Thread Tools
Old January 22, 2002, 17:40   #31
Libertarian
King
 
Local Time: 14:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,267
Thanks, Shaggy, for correcting the record. Accuracy is important, even at such granularity.

-----

FrantzX:

Do you honestly expect people to evaluate the merits of a turn based strategy game as complex as Civ3 within 7 days? Perhaps it is time to coin a new term, the Reviewer Fallacy.

(corrected orthography)
__________________
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum." — William of Ockham

Last edited by Libertarian; January 22, 2002 at 17:46.
Libertarian is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 17:41   #32
copcartman
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
I agree completely with OneInTen. The biggest problem with this game-genre is the boredom that comes in the mid-game when you've passed the first critical stage when the AI is so much stronger (due to cheating ) and gained enough science and strength to completely control the rest of the game.

Apart from Civ I (I've played Civ 1/2, Colonization, CTP 1/2) I'have never completed a civ-game, even though I've played hundreds of games. It just get so boring when you know that you'll win even if you declare war with the rest of the world(!)


As to the inclusion of random events I have been longing for those since civ 1. In fact , I think it would be wrong not to include them. Think of when Vesuvius obliterated Pompei, back then one of the most important trade centers in the Roman empire. Or when the Black plague wiped out three quarters of Europe's and Asia's population.

I'm not saying that such extreme events such as the latter should occur, but something on the scale of losing a major city should be reasonable.

Another thing that should balance things would be to reduce the neverending spawning of armies. I think a system like that in Colonization, where people are the most important resource when building an army (not iron or salpeter), thus keeping an army mobilized reduces your available workforce. Furthermore, you must think twice before sending your very valuable, trained army to battle. No matter how fast your factories produces spears/rifles you still need a trained group of people to use them.
copcartman is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 18:13   #33
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Thoughts on game design and stuffs....

This is a discussion that we're just beginning over in the Candle'Bre forums on my site.

True, we're not gonna have the ability to add this stuff into an immediate release, but we're turning at least some portion of our creative energies onto the topic of "when we're ready for a commercial release" The interesting part about that is that one of the key elements that both me and one of the programmers on the team brought to the fore is echoed here....that population is your most precious resource, and should be treated as such.

If you guys want a chance to help influence the shape of a game that's still in its formative process, feel free to join us! By all means, remain here to continue to debate and such (I know I mean to!), but understand that all the debating in the world here, about THIS game, is prolly not gonna do much....::sigh::
-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 18:15   #34
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
(more thoughts later....suddenly we got slammed at work! GRRRR)
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 18:35   #35
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Whew...Okay....back from THAT insanity!

Anyway...the other part of what I was saying/thinking:

One of the recently made sugesstions by one of the programmers working with us was to give each population group (we're modelling our game on the province-level, rather than the city level, and depending on population and organization, towns will spring up spontaneously, and eventually (with coaxing and attention) grow into cities. Anyway....the populations of these provinces can pretty easily be broken down into archetypes (pious believers, merchant class, ultra conservative, military supporters, rogue element, contented citizenry, etc. etc.) and each province can be defined by assigning baseline numbers for each of these archetypes). Of course, each archetype has different things that make them happier. The pious will LOVE it if you build the temple sooner, rather than later, but will be angry if the temple is put off till the Market is done.

Likewise, the Merchants will be QUITE annoyed if you deny them access to the latest commerce-stuff that technology provides, or if your tax rate is too high...ect. and so forth. Some citizens will prefer an open society (democratic), others will prefer a more heavy-handed rule (esp. mid-level, politically savvy types, who would, no doubt, make a KILLING in the kickbacks of such regiemes).

Setting up a system of Archetypes like this easily opens the door for a vastly different culture model.

Say your nation bumps up against the borders of some other. The borders themselves are set (province level map), but if their system of government is more to the liking of the pious among your population, THEY WILL BEGIN TO DEFECT! (unless you have a harsh, restrictive government, which will stem the flow--but not cut it off entire--of defectors.

Of course, that's not the ONLY reason citizens will defect back and forth, and as new generations are born, some portion of THEM will be pious, so you never really get rid of the problem.

And, IF you have a very restrictive government type (preventing outright defection), there's a chance (not a huge one, but a chance) that said province would rebel, and seek the aid of the nation near you whom they feel they have a stronger tie with.

Stuff like that.

Combine that with events that are not *punishing* to the largest player, but rewarding to the small to help keep them in the game longer (and sure, toss in some bad stuff at random like Mt. Vesuvius....cos it's cool! True, there's nothing you can do to defend yourself agaisnt stuff like that...but then, there was nothing the Romans of our Earth's HISTORY could do to defend themselves either....so it's an honest, accurate reflection of life in that respect. Did it bring the Empire to its knees? Nope....but they felt it.....they felt it.

So that's what we're trying to do. Start with an addictive as hell wargame and end up with a deep, complex....very human and very honest strategy game....

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 19:41   #36
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
Just as long as have the simple, yet elegant province-based resource/economics model that Imperialism II has, as oppose to the crappy, non-sensical province-based model of EU. You know what I'm talking about...where x1+y1=z1 and when tech=2, x2+y2=z2 or x1+y2=2z1.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 19:46   #37
Comrade Tribune
Prince
 
Comrade Tribune's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 988
Both games have great models!

(I donīt understand your negative obsession with EU; itīs simply the best historical game around. )
__________________
Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts

Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.
Comrade Tribune is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 22:42   #38
simwiz2
Warlord
 
simwiz2's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 116
Velociryx, your civ-project sounds like a great idea. Is there a site with details and stuff?
__________________
The Civ3 world is one where stealth bombers are unable to sink galleons, Man-O-Wars are a powerful counter to battleships, and knights always come equipped with the AT-S2 Anti-Tank Sword.

