Firaxis, and Why Civ III is not what we *want* it to be...

[OneInTen]

I see nothing to support the idea that a having a gme created by fans will make a good game, or that having a game made for the money will produce a bad one.

For example, look at freeciv. It's been in development since well before the release of civ 2, and it was made of fans of civ 1 (and subsequently fans of civ 2).

If having a game made by fans gave it even a reasonable chance of being the game other fans wanted, why does everyone here even care about civ 3? Surely everyone would have put their hopes on freeciv, being the fan designed product that has a longer history than civ 3!

I can't think of a single game made by fans that is even considered close to the commercial offerings in that genre. In fact, freeciv is probably the best example out there of a game created by hobbyists, and its popularity, even amoungst hardcore civ fans, is pretty limited.

It does seem logical that fans who really love a game could produce a good game for others who also love the game. However, reality doesn't show this assumption to be even close to true.

Of course, as with anything, there's always got to be someone who sets a first and breaks the trend, and I hope Vel can do it. I'd just warn against everyone getting their hopes up and it becoming another let down in the same way civ 3 has been a letdown for many.

[Steve Clark]

1in10, I think you are right. I don't know if the early efforts of id in producing Castle Wolfenstein as shareware can be considered a fan based product. Their business model clearly led to the colossus development house they have been. The only fan-based game I can think of is Half-Life: Counterstrike (if I got the name correct). I read that it was a fan-developed "add-on" that was so good that it became one of the most popular commercial product ever. But then again, FPS tends to create such things in droves, unlike what we see in the strategy and war games genre.

[Velociryx]

I feel that I need to chime in again as well, *also* in agreement with 1in10!

I think this is primarily due to the following:
First, consider the sheer size and scope of the indie projects you mentioned. I admire the people involved, but the fact is that, IMO, they're biting off an *awful lot* all at once, and have the following things working against them:

1) VAST scope. Building a 4x game from the gound up, many times incorporating HUNDREDS (or more!) of radically new, and difficult to implement programming ideas! Not to say it's impossible, but even a paid code team would have to grind away at it for long periods.

2) Attrition: Because there is no plan in place (or at least, in none of the projects I've seen thus far) to make the project a commercially viable one, everyone who participates realizes that it falls into the "hobbyist" category. Not a thing in the world wrong with that, but it DOES remove a good deal of incentive to stick with it to the end (especially in light of the vast scope - see above). It's such a long road from start to finish that the coding crew at the end will likely have ZERO members in it that were there from the start. And, as we all know, coders and documentation DON'T generally go too well together, that means a WHOLE LOT of time spent with newly acquired coders simply trying to make sense of someone else's code.

That can make for a frustrating hobby.

3) Playability. As currently designed, the major projects in the works are NOT fully playable versions till the project is done. This...well....sucks, from a player perspective. Even if you have a player who's REALLY excited about the game, if you make him wait 5-6 years before you hand it to him....::shrug:: just don't see the excitement being maintained that long.

*****

Having said that....having learned from that, here's what we're doing differently:

1) Simplistic initial design. We want to get something playable from start to finish out the door and into our hands (prolly not a public release...but to give us something to play around with and see what works!) - only the most basic concepts in place (event engine, income/honor/influence, 3-tiered combat) - no leader special abilities, no unit specials...NOTHING fancy. Bare bones but playable to the end.

2) Modular construction/highly scalable - Design the core program so we can increase complexity by adding our other ideas iteratively, slowly shaping the (100% complete and playable) game into the vision we have for it....specifically, this involves increasing the complexity of the wargame side (leaders, unit specials, tech telephone poles), and adding in basic 4x elements into the design (provincial builds) - and *further* increasing complexity from there.

3) A plan to commercialize the product in the end. This gives everyone on the team a tangible, real, solid reason for sticking it out, which should reduce attrition.

We'll see....and either way, it's been a grand adventure thus far!

-=Vel=-

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
Others care nothing about logic, history, or common sense. They have developed a religious loyalty to any "Civ" product. They are pitiful.

What "logic, history or common sense" are you referring to, Encomium? Are you saying I play Civ3 for hours on end out of "religious loyalty?"

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Do you honestly expect people to evaluate the merits of a turn based strategy game as complex as Civ3 within 7 days?

