Will people ever stop bickering with each other????????????

[fred]

Originally posted by falcon7o


First of all conflict doesn't always help. I just hope you know that. Secondly, I really wouldn't care if there were 3 civs and I had to choose from the guy at 7-11, Bill Gates, and the civilization with no people. IT'S CALLED A GAME. Also, what if I was to say that the wheel never exsisted (probably not true). I can argue, and argue, and argue, and although I'm wrong, THE CONFLICT LED TO NOTHING. So think before you write please....

Thanks for continuing to help the point be proven.

Please open the mind, and close the stupidity.

If you would like to think, please do I wont stop you. Its not hard just try for once.

What is the point of doing anything, if there is no challenge, no goal? If there is a goal there is a conflict. Because any goal worth doing anything for is a goal 2 or more people will want. Now take your wheel. With out conflict the person\people involved in the invention would not take the time to think up the wheel because what is the point? The only point is to improve yourself so that you are better then your opponent. The reason for doing is conflict, to be better and to beat someone.

And if you argue stupid things, in conflict. A lot is gained. One if you argue and you are wrong, really wrong I know you're stupid and ignorant. Others know this. And You might learn more. Both large bonuses.

And to put it into a game. The only way people will improve the game is through knowing what people want. To know what people want you need sudjestions. Those sudjestions might anger a few. Some might comprimise, making a better sudjestion. More people are happy. And through conflict the design team is now aware of a comprimised idea, that will help sell the game because more people will be happy with new features. And they wont include features that people dont want. Conflict gives the Dev team the ideas that wioll sell the most games and refines them while also killing the ideas that people will hate.

Please pull your conservative head out of the utopia clouds you think you are floating in. Anarchy = wins

[DarkCloud]

Good post fred.

Chris- we can always argue for the expansion pack... where there is life (in Firaxis's future) there is hope.

[falcon7o]

Originally posted by fred


Thanks for continuing to help the point be proven.

Please open the mind, and close the stupidity.

If you would like to think, please do I wont stop you. Its not hard just try for once.

What is the point of doing anything, if there is no challenge, no goal? If there is a goal there is a conflict. Because any goal worth doing anything for is a goal 2 or more people will want. Now take your wheel. With out conflict the person\people involved in the invention would not take the time to think up the wheel because what is the point? The only point is to improve yourself so that you are better then your opponent. The reason for doing is conflict, to be better and to beat someone.

And if you argue stupid things, in conflict. A lot is gained. One if you argue and you are wrong, really wrong I know you're stupid and ignorant. Others know this. And You might learn more. Both large bonuses.

And to put it into a game. The only way people will improve the game is through knowing what people want. To know what people want you need sudjestions. Those sudjestions might anger a few. Some might comprimise, making a better sudjestion. More people are happy. And through conflict the design team is now aware of a comprimised idea, that will help sell the game because more people will be happy with new features. And they wont include features that people dont want. Conflict gives the Dev team the ideas that wioll sell the most games and refines them while also killing the ideas that people will hate.

Please pull your conservative head out of the utopia clouds you think you are floating in. Anarchy = wins

First of all the conflict you talk about is a different type of conflict you talked about earlier. Obviously, you would need some sort of difficulty for an invention, but when you argue about civilizations, which are all equally important, you are pretty much sayiong this grey wheel is better than this red wheel because its been around longer, or more people know it, or it looks better. Does that accomplish anything? When you are restricted to 16 civs no one should argue about they should of taken this out and put this in, it would be like saying you should take the invention of the wheel out and put the invention of the wheel in to improve this....etc.

[falcon7o]

And by the fact that you are so passionate about this, I believe that you are one of the people who got really mad cause you think your fav. civ isn't in the game, but instead of the exapansion. I would rather have the expansion that would focus on gameplay then on civs. I mean who is stupid enough to buy an expansion for maybe $30 that focuses little on gameplay and mainly on adding more civs.

[falcon7o]

oh and btw, If people don't like the game for what it is then I have a solution to your problems. DON'T BUY THE GAME! Simple, eh?

[tniem]

Originally posted by falcon7o
oh and btw, If people don't like the game for what it is then I have a solution to your problems. DON'T BUY THE GAME! Simple, eh?