The Simwiz2 Combat Mod Version 2.0 is available for download! See the changes here. You can download it from the CivFanatics Thread or the Apolyton Thread.
simwiz2 is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 00:35   #39
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Hey guys!

Just wanted to clarify (for Simwiz and others who may be interested) that *for the time being* we're developing a war game, not a Civ game....a computer version of the board game rules for Candle'Bre I mapped out here on another thread. BUT, the way we're implementing that plan is that it will be designed in such a way that we can keep adding elements (in fact, we've got a HUGE list of elements to add to the basic game so far, and that list continues to grow) until the game is more about managing and furthering an empire than it is about war (tho of course, as with all 4x games, that IS part of the equation).

This is by no means the finalized list, cos we're still hammering stuff together, but my vision of it goes something like this:

The basic version (v0.1) will be MP/hotseat only. No AI. Don't know if that one will reach the public domain or no, but it'll be something that those involved with the project can play, test, tweak, and hammer into better shape. This most basic version will be fully playable, but will abstract almost everything. Combat will prolly be handled as simply hit and kill or miss (boardgame style, as that's what it is designed from). Even this version though, will have an event engine, a tiered combat structure that fosters the use of combined arms, and unit types with interlocking abilities and disabilities that very nearly makes combined arms a *requirement* if you want to excel, and a trio of "research telephone poles" in the spirit of EU.

Things we're already talking about adding to a potentially commercialized version are: (NOTE! Bear in mind that ALL of this is still on the drawing board....we just don't know how the final design will shake out, but here are some of the things we're talking about!)

AI-Scripting - Players will be able to design their own AI, controlling how it plays

And Editor that will let players design their own maps, factions, techs, units, events, and buildings (at a minimum!)

A unified public works system where ALL provincial builds are coordinated from - Temples, libraries, roads, etc. Everything.

A system of "governmental upkeep" that works (loosely) like this:
Provinces have three essential states of being:
a) Member provinces that are largely ungoverned (ie - you spend time and resources getting them to run how you want them to, and then leave them on auto-pilot) - These cost you no money in terms of governance upkeep, but are the least productive overall.

b) Governed Provinces. You may select from a list of Governor Candidates (each with skill sets, strengths and weaknesses, expressed in %'s) to run the province for you. This costs some upkeep (Governor's salary) and you can rely on the governor to do the things in his speciality pretty well, but of course, he's no micromanager, so it's not as efficient as running it yourself.

c) Directly controlled provinces. You hire an "Agent of the King" to watch the province (higher per turn upkeep than a governor), but you get to micromanage to your heart's content.

As I see it, the three will likely be used as follows:
Category A would probably be Rural regions set aside for extensive farming....you could assign an Agent to the province to get it running how you want, and then re-assign the Agent elsewhere and leave it be. It may "drift" some from what you set it to intitially, but overall, it'll just do it's thing.

Category B would be best for specialist cities/troop centers. You hire a science-minded or banking minded governor to watch one of your more densely populated cities, and he does his thing. Or, you hire a military minded one to crank out the best available units for you until your upkeep reaches X, and then do something else fairly productive.

Category C would be those provinces of high strategic value that you wanna watch closely.

Assigning Agents everywhere would give you MAXIMUM micromanagement, but be really expensive, so a balance must be struck.

Then of course, there's the citizenry model with the archetypes, and possible cultural ramifications.

Three interdependent and interlocking tech "telephone poles" and possibly more (ie - each tree has no branches, but they DO relate...such that, you can only go up to lvl three in military techs....level 4 military tech requires Infrastructure 2 and Espionage 3 as pre-reqs...or something like that).

Troops will cost manpower, which means if you hire too many troops, your public works will be understaffed, and you will lack the manpower to build things in a timely fashion (builds will be calculated in man-hours, not shields or any such abstraction). Worse, if you attempt to draft too many people from your agro provinces, then you run the risk of not having sufficient people to bring in the harvest....famine, starvation...etc.

Add to that the fact that each province may only build a set number of improvements total, and you suddenly have a lot of HARD, compelling strategic thinking to do. (Plus the fact that the presence of some builds disallows others entirely....Theives Guilds not allowed in territories with Temples, for example). And you need ALL of the builds if you want to succeed. They all serve a valuable purpose.

Other stuff includes setting the game up so that its virtually impossible to completely research the tech tree during the course of the game. You've got to pick a strategy and run with it, cos you won't get to play with all the toys in a single game....oh sure, you can alter your strategy and play with a different SET of toys next time, but the goal is to foster strategic choice, so we'll be making blitzing thru the tech tree a pretty tough proposition.

And we're *constantly* shopping for new ideas!

[/shameless plug] LOL

So...to answer simwiz's question, yes! Come check out what we're up to at:

The Renaissance Portal

Click on the "Discussion Forums" link, and look for Candle'Bre at the top!

-=Vel=-
(one week into the project born right here on 'poly, and we're already got some mockups and tangible results! WhoooHoooo!)
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 00:53   #40
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
D'oh! Forgot one thing I've been toying around with a LOT (again, this in NOT for anytime soon, but something I've been thinking about)

There are NO "government types"!!!

Instead, what you get are a series of policy ranges that you can set for each province (and a global setting if you don't wanna micromanage).

These will be things like:
Governance Style:
Anarchistic-----Despotism-----Feudalistic----Republican

Taxation:
Crushing----Brutal----Punishing---Normalized----etc, etc, etc.

