His signature was lifted from The Onion, America's Finest News Source. Click the link. You won't be disappointed.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there.
Collapse
X
-
Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?
Don't bring up heretical ideas or you'll be flamed back to the stone age seems to be the order of the day. Well, enough's enough then. I'd better respond.
Most of the witchunt against 'realism' is being carried out by people who are not only rude ('shut up!'), and belligerent, they have extremely poor reading skills.
My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant. My response? First, brush up on your deficient reading skills.
I used the example of the time it takes a battleship to transit the globe to demonstrate how slow modern naval units, specifically the battleship, are.
The response, of course, was an ignorant, blind rant against calls for realism by people who evidently did not read my post. In no part of it do I call for absolute realism. I also state that having a battleship transit a large world in 20 turns or so would be within reasonable gameplay limits. Some people here think that's realistic, evidently. Let me disabuse you of this idea. A modern battleship can circumnavigate the globe in under a year. I know this will shock many of you.
I do feel, however, that 45 turns or 60 turns for a submarine is way too slow for a game that has a time limit of, say, 2020-2050, when you dont get these new units until say 1920 (yeah, some people get battleships in 10 ad but not all of us are that good).
I find it astonishing how limited the anti-realism people are with the breadth of their reasoning. You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.
Furthermore, I would just like to point out that there are a lot of nonsense posts on this board that are nothing more than trivia. Someone finds them interesting. Not everyone has the same interests.
But simply because you do not share the same interests as others does not excuse intollerance of their ideas. I do not witlessly attack the posts of others on this forum, and I do not insult, belittle, or threaten Firaxis (i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) or its artists ('the art SUCKS!') as many have on these boards, over and over again, without censure.
If someone wants to post about what civ they are going to play first, go ahead. This, the civ experience, is about having FUN.
I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.
Different people have fun in different ways. They may discuss different aspects of the game that they find interesting.
If you are too limited in thought to understand this, Christantine the Great, then shut up.
Phutnote
Comment
-
"Realists" and a famous game... anyone see the movie Existenz (forgot which letters are capitilized). Please, no killing over Civ 3. It is, after all a game. And the thing about the Jaguar skins is that everything in the game is going to be modifiable. So if you don't like it, make your own!Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld
Comment
-
As a realist, I want other people who hate realismI never said I hated realism, I said it should come in second.
Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?
('shut up!')
My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant.
You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.
(i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) ('the art SUCKS!')
I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.
Different people have fun in different ways.
I guess you were blinded by the fury you felt seeing your precious thread being poked at. For that, I forgive you. Sleep easy."I agree with everything i've heard you recently say-I hereby applaud Christantine The Great's rapid succession of good calls."-isaac brock
"This has to be one of the most impressive accomplishments in the history of Apolyton, well done Chris"-monkspider (Refering to my Megamix summary)
"You are redoing history by replaying the civs that made history."-Me
Comment
-
Thanks Christantine. I appreciate your telling-off skills. And phutnote, thanks for the blind rant from someone who obviously hasn't read Christantine's post.
I myself would enjoy a playable game more than a slideshow of leaders with accurate moles and birthmarks.
OOh yeah!
Fun games: 1
Realism: NOTHINGRetired, and it feels so good!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Phutnote
Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?
Don't bring up heretical ideas or you'll be flamed back to the stone age seems to be the order of the day. Well, enough's enough then. I'd better respond.
Most of the witchunt against 'realism' is being carried out by people who are not only rude ('shut up!'), and belligerent, they have extremely poor reading skills.
My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant. My response? First, brush up on your deficient reading skills.
I used the example of the time it takes a battleship to transit the globe to demonstrate how slow modern naval units, specifically the battleship, are.
The response, of course, was an ignorant, blind rant against calls for realism by people who evidently did not read my post. In no part of it do I call for absolute realism. I also state that having a battleship transit a large world in 20 turns or so would be within reasonable gameplay limits. Some people here think that's realistic, evidently. Let me disabuse you of this idea. A modern battleship can circumnavigate the globe in under a year. I know this will shock many of you.
I do feel, however, that 45 turns or 60 turns for a submarine is way too slow for a game that has a time limit of, say, 2020-2050, when you dont get these new units until say 1920 (yeah, some people get battleships in 10 ad but not all of us are that good).
I recommend a slowing down of elapsed time per turn. Civ2 already does this by slowing down the progress of time as time goes on, but if you still think there aren't enough turns at the end of the game it would be logical to make every turn only 6 months or so at the end.
I find it astonishing how limited the anti-realism people are with the breadth of their reasoning. You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.
Adding realism such that it detracts from gameplay is generally a bad idea, while realism that does not affect gameplay is perfectly fine.
I don't agree with giving a battleship a lot more moves, because for the reasons mentioned above I believe a 10 move battleship would detract from gameplay. Changing Cleopatra's skin color, however, is harmless and should be included if possible or reasonsble.
Furthermore, I would just like to point out that there are a lot of nonsense posts on this board that are nothing more than trivia. Someone finds them interesting. Not everyone has the same interests.
But simply because you do not share the same interests as others does not excuse intollerance of their ideas. I do not witlessly attack the posts of others on this forum, and I do not insult, belittle, or threaten Firaxis (i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) or its artists ('the art SUCKS!') as many have on these boards, over and over again, without censure.
If someone wants to post about what civ they are going to play first, go ahead. This, the civ experience, is about having FUN.
I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.
Different people have fun in different ways. They may discuss different aspects of the game that they find interesting.
If you are too limited in thought to understand this, Christantine the Great, then shut up.
Isaac, you're not helpingLime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Comment
-
Hey Christiantine, is that really necessary? If you want anyone to take you even a bit seriously, stop being such a troll and let people speak. What, can't stand some heat from the opposition?Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Comment
-
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Isaac, you're not helpingRetired, and it feels so good!
Comment
-
Hey, Christantine is NOT being a "troll." When someone exposes the flaws in your argument, you expose the flaws in their argument until they are shamed out of the thread. Is this the first time you've used the forum?
Even if irony really is dead, it doesn't mean all forms of argument are.Retired, and it feels so good!
Comment
-
Christantine, you again have been unable to properly understand the point that Phutnote was trying to get through.
Critising the minor shortcomings and the trivial inaccuracies
Quote correctly. I said "shut up" (note no exclamation point) because I did not feel like typing out 'would please refrain from saying'. Anyone would do this.
Posts likeI don't have any argument to strike down your post other than that I disagree, so I plead you all to randomly insult phutnote, his mother, and his personal hygiene.
Comment
-
Re: Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there.
Originally posted by Christantine The Great
I would just like to say that I mostly agree with the topic "Realism should always be second to Fun", but I'd replace the word "Fun" with gameplay/balance.
Comment
Comment