New to Civ saga

[Shrapnel12]

Well, i went back and reread your posts Patroklos and I wouldn't say they meet that definition of trolling. You may have gotten hostile after a bit (but no more then anyone you argued with), but you're not a troll.

[Willem]

To badmouth a game that you're not even playing anymore is trolling IMO. Especially over something as subjective as graphic quality. Not to mention resorting to using the "fanboy" label and making other disparaging remarks to anyone doesn't agree to his opinion. That certainly qualifies as antagonizing don't you think?

[Patroklos]

Well, i went back and reread your posts Patroklos and I wouldn't say they meet that definition of trolling. You may have gotten hostile after a bit (but no more then anyone you argued with), but you're not a troll.

I am opinionated, but I don't remember addressing those criticisms at anyone, no "well your a ****** for thinking that" from me any ways.

To badmouth a game that you're not even playing anymore is trolling IMO.

But have played, and thus have a valid opinion. And considering the OP (which aparently you have zero regard for), the fact that I have a decade of Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3 under my belt makes me more than qualified to comment here.

Not to mention resorting to using the "fanboy" label and making other disparaging remarks to anyone doesn't agree to his opinion.

Oh really? The first personal attack in this thread was this...

You should go hang out at CivFanatics with the rest of the trolls, you'll fit right in.

Spoken by, wait for it, holier than thou Willem. Then there was some childish rant about puting me on ignore.

Oddly enough, why is it that someone goes on his ignore list for daring to not worship at the alter of CIV at the same time he criticizes someone for "making...disparaging remarks to anyone doesn't agree to his opinion." Not really consistent.

Though since I am apparently on his ignore list, he won't have to go through the emotional trauma of having the one true faith criticized again, nor being called out as a hysterical hypocrite.

So take this as a warning, if you don't want to end up like Willem curled up in a corner with a cold sweat stroking your CIV box whispering "I don't care what they say about you, your so pretty, so pretty..." over and over again, stick with Civ3

[Shrapnel12]

Willem, I realize you're from Canada, so there may be a culture gap here, but U.S. citizens hold very dearly our fundamental right to free speech and use it frequently. He can badmouth a game for any reason he wants. What is ridiculous is for anyone except maybe the developers themselves to take offense. You have the right to disagree, but it's silly to be offended. Even if I was a developer, I'd still be cautious about being offended because first, I can use the criticism to make a better idea, and second anyone who spends that much money on a game deserves a little leeway to be upset if he doesn't like it. Also, I did reread the posts and he did make diparaging remarks, but not until people attacked him for his opinion. I don't know Patroklos and maybe he does like to start things, but I just don't think he's doing so here.

btw, I'm new, how do you do quotes?

[Solver]

Looks like some people here need to calm down a bit.

[Patroklos]

btw, I'm new, how do you do quotes?

In the reply page there is a button, and you just paste between the tags.

In the quick post, just type:

]quote] *insert text here ]/quote],

only have the first bracket go the other way (if I did it right it would show up as a quote )

[Shrapnel12]

In the reply page there is a button, and you just paste between the tags.

Thanks.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


Thanks.

Also, if you want to use the person's name in the quote (like replying to a comment, see above), click on "quote" on the top right of their post and you will get the above "Originally quoted by ..." in the quote box.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Willem, I realize you're from Canada, so there may be a culture gap here, but U.S. citizens hold very dearly our fundamental right to free speech and use it frequently.

OMFG, that's priceless!

[Kuciwalker]

It's not all that much more ridiculous than stuff you say...

[Targonis]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Willem, I realize you're from Canada, so there may be a culture gap here, but U.S. citizens hold very dearly our fundamental right to free speech and use it frequently. He can badmouth a game for any reason he wants. What is ridiculous is for anyone except maybe the developers themselves to take offense. You have the right to disagree, but it's silly to be offended. Even if I was a developer, I'd still be cautious about being offended because first, I can use the criticism to make a better idea, and second anyone who spends that much money on a game deserves a little leeway to be upset if he doesn't like it. Also, I did reread the posts and he did make diparaging remarks, but not until people attacked him for his opinion. I don't know Patroklos and maybe he does like to start things, but I just don't think he's doing so here.

btw, I'm new, how do you do quotes?