But I still have spent the last year and a half talking about the game and the last ten playing the original. There is no way I will get that time back but there is a reason I have, to see Civ III be a great game. It is easier for me to whine about it now and see subtle changes than wait until release. At that point it is too late and I have totally wasted my time.

[fred]

I see theres something wrong with your feelings. I dont know if you feel unsecure, or what. But the fact is the arguements prove to be enlightening at the least. If you actually read the arguements you can gain a lot of information passed on by fellow civers. This allows you to develop your information base whichyou can later use. Information is the key to winning.

Second I point out the fact that I want to buy Civ III. And the reason for arguing is that if I want to buy the game, I want the game to be the best it possibly can be. Added to the fact of an expansion pack, how is the Civ team going to add a Civ I want into the game if they dont know it? How do they gadge the importance of the civ for the community if there is no conflict? And if there was no arguements that would mean the game is utterly perfect, which it can not be. So if you think everyone should stop arguing you feel the game is perfect. Now please don't be a complete idiot and thinking anything is perfect. Back to conflict improves, not neccesarly competition.

And how do we know gameplay for the expansion if we haven't played the game? About right now the only thing people can argue about is the civs. This also allows the community to stay together while expressing views, sharing knowledge, and possibly latter improving the game while passing time.

Now really I'm not not going to buy Civ III because I don't like all the civ choices, but the civ choices can improve till later. Never be content with a half assed job or even a good job.

And take your own advise, dont read the forums. Pleas if you dont like it don't read it. You have a little hypocracy problem....

[falcon7o]

Originally posted by fred
I see theres something wrong with your feelings. I dont know if you feel unsecure, or what. But the fact is the arguements prove to be enlightening at the least. If you actually read the arguements you can gain a lot of information passed on by fellow civers. This allows you to develop your information base whichyou can later use. Information is the key to winning.

Second I point out the fact that I want to buy Civ III. And the reason for arguing is that if I want to buy the game, I want the game to be the best it possibly can be. Added to the fact of an expansion pack, how is the Civ team going to add a Civ I want into the game if they dont know it? How do they gadge the importance of the civ for the community if there is no conflict? And if there was no arguements that would mean the game is utterly perfect, which it can not be. So if you think everyone should stop arguing you feel the game is perfect. Now please don't be a complete idiot and thinking anything is perfect. Back to conflict improves, not neccesarly competition.

And how do we know gameplay for the expansion if we haven't played the game? About right now the only thing people can argue about is the civs. This also allows the community to stay together while expressing views, sharing knowledge, and possibly latter improving the game while passing time.

Now really I'm not not going to buy Civ III because I don't like all the civ choices, but the civ choices can improve till later. Never be content with a half assed job or even a good job.

And take your own advise, dont read the forums. Pleas if you dont like it don't read it. You have a little hypocracy problem....

First of all, most of the arguments are base less. Apparently, you haven't read them. Saying that a civ. is larger, or lasted longer, does not qualify it to be more important than a smaller, less lasting civ. Do you read the arguments at all?????? I mean they keep on saying, "Why did they add two native american civs., why are they important?" or "Why did they America as a civ., we all know it's like England?" or "Why is there no Spanish civ., it was a superpower at some point...." all pointless arguments because once again, EVERY CIVILIZATIONS IS EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE. And I doubt they really care about other peoples opinions, in fact most of them post just for support and not real feedback. And this community is not a peaceloving, intelligent community. Not everyone wants to hear other peoples comments, and just want to pretend to be all smart, go on the internet, find facts about their civ, and say it's better than the other, when no civ. is. Once again, arguing between which civ is more important is like arguing that something that is obviously true, isn't just because you don't like it.

[Inverse Icarus]

go ahead and call me a neo-nazi if you want to be closed minded, but im going to quote Hitler here:

"mankind has grown strong in eternal struggle, and will only perish through eternal peace"

[fred]

Actually you have said a point I feel and have expressed, unheard, but expressed. The fact is that every culture has had equal affect on the worlds history.

But that aside, there are civs i would rather play then others. I also find some arguements more interesting. If I dont like the thread I stop reading it, dont post and move on. If I feel that the thread is going somplace, or I can commit some knowledge on the subject I provide it. The conflict, i hope, provides the medium for the passing on of knowledge. If its bad knowledge I learn to ignore/flame the person that said it. Then if the person does give good information, worth my attention, I further my own knowledge. It doesnt matter how they got it.

