Reasons to buy Play the World - Page 4

Zero-Tau · December 3, 2002, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by woody
There are many "fan boys" here who steadfastly assert that the $30 they spent on a broken game is well worth it. This is a classic example of how humans will support something, rather than admit they made a mistake and got ripped off. Cognitive dissonance at work!

Has it ever occured to you that some people may actually like PtW?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If they enjoy the game, how can their $30 be wasted?

woody · December 3, 2002, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero-Tau
Has it ever occured to you that some people may actually like PtW?

No, they like Civ3. PtW is broken. It's a multiplayer add-on.

Quote:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: If they enjoy the game, how can their $30 be wasted?

It's wasted because they're not getting what was advertized. A way to "Play the World" (as in multiplayer).

If I barfed in a bag, and you paid me $30 for it but still liked it, is it still money well spent?

asleepathewheel · December 3, 2002, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by woody
If I barfed in a bag, and you paid me $30 for it but still liked it, is it still money well spent?

Yes.

"like" is an opinion. If I paid 30 for your barf and was satisfied, then why should anything else matter? Why should your opinions about the value of the puke matter, so long as I'm happy?

"money well spent" is not an objective term, as much as you would like it to be.

woody · December 3, 2002, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin
Well aren't those the only people that should be commenting on it in the first place? I mean it's like someone who's never played baseball say something like, "Man, it's really easy to hit a 90-mph curve." The people who have the most insight are those people that own the game, not the bystanders.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I wanted to see a review from someone who didn't pay the rip-off price of $30. If they either got it free (like review mags do), or pirated it, then they wouldn't be so embarrased. They could post a review without trying to convince others to be ripped-off as well.

I'm simply trying to take the cognitive dissonance out of the equation. It's like a controlled study, if you wish.

My bet is that if you took a group of people who wanted to buy PtW, and gave half of them free copies and the other half paid $30, then the guys that got free copies would post more honest (and critical) reviews.

woody · December 3, 2002, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Yes.

"like" is an opinion. If I paid 30 for your barf and was satisfied, then why should anything else matter? Why should your opinions about the value of the puke matter, so long as I'm happy?

"money well spent" is not an objective term, as much as you would like it to be.

Actually, it is. You could buy a loaf of bread for $2 and puke in a bag yourself. You'd save $28.

asleepathewheel · December 3, 2002, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by woody

Actually, it is. You could buy a loaf of bread for $2 and puke in a bag yourself. You'd save $28.

Ah, but I was paying the 30 for YOUR vomit. Which is different.

Zero-Tau · December 3, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by woody
It's wasted because they're not getting what was advertized.

Some people are satisfied with less than what was advertised. Some people bought PtW solely for the Single Player improvements. Most of them seems to be happy with the product. Why complain about broken MP when you aren't going to play MP in the first place?

Maquiladora · December 3, 2002, 17:45

woody is right, that no matter how much you like it (and congrats to you for doing that), it wasnt worth the price in todays PC games market, for what it did, end of. Some people will always defend their own stupidity, naivety, call it what you want, while others just blame someone else, mostly Firaxis or Infogrammes.

Ive seen someone buy a toilet seat for £300, doesnt mean they dont think its worth it, but its still just an overpriced toilet seat to the rest of us.

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 17:55

Lie: Somehow, us "fanboys" are deluded into liking the game... thus everyone who doesn't like it knows the real "truth" about the game. As our good buddy woody says, "thank God there are "whiners" here to tell the truth."

Ah yes. Verily, I have deluded myself into liking this game. The hours I have spent enjoying it are actually not worth it, because indeed I have only been hypnotized by Firaxis into enjoying it. Oh, woe is me, I need the holy truth of yon whiners to show me the light...

Get off it. If people like the game, that is as truthful as your complaints. Why, pray tell, does the fact that you hate it mean that it is undesirable for everyone else? I dont care what I pay 30 bucks for... if I like it, it's worth it.

asleepathewheel · December 3, 2002, 18:01

What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good.. do we need anyone to tell us these things?

Argos65987 · December 3, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
no matter how much you like it (and congrats to you for doing that), it wasnt worth the price in todays PC games market, for what it did, end of. Some people will always defend their own stupidity, naivety, call it what you want, while others just blame someone else, mostly Firaxis or Infogrammes.

Ive seen someone buy a toilet seat for £300, doesnt mean they dont think its worth it, but its still just an overpriced toilet seat to the rest of us.

opinion is not fact

subjective is not the same as objective

The reason these threads and arguments go on so long is that no one seems to understand what the definition is of some of these words.

player1 · December 3, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by woody

No, they like Civ3. PtW is broken. It's a multiplayer add-on.

Correction: MP was broken. With patch it's FIXED.

Still not perfect and flawless, but NOT broken anymore.

FIXED, but not perfect.
And NOT broken.
Got it?

