dry whine

[jackshot]

This is not a whine. Or is it?

Guess I need explained the difference between a legit complaint and a "whine", that word seems to be used for everything. What is not a whine?

I have been playing this game a lot, and I like it. Quite a bit as a matter of fact. But it also seems to me there are real issues and problems here. But the word just seems used to squelch everything in sight.

What is a whine, and what is so bad about it? What does one expect to see in a reasonable complaint that would make it not a whine?

[Code Monkey]

This is strictly my opinion on the situation:

There are a number of fundamental game design decisions that went into Civ3 such as simplified and abstracted combat mechanics, randomised strategic resources, the corruption model, inability to upgrade to a unique unit, an AI that functions largely the same on Chieftan as it does on Deity, streamlined government choices, etc. These are the building blocks of the game system. While they may or may not benefit from being tweaked, they're going to remain in the game in some form or another because, like it or not, they are Civ3 and they reflect major design decisions on the part of Sid Meier and the programmers who put the game together.

If these issues make the game unenjoyable for you then, please, just quietly go play another game. Firaxis and Infogrammes aren't going to redo 2+ years of game design and programming because you feel it's an idiotic decision to have -foo- work like it does. Sometimes you buy a game that you were really looking forward to that, whether because of dubious design decisions, poor implementation, or just different a different angle on the genre than the designer, is not going to rub your mojo for you. It's no big deal - it costs an evening out on the town with your honey, and, if you got even three or four evenings of enjoyment before it began to drive you nuts, you got your money's worth mostly. That some games entertain us for months for $30-$50 is an amazing thing that should not be expected, it should be appreciated when it does happen.

I've got several hundred dollars worth of games from the past few years sitting on a shelf near me that I never finished for one reason or another, some I never played more than a weekend before I put it away in favour of greener pastures. I moved on, I didn't make a personal crusade of pissing on everybody else's parade who might be enjoying the game. Example: Myth 2, great reviews, fans coming out of the woodwork - I hated the game. I hated the interface, I hated the limited ability to remap the controls, I hated the way it rearranged all my icons on the desktop because it couldn't properly switch resolutions, etc. I wrote a negative review on gamespot and put the game away, done and done. Black and White is another example. I loved the game at first but lost it when I found out a majority of people (including me) couldn't even finish the game in the shipping state and that a creature that took literally 100-200 hours to build up was ruined by the bug. I ranted on the forums until the first patch came out but once it was clear the designers didn't give a rat's ass about fixing much of anything I uninstalled the game and went on my way. If I were Yin I'd still be there on the Lionhead forums ranting day in and day out about how I would have done things better...

On the other side of the fence are the people who genuinely like the game or at least the framework of Civ3 and want to see it improved. They want to see stacked movement implemented, they want to see better worker automation so that micromanagement is reduced, they want to see niggling bugs removed, they want to see certain pieces of information (message list!) added to the interface to eliminate tedium. They are constructive in their criticism - they're suggestions aren't about reworking the entire game because Civ3 in its current form is a steaming pile of dog dookey, it's about improving what's already there. The goal of these posters isn't to take Civ3 and rip everything out but the name and start over, it's to add to what's there to make it better. That's my biggest distinction between the whiners and constructive criticisers: the first hate the basic game and their posts aren't accomplishing anything other than spreading negativity in the world, the second at the very least like it and want to see it better

There's a difference between liking Civ3 and wanting to like Civ3. Everyone here wanted to like it, not everyone does - they need to move on and use a simple, direct letter to Firaxis and Infogrammes to voice their displeasure instead of polluting public forums with nothing more than childish tirades. Constructive criticism is welcome, baseless attacks on the designers or other posters, and *****ing because you lack the skill and/or imagination to succeed with the Civ3 game model is not.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
On the other side of the fence are the people who genuinely like the game or at least the framework of Civ3 and want to see it improved. They want to see stacked movement implemented, they want to see better worker automation so that micromanagement is reduced, they want to see niggling bugs removed, they want to see certain pieces of information (message list!) added to the interface to eliminate tedium. They are constructive in their criticism - they're suggestions aren't about reworking the entire game because Civ3 in its current form is a steaming pile of dog dookey, it's about improving what's already there. The goal of these posters isn't to take Civ3 and rip everything out but the name and start over, it's to add to what's there to make it better. That's my biggest distinction between the whiners and constructive criticisers: the first hate the basic game and their posts aren't accomplishing anything other than spreading negativity in the world, the second at the very least like it and want to see it better.

I think I can write my name under above description, as well. Good reply C.M. Very worthwhile to read. Personally, I never use Worker-automation anyway (control-freak), but I understand the need.

