I'm Still not convinced

[ozmono1914]

nothing substantial? I disagree there is a wealth of information out there this site has huge amounts, in fact you have more info about civ IV on this site than most sites have about a game they've already previewed(and I don't mean e3 preview)

And your right I said in my title "NO REASON TO THINK CIV4 WILL BE SPECIAL" even considering the information available in fact

I stand by that

BUT by the same token I accept the truth that people speak of when they point out the limitations of speculation I actually agreed with Adagio as he was the first to point it out

[binTravkin]

To reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of ugly hellions, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Lord binTravkin runs at the first sign of trouble. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And binTravkin is to blame. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that laws are meant to be broken.

Ignorance is bliss. This may be why binTravkin's supporters are generally all smiles. The important point here is not that binTravkin's worshippers explain everything through the lens of binTravkin's evil and ideologically loaded ebullitions. The vital matter is that binTravkin's viewpoints are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us when you least expect it. Although binTravkin would rather I discuss the personality flaws of unwed, pregnant teenagers, he is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid.

Someone has to be willing to tell it like it is. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Unctuous, obdurate devil-worshippers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. And while we're on the subject, you may have noticed that oligarchism is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, societal force. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, binTravkin has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and introduce changes without testing them first -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. There is no place in this country where we are safe from his shock troops, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. How many of binTravkin's provocateurs are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that binTravkin needs to step out of the dark ages. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.

He keeps telling us that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. Are we also supposed to believe that divine ichor flows through his veins? I didn't think so. BinTravkin is becoming ever more audacious in his unappeasable hatred of us. BinTravkin and his goofy, obnoxious vicegerents must laugh about this in private, knowing that binTravkin never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical and, furthermore, binTravkin managed to convince a bunch of the most resentful big-mouths you'll ever see to help him champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. What was the quid pro quo there? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that he claims that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.

Perhaps binTravkin has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. But if Fate desired that he make a correct application of what he had read about insurrectionism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the illaudable, effete fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, we must restore the world back to its original balance. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own hypocritical, litigious opinions. The issue of what to do about what I call manipulative wisenheimers is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that he has achieved sainthood, then there is undeniably no hope for you. There are three fairly obvious problems with binTravkin's pranks, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. First, binTravkin's comments leave much to be desired. Second, there are some crafty neo-bestial-types out there who care nothing for you or your cherished solutions. And third, we must search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically parasitic ones championed by inarticulate, headstrong loudmouths of one sort or another. Only then can a society free of his ostentatious bons mots blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

Maybe it's not fair to call binTravkin's legates "unpleasant" just because they pose a threat to the survival of democracy, but remember that even acknowledging binTravkin's unsympathetic threats is beneath my dignity. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to binTravkin. So, what's my take on his yawping philosophies? Simply this: BinTravkin wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that if we contradict binTravkin, we are labelled deranged anthropophagi. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind binTravkin that he has spent untold hours trying to allow federally funded research to mushroom into an unsavory, grossly inefficient system, hampered by misguided moral weaklings and the worst types of lackadaisical deviants I've ever seen. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that his thralls are once again out begging for signatures for some maladroit petition that makes it legal for binTravkin to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us? It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how binTravkin's mind works. Let me start by providing evidence that I've heard of pompous things like McCarthyism and Dadaism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which binTravkin's ignorant, unthinking, spiteful brain is too small to understand. When binTravkin hears anyone say that he uses isolated incidents to make homophobic, all-encompassing claims about his adversaries, his answer is to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to rub his nose in his own hypocrisy.

I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but in a recent essay, he stated that he is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but the last time he reached into his bag of dirty tricks, he pulled out a scheme to brand me as lascivious. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. BinTravkin spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his prevarications while ignoring the fact that he is inherently sappy, overbearing, and scornful. Oh, and he also has an uncompromising mode of existence. While self-justification may motivate malodorous oafs, the same theories also work well for slimy slackers.

BinTravkin complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. To make a long story short, some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with the most pusillanimous personæ non gratæ I've ever seen on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to open new avenues for the expression of hate. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by binTravkin's campaigns. Do you?

BinTravkin takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Not to belabor the point, but he has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with slatternly, amoral Neanderthals. Is this because he needs their help to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that his screeds are as troubling as his insistence that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to change this country's moral infrastructure. Now that this letter has come to an end, I undoubtedly hope you walk away from it realizing that Lord binTravkin bickers and argues over petty things.

I especially like the last paragraph!

[Aro]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Instead you wrote, that you are J/k. Which means John Kennedy and is a goddamn lie. For what kind of fool do you take me, knave?

You've got me!
You're right, I shouldn't lie. Ok, ok. I'm not John Kennedy. I’m Ted.

Oh, boy, how I've missed this site!

Back on topic. Firaxis is investing a lot in interviews with the big shots, and this includes a couple of posts from top Firaxians in this forum. It's very hard not to be a little optimistic, because those guys (well, we used to respect them) seem to be very happy about the game. I'll take this as a positive point, no matter how biased they can be.
Yeah, I know, they are happy with their bank accounts also, and if I was making this kind of money, I would be very happy too...
IMHO, It's impossible to anyone assure that the game will be awesome (except the undercover beta testers between us, maybe ), but I'm pretty sure that it will NOT be a crap.

[ozmono1914]

Firstly that rant site would be a great resource for politicians

But on the topic I hope that what I've said has not lead you to believe that I expect the game to be crap, I expect it to be a "slight improvement" Which as I corrected myself latter was an understatement

The simple point of this thread was to announce that I have no expectations that Civ IV will be ground breaking in terms of strategic depth

In short I base this assumption based upon comments from the devs in which they assert the graphical changes, UI changes and simplified aspects over strategic depth.