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 18:49

Uhhh... if you like it, it was worth it. Apparently, some here don't seem to grasp the fact that because PTW wasn't worth it to them, that doesn't mean it wasn't worth it to everyone else.

Argos hit it on the nail.

WarpStorm · December 3, 2002, 19:35

You've got it right, cyclotron7. It's a matter of taste. I like it. It's easily worth $30 to me. But, it's a matter of taste. I love bleu cheese. My wife hates it. I'd gladly pay $30 dollars for a good moldy slice of Danish import. Mmmm... My wife just thinks that it's just plain disgusting and wouldn't pay a cent for it. It's a matter of taste. She won't convince me that I hate bleu cheese. The whiners won't convince me that I don't like PTW and that it isn't worth it to me. Or Stilton...mmmm...or Gorgonzola...mmm...

SirOsis · December 3, 2002, 19:54

Ah but what if you bought a huge package labeled "Danish bleu cheese" thinking you're getting a lot of a quality cheese but when you open the package all you see is a shriveled crumb of cheese the size of your fingernail with a bit of mold growing on the side.

Would you pop it in your mouth and savor it for 1 second or question why you didn't get what you paid for?

asleepathewheel · December 3, 2002, 20:02

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by SirOsis
Ah but what if you bought a huge package labeled "Danish bleu cheese" thinking you're getting a lot of a quality cheese but when you open the package all you see is a shriveled crumb of cheese the size of your fingernail with a bit of mold growing on the side.

In this case, you expected good, got bad, and you are unhappy.

In the case of PTW, you expected good, got bad, and you are unhappy.

In the case of PTW, they expected good, got good, and they're as happy as can be.

PTW isn't moldy cheese; they like it and you don't. Your opinion is just that: an opinion. Don't try to make it fact. The money people payed for PTW may have been well spent if they liked it.

WarpStorm · December 3, 2002, 21:07

I like PTW. I buy a new computer or video game every week or so (sometimes more, sometimes less, depends if there's anything out). Most don't get played more than a few days. I've been playing PTW for months. Why? Because I like it. I'd even go so far as to say it is my favorite game right now. Am I deluding myself over $30? Not bloody likely. I play enough games to know what I like and I like PTW.

SirOsis · December 3, 2002, 21:17

I like PTW too. I just feel that the product was lacking on release. MP is getting better with the patches. When I bought it the MP was worthless. The fact that it was worthless pissed me off since it was supposed to be a MP game.

I don't think anyone in this forum can state that the MP portion of the game at release was worth much of anything. If you do, well then I've got some moldy cheese to sell ya.

WarpStorm · December 3, 2002, 21:22

I will agree that MP before 1.14f didn't work well. You should have seen it in the bad days, though. 1.01 was actually possible to play as an MP game (although quite laggy).

woody · December 3, 2002, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
PTW isn't moldy cheese; they like it and you don't. Your opinion is just that: an opinion. Don't try to make it fact. The money people payed for PTW may have been well spent if they liked it.

The fact that PtW is broken is not an opinion. PtW is a multiplayer add-on. It didn't work at all out of the box, and it still doesn't work very well after two patches.

Just because there are some people foolish enough to delude themselves into believing their $30 was money well spent, doesn't make it so. "A fool and his money are soon parted." There are always people willing to overpay for things; the fact remains they overpaid.

woody · December 3, 2002, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good.. do we need anyone to tell us these things?

As patronizing as this may sound...

Unfortunately, you do. The fact you like broken things indicates you're not thinking clearly on your own.

notyoueither · December 3, 2002, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by woody

No, they like Civ3. PtW is broken. It's a multiplayer add-on.

It's wasted because they're not getting what was advertized. A way to "Play the World" (as in multiplayer).

If I barfed in a bag, and you paid me $30 for it but still liked it, is it still money well spent?

Actually, oh clueless one who has no basis for his opinion...

I have spent a few hundred hours playing MP online and having fun. What does that do for your rantings re cognitive dislocation, which you so obviously suffer from.

And btw, your arguments are getting worse the longer you go. Barf in a bag? Seriously, have you off some medication recently?

ChaotikVisions · December 3, 2002, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by woody

As patronizing as this may sound...

Unfortunately, you do. The fact you like broken things indicates you're not thinking clearly on your own.

Finally, someone to tell me what to think. I got so confused trying to decide things for myself, damn independant urges.

How was it you put it? Its a fact that your opinion is not everyone elses. I'm quite enjoying Play the World, already put several times as many hours as it took for me to make that 30$, so for me its well worth it. I also really didn't get it for MP, I mean I didn't play Civ3 all this last year in preparation for MP, Civilization has always been a primarily SP game. With the improvements/AI tweaks/added civs/etc... its not a patch, its an expansion.