If I can get 7 days out of a game, then it was better than most. Most games I've bought sit on a shelf unused. I play Civ3 all the time.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
I see nothing to support the idea that a having a gme created by fans will make a good game, or that having a game made for the money will produce a bad one.

That's kind of stupid thing to say, are you saying that the anonymous programmer is completely incapable of designing a civ-like genre and outdoing Firaxis? And how about this one, if Firaxis is already out-done themselves and Civ3 is so good the way it is, then how come the bulk of the fan community has produced a detailed list of problems/bugs/suggestions and lacking features? Would that not suggest that they (ahem) missed a few things?

If having a game made by fans gave it even a reasonable chance of being the game other fans wanted, why does everyone here even care about civ 3? Surely everyone would have put their hopes on freeciv, being the fan designed product that has a longer history than civ 3!

You're missing the point (again) - if the fans can visualize and playtest a game product and find ways to improve that product shouldn't the developers of the genre in question be able to utilize that information to improve their game? Criticism should be welcomed, because the ultimate goal in life is to strive for perfection, be all you can be, and create with all your heart. Your suggesting that the game companies are sharks and pirates only out for one thing - profit. This maybe true for the odd company out there, this I will not deny. But the majority of the game companies out there intend on pleasing their fans, to them thats what the business is all about.

I can't think of a single game made by fans that is even considered close to the commercial offerings in that genre. In fact, freeciv is probably the best example out there of a game created by hobbyists, and its popularity, even amoungst hardcore civ fans, is pretty limited.

Well before they could prove it, "flight" was believed possible. And if everyone gave up on ideas and crashing down barries we would all change our names to "OneInTenChanceToLiveToday" and live in the woods. Why are you so negative to fresh ideas and constructive criticism, what possible harm would all of this cause if it actually changed things?

It does seem logical that fans who really love a game could produce a good game for others who also love the game. However, reality doesn't show this assumption to be even close to true.

That makes little sense to me, but let me attempt to understand you here. Basically what your trying to say, is that fans who love a peticular game title can't produce or replicate a title with the same depth of quality and appeal, right? If I was correct, then that makes NO SENSE at all.

Of course, as with anything, there's always got to be someone who sets a first and breaks the trend, and I hope Vel can do it. I'd just warn against everyone getting their hopes up and it becoming another let down in the same way civ 3 has been a letdown for many.

Now your making sense!

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Azrikam
I'd like to agree with what DaShi said. I had Civ III pre-ordered a couple of weeks before it came out in the UK. After finding almost no valuable information on the Civ III site, I tracked down Apolyton, and spent the next week or so going through the feedback.

Some of the new features seemed really great, but information on several of the bugs and improperly implemented features made me sure that this game would frustrate me more than entertain me.

The posters who slagged the game, and gave valid and lucid reasoning behind their disappointment helped me make an informed decision not to purchase Civ III, and I thank them for that.

I still believe that Civ II is the greatest game ever to grace the PC, and I still play it more than any other game I own. Even after the first patch, I still haven't decided to purchase Civ III, but I still read through the posts (positive and negative), in the hopes that Civ III (or maybe even Civ IV) will be worth buying somewhere down the road. (oh, and the posts themselves can be damned entertaining)

Exactly! I applaud you!

Charles.

[OneInTen]

I'm not going to break down your post into paragraphs Charles, because as with my last post, that would kind of ruin the flow of what I'm saying.

The crucial point (that you agreed with) was the last paragraph. I'm saying it might be a sucess. I hope it will be.

It's just that I'm warning against anyone getting overly optomistic about it like that somehow because it's being made by fans it's bound to be a hit. It's not - the lack of resources (and by this I mean time mostly ... money is really only there to buy development time) that hobbyist developers are faced with is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. Not that it can't be done mind you (look at how Linux got off the ground), but it does put the project at an initial disadvantage to commercial efforts.

I'm not saying that people who make commercial games don't do it because they want to - I think it's quite the other way around, you're only a games programmer/designer if you want to be, because you generally wouldn't go into it for the money (compare payrates of the average to good games programmer to programmers in other fields and you'll see why).

It's just that many of lifes disappointments come down to unrealistic expectations, and people getting their hopes up about a project that hasn't even been started yet is likely to become another victim of that.