[HawaiiFive-O]

Excellent post, Code Monkey.

Very true...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Yes. I agree also. I have seen this idea before, just not nearly as eloquently put as you do it, Code Monkey.

Why is it Civ3 though? Many of those with a poor view of the game have "Prince" or "King" or something next to their name, meaning they are long-term regulars here at Apolyton. Meaning they didn't just breeze in and look to stir up some personal attacks, but they have shown at least some committment to the series, without being driven off by other games.

In my thread on whether this forum is good or not, I put forward the idea that maybe this happens (or would happen) with every game with a pre-built fan community, if there are these sorts of fora available for discussion. Maybe we all tend towards liking the other Civs and CTPs after some months or so and reach a tentative agreement. Perhaps we will do the same with Civ3 and all end up broadly liking it? Sorry for the absoultely shameless plug for my thread, but I'm not repeating that lot again, and it wasn't 'till after I wrote it that I realized there was already a thread dealing with this sort of issue.

If you want my full ideas though you should read it.

[jackshot]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
If these issues make the game unenjoyable for you then, please, just quietly go play another game

I aree with you, and certainly a call for more constructive-type criticism is great. And I am very aware of the problem of trolls, just why people do that I have no idea. Trolls can be distructive.

But you make it sound like a person has to like the game before their opinion is valuable. I'm not so sure. I'm uncomfortable with the "love it or leave it" approach - honest reactions, even if never implemented specifically, can jog ideas or influence either the next game or the competition, mod makers and hackers, all sorts of things. I thought the forum was "General" not "Only how I like it or things that might be in the next patch".

It also calls to mind, not to lay this on you Code Monkey because you comments can be well taken, but it's a common thread in a lot of posts, a sort of self-serving purpose - that the forum is to serve you somehow, content should be pleasing or informing to you and not simply what everyone wants to say about the game. Because that's not what you are interested in, is it?

Constructive criticism is welcome, baseless attacks on the designers or other posters, and *****ing because you lack the skill and/or imagination to succeed with the Civ3 game model is not.

Some attacks are baseless, others are just base, I guess.

[Steve Clark]

code monkey, perfectly said.

I had the same experience with EU as you did with Myth2. For a short while, I wanted to like EU and posted quite a bit in the forum. But then it dawned on me, I don't have to like the game. It came down to that EU (and some other games for that matter) are just not suited to my way of playing and style of thinking. But I know alot of gamers became obsessed with EU and I respect them for it. For me, I just moved on, back to Civ2 and back to the Pharaoh/Zeus. When I saw that EU2 is basically the same game only bigger, I didn't bother with it because I don't have to like it.

The same thing applies to Civ3. It is apparent that some here have to or want to like Civ3 as if it's really that important. Civ3 is not for everybody, nor should it be. There is nothing wrong with not liking Civ3, for whatever reason. I think some of the reactions here (including from me) are the unwillingness to accept the design decisions that code monkey stated very well. Some will love those decisions, while some will hate them. Polishing a rough diamond is one thing, but wanting to change the diamond to an emerald is an entirely different matter.

Back when I was struggling with the concepts of wanting to like a game and having to like a game, I thought of the analogy with movies. Just like with games, there movies that are highly anticipated. When you walk out of the theatre, you could say that you hated it because it wasn't what you expected or wanted. But you look around and there are folks coming out saying they loved it. Both views are right. But the next step for hater of the movie should not be harass the director or the producers of the movie but perhaps to move on and go to another movie instead. I guess it is human nature to wanting to love something so badly that it involves many different emotions. But just like with a movie that I didn't like, there are games I didn't like. But I have learned to be content with what I do like and not feel I have to like a movie or a game.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Yes. I agree also. I have seen this idea before, just not nearly as eloquently put as you do it, Code Monkey.

Why is it Civ3 though? Many of those with a poor view of the game have "Prince" or "King" or something next to their name, meaning they are long-term regulars here at Apolyton. Meaning they didn't just breeze in and look to stir up some personal attacks, but they have shown at least some committment to the series, without being driven off by other games.

If I were to guess, I'd say that many of these people are indeed long term civilization fans, but that they haven't been happy with a civ game since Civ2. People are still playing Civ2 and even buying the thing 5 years after it came out - it is a good TBS that has stood the test of the market and time. It says a lot that game can inspire that sort of fandom and long term affection.

If we took the time to dig through the archives, the people slinging mud today who've been around long enough were probably doing the same thing a month after SMAC came out because it wasn't the Civ2 remix.