Ideology
Collectivism----Market-Oriented

And so forth....maybe 4-6 such sliding scales in all, so you can fine tune each province to do exactly what you want it to. Note that some choices will disallow others (ie - in a highly repubican society, having a Despotic province in your Kingdom would be out of the question...IE - The entire range of choices is never available to you at any given point in the game...it's a sliding scale, and new choices are made available as new techs are discovered, and/or cultural thresholds are reached, and/or the continuation of peaceful relations. Also, there will be a limit to how MUCH you can adjust these sliders...too much too quickly will lead to open rebellion, so care must be taken!

Anyway, so no...no blanket "government type" Instead, your government is the sum of it's parts....that is, the sum of the values assigned in all the provinces you control.

:: shrug:: I dunno...maybe we're chasing a dream, but we're certainly gonna try to make the kind of Civ game (in the end, I mean) that everybody here would LOVE to sink their teeth into!)

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 01:03   #41
DaShi
Emperor
 
DaShi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Taste of Japan
Posts: 9,611
Actually, I chose not to buy CivIII based on the reviews on this forum. When the game first came out, I was tempted to buy it, but Firaxis' own reputation with SMAC's PR made me hesitate. After wading through the first few weeks of "this is the greatest game ever" threads, I started to find more insightful threads that actually addressed the features in the game. Some were opinions, like the sparce resources that some people didn't like. I actually liked this idea. Then there was the culture and corruption, which to mean seemed only to drain fun away from the game. The fact that there was no editor or multiplayer pretty much sealed the deal for me.

As the weeks went on, more and more complaints were made. And Firaxis respond in their true SMAC form. Meanwhile, the 'fanboys' continued to praise the game and attack anyone who disagreed with them or raised valid complaints. Firaxis used this to justify that there was too much hostility for them to have a significant presence here. I won't even go into the fact that they don't have their own forum.

In short, I believe that if someone reads through the threads here at Apolyton concerning CivIII, and ignores opinions, meaningless praise or bashing, and the inevitable spam and trolls, they can decide whether CivIII is the game for them. I won't say that it is easy, but I did this and decided that it is not right for me.

As for Firaxis, they reap what they sow. I'm sure Microsoft will soon make the statement that they violated privacy rights, cut corners on programming, and monopolized the market because they're only a company seeking profit. It's not their fault that they wanted to make money the easiest way possible. We should forgive them, and pity all the crap that they have to take.
__________________
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Civ V Civilization V Civ5 CivV Civilization 5 Civ 5 - Do your part!
DaShi is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 01:45   #42
Encomium
Warlord
 
Encomium's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 178
AI cheating; culture flipping; lack of realism; weird values for resources; no cheat mode; no way to make scenarios; and on and on and on. . .

The complaints and criticisms of this under-playtested bug-filled game go on and on.

Many of us waited years for Civ III, and we are PO'd.

Others care nothing about logic, history, or common sense. They have developed a religious loyalty to any "Civ" product. They are pitiful.
Encomium is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 01:57   #43
OneInTen
Warlord
 
OneInTen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:38
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 144
Quote:
They have developed a religious loyalty to any "Civ" product.
Considering that I've observed a correlation between those who weren't huge fans of civ 2 and those who like civ 3, I don't think loyalty enters into the equation at all.
OneInTen is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 06:26   #44
Worthingtons
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pride Park,Derby
Posts: 393
As somebody says, Who CAN blame Firaxis for wanting to make money???
So long as they are taking into account i may never buy another game by them (which I think they probably are) then they are no different to any other company.

Someone hit on the head when they say that some people have a 'religous loyalty' to any civ game, and that coudnt be more true, and this is exactly whats happened with Civ III has happened.

I admire Vel and his team for what they are doing, More people should Join in and help them, I'd love to, My usefulness will be extremely limited, but I'm willing to learn - this is the best way we'll get the kinda game we want.
Worthingtons is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 10:03   #45
Azrikam
Chieftain
 
Azrikam's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 63
I'd like to agree with what DaShi said. I had Civ III pre-ordered a couple of weeks before it came out in the UK. After finding almost no valuable information on the Civ III site, I tracked down Apolyton, and spent the next week or so going through the feedback.

Some of the new features seemed really great, but information on several of the bugs and improperly implemented features made me sure that this game would frustrate me more than entertain me.

The posters who slagged the game, and gave valid and lucid reasoning behind their disappointment helped me make an informed decision not to purchase Civ III, and I thank them for that.

I still believe that Civ II is the greatest game ever to grace the PC, and I still play it more than any other game I own. Even after the first patch, I still haven't decided to purchase Civ III, but I still read through the posts (positive and negative), in the hopes that Civ III (or maybe even Civ IV) will be worth buying somewhere down the road. (oh, and the posts themselves can be damned entertaining)
Azrikam is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 10:18   #46
OneInTen
Warlord
 
OneInTen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:38
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 144
I see nothing to support the idea that a having a gme created by fans will make a good game, or that having a game made for the money will produce a bad one.

For example, look at freeciv. It's been in development since well before the release of civ 2, and it was made of fans of civ 1 (and subsequently fans of civ 2).

If having a game made by fans gave it even a reasonable chance of being the game other fans wanted, why does everyone here even care about civ 3? Surely everyone would have put their hopes on freeciv, being the fan designed product that has a longer history than civ 3!

I can't think of a single game made by fans that is even considered close to the commercial offerings in that genre. In fact, freeciv is probably the best example out there of a game created by hobbyists, and its popularity, even amoungst hardcore civ fans, is pretty limited.

It does seem logical that fans who really love a game could produce a good game for others who also love the game. However, reality doesn't show this assumption to be even close to true.