And anyways, what other thing are people going to talk about on the forums?

The forums will go dead if they cant argue.

And its funny cause u can laugh at some of the really stupid comments and then flame the person. Then they try and defend themselves. Its funny

[yin26]

EVERY CIVILIZATIONS IS EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE.

What a silly, uninformed thing to say. In a perfect world, people are people and we are contribute equally to the world around us. But has a history book even fallen on your head?

Now arguing about the 'value' of a civ based on its total landmass or something like that is a slippery slope to say the least, but not all civs are equal and have an equal place in history. Not by a longshot.

Now, while many of the debates here are based on pure conjecture with people pulling "thoughts" out of their backsides, there are some genuine realizations being made...things nobody ever considered before or heard about XYZ civ. This is important. In fact, it's rather vital to fostering understanding among people. Also, Firaxis DOES listen to these kinds of things. They have to do their homework, too, you know.

So, learn to distinguish the comments based on research vs. b.s. comments that are worthless or even misrepresentative. Of course, this takes effort and a willingness to do more than say: ALL CIVS ARE EQUAL! They aren't. Never have been. Never will be. Wanting them to be or turning off your brain won't change that.

If you mean, however, we should try to respect all civs for what they have offered the world, even if it has been in a rather small way, then I totally agree with you. But how will we learn those things unless we debate them?

Hmmm. Take a few moments to ponder that.

[DarkCloud]

Despite the fact that this statement goes against my philosophy "ALL CIVS HAVE NOT CONTRIBUITED THE SAME AMOUNT OF CULTURE TO THE WORLD"

I have to say it... despite the fact that I believe everyone is the same... I have to say that.

falcon- would you say that the Easter Island civilization was important? It WAS a civilization but did it really contribuite to the world? Would you say that Polynesia has contribuited as much to the "ENTIRE WORLD" as Egypt did in its heyday or England/China/Russia/America did in the post 1700 world?

[fred]

There is something missing from your complete understanding. My point of view on this is that they are all equal in creating our history and our present.

I base my arguement on the simple fact that if removed, every civilization, every culture will have drastic repercusions on the out come of history. That is to say if you removed Easter Island from the timeline you would earevicably (I can't spell, please don't hold it against my arguement ) aulter the history and culture of many people and places. It would cause the same change as say removing the greeks. Because the ending becomes desimilar to our own the effect is thus equal but have a different result. Now all arguements I have seen have been about cause and effect. I have just proven that the cause and effect of the civilization, no matter how unimportant they seem in a text book are equal.

That is also not to say I will admire every culture equal in their achievements. But when you come down to it they have had equal effect on our timeline and culture through fact of influence. Its hard to comprehend and explain my point of view on this, and this was my best effort with a limited grade 10 vocabulary, but I hope some will understand.

[fred]

Oh and to add to the easter island people. Their culture might have acted as a bridge between those of the South Pacific and of present day latin america. The actual affect of Easter Island is really unknown since many of the America's stories (if in book form) were destroyed or killed out (un written stories). So the actual contact between South America and the South Pacific is unknown. But evidence has placed South Americans on Easter Island as well as a population from the South Pacific.

Peak Population on Easter Island= 10 000 (est)

Population was whipped out by over population of the island which led to deforestation which in turn leads to other problems.

http://www.mysteriousplaces.com/Easter_Island/

[yin26]

I base my arguement on the simple fact that if removed, every civilization, every culture will have drastic repercusions on the out come of history.

It's a nice thought, and it certainly makes a person want to believe in the 'Web of Humanity,' but there are some problems with your wording. "Fact" is in dispute. "Every" is too strong a word, and so is "Drastic." If you altered your statement like this, however, I could support you:

The unfolding of human history is based on a delicate balance of often unseen influences that can stretch over vast expanses of space and time. In the same way that even a stable ecosystem could be almost instantly shattered by the removal of even a seemingly 'insignifant' plant or animal, so, too, could human history as we know it be irrevocably altered by even the smallest elimination or addition of even the smallest influence from even the most remote reaches of the earth.

A bit wordy, so forgive me. But notice the difference.