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

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by 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.

No, I've used this forum before. Please re-read my post and note that I did not tell Christiantine to shut up or leave or anything like that. I said that if he wants some people to take him seriously, he should consider my point. Big difference.

And really, I don't see Christiantine exposing any flaws in anybody's argument. I don't see him arguing at all, just insulting. Big difference there, too.

[isaac brock]

I don't mind being openly or passively aggressive towards anyone on the forum. At least I'm honest with each of you.

Posts telling Christantine not to argue with minor inaccuracies like the "shut up" thing are twice as unhelpful as his actual argument was.

[isaac brock]

Christantine is insulting and calling him a troll isn't?

Gimme an "H!"

"H!"

Gimme a "Y!"

"Y!"

Gimme a "POCRITICAL!"

"POCRITICAL!"

What's that spell, cyclotron?

[Taso_84]

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

I have heard many opinions, i have seen no proof.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by Taso_84


I have heard many opinions, i have seen no proof.

You aren't the only one...

[Cyclotron]

What, "pocritical"? Hmmm... I guess I'm not to the "P"s yet on the SAT wordlist...

I didn't think calling him a troll was insulting, but if you do I apologize and I will no longer use that word in your presence, Oh Isaac.

Actually, my main point is that Christiantine is insulting and not debating, while at least I and some others here are debating and at least trying not to insult. I applaud phutnote for giving his opinion among those who disagree with him, even if I don't really agree with his opinion. But since we've kind of strayed from the topic, maybe I'll just move on.

[Taso_84]

Posts telling Christantine not to argue with minor inaccuracies like the "shut up" thing are twice as unhelpful as his actual argument was.

I really would have read this twice and had a good think about it before posting.

What's that spell, cyclotron?

that too.


"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Have a think about that one now!

[Phutnote]

Christantine:

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

I believe your claim that they should all shut up, and that you are making an 'attack' on them constitues more than that.

'So is your post. Your point? '

The touchy comment was a rife on a respnse from another thread. If you don't have any tolerance for the opinion of others, why shouldn't you expect them to have little tolerance for you?

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.

Wow, if that isn't a load of bullox. You know what you said, and it wasn't 'please refrain.'

'Poor Boy'

Yes, lets resort to snide little comments, shalln't we?

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

No, this does not apply to you. But you are objecting in your post to any post on the board that deals with realism. You feel these people should all be quiet, because you don't like their opinion.

'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 was blinded by the fury of repeatedly posting to explain my position while being attacked for one I do not hold. The straw man you burn has nothing to do with what I originally said.

Roman: You're right, my post was hot under the collar. I should have been more tactful.

Cyclotron: Ok, I used some hyperbolic language and that went out of bounds. But I was not trying to shut down entire sections of posters of the board. And your point that they are ranting about optimal gameplay etc is well taken.

'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.'

Emminently reasonable. I agree with you completely.

'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.'

Again, an excellent observation. And I do expect it. I just would like to be detracted for the things I am actually saying rather than having ideas I do not support foisted upon me.

Again, points well taken Cyclo

'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'

thanks, Cyclo. And right again. The only reason I put 'shut up' in my post was because Christantine had directed this not just at me but dozens of other posters.

And Taso, thanx for the support.

Obviously, I have stepped into a nasty spot. And I do apologize for the earlier said rant, I went over the line with that one.

Phutnote

[Sarxis]

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

WHAT!? What was that?! You mean CIV is just a game??

They lied to me! My whole life is one, BIG, FAT, LIE!!

[Nenad]

Civ is a game, so it should be fun (Am I smart or what?)
But it's a game about history (somebody called it history simulator),
so it should be realistic, too.
I believe that people in Firaxis had tested every game concept to see if it's playable or not, and they toned down (or up) realism on that basis.
As for graphics, it's not that important to me. However, it's expectable that some people feel differently.

[Skanky Burns]

The game needs to balance realism and fun. If it can be made more fun without affecting realism, great. If it can be made more realistic without compromising the fun, great as well.
The point is, it shouldnt have an excess of one at the expense of the other. Yay! Debate over - even Moaning Lisa is smiling

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Taso_84


I really would have read this twice and had a good think about it before posting.

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Have a think about that one now!

Well, I would respond, but your post is too ambiguous for me to know whether you are even talking to me. Why don't you make your own points?

[Taso_84]

no that was not directed at you but rather at isaac.

My own points? very simply
if your really that against realism you shouldn't even be posting in this forum. Play SMAC, post about that. SMAC is an example of a game where they experimented by not including the realism.

Civ3 will be a popular game not only because of the whole TBS concept, but because it will be realistic. i assure anyone that challenges me, that if SMAC were based on earth with proper nats and units, it would have done a whole heap better that what it did.

By this reasoning, its easy to see that the designers of civ3 saw the value of realism and now they want to achieve it to the highest degree possible. They're the ones with everything to lose so its not too inconceivable to trust their judgement.