Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there.

[isaac brock]

His signature was lifted from The Onion, America's Finest News Source. Click the link. You won't be disappointed.

[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 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

[Lorizael]

"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!

[isaac brock]

I 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.

[monkspider]

Thanks Issac
I concur, Onion is great!

[Roman]

Originally posted by isaac brock
His signature was lifted from The Onion, America's Finest News Source. Click the link. You won't be disappointed.

ROFLMAO

Now that's funny.

[Christantine The Great]

As a realist, I want other people who hate realism

I never said I hated realism, I said it should come in second.

Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?

So is your post. Your point?

('shut up!')

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.

My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant.

What? Can't stand criticism? Poor boy...

You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.

You gather all of this from one post I made to (not entirely seriously) challenge the argument of extreme realism?

(i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) ('the art SUCKS!')

I really, really hope this is not aimed at me. Show me where I said that.

I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.

Note the winking smile near the name of this thread on the main page? Guess not...

Different people have fun in different ways.

Then you die on the first turn and I will happily enjoy my battleship taking 5 turns to cross the Atlantic.

I guess you were blinded by the fury you felt seeing your precious thread being poked at. For that, I forgive you. Sleep easy.

[Roman]

Calm down people, no need to wind each other up. It's only a game after all.

[isaac brock]

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: NOTHING

[Cyclotron]

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.

Well, some poeple can be rude. But I wouldn't call this a witch hunt or anything else except people voicing their opinions just as you are.

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.

Actually, it didn't shock me. I keep in mind that this is a game, and the amount of turns should depend on the best rate for gameplay, not the best rate for chronological realism. I think that's what most people were "ranting" about.

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).

Okay. A good argument for why this affects gameplay. This would be alright, except that increased movement would basically null things like blockades and unbalance the game strategically. For example, a battleship could move up quickly and destroy an entire group of destroyers, simply because it gets a lot of moves. Furthermore, for faster sea units to still have value in their speed, they need to have proportionally more moves than the slower unit. That means that if you gave a battleship 10 moves, a destroyer would probably have to have an amazing 15-20 moves to still be worth building. That's a lot of moves!

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.

My mantra is this, and I hope you will find it reasonable:

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.

Everybody can say (pretty much) whatever they want, that is the essence of a forum. You should learn to be patient with your detractors and in doing so understand that you are morally superior if you stay above their attacks and ignore their personal insults. As for their opinions (that idea SUCKS!) I think you will find a lot of that everywhere you go, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Expect it to come from somewhere.

If someone wants to post about what civ they are going to play first, go ahead. This, the civ experience, is about having FUN.

And, since people's ideas on fun differ, you can't qualify posts for other people.

I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.

Refer to above paragraph on personal insults. Christiantine has every right to post what he did, and so did you.

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.

Your post here hints that you too "are too limited in thought to understand this." Let him say what he wants. It's good you made your counterpoint, but you should learn to debate your ideas without telling people to shut up.

Isaac, you're not helping

[Cyclotron]

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?

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Isaac, you're not helping

Well, I've never been so uninsulted in my life! I don't need to help. I do what I can to fan the big red flames of hatred. I'm only saying, if you want realism buy Encarta 2002, if you want a game play Civ 3.

[isaac brock]

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.

[Taso_84]

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.

in his post does not in anyway undermine his agument or what he is trying to defend. Maybe if you actually posted a worthwhile argument to counter his, we would be more willing to take into account your opinion.

Posts like

I 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.

really say it all dont they. (this is not directed at u christy)

[PGM]

Re: Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there.

Originally posted by Christantine The Great

I'm not even going to bother reading beyond the 1st post, because I can just sense the heat coming up.
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.