Patterns

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by hexagonian

...which makes it all too clear why your nastiest labeling of the types of posters is reserved for CTP players...

OK, to clear this with my dear CtPers

I have to admit that there is this certain antictpism that surfaces on Apolyton every now and then (often and in various places - that is what makes it different from your regular anticiviiiism or antismacism which people bring up rarely or in limited forums). In fact it does seem to me quite often that everyone out there (and his brother) are out to take cheap shots on CtP... so I kind of understand when you guys go on the defensive.

I assure you, I have never been among those. I have played CtP and CtP II a little, I loved some features (public works), I disliked others (combat) and overall it just didn't click with me so I stopped. However I am not one of the folks that uses every opportunity to bash the game (or the players).

So my comment about "bitter old farts" was meant in the grognard sense, of which I consider myself to be one too, so there. NHF, ok?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Oh by the way VetLegion, about your comparing civ games site- could you perhaps please link to the thread you started on apolyton in the thread so that people can continue to comment on it an contribute- the OT thread has slipped a bit from its front page position

And also- what about my contributions to your list? did you not catch them in the old thread?

It doesn't really matter if you ignored them... but if you missed them- then I'm just saying that so you know

Sure, I will find the thread and bump to it, or link it in my sig so the discussion can continue. I won't stop untill we have quantified and compared all Civ games out there

(DarkCloud, I don't recall dropping your suggestions, perhaps I just forgot to credit you, I'll reread through that thread and correct that if so)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by VetLegion
OK, to clear this with my dear CtPers ...
...So my comment about "bitter old farts" was meant in the grognard sense, of which I consider myself to be one too, so there. NHF, ok?

No offense taken - I get a laugh out of posters who, as I posted earlier in this thread, are blind loyalists to ANY game - be it CTP or civ - though I tend to laugh more at the Sid civ loyalists because of my own bias. I prefer (Modded) CTP overall, and as a CTP2 Modder, I will promote and defend CTP2, but I did break down and bought 'Conquests' and I am playing it at the moment. (which says that I do actually enjoy aspects of civ3 because I did spend the money on what amounts to an Xpack for civ3)

Besides, as a CTP player, I'm used to the shots taken at the series. Is it going to change my preferences regarding which game I will play? No - I play a game because I enjoy it, not because of some other player's opinion of the game. But I am also interested in the 'why' when it comes to gaming preferences. Why is stacked combat considered better/worse than single unit combat? Why the fanaticism concerning Public Works vs Workers...?

IMO, both games have much to offer in the way of gameplay. It may be that the gameplay issues of each game were not implimented as well as they could have been, but the foundation ideas for those gameplay issues from each series are often good starting points - and should be considered for civ4, especially since CTP2 will never have a true company-created sequel.

[VetLegion]

But I am also interested in the 'why' when it comes to gaming preferences. Why is stacked combat considered better/worse than single unit combat? Why the fanaticism concerning Public Works vs Workers...?

true fanatism can rarely be helped. I don't remember a single fanatic who was ever converted to be a moderate through discussion. Usually it has to be growing up

but the foundation ideas for those gameplay issues from each series are often good starting points - and should be considered for civ4

And not only ideas from Civ or CtP branches, (as you already said) a lot of interesting concepts exist in other games of the genre (there are quite some).

[Fosse]

I'm seeing a lot of the Option Compromisers.

THere will be a debate about which of two incompatible approaches to gameplay are to be preferred, with sound arguments and resons on both sides. Then, out of the blue comes...

"Just make it optional at startup. Now everyone is happy."

The less reasonable it is to make something optional (ie, spherical or flat world map? Make it Optional!), the more likely this person is to arrive.

[VetLegion]

Good observation

Reminds me of a text I read a couple days ago, by Brad Wardell, the project lead of Galactic Civilizations. He basically says the same thing you wrote, if they say something "can be optional", it probably should be left out...

Our young development team was hungry for any sort of good word, so the regulars on our forums carried a lot of weight. It was often difficult to say no to their ideas, even if their suggestions made the game unplayable for the vast majority of users. For a game designer, it is challenging to differentiate between a "hardcore feature" and something that will appeal to most people. I have a general rule of thumb for this, which goes like this: If the person proposing the new feature uses the phrase "You could always enable/disable this feature from the options screen…", it's likely a hardcore feature.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...rdell_04.shtml (full article is a postmortem on GalCiv, but you have to register to read it).