Of course, as with anything, there's always got to be someone who sets a first and breaks the trend, and I hope Vel can do it. I'd just warn against everyone getting their hopes up and it becoming another let down in the same way civ 3 has been a letdown for many.
OneInTen is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 11:40   #47
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
1in10, I think you are right. I don't know if the early efforts of id in producing Castle Wolfenstein as shareware can be considered a fan based product. Their business model clearly led to the colossus development house they have been. The only fan-based game I can think of is Half-Life: Counterstrike (if I got the name correct). I read that it was a fan-developed "add-on" that was so good that it became one of the most popular commercial product ever. But then again, FPS tends to create such things in droves, unlike what we see in the strategy and war games genre.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 15:57   #48
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
I feel that I need to chime in again as well, *also* in agreement with 1in10!

I think this is primarily due to the following:
First, consider the sheer size and scope of the indie projects you mentioned. I admire the people involved, but the fact is that, IMO, they're biting off an *awful lot* all at once, and have the following things working against them:

1) VAST scope. Building a 4x game from the gound up, many times incorporating HUNDREDS (or more!) of radically new, and difficult to implement programming ideas! Not to say it's impossible, but even a paid code team would have to grind away at it for long periods.

2) Attrition: Because there is no plan in place (or at least, in none of the projects I've seen thus far) to make the project a commercially viable one, everyone who participates realizes that it falls into the "hobbyist" category. Not a thing in the world wrong with that, but it DOES remove a good deal of incentive to stick with it to the end (especially in light of the vast scope - see above). It's such a long road from start to finish that the coding crew at the end will likely have ZERO members in it that were there from the start. And, as we all know, coders and documentation DON'T generally go too well together, that means a WHOLE LOT of time spent with newly acquired coders simply trying to make sense of someone else's code.

That can make for a frustrating hobby.

3) Playability. As currently designed, the major projects in the works are NOT fully playable versions till the project is done. This...well....sucks, from a player perspective. Even if you have a player who's REALLY excited about the game, if you make him wait 5-6 years before you hand it to him....::shrug:: just don't see the excitement being maintained that long.

*****

Having said that....having learned from that, here's what we're doing differently:

1) Simplistic initial design. We want to get something playable from start to finish out the door and into our hands (prolly not a public release...but to give us something to play around with and see what works!) - only the most basic concepts in place (event engine, income/honor/influence, 3-tiered combat) - no leader special abilities, no unit specials...NOTHING fancy. Bare bones but playable to the end.

2) Modular construction/highly scalable - Design the core program so we can increase complexity by adding our other ideas iteratively, slowly shaping the (100% complete and playable) game into the vision we have for it....specifically, this involves increasing the complexity of the wargame side (leaders, unit specials, tech telephone poles), and adding in basic 4x elements into the design (provincial builds) - and *further* increasing complexity from there.

3) A plan to commercialize the product in the end. This gives everyone on the team a tangible, real, solid reason for sticking it out, which should reduce attrition.

We'll see....and either way, it's been a grand adventure thus far!

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 23:09   #49
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Encomium
Others care nothing about logic, history, or common sense. They have developed a religious loyalty to any "Civ" product. They are pitiful.
What "logic, history or common sense" are you referring to, Encomium? Are you saying I play Civ3 for hours on end out of "religious loyalty?"
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 23:14   #50
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Libertarian
Do you honestly expect people to evaluate the merits of a turn based strategy game as complex as Civ3 within 7 days?
If I can get 7 days out of a game, then it was better than most. Most games I've bought sit on a shelf unused. I play Civ3 all the time.
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 06:12   #51
CharlesUFarley
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally posted by OneInTen
I see nothing to support the idea that a having a gme created by fans will make a good game, or that having a game made for the money will produce a bad one.
That's kind of stupid thing to say, are you saying that the anonymous programmer is completely incapable of designing a civ-like genre and outdoing Firaxis? And how about this one, if Firaxis is already out-done themselves and Civ3 is so good the way it is, then how come the bulk of the fan community has produced a detailed list of problems/bugs/suggestions and lacking features? Would that not suggest that they (ahem) missed a few things?

Quote:
If having a game made by fans gave it even a reasonable chance of being the game other fans wanted, why does everyone here even care about civ 3? Surely everyone would have put their hopes on freeciv, being the fan designed product that has a longer history than civ 3!
You're missing the point (again) - if the fans can visualize and playtest a game product and find ways to improve that product shouldn't the developers of the genre in question be able to utilize that information to improve their game? Criticism should be welcomed, because the ultimate goal in life is to strive for perfection, be all you can be, and create with all your heart. Your suggesting that the game companies are sharks and pirates only out for one thing - profit. This maybe true for the odd company out there, this I will not deny. But the majority of the game companies out there intend on pleasing their fans, to them thats what the business is all about.

Quote:
I can't think of a single game made by fans that is even considered close to the commercial offerings in that genre. In fact, freeciv is probably the best example out there of a game created by hobbyists, and its popularity, even amoungst hardcore civ fans, is pretty limited.
Well before they could prove it, "flight" was believed possible. And if everyone gave up on ideas and crashing down barries we would all change our names to "OneInTenChanceToLiveToday" and live in the woods. Why are you so negative to fresh ideas and constructive criticism, what possible harm would all of this cause if it actually changed things?

Quote:
It does seem logical that fans who really love a game could produce a good game for others who also love the game. However, reality doesn't show this assumption to be even close to true.
That makes little sense to me, but let me attempt to understand you here. Basically what your trying to say, is that fans who love a peticular game title can't produce or replicate a title with the same depth of quality and appeal, right? If I was correct, then that makes NO SENSE at all.

Quote:
Of course, as with anything, there's always got to be someone who sets a first and breaks the trend, and I hope Vel can do it. I'd just warn against everyone getting their hopes up and it becoming another let down in the same way civ 3 has been a letdown for many.
Now your making sense!