As the saying goes - hope for the best but plan for the worst.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
It's just that many of lifes disappointments come down to unrealistic expectations, and people getting their hopes up about a project that hasn't even been started yet is likely to become another victim of that.

As the saying goes - hope for the best but plan for the worst.

I agree. But thats also the basis of argument around here, all the previews, demos, reviews, magazines, hidden market advertising internet "coming soon" advertisments etc etc etc was the only information the fans had to go on when attempting to get a presight as to what Civilization III was going to turn out like. And the sad fact is the only way to find out how good a game product is, is to buy the damn thing. I claim that Firaxis knew this and hyped the damn game and manipulated sales and paid game sites for posative postings in order to make a profit off of the "first glance, first buy" marketing ploy. And that pisses me off! Being disapointed with the game is only the bottom, now there is so much more to fire me up, bad PR, horrible responses (when given), ignorance, and selfish profit ploys like - "you bought the cruddy segment of the game, now if you want the good stuff, pay us more money!" And I'm sorry, they aren't idiots they're proffesionals they know exactly what they're doing, which makes this even worse! So all I am saying to you is, you shouldn't be disagreing with us, because it's within our human nature to react the way we have as a consumer. And it's definately not uncommon for consumers to "take it to them" and win back respect through a better product or tribute in some way, especially when a consumer isn't happy with a product. But basically this all boils down to one thing, Firaxis goofed up (whether they meant to or not) and they have the price of the consumer to pay now. And you appear to want to get in the way of that by acting defensively about the product and the company with detracting and cut downs - IMO.

PS. At the least everybodys complaining merely to "vent" anger. I say let them!

Charles. (or Chuck)

[Azrikam]

PS. At the least everybodys complaining merely to "vent" anger. I say let them!

Exactly. Better to rant on a forum about a disappointing game, then to do something stupid, like email-bomb Firaxis.

[OneInTen]

Well, the gaming industry is much like the movie industry - you pay for an unknown quantity and hope it'll be worth it, and if you feel it isn't, you don't really have a lot of recourse because that game developer (or in the case of movies the producer, director, actor, whoever), probably wont make another product for a year or two that you have the option of not buying. So you will feel a bit frustrated in not being able to take the smallest of steps in getting even.

Frankly, I think the concept of game reviewers being paid off by the companies is silly though. Sure, maybe some are (probably more indirectly via ad revenue than directly), but I highly doubt every single game reviewer out there is being paid by Firaxis or anyone else for that matter.

I think a more realistic explaination is that the game is something that is accesable to a casual first time player (ie it makes it easy for the reviewer to give it good marks), and that it's not an easy game to review when most reviwers are used to judging whether FPS "a" has prettier graphics than FPS "b".

When you give a product designed to appeal to a certain type of player to those players, especially when those players aren't necessarily well equiped to review it, of course you're going to get good reviews. I'm not saying their reviews are invalid, mind you, merely that when reading reviews you need to know who the reviewer is and whether your tastes are the same as there's and whether you can trust them.

Just like with movie reviews!

As far as getting in the way of it, there's nothing to get in the way of as I see it. Complaining in an isolated corner of the net about the game is unlikely to achieve anything. This isn't how to bring about change. As I see it, there are two ways that could actually work in getting what you want from Firaxis - one constructive, one destructive:

a) Compile a reasonable, well written, well argued document about the changes you and others like you agree should be made to civ 3 and, this is the most important part, are feasible to make. In as much detail as possible (Something like "We want group movement" isn't enough. Detail how you think group movement might work). Companies have certainly been known to actually listen when presented with orderly suggestion lists - but I've very rarely seen it happen when it's a jumbled mess of yelling and screaming on a forum. The gotcha with this approach is that it's most likely that these thing will come out in an expansion pack rather than a free patch.

b) The destructive approach would be to actually make yourselves a threat to Firaxis. If you really think the game is that bad, you need a short, concise and hard hitting synopsis of what's wrong with the game that you can get out there to the wider internet. You can't hurt a company with bad PR by preaching to the converted! You've got to make an impression on the general public who have no yet bought the game, thus making Firaxis respond in some way to avoid the negative publicity that might hurt sales in a significant way. Time is running out for this approach - the longer it's left, the more sales decline naturally, so you have to make it happen while sales are still high enough to worry Firaxis about losing a percentage of them. The risk with this approach is that if it does work Firaxis may just drop Civ 3 and stop improving it altogether, regarding it as a product without a future. So it can backfire.