However the Role Playing aspects of being a Leader of a nation throughout history, the fun that will come from the intial game play and probably the visuals will probably be ground breaking.

But if thats what your after why aren't you playing RPGs FPSs and more action/story intesive games instead of strategy games

[Harovan]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I especially like the last paragraph!

I like the last two sentences of the second paragraph better.

[MarkG]

hello ozmono1914, welcome to our site (although i see you've been registered for several months now)

I already think civ4 adds depth to the civ genre with features like religion and great leaders. Also certain important aspects (like multiplayer and modding) are in the design from the very start which gives more hope for the final implementation. For you, i suggest that you should wait for play-based (as opposed to marketing team presentations) reviews very near (from online/print magazines) and after release (by actual players)

[Solver]

Ozmo, you're not correct about graphics. There is no direct link between graphics/interface and strategic depth. The people working on the graphics are different people from the game designers altogether. However, good (realtively speaking) graphics are a must to sell a game well nowadays. I want Civ4 to sell well because I don't want Firaxis to go bankrupt.

Ground breaking in terms of depth is hard to achieve. Very hard. You mentioned chess, and there's a good reason the game exists and is played for thousands of years. I'd even say that great strategic depth isn't always good for Civ. Yes, I love depth, but in SMAC, there was great strategic depth - the result was that the AI was completely non-competitive, because it simply failed to understand some of the core concepts. I don't want a weak AI. I want a relatively deep game, but I want that depth to be something the AI can deal with.

When in doubt, though, the best thing is indeed to read player reviews. You can ingore the magazine reviews, as there will be many reviews here soon after release. If you read the forums and get to know the posters, thus know which posters you agree with and which you disagree with you will be able to make a very fair evaluation of Civ4 for yourself based on Apolyton reviews.

[Kataphraktoi]

BinTravkin takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Not to belabor the point, but he has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with slatternly, amoral Neanderthals. Is this because he needs their help to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that his screeds are as troubling as his insistence that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to change this country's moral infrastructure. Now that this letter has come to an end, I undoubtedly hope you walk away from it realizing that Lord binTravkin bickers and argues over petty things.

[GeoModder]

Ozmono, you sure make an impression if even our Grand Lord acknowledges your contribution this early in your posting career on our beloved 'Poly.

On topic, I expect most of your predictions on cIV to be true. Nevertheless, I think the added content will bring most of us a few steps closer to doom.

[Kataphraktoi]

Ground breaking in terms of depth is hard to achieve. Very hard. You mentioned chess, and there's a good reason the game exists and is played for thousands of years. I'd even say that great strategic depth isn't always good for Civ. Yes, I love depth, but in SMAC, there was great strategic depth - the result was that the AI was completely non-competitive, because it simply failed to understand some of the core concepts. I don't want a weak AI. I want a relatively deep game, but I want that depth to be something the AI can deal with.

if you play with other humans,the experiance is much better thna a mp game ov civ3....i would much rather have a deep MP game than a shallow game AI can play. downloadable chess programs are still somewhat weak,and definitly boring. civ3,you know what the best thing to do is,and just do it. with smac you can actually be different.(although crawlers,pop booming and choppers are too strong)

[binTravkin]

I like the last two sentences of the second paragraph better.

Could even be true if I was a teenager..

[Drakan]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
It's "You're a fool", Golubchik. And immature with two m, please. Firaxis with an i, too.

OMG, that's just hilarious !

Ozmo welcome to Poly, but just exactly what are you complaining about?

I've read your posts a couple of times and they are rather unsubstantial.

Please make your point/critique clear:

i.e. you dislike C4's graphics
the units resemble giants
the prebuild option is now gone (sob)
the leader-heads are cartoony
They've reduced MMing (pollution, corruption etc ...) thus simplifying the game ...

These points are straightforward and some will agree with you and some just won't.

Now what's yer point with C4 ?

[Solver]

if you play with other humans,the experiance is much better thna a mp game ov civ3....i would much rather have a deep MP game than a shallow game AI can play. downloadable chess programs are still somewhat weak,and definitly boring. civ3,you know what the best thing to do is,and just do it. with smac you can actually be different.(although crawlers,pop booming and choppers are too strong)

Whatever is everyone's preference. There's a very significant number of players who want to play SP because that allows for longer games, etc. These people may not want limited time games, simultaneous turns or somesuch.

SMAC, you know... crawlers and pop boom were obviously not exploits, rather they were core parts of the game, and those were the parts that gave you a huge boost over the AI, not to mention the Council, some other unit abilities...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Drakan
OMG, that's just hilarious !

It's mostly funny to follow conversations, where one is joking and the other raging. But let us not overly extend this, I think he got by now, what Apolyton is about. And after he discovered the Off-Topic forum and is properly DL-danced, he will have gotten the consecration of a full member of Apolyton.

Sorry, ozmono, I still haven't to say anything on-topic. All I can say is "Let's wait and see."

[binTravkin]

All I can say is 'Let's wait and see."'s remonstrations are completely disgusting -- so much so, that if there are any children or sensitive people reading this letter, I suggest that they stop now and not read what I am about to describe. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with All I can say is 'Let's wait and see." and its habitués, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that to say that sadism is a noble goal is overweening nonsense and untrue to boot. In a manner of speaking, All I can say is 'Let's wait and see." has no standards of decency. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that its mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Let us now kick butt and take names, because in that is our only hope for the future.