Whiners vs. Fanboys: This Sunday at the Thunderdome!

[Daveraver]

Ok, so I'm a whiner. But a whiner still stuck playing this wonderful but horrendously flawed game.

My point for discussion is this: All the fanboys seem to say is that we are whining about wanting the ability to win everytime. I think this is the central topic to the debate surrounding this game.

I, personally, don't want to win everytime, not with EASE at least. What we're talking about is the sacrifice of fun for challenge. And illogical tedious challenge at that.

I've came of age as computer games came of age, and well, shoot me if this is wrong... but I thought games were supposed to be fun.

That's my dos posetas for the day. Sit, discuss, no big whoop.

[Libertarian]

I like what I perceive as the game's core intent. I do not like the tedium of late-game play. It's a fun game to play for a bit, but not for a long time. You're right, though. Games are supposed to be fun.

[Dis]

2 men enter. 1 man leave

[DaShi]

Personally, I don't like games where winning is based more strongly on chance than on skill. That's why I prefer poker to blackjack. You can always bluff, if you get dealt a bad hand.

On a side note, are there any unwinable games in Freecell? Some seem impossible, but I always feel that there is some unorthodox way to beat them. Like going around aces instead of for them.

[Libertarian]

I've never lost a game of Freecell. Do you have a game number in mind?

[DaShi]

No, I usually get up to about 15 in a row then get stumped. After any loss, I clear my statistics (can't accept less than perfect ). Perhaps I just get too reckless sometimes.

[Code Monkey]

I just haven't seen anything from the whiners that I find a convincing argument.

The key points from whiners seem to be:

The randomness of strategic resources.
If they weren't random, they wouldn't be very strategic, would they?

The ability of "lesser" units to beat later age units.
The costs of units takes into account the simplified combat system already: a tank only costs 10X what an ancient warrior costs, has the same maintenance cost, and has 16X the attack strength and 8X the defense. It's already balanced, unit costs and maintenance costs would have to all be retooled to achieve realistic results and that would kill the fun because no one would have modern armies bigger than a few units.

The inability to rush wonders.
Gods forbid the game rules put you and the AI on even ground for something...

Crippling corruption beyond a certain empire size.
It might benefit from some tweaking, but it's a good game mechanic that makes you think strategically about expansion. Besides there's already an ingame way to handle large empires, it's called communism. What people want is the ability to gain all the benefits of a democratic government in a globe spanning empire, and that hardly reflects anything other than their meglomania .

So, yes, it does largely boil down to a "I want to win when I say I'll win" issue no matter how you try to sugar coat it with statements about how you just don't like mechanics that force challenge at the expense of fun. Challenge is fun if implemented properly and I've seen nothing to suggest the above elements weren't thought out.

[Libertarian]

Just goes to show that you see whatever you want to see.

How about the proliferation of bugs, some of which have yet to be acknowledged? For example, recon missions wipe out each others' effects. If you recon such that there is overlap, then the overlapped area surprisingly goes dark. Heck, you'd think that the overlap area would glow like the noonday sun.

How about late-game tedium? For example, if you have a hundred workers (due to the game-design decision that workers would do public works) building railroads in newly conquered territory, you will spend literally hours doing this: click... scroll... bump... click... scroll... scroll... click... bump... lather, rinse, repeat.

How about crippling interface issues? For example, you're in the trading screen. You're offered X for Y. What is the value of X? Where is Y located? Oops! Can't get to the civilopedia from here. Can't locate cities either.

How about Neanderthal design decisions that cause important messages to fly by you faster than any human can read them, while the Domestic Nag makes you wade through countless modal windows telling her the same thing a hundred times over?

If you cared to see what you're staring at, you'd see that these are not issues that help us win, but issues that help us play.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Just goes to show that you see whatever you want to see.

How about the proliferation of bugs, some of which have yet to be acknowledged? For example, recon missions wipe out each others' effects. If you recon such that there is overlap, then the overlapped area surprisingly goes dark. Heck, you'd think that the overlap area would glow like the noonday sun.

How about late-game tedium? For example, if you have a hundred workers (due to the game-design decision that workers would do public works) building railroads in newly conquered territory, you will spend literally hours doing this: click... scroll... bump... click... scroll... scroll... click... bump... lather, rinse, repeat.

How about crippling interface issues? For example, you're in the trading screen. You're offered X for Y. What is the value of X? Where is Y located? Oops! Can't get to the civilopedia from here. Can't locate cities either.

How about Neanderthal design decisions that cause important messages to fly by you faster than any human can read them, while the Domestic Nag makes you wade through countless modal windows telling her the same thing a hundred times over?

If you cared to see what you're staring at, you'd see that these are not issues that help us win, but issues that help us play.

These are not the main thrusts of the majority of whiners, nor are any of them game breaking to the point that people go on thousand post tirades (except maybe 3-4 people on these boards)

There are small bugs here and there. I've said repeatedly that the interface issues are many. None of that changes the fact that it's a damn good game and has sucked up all my free time since it came out.

[Libertarian]

Then you should elocute more precisely.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Then you should elocute more precisely.

Because "The key points from whiners seem to be:" isn't precise enough...

[Libertarian]

That's right. It isn't. By implication, you've lumped together in one convenient bag those who want the game to cheat for their sake with those who want the game improved.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Libertarian
That's right. It isn't. By implication, you've lumped together in one convenient bag those who want the game to cheat for their sake with those who want the game improved.

And how did I accomplish this?

I outlined four specific points that I say are 100% undiluted whining.

If you spend your time and efforts complaining about things that in my opinion are well designed game mechanics then I do lump you in the whiner category. Altering them will not improve the game, merely a vocal group's percentage of winning on their terms.

If you spend your time constructively pointing genuine bugs or places the interface can be improved, that merely makes you a critic (potentially even a useful critic). I didn't blur the lines, you did.

[rid102]

If you spend your time and efforts complaining about things that in my opinion are well designed game mechanics then I do lump you in the whiner category.

Then don't be surprised if other's stick a Firaxis Fanboi(tm) badge on you and classify everything you post as newbie nonsense, for spending your time and efforts asserting your opinion of "well designed game mechanics" is superior.

[Libertarian]

You drew a dichotomy as fallacious as any other bifurcation. No, you didn't blur the lines, and that's the problem. You drew a bold, solid, heavy line. And only one.