I don't see how some of you still think it is just a glorified patch. Lets look at this. 8 new civilizations, 8 new UUs, 2 new units, two new worker jobs, 2 or is it 3? improvements, advanced interface, tweaked AI, better scenario handling, numerous enhances(though still lacking diplomacy) to the editor, and others i'm forgetting i'm sure. If that doesn't fit your guidelines for an expansion, then just WHAT does?

Since people seem to like to mention Blizzard, lets look at Starcrafts expansion Brood Wars. It added what, 3 new units per race? Added some new tech for the units, and included a new campaign for each race. Gee, that isn't much. Hell, it isn't even on level with PtW if you count the scenarios included on the cd for PtW. I'll give you that BroodWars multiplayer worked fine, though multiplayer was in the original and had been planned from the start.

Multiplayer in Civ3 was planned, but not included in the original. You also didn't see BroodWars using third-party software to run their multiplayer. So they could have much more freedom setting it up. Multiplayer I hear now is at least working, the game killing lag is gone for the most part and I haven't heard of a whole lot of crashes. Seems like even if you're a multiplayer fan PtW is now worth it. And besides, to even play PtW you need Civ3 which is SP only, so the people buying it will benefit from the SP enhancements.

asleepathewheel · December 3, 2002, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by woody

As patronizing as this may sound...

Unfortunately, you do. The fact you like broken things indicates you're not thinking clearly on your own.

Right. I don't know what I should like, but an anonymous poster on a forum does?

You need to work on that trolling, woody.

Coracle · December 4, 2002, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Actually, oh clueless one who has no basis for his opinion...

I have spent a few hundred hours playing MP online and having fun. What does that do for your rantings re cognitive dislocation, which you so obviously suffer from.

And btw, your arguments are getting worse the longer you go. Barf in a bag? Seriously, have you off some medication recently?

If you have already spent "a few hundred hours"

playing a slow MP in the brief period since PTW came out you are hardly one to cast criticisms on other people's alleged eccentriciities.

notyoueither · December 4, 2002, 00:22

It worked and works quite well if you know what to do. It works better now. That doesn't mean it did not work before.

But then again, when have you ever known wth you were talking about?

Coracle · December 4, 2002, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions . . . Its a fact that your opinion is not everyone elses. I'm quite enjoying Play the World, already put several times as many hours as it took for me to make that 30$, so for me its well worth it. . . With the improvements/AI tweaks/added civs/etc... its not a patch, its an expansion. . .

What it is: just another way for Firaxis to get cash from the Faithful who'd have paid fifty dollars.

I could care less about the superficial graphics or new lame civs. I hated the AI since I first started playing it. They "tweaked" it? How?

For example, the Diplomatic/Trade AI has always been stupid. The human would get blamed fior things he never did, or a very minor rep hit would last for millennia and civs he wouldn't meet for a thousand years would hate him. Absurd and unrealistic.

Another example. The human has a trade deal set with a civ. he offers - as a free bonus - several additional resources. The braindead AI insults the human and cancels the entire deal - a deal that would have been great for the AI. Stupid.

Did PTW "tweak" REX/settler diarrhea?? AI settlers march right into my territory; I tell them to leave; they ignore me and keep coming; I attack - and I am regarded as a warmonger hated forever by everyone.
If I don;t do that the AI settlers will soon teleport themselves to the other side of my civ and built towns on open tiles they should not even know exist.

Does the AI still invade in the same banal uninspired way? I got real tired easily channeling his forces into "kill zones" on grassland where I attacked him. Anyone who played the game knows what I mean.

So, just itemize exactly how the AI has been "tweaked" and improved; I'm really curious.

asleepathewheel · December 4, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

If you have already spent "a few hundred hours"

playing a slow MP in the brief period since PTW came out you are hardly one to cast criticisms on other people's alleged eccentriciities.

Hello, of course he has played PTW a long time, he was a beta tester.

Sigh.

Traelin · December 4, 2002, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Ah, but I was paying the 30 for YOUR vomit. Which is different.

ROFL you guys crack me up. It keeps me sane at work.

woody,

On the contrary. If I paid any money for anything I didn't like, I'd take it back. Regardless of what people think, you can take just about anything you don't like back for a return or an exchange, provided it's within a reasonable timeframe.

When I bought my car two years ago, I deliberately asked the salesman if I could exchange it for something else if I didn't like it. Not only did he tell me I could return it within two days of playing with it, he even let me borrow it for a day before I actually bought it. Granted, the paperwork would have been interesting if I returned it. But if you can return a freaking car, you can return just about anything.

So people complaining about a product they don't like and then not returning it basically means nothing to me. It falls on deaf ears. The same goes for people who complain about products they don't even own.

And attempting to reach the conclusion that people are foolish for buying PTW and are in denial about its "crappiness" is also inane. Not everyone is so lazy that they won't return it.

But congrats to those that don't want to buy it for fear of being irreparably damaged. I'll take the chance.

So far it's paid off.