4-8
4-F4
4-1
4-7
4F-H
3F-4
7-4
7-F3
7-F4
7-4
1-7
1-F1
1-2
1-6
6-H
2-6
F4-6
2-F4
2-1
F1-1
2-F1
7-1
F3-H
F4-2
3-7
3-F3
3-F4
3-4
5-4
5-3
5-8
5-2
5-3

It's pretty easy from there.

F = free cell. H = home. 1-8 = column.

[Deornwulf]

What would you make of this argument?

Civ3 is a backward step given the features of SMAC, Civ2 and CTP2 for the following reasons.

1. Lack of creativity in government choices. Civ3 attempts to boil down one of man's more complex creations into 5 choices without any consideration of the evolution of any of those five into more advance forms. (I want social engineering!!!!)

2. No Stacked Movement (Need I say more)

3. Poor quality graphics
a) The wonders (A kids toy in a sandbox?!)
b) The Palace - overlay instead of dissolve (Cheap!!!!)
c) The end graphics (caveman hit bell good!)
d) NO WONDER MOVIES
e) Railroads are ugly!

4. Picture selections for leaders - how much more would it have cost to allow me to choice to be Napoleon or Joan of Arc?

5. Late game tedium - There is no real challenge after a certain point.

6. Unrealistic results of cultural revolution. Civ2 kept more builidings ("Cultural" takeover was present in Civ2, just damn rare)

7. Counter-intuitive keystroke commands (why not just "r")

Feel free to rebut these while I think up some more "whines with substance"

Deornwulf - The English Teacher

[Code Monkey]

[QUOTE]What would you make of this argument?

Civ3 is a backward step given the features of SMAC, Civ2 and CTP2 for the following reasons.

1. Lack of creativity in government choices. Civ3 attempts to boil down one of man's more complex creations into 5 choices without any consideration of the evolution of any of those five into more advance forms. (I want social engineering!!!!)

I really liked social engineering in SMAC. I'd do a little dance of joy if Civ3 had as complex a government system as SMAC. OTOH, the game works without it and, more importantly, I don't find it suffers because of the lack of SE. You now have four (anarchy doesn't really count) extremely different governments and you have to weigh their very broad strokes' (like a hyperactive kid with fat crayon ) effect on your game

2. No Stacked Movement (Need I say more)

There's nothing here to rebut at all. I think they were spending too much time reusing code and not thinking about what would have been the absolute key interface improvement for series.

3. Poor quality graphics
a) The wonders (A kids toy in a sandbox?!)
b) The Palace - overlay instead of dissolve (Cheap!!!!)
c) The end graphics (caveman hit bell good!)
d) NO WONDER MOVIES
e) Railroads are ugly!

Personally, I like the graphics, I think the colour scheme could use some tweaking for contrast (if you get a massive patch of irrigated plains and railroads, goodluck spotting yellow units). On the whole, graphics aren't that big of a deal for something like this - it needs to not hurt the eyes, not delight the eyes. 2D art is one of the costliest things you can do in a game and while I wouldn't complain if the graphics were better, it's not an issue (I never had a problem with SMAC's graphics which turned a lot of people off).

As for the wonder movies, it does give it a rushed feel but I hold to my expansion pack conspiracy theory.

4. Picture selections for leaders - how much more would it have cost to allow me to choice to be Napoleon or Joan of Arc?

It's not that it would have cost much more, but a question of just how big of a deal is it to people in general? You've got to be pretty anal retentive to care if you're playing a male or female at a game that's this pure on the strategy and extremely light on the role playing. If there's anything about this that bothers me it's the heavy handed political correctness of the high percentage of female leaders when history has been composed of anything but.

5. Late game tedium - There is no real challenge after a certain point.

I think people largely create this themselves. I've played a lot of civ3 since it came out and I don't really have this problem because a) I don't play on maps larger than standard, and b) I don't lock myself into conquest patterns. Conquering the world is a lot of work (I'm going for my first dom/conqest victory in my current game). OTOH, I've won and lost plenty of U.N. and Space Race games by playing it lowkey and it's a challenge to the end - victories and losses decided by mere turns.

Regardless, it's so much better than Civ2 or SMAC ever was I have a hard time seeing the problem when it's largely endemic to the TBS game model. There's very little in the game that can swing momentum for any civ once it reaches a certain strength parity difference with competing civs. If you want nail biting action to the very end then you need to change the TBS paradigm and Civ3 didn't even set out to do more than redo what's been done before in a prettier package with a few new innovations. You're bashing Civ3 for something it's not, and more importantly, something it never tried to be.

6. Unrealistic results of cultural revolution. Civ2 kept more builidings ("Cultural" takeover was present in Civ2, just damn rare)

I don't have a problem with the basic mechanic. I'd like to see them disclose the actual mechanics, and perhaps tweak the way military units in the defecting city are handled (e.g. 50% casualty rate instead of 100%) but it's not a game breaker. It adds excitement to conquest - you always wonder if you can move your assault ahead fast enough to stop the earlier captured cities from rebelling. The peace time cultural takeover always benefits me and punishes the AI for being an idiot, I certainly have no problem there.

7. Counter-intuitive keystroke commands (why not just "r")

Amen brother! Why in the sam hell aren't these just entries in a text file that gets parsed at startup such that we can change them ourselves? Did they think someone would get confused that 'R' builds both roads and railroads or were they too lazy to add a simple if/else switch to the function called by 'R'?

Feel free to rebut these while I think up some more "whines with substance"

I agree completely with you on points 2 & 7, think 1, 3, & 4 fall squarely under personal opinion, and 5 & 6 are largely unwillingness to adapt to a new game system.