Charles.
__________________
- What we do in life, echos in eternity.
CharlesUFarley is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 06:16   #52
CharlesUFarley
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally posted by Azrikam
I'd like to agree with what DaShi said. I had Civ III pre-ordered a couple of weeks before it came out in the UK. After finding almost no valuable information on the Civ III site, I tracked down Apolyton, and spent the next week or so going through the feedback.

Some of the new features seemed really great, but information on several of the bugs and improperly implemented features made me sure that this game would frustrate me more than entertain me.

The posters who slagged the game, and gave valid and lucid reasoning behind their disappointment helped me make an informed decision not to purchase Civ III, and I thank them for that.

I still believe that Civ II is the greatest game ever to grace the PC, and I still play it more than any other game I own. Even after the first patch, I still haven't decided to purchase Civ III, but I still read through the posts (positive and negative), in the hopes that Civ III (or maybe even Civ IV) will be worth buying somewhere down the road. (oh, and the posts themselves can be damned entertaining)
Exactly! I applaud you!

Charles.
__________________
- What we do in life, echos in eternity.
CharlesUFarley is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 06:28   #53
OneInTen
Warlord
 
OneInTen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:38
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 144
I'm not going to break down your post into paragraphs Charles, because as with my last post, that would kind of ruin the flow of what I'm saying.

The crucial point (that you agreed with) was the last paragraph. I'm saying it might be a sucess. I hope it will be.

It's just that I'm warning against anyone getting overly optomistic about it like that somehow because it's being made by fans it's bound to be a hit. It's not - the lack of resources (and by this I mean time mostly ... money is really only there to buy development time) that hobbyist developers are faced with is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. Not that it can't be done mind you (look at how Linux got off the ground), but it does put the project at an initial disadvantage to commercial efforts.

I'm not saying that people who make commercial games don't do it because they want to - I think it's quite the other way around, you're only a games programmer/designer if you want to be, because you generally wouldn't go into it for the money (compare payrates of the average to good games programmer to programmers in other fields and you'll see why).

It's just that many of lifes disappointments come down to unrealistic expectations, and people getting their hopes up about a project that hasn't even been started yet is likely to become another victim of that.

As the saying goes - hope for the best but plan for the worst.
OneInTen is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 07:41   #54
CharlesUFarley
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally posted by OneInTen
It's just that many of lifes disappointments come down to unrealistic expectations, and people getting their hopes up about a project that hasn't even been started yet is likely to become another victim of that.

As the saying goes - hope for the best but plan for the worst.
I agree. But thats also the basis of argument around here, all the previews, demos, reviews, magazines, hidden market advertising internet "coming soon" advertisments etc etc etc was the only information the fans had to go on when attempting to get a presight as to what Civilization III was going to turn out like. And the sad fact is the only way to find out how good a game product is, is to buy the damn thing. I claim that Firaxis knew this and hyped the damn game and manipulated sales and paid game sites for posative postings in order to make a profit off of the "first glance, first buy" marketing ploy. And that pisses me off! Being disapointed with the game is only the bottom, now there is so much more to fire me up, bad PR, horrible responses (when given), ignorance, and selfish profit ploys like - "you bought the cruddy segment of the game, now if you want the good stuff, pay us more money!" And I'm sorry, they aren't idiots they're proffesionals they know exactly what they're doing, which makes this even worse! So all I am saying to you is, you shouldn't be disagreing with us, because it's within our human nature to react the way we have as a consumer. And it's definately not uncommon for consumers to "take it to them" and win back respect through a better product or tribute in some way, especially when a consumer isn't happy with a product. But basically this all boils down to one thing, Firaxis goofed up (whether they meant to or not) and they have the price of the consumer to pay now. And you appear to want to get in the way of that by acting defensively about the product and the company with detracting and cut downs - IMO.

PS. At the least everybodys complaining merely to "vent" anger. I say let them!

Charles. (or Chuck)
__________________
- What we do in life, echos in eternity.
CharlesUFarley is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 08:22   #55
Azrikam
Chieftain
 
Azrikam's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 63
Quote:
PS. At the least everybodys complaining merely to "vent" anger. I say let them!
Exactly. Better to rant on a forum about a disappointing game, then to do something stupid, like email-bomb Firaxis.
Azrikam is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 08:58   #56
OneInTen
Warlord
 
OneInTen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:38
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 144
Well, the gaming industry is much like the movie industry - you pay for an unknown quantity and hope it'll be worth it, and if you feel it isn't, you don't really have a lot of recourse because that game developer (or in the case of movies the producer, director, actor, whoever), probably wont make another product for a year or two that you have the option of not buying. So you will feel a bit frustrated in not being able to take the smallest of steps in getting even.

Frankly, I think the concept of game reviewers being paid off by the companies is silly though. Sure, maybe some are (probably more indirectly via ad revenue than directly), but I highly doubt every single game reviewer out there is being paid by Firaxis or anyone else for that matter.

I think a more realistic explaination is that the game is something that is accesable to a casual first time player (ie it makes it easy for the reviewer to give it good marks), and that it's not an easy game to review when most reviwers are used to judging whether FPS "a" has prettier graphics than FPS "b".

When you give a product designed to appeal to a certain type of player to those players, especially when those players aren't necessarily well equiped to review it, of course you're going to get good reviews. I'm not saying their reviews are invalid, mind you, merely that when reading reviews you need to know who the reviewer is and whether your tastes are the same as there's and whether you can trust them.

Just like with movie reviews!

