JADED CIVERS THREAD; super kewl/radical newbies keep out.

[Zylka]

Yes, as civ2 was civ 1.1, I want civ 2.1.

Problem is, you're happy with CTP3

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Zylka
Yes, as civ2 was civ 1.1, I want civ 2.1.

Problem is, you're happy with CTP3

I like Civ3.
You don't.
End of story.

[MDA]

You're probably right, since I'm not a Civ2 legend, I'm too stupid to see past your total lack of logical argument for your postition to realize you're opinion is the only correct one.



What's missing from this that was in Civ2?

List what's missing, explain why you feel the way you do about the game! 'Kay?

[The Rook]

Started reading this thread and I kinda felt bad for Zylka the way you guys were treating him. I mean he does have a right to his own opinion, and then I read this...

Originally posted by Zylka
Like I said, I don't expect any of you morons to understand. The only ones who will agree with me and know what I'm talking about are the legends who know number 2 inside out.

Apparently, we're not at the same level of enlightenment as Zylka here is. Maybe he should have his own Message Board?

[HisMajestyBOB]

It seems like hes saying "Everyone's stupid/crazy/wrong except me!"

[Eddin]

Heehee

You're probably right, since I'm not a Civ2 legend, I'm too stupid to see past your total lack of logical argument for your postition to realize you're opinion is the only correct one.

That hits the point exactly

Anyway, I think it's rather silly the way you are shooting down Civ3, but, that is your opinion.

What I think is VERY wrong is saying that you and your buddies are better than us when it comes in judging the general fun factor of the game. That actually sickens me. If you really try to spend time here explaining how much better the civ veterans are, becasue they are the only ones that see the goods and the bads.

Example: My sister listens to britney spears, which I think sucks. I say it often to her, that it is not to my taste. Do I try to found my taste by saying that my own tase is better than hers? No, that would be silly and stupid. Too bad the world is filled with such stupidities.

[ProfessorPhobos]

>>>They negated the successfull themes of the first two. >>>>>

He's right, y'know. Civilization 3 is about mutant gophers. Everything about that whole "build a civilization- expand, conquer, trade...." all that was false advertising. It's about randy, mutant gophers.



<<<>>

What most people don't realize is that the Civ community has long since past it's computer game roots- it's now a mystery cult, located in southwestern Oregon. Only a handful learned the true mystic secrets behind the old Civ2 combat system. Ergo, Civ3 is more like a bastardized edition of Holye's Book of Games than anything actually containing true Hexes. It's a bit like the paperback edition of the Necronomincon.


(Of course, I was expecting someone to say "who know number 2 inside out" indicated how well you seem to produce bull****, but hey, I don't want a Flame War.)

<<>>>>

Right. Because success is bad. Age of Empires was for idiots- it never actually produced an enjoyable gaming experience. It's just that the CD case was laced with a powerful dosage of LSD. The masses know nothing- only the handful of secret Civ2 multiplayer experts know how the best game in the world should be. (Which would likely only appeal to a handful of Civ2 multiplayer fanatics...oddly enough....) The masses don't know what is fun. Only you know what is fun.*

Your posts boil down to a lot of vague griping about "stuff" that you can't really seem to explain- because, of course, no one here would approach your level of Civenlightenment. Oh, the angst, the angst, the angst.



*This is, to some extent, true. You know what's fun for YOU. I only take issue when you say that your opinion is somehow "better" than mine, and that everyone else is "morons" for not understanding why Civ3 is so bad.

[Zylka]

No, that side of my argument I rather call trolling. Congrats for taking the bait.

All aside, I don't like the game. You do like the game. I voice my complaints, which however "vague" are still a lot more specific than "I LIKE IT CUS IT'S KOOL AND THEY OBVUROSLY POORED THAR HARTS INTO IT I LIKE DEM 3-D GRAPHICS AND SUCH."

Please. Your arguments for why it's good (it's good cuz I like it) are no better. I have compared, contrasted and criticized, you sit, stare, and disagree.

Game over. I win. This game sucks.

[albiedamned]

Zylka's diatribe which started this thread was so full of unsubstantiated claims that it reminded me of statements from the Taliban. Quite a few of his claims have already been thrown out (no zoom, can't minimize).

Here's another one we can throw out. Although I was never officially inducted into the Civ2 veteran club by Zylka, I consider myself a Civ2 veteran (as well as Civ1, Colonization, and SMAC). I started playing Civ my freshman year of college, in 1991. At any given time over the past 10 years I've almost always had either a game of Civ, Col, Civ2, or SMAC going. And I win regularly on the hardest difficult levels.

And I love Civ3. So Zylka's assertion that the true veterans will recognize the problems with the game is false.

[Zylka]

...and to prove I am specifying complaints, I'll have a point form list for you after I get back from the dentist. Perhaps you'd like to do the same for the pros?

Thought so.

[albiedamned]

By the way, if you want specific reasons as to why I like it, check out the I Love Civ3 thread I started.

[ProfessorPhobos]

I don't care why you don't like it. You don't care why I like it.

The only thing that got caught in my craw was your implication that anyone who didn't share your opinion was a moron, which, I'm afraid, negates anything worthwhile you could possibly say. It's a derivative of Godwin's Law.

(On a related note: I tried quoting what he said, but it only gives me the <<<>>> in my post. What happened to what he said?)

[Alexander's Horse]

All this thread shows is it will take about 2 weeks before people understand the game and its features well enough to assess it.

But the lack of multiplayer is still a big black mark on the game.

[Khab]

Erm, I don't know about you guys, but I usually figure that if a game is fun, it's pretty good. If it's a lot of fun, it's a lot of good.

On the other hand, if it's not fun, I reckon it's none too good, either.

But maybe that's just me, eh?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos

The only thing that got caught in my craw was your implication that anyone who didn't share your opinion was a moron, which, I'm afraid, negates anything worthwhile you could possibly say. It's a derivative of Godwin's Law.
(

Ok, ok. The moron thing was way out of line, it's just I'm cranky and haven't had my paxil for today

I just truly beleive that this game falls short of justified expectations, and that it will not live on as long as civ2 already has.

At a time, civ2 (or civ 1.1) was widely regarded as the greatest computer game of all time. This will in no way be treated the same, and I know why...

*Sniffles*