Personally, I thought SMAC stood head and shoulders above Civ2 even though I grew tired of the brain dead and psychotic AI after some lost months. And, even though Civ3 is obviously a much different take on the genre once again, I find I enjoy it almost as much. There are little touches that SMAC had that Civ3 lacks (e.g. strong leader personality in gameplay) that explain the not quite so enthusiastic feeling I have about Civ3, but on the whole I feel it's a better game overall. I want to play a good game and I really try not to come to sequels with unrealisitc expectations or preconceptions.

Firaxis is in a position similar to a rock group with a long history - they're touring to promote their latest album but half the people at the concert just want to hear them play stuff from their first two albums that came out over a decade ago. In fact, some of the people are booing them while they try to play their latest single
It doesn't mean they're not fan's exactly, they're just not fans of what the group wants to do now.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
It says a lot that game can inspire that sort of fandom and long term affection.

Scenarios and MP have alot to do with that, imo. I think 6 months from now, some of us will look back at this period and laugh at all of the controversies. The immediate aftermath of a major product release is always the most stressful, for developers and customers. The Civ2 fora (where I come from) settled down very nicely once we knew the limitations and expectations of Civ2 MGE. Civ3 will be the same and I believe it will be with much fewer posters than there are now.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think 6 months from now, some of us will look back at this period and laugh at all of the controversies. The immediate aftermath of a major product release is always the most stressful, for developers and customers. The Civ2 fora (where I come from) settled down very nicely once we knew the limitations and expectations of Civ2 MGE. Civ3 will be the same and I believe it will be with much fewer posters than there are now.

Hooray! Agreement! Thank you King Steve for the first post I have seen to say that the mudslinging has happened before, believe it or not, for SMAC and Civ2 (gasp).

I personally look forward to that oh so very special, wondrous day when the bloodlust is sated, and we can all just get along. That's not a bad thing.

[jackshot]

spin the whine, get that girl

not to rain on your parade, guys, but

Code Monkey I got to call you on that one. I've been to a lot of concerts (being a lifelong musician) and the most likely reason the single gets booed is because it sucks. It's true that always someone boos and you can't please everyone, but if the crowd boos you should/have to listen. If they're booing your single, there needs to be some rearranging going on, and wacking every complaint with a whine hammer isn't going to help. Civ3 ain't no 3-minute ditty, we're all agreed.

I'm not saying the game sucks because it doesn't. Some parts are less than optimal, however - it needs work. Quality is a customer concern. I would expect topics such as in the forum, given conditions as they are. Why do you want them different? I don't want to get on any "hate Firaxis" bandwagons, they don't deserve it - I've done cooperative creative projects and they can, with the best busted asses and good intentions, get away from you. Not evil, but the crowd always retains the right to boo. And I don't really see how anyone gets "hasseled" by anything written here.

You know, people spin boards. A spin and a whine are the same thing with different allegiances - both are designed to motivate you with emotional, rather than logical, arguments. Spinners love emotional codewords like whine because it puts the target on the defensive, nobody wants to be a whiner whatever that is, and the target is unsure how to distinguish his argument from a whine, whatever that is. All complaints are whines. Target flails, and we all get away from discourse and into emotions.

All of which is why I'm not surprised this thread scared up three guys who, with beautiful worded prose, tried to change the subject. Thought I'd get a couple. Why else would one care so much about the "tone" of a board?

[Jrad]

I disagree code monkey. I feel that putting up messages, even though it will take up space, will help improve later games. Mistakes shouldn't be hushed because people don't want to hear it. If someone has a problem with the game, they should say it, and believe it or not, Firaxis reads these messages, and they probably will listen. If everyone says the game is great, then Civ 4 might be the same way. I love the game, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be much better. I think we should put our complaints foward so certain mistakes seen in Civ Three aren't seen again.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hmm. We are off your original topic... But I guess that's the way these threads seem to go. At least this hasn't (yet) been hijacked completely and turned into flame wars. I followed the last posters I read - damn lemming syndrome...

To try and return to your topic, I think opinions have to be very carefully stated to not end up classed as a "whine". If someone comes up with a point you have to accede to, you gotta do that and not blindly fight for YOUR "right". I guess a legit complaint doesn't give a broad generalization about the game, but focusses on the specific niggle, especially if you hope it'll be fixed. I reckon most things on this forum start out genuine complaints (I like "issues" - less weighted) and are twisted and hijacked and get way out of control - kinda like your thread was (except this is the most conservative example). We gotta just watch ourselves when we post.

Oh, and was I one of your thread-hijackers with beautiful prose?

[yin26]

CM: Don't pretend to know why I hang around here.

[MarkG]

how did that song went?

ah yes!

"trolling, trolling, trolling...."


and here is an old greek phrase: "opoios exei ti miga, migiazetai"