As far as getting in the way of it, there's nothing to get in the way of as I see it. Complaining in an isolated corner of the net about the game is unlikely to achieve anything. This isn't how to bring about change. As I see it, there are two ways that could actually work in getting what you want from Firaxis - one constructive, one destructive:

a) Compile a reasonable, well written, well argued document about the changes you and others like you agree should be made to civ 3 and, this is the most important part, are feasible to make. In as much detail as possible (Something like "We want group movement" isn't enough. Detail how you think group movement might work). Companies have certainly been known to actually listen when presented with orderly suggestion lists - but I've very rarely seen it happen when it's a jumbled mess of yelling and screaming on a forum. The gotcha with this approach is that it's most likely that these thing will come out in an expansion pack rather than a free patch.

b) The destructive approach would be to actually make yourselves a threat to Firaxis. If you really think the game is that bad, you need a short, concise and hard hitting synopsis of what's wrong with the game that you can get out there to the wider internet. You can't hurt a company with bad PR by preaching to the converted! You've got to make an impression on the general public who have no yet bought the game, thus making Firaxis respond in some way to avoid the negative publicity that might hurt sales in a significant way. Time is running out for this approach - the longer it's left, the more sales decline naturally, so you have to make it happen while sales are still high enough to worry Firaxis about losing a percentage of them. The risk with this approach is that if it does work Firaxis may just drop Civ 3 and stop improving it altogether, regarding it as a product without a future. So it can backfire.

That would be the way I'd approach it. I'd rather see you do either of those things than continue to watch people to beat their heads against a brick wall in the forum. I don't consider either approach to be needed. I wish you luck if you and other people decide to follow them though, I hope the outcome works in your favour.

If I defend Firaxis and the game it's because people are using opinions as though they were facts. I've said it plenty of times but I'll say it again - Civ 3 is not a "bad" game. I have yet to see a post explaining, objectively, what makes it bad. In fairness I've seen little more objectivity in explaining why it is good - but the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation! All I've really seen is a bunch of people saying what they like or don't like about the game. Certainly I've seen a number of posts by various people offering plausible explainations as to why Firaxis has made one choice or another, and the valid points have mostly been ignored in the replies posted, in favour of, and I hessitate to use this many levels of indirection, "whining about the whining about the whining".

Anyway, I feel like I'm being shot for being the messenger here - if you look at most of my messages I've posted I've generally been trying to explain what I believe the thinking of Firaxis to be, or the rationale behind some of the decisions made on the game. Very rarely have I stated I agree with them, yet it seems to be the assumption that any post not flaming Firaxis must be 100% supportive of them. I don't believe this to be so - if I had been making civ 3 I would have done a lot of things differently myself! I'm just trying to get people to understand where Firaxis are coming from, not agree with them - although it seems for some neither of these will ever be possible.

I'm sure the reason is that for some people the world is more comfortable living in a "I spent $50 for this POS and I don't care why!" world. Charles, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I think you do make an effort to try to understand more than one facet of the story. Ultimately, and I realise this is only a pipe dream, I'd like to see those who don't like the game reach an attitude more along the lines of "I see why Firaxis have done things the way they have. I don't happen to agree with them, and I don't like the game. But maybe it's just not the game for me and I should move on to one of the many other games that are out there". While the people who like the game can have the attitude along the lines of "Sure, some people don't like the game, but it works for me. I can see their critcisms, but what they dislike about the game doesn't bother me enough to stop playing, infact some of that stuff is the reason I play it".

I've gone on long enough, so I'll just close by asking is what I've described really such a bad thing?
OneInTen is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 10:05   #57
CharlesUFarley
Prince
 
Local Time: 11:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally posted by OneInTen
Well, the gaming industry is much like the movie industry - you pay for an unknown quantity and hope it'll be worth it, and if you feel it isn't, you don't really have a lot of recourse because that game developer (or in the case of movies the producer, director, actor, whoever), probably wont make another product for a year or two that you have the option of not buying. So you will feel a bit frustrated in not being able to take the smallest of steps in getting even.
I don't know about getting even, but if I pay for something and I'm not pleased with it, I either refund the product or I exchange it for another and in the worst of scenarios I'll demand my money back, but since those options can be limited depending on where you are, most of the time your left with a "purchased - too late" kind of scenario. But as a customer/consumer we have rights, and one of those rights is feedback and negotiation with the company in question. Basically if I buy something and I don't like it, that company is going to hear from me, one way or another. And in most cases companies will refund your money just to get rid of you, but since software is a perishable item then you have to fight for your rights. Seems to me we are all doing exactly what can be done - indirectly affecting sales through mass unpopularity and hidden market advertising, although negative.

Quote:
Frankly, I think the concept of game reviewers being paid off by the companies is silly though. Sure, maybe some are (probably more indirectly via ad revenue than directly), but I highly doubt every single game reviewer out there is being paid by Firaxis or anyone else for that matter.
It was metaphorically speaking - the review sites are 'paid' by this I mean they're on some kind of honor role with the company and do 'special favors' to promote game sales, this is undeniably with any certain common sense the truth, otherwise where are all the "bad" reviews? You'll never catch a game review site partnered with a game company posting the bad ones. But IMO those reviews are falsified and overly hyped because I don't agree and I've played the game thoroughly as a dedicated and exceptional judge of a civ-product - I love the game.

Quote:
I think a more realistic explaination is that the game is something that is accesable to a casual first time player (ie it makes it easy for the reviewer to give it good marks), and that it's not an easy game to review when most reviwers are used to judging whether FPS "a" has prettier graphics than FPS "b".
Anything deemed as "easy" has a trail of dragging lies or exageration. As I said before the reveiws are all posative, you won't find a negative post because it will hurt sales and they would find themselves in a lawsuit. And game reviewers are people like you and me, but with less knowledge of the product which is obvious when you read them.