Freedom of speech only applies to government actions, and even then, there are limits about what you can say. When it comes to the "real world", if you say something in a nasty way, or say something that would offend people around you, being physically assaulted in response is a danger that keeps many people from being too obnoxious.

If someone is seen as trying to start a fight, or inspire someone else to start a fight, they will be asked to leave, or may be removed. This applies to online forums as well as businesses, so people should ALWAYS think in those terms. So, being an obnoxious jerk(I'm not pointing fingers here) is ok, but after a while, it MAY be seen as trying to cause trouble.

In this case, Patroklos doesn't like Civ 4, it's a known fact. When the vast majority of people like the changes between previous Civ games and Civ 4, trying to CONVINCE others that he is right and they are wrong is the problem some people have. Anyway, time to move on.

Civ 4 is a very nice change from previous Civ games in many ways. But, because many "basic strategies" no longer work in Civ 4, some people just don't like the new game.

In previous games, each city had "corruption", which is lost productivity. That corruption could be lessened by things like the courthouse and such. But, there was no city cost, so you could grow your empire as large as you wanted as early as you wanted.

In Civ 4, there is what they call "city maintenance cost", which is based on distance from the capitol, as well as how many cities you have. With one city, you don't have a number of cities cost, and obviously you don't have a distance from the capitol cost as well. With 100% science level, all the money generated is re-invested in advancing the technology level of your civ. When you add that second city, it not only has it's own cost, but because you now have a "number of cities cost", your capitol also adds a microscopic cost as well. Adding a third city will increase the number of cities cost for all cities, plus the distance from capitol expense of the third city.

The thing that makes that "cost" structure so interesting is that it forces players to decide if growth is more important than science. As your civ advances, there are science discoveries that will allow you to build items in your cities to boost money generated, which will allow you to grow your empire. So you are forced to balance tech with growth in the early game, but later, when you can build marketplaces, grocers, and banks in your cities, it will let you grow your empire.

Having too many military units will also add a cost to your empire.

For those who have no experience with the earlier Civ games, Civ 4 will probably provide the best game experience, but there ARE some elements from the earlier games that people miss(and wish would return).

There is the Civilization Chronicles, which has Civ 1, 2, 3, and the base Civ 4 game. Note that Civs 1 and 2 are UGLY by the standards of today. At the time they were fine, but they really look very dated by the standards of today. Playing them would also make you VERY happy with the graphics in Civ 4.

I hope this rambling helps in some way...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's not all that much more ridiculous than stuff you say...

Your ventriloquist act is second to none.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't have any DL's

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Targonis


Freedom of speech only applies to government actions, and even then, there are limits about what you can say. When it comes to the "real world", if you say something in a nasty way, or say something that would offend people around you, being physically assaulted in response is a danger that keeps many people from being too obnoxious.

This is technically true, but culturally speaking, US citizens like to shoot off their mouths about anything and do so frequently. But right or wrong, we also don't like it when people try to shut us up or insult us for our opinions.

Originally posted by Targonis

For those who have no experience with the earlier Civ games, Civ 4 will probably provide the best game experience, but there ARE some elements from the earlier games that people miss(and wish would return).

This is how I feel exactly. I think Civ IV is vastly superior to earlier versions, with the exception of a few quirks I miss from Civ 2 (Bring back advisors!).

[Flhaus]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Well, i went back and reread your posts Patroklos and I wouldn't say they meet that definition of trolling. You may have gotten hostile after a bit (but no more then anyone you argued with), but you're not a troll.

I think they all should go to bed without supper.