That would be the way I'd approach it. I'd rather see you do either of those things than continue to watch people to beat their heads against a brick wall in the forum. I don't consider either approach to be needed. I wish you luck if you and other people decide to follow them though, I hope the outcome works in your favour.

If I defend Firaxis and the game it's because people are using opinions as though they were facts. I've said it plenty of times but I'll say it again - Civ 3 is not a "bad" game. I have yet to see a post explaining, objectively, what makes it bad. In fairness I've seen little more objectivity in explaining why it is good - but the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation! All I've really seen is a bunch of people saying what they like or don't like about the game. Certainly I've seen a number of posts by various people offering plausible explainations as to why Firaxis has made one choice or another, and the valid points have mostly been ignored in the replies posted, in favour of, and I hessitate to use this many levels of indirection, "whining about the whining about the whining".

Anyway, I feel like I'm being shot for being the messenger here - if you look at most of my messages I've posted I've generally been trying to explain what I believe the thinking of Firaxis to be, or the rationale behind some of the decisions made on the game. Very rarely have I stated I agree with them, yet it seems to be the assumption that any post not flaming Firaxis must be 100% supportive of them. I don't believe this to be so - if I had been making civ 3 I would have done a lot of things differently myself! I'm just trying to get people to understand where Firaxis are coming from, not agree with them - although it seems for some neither of these will ever be possible.

I'm sure the reason is that for some people the world is more comfortable living in a "I spent $50 for this POS and I don't care why!" world. Charles, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I think you do make an effort to try to understand more than one facet of the story. Ultimately, and I realise this is only a pipe dream, I'd like to see those who don't like the game reach an attitude more along the lines of "I see why Firaxis have done things the way they have. I don't happen to agree with them, and I don't like the game. But maybe it's just not the game for me and I should move on to one of the many other games that are out there". While the people who like the game can have the attitude along the lines of "Sure, some people don't like the game, but it works for me. I can see their critcisms, but what they dislike about the game doesn't bother me enough to stop playing, infact some of that stuff is the reason I play it".

I've gone on long enough, so I'll just close by asking is what I've described really such a bad thing?

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Well, the gaming industry is much like the movie industry - you pay for an unknown quantity and hope it'll be worth it, and if you feel it isn't, you don't really have a lot of recourse because that game developer (or in the case of movies the producer, director, actor, whoever), probably wont make another product for a year or two that you have the option of not buying. So you will feel a bit frustrated in not being able to take the smallest of steps in getting even.

I don't know about getting even, but if I pay for something and I'm not pleased with it, I either refund the product or I exchange it for another and in the worst of scenarios I'll demand my money back, but since those options can be limited depending on where you are, most of the time your left with a "purchased - too late" kind of scenario. But as a customer/consumer we have rights, and one of those rights is feedback and negotiation with the company in question. Basically if I buy something and I don't like it, that company is going to hear from me, one way or another. And in most cases companies will refund your money just to get rid of you, but since software is a perishable item then you have to fight for your rights. Seems to me we are all doing exactly what can be done - indirectly affecting sales through mass unpopularity and hidden market advertising, although negative.

Frankly, I think the concept of game reviewers being paid off by the companies is silly though. Sure, maybe some are (probably more indirectly via ad revenue than directly), but I highly doubt every single game reviewer out there is being paid by Firaxis or anyone else for that matter.

It was metaphorically speaking - the review sites are 'paid' by this I mean they're on some kind of honor role with the company and do 'special favors' to promote game sales, this is undeniably with any certain common sense the truth, otherwise where are all the "bad" reviews? You'll never catch a game review site partnered with a game company posting the bad ones. But IMO those reviews are falsified and overly hyped because I don't agree and I've played the game thoroughly as a dedicated and exceptional judge of a civ-product - I love the game.

I think a more realistic explaination is that the game is something that is accesable to a casual first time player (ie it makes it easy for the reviewer to give it good marks), and that it's not an easy game to review when most reviwers are used to judging whether FPS "a" has prettier graphics than FPS "b".