Quote:
As far as getting in the way of it, there's nothing to get in the way of as I see it. Complaining in an isolated corner of the net about the game is unlikely to achieve anything. This isn't how to bring about change. As I see it, there are two ways that could actually work in getting what you want from Firaxis - one constructive, one destructive:
Well you are getting in the way of it, if you cut down criticism. Criticism is the source for improvement and shall be conducted in order to maintain product satisfaction. And this spot on the internet is hardly isolated, the game developers and fans from all over post messages here and over half of the "world-wide fans know of it's existance" - GameSpy.com. And if this is such a big waste of time, then why are you here?

Quote:
b) The destructive approach would be to actually make yourselves a threat to Firaxis. If you really think the game is that bad, you need a short, concise and hard hitting synopsis of what's wrong with the game that you can get out there to the wider internet. You can't hurt a company with bad PR by preaching to the converted! You've got to make an impression on the general public who have no yet bought the game, thus making Firaxis respond in some way to avoid the negative publicity that might hurt sales in a significant way. Time is running out for this approach - the longer it's left, the more sales decline naturally, so you have to make it happen while sales are still high enough to worry Firaxis about losing a percentage of them. The risk with this approach is that if it does work Firaxis may just drop Civ 3 and stop improving it altogether, regarding it as a product without a future. So it can backfire.
There you go again, speaking to me as if I lack common sense or contact with business reality or some derogatory condascending wording. I don't need your advice on how to deal with Firaxis or any other company that disheartens me, frankly you were informative in the beginning now your starting to become stale. Everything you've attempted to explain in these forums has only been that of plagiarizing common sense and playing the role of the "teacher" with wisdom to spread. But all your spreading is a repeating echo of nonsense and if we have anything to say to you it would be "Okay we know that, tell us something we don't know", really!

Quote:
That would be the way I'd approach it. I'd rather see you do either of those things than continue to watch people to beat their heads against a brick wall in the forum. I don't consider either approach to be needed. I wish you luck if you and other people decide to follow them though, I hope the outcome works in your favour.
Well I thank you dad for leading me through the tough days but I think I am an adult now with a fully capable common sense and nack for survival. It appears that all of this bothers you so much you can't stop yourself from blabbing about it. My "suggestion" to you is don't read it if it bothers you. And you got it wrong - we're going to beat Firaxi-heads agains a brick wall, not our own.

Quote:
If I defend Firaxis and the game it's because people are using opinions as though they were facts. I've said it plenty of times but I'll say it again - Civ 3 is not a "bad" game. I have yet to see a post explaining, objectively, what makes it bad. In fairness I've seen little more objectivity in explaining why it is good - but the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation! All I've really seen is a bunch of people saying what they like or don't like about the game. Certainly I've seen a number of posts by various people offering plausible explainations as to why Firaxis has made one choice or another, and the valid points have mostly been ignored in the replies posted, in favour of, and I hessitate to use this many levels of indirection, "whining about the whining about the whining".
Well then you just arrived because this is a long baked discussion that has already settled into its foundation. Reason apon reason, facts apon facts have been discussed, I am truly sorry you missed them, but if you have the guts - give me an email that you don't mind disclosing and I'll surely give you all the proof (in the form of FACTS) you need to prevail here. But I'm certainly not going to repeat it for another 'late arrival' who has nothing better to do by whine about whiners who whine about more whining and then whines some more about it. The fool himself, or the fool who follows? Just because you haven't seen the reason(s) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote:
Anyway, I feel like I'm being shot for being the messenger here - if you look at most of my messages I've posted I've generally been trying to explain what I believe the thinking of Firaxis to be, or the rationale behind some of the decisions made on the game. Very rarely have I stated I agree with them, yet it seems to be the assumption that any post not flaming Firaxis must be 100% supportive of them. I don't believe this to be so - if I had been making civ 3 I would have done a lot of things differently myself! I'm just trying to get people to understand where Firaxis are coming from, not agree with them - although it seems for some neither of these will ever be possible.
I'm sorry but you *ARE* agreeing with them, and you *ARE* defending them. And you can twist this a million folds over, but in the end it still looks the same. And believe me we are more than educated on why Firaxis really does business the way they are now, we know! You'll just find yourself regurgitating your words and tripping over explainations to keep up. We argue because we're mad, simple as that. And I'm not going to stop flaming Fraxis until I achieve my personal victory, but thats my business. And in the meantime I argue because people (ahem) keep fueling my arguements! Sometimes I forget why I'm here to begin with.

Quote:
I'm sure the reason is that for some people the world is more comfortable living in a "I spent $50 for this POS and I don't care why!" world. Charles, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I think you do make an effort to try to understand more than one facet of the story. Ultimately, and I realise this is only a pipe dream, I'd like to see those who don't like the game reach an attitude more along the lines of "I see why Firaxis have done things the way they have. I don't happen to agree with them, and I don't like the game. But maybe it's just not the game for me and I should move on to one of the many other games that are out there". While the people who like the game can have the attitude along the lines of "Sure, some people don't like the game, but it works for me. I can see their critcisms, but what they dislike about the game doesn't bother me enough to stop playing, infact some of that stuff is the reason I play it".
I respect all of that, but your wrong in one area - at this point there is no such thing as "people hate the game because the game just isn't for them" because the only people that are willing to burn the many hours in these forums arguing/discussing the game are the people that care about it, whether they like it or not the basis is till there. Both sides bare substance for discussion, yes even yours! But the one thing that cannot be argued is who should be here and who should not. I won't go as harsh as to say I hate Civ3, because that would be lying. I do like it, but thats all the more reason for me to be upset for the mistakes and problems with it. I strongly believe that 90% of the people that have gripes with Civ3 are people who have been "hurt" or "let-down" and the more violent and vicious they get the more "hurt" they are. Do you understand my meaning?

Quote:
I've gone on long enough, so I'll just close by asking is what I've described really such a bad thing?
Not at all, I respect you for trying to help those who need the guidance, but your flaw is that you assume that everyone who has a problem with the game or it's developers - needs guidance.

Charles.
__________________
- What we do in life, echos in eternity.
CharlesUFarley is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 11:25   #58
OneInTen
Warlord
 
OneInTen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:38
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: brisbane.qld.au
Posts: 144
OK, first up for what it's worth I dislike having my post cut up into little paragraphs and replied to one at a time - as a long time inhabitor of various web forums, newgroups, mailing lists and the like, I know how easy it is to make your side of the story seem much better when you post in that fasion. I've used the tactic myself many a time. Heck, I've done parodies of it. I'm not saying you're intentionally trying to mislead, but I really think the style is appropriate for answering questions and not for general debate, thus I tend to mistrust anyone who uses it in that way.

Oh yeah, that includes myself ...

Anyway, onto more important things:

Why am I here - for entertainment. No other reason. I'm a forum whore, I guess you'd say. I tend to read a few for a bit, eventually get the urge to jump in, post frantically for a period of time, and then move on to the next lot once the "regulars" and I can predict so easily what each other will say that it becomes boring.

I do find it presumptuous to believe that just because of my registration date it means I haven't actually read the earlier posts in the forum. I've certainly kept pretty close track of everything that's gone on since the release of the game. I've seen the too-ing and fro-ing. And I still don't think I've seen anything convincing to prove the things you claim to be facts.

Frankly I don't think it can happen, since it seems that the problems with the game are as much psychological as they are actual. I don't mean that in a bad way, or that people who dislike the game have something wrong with their heads! I mean that given the game carries the civ name, many seem to think it somehow needs to be the game to end all games to justify its existence. I mean, if you look at it logically, even the critics who "only" got 50 hours of gameplay out of the game have done much better than most games, and indeed have gotten better value for money than most forms of entertainment. But the emotional attachment to the game demands something more. I can't argue against that sort of emotion with logic any more than the emotion can sway my logical analysis of it. I guess also I should consider that part of the whole emotional attachment is the feeling of emotional investment in the game, which I will be the first to admit I don't have in civ 3.

(Just for the record, I don't consider emotion to be a bad thing, or logic to be superior to it, I merely think that the two are mutually incompatible when it comes to trying to make sense of an argument since they operate at entirely different levels. Personality type testers show me to favour the emotional over the logical, so I guess it's ironic that I'm on the other side here)

As for reviews, that bad reviews of products don't get published is rubbish. I can't recall ever seeing an edition of a gaming magazine without at least one really bad review (ie anything under 50% ... usually to score that low the game has to really stink and the reviewer will say so in the text of the article). Of course I don't read that many paper gaming mags. Online reviews also seem to be, on the whole, pretty fair when they come to the treatment of games too. If you want examples of hyped up flops that got the reviews they deserved, look no further than "Daikatana". That must have averaged about 2 out of 10!

I ask of you - if all this is "common sense", as you say, then why the heck do I have to say it. I'm only stating it because, as far as I can see, it is not being done. It seems rather silly to me that if you or someone else posts a point, I post a counter point, and then you post that what I've said is something you know. If you know it, why were you contradicting it in the first place?

The whole idea is sureal, I feel like I'm trapped in a Woody Allen movie or something. It's almost like you're arguing against me by agreeing with all my points yet saying they're invalid anyway!

As for guidance, that's not really how I see it. Perhaps mutual enlightenment. I post a point, you post a point, we may not agree, we may not even really understand what the other is really saying, but who knows. Often I've found 6 months down the track I realise the point someone was trying to make and sometimes I even see that they were right.

I don't believe in posting "me too" posts. Agreement never really taught anyone anything. It's only through pushing and probing at people's arguments and beliefs that progress is made. I've been told I'm not only a devil's advocate I'm also the devil in the past. I'll probably be told the same again in the future. But doing so makes me think, and it makes other people think too.

Maybe you're not one of the people who I make think. That's ok, at the end of the day I'm posting for my thinking benefit not yours.

I really don't know what else I can say to you ... you post about problems, I offer suggestions as to why those problems exist. Why? Because I generally find that if you understand the hows and why's of the problem, it's generally easier to accept. But your response to me doing so has been, well, not particuarly positive really.

Why post if you seem to express that you'd rather people didn't reply?

It just reminds me of what my mum used to say if she offered help but I refused it - "I try to help you but all you want to do is poo in my face".

I mean, I can't change the way civ 3 is. You can't change the way it is. Surely the only thing we can do is to try to figure out the hows, whys, whos, whats, wheres and whens of it all. But that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're saying you'd rather people didn't do.

So if my motives irk you, or seem patronising, or whatever your objection is, just don't think about them. I'm just another argument on the forum. I'd really prefer that if you respond that you responded with why you disagree with what I'm saying than how you feel it's unnecessary for me to state it. It think it'd be more constructive and lead to less of these sorts of threads that really, at the end of the day, cover the same ground that I've covered with other people, and I'm sure you've probably had the same sorts of meta-discussions with other people too.
OneInTen is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 13:51   #59
copcartman
Settler
 
Local Time: 20:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
Charles, I believe you're taking this all too serious. This discussion is concerning a computer game!

(feel free to respond with 5 pages of thrashing because I don't agree with you)
copcartman is offline  
Old January 24, 2002, 17:23   #60
Ironikinit
Prince
 
Ironikinit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:38
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
I claim that Firaxis knew this and hyped the damn game and manipulated sales and paid game sites for posative
And all without the troublesome problem of actually having evidence.
__________________
Above all, avoid zeal. --Tallyrand.
Ironikinit is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:38.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright Đ The Apolyton Team