Anything deemed as "easy" has a trail of dragging lies or exageration. As I said before the reveiws are all posative, you won't find a negative post because it will hurt sales and they would find themselves in a lawsuit. And game reviewers are people like you and me, but with less knowledge of the product which is obvious when you read them.

As far as getting in the way of it, there's nothing to get in the way of as I see it. Complaining in an isolated corner of the net about the game is unlikely to achieve anything. This isn't how to bring about change. As I see it, there are two ways that could actually work in getting what you want from Firaxis - one constructive, one destructive:

Well you are getting in the way of it, if you cut down criticism. Criticism is the source for improvement and shall be conducted in order to maintain product satisfaction. And this spot on the internet is hardly isolated, the game developers and fans from all over post messages here and over half of the "world-wide fans know of it's existance" - GameSpy.com. And if this is such a big waste of time, then why are you here?

b) The destructive approach would be to actually make yourselves a threat to Firaxis. If you really think the game is that bad, you need a short, concise and hard hitting synopsis of what's wrong with the game that you can get out there to the wider internet. You can't hurt a company with bad PR by preaching to the converted! You've got to make an impression on the general public who have no yet bought the game, thus making Firaxis respond in some way to avoid the negative publicity that might hurt sales in a significant way. Time is running out for this approach - the longer it's left, the more sales decline naturally, so you have to make it happen while sales are still high enough to worry Firaxis about losing a percentage of them. The risk with this approach is that if it does work Firaxis may just drop Civ 3 and stop improving it altogether, regarding it as a product without a future. So it can backfire.

There you go again, speaking to me as if I lack common sense or contact with business reality or some derogatory condascending wording. I don't need your advice on how to deal with Firaxis or any other company that disheartens me, frankly you were informative in the beginning now your starting to become stale. Everything you've attempted to explain in these forums has only been that of plagiarizing common sense and playing the role of the "teacher" with wisdom to spread. But all your spreading is a repeating echo of nonsense and if we have anything to say to you it would be "Okay we know that, tell us something we don't know", really!

That would be the way I'd approach it. I'd rather see you do either of those things than continue to watch people to beat their heads against a brick wall in the forum. I don't consider either approach to be needed. I wish you luck if you and other people decide to follow them though, I hope the outcome works in your favour.

Well I thank you dad for leading me through the tough days but I think I am an adult now with a fully capable common sense and nack for survival. It appears that all of this bothers you so much you can't stop yourself from blabbing about it. My "suggestion" to you is don't read it if it bothers you. And you got it wrong - we're going to beat Firaxi-heads agains a brick wall, not our own.

If I defend Firaxis and the game it's because people are using opinions as though they were facts. I've said it plenty of times but I'll say it again - Civ 3 is not a "bad" game. I have yet to see a post explaining, objectively, what makes it bad. In fairness I've seen little more objectivity in explaining why it is good - but the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation! All I've really seen is a bunch of people saying what they like or don't like about the game. Certainly I've seen a number of posts by various people offering plausible explainations as to why Firaxis has made one choice or another, and the valid points have mostly been ignored in the replies posted, in favour of, and I hessitate to use this many levels of indirection, "whining about the whining about the whining".

Well then you just arrived because this is a long baked discussion that has already settled into its foundation. Reason apon reason, facts apon facts have been discussed, I am truly sorry you missed them, but if you have the guts - give me an email that you don't mind disclosing and I'll surely give you all the proof (in the form of FACTS) you need to prevail here. But I'm certainly not going to repeat it for another 'late arrival' who has nothing better to do by whine about whiners who whine about more whining and then whines some more about it. The fool himself, or the fool who follows? Just because you haven't seen the reason(s) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anyway, I feel like I'm being shot for being the messenger here - if you look at most of my messages I've posted I've generally been trying to explain what I believe the thinking of Firaxis to be, or the rationale behind some of the decisions made on the game. Very rarely have I stated I agree with them, yet it seems to be the assumption that any post not flaming Firaxis must be 100% supportive of them. I don't believe this to be so - if I had been making civ 3 I would have done a lot of things differently myself! I'm just trying to get people to understand where Firaxis are coming from, not agree with them - although it seems for some neither of these will ever be possible.

I'm sorry but you *ARE* agreeing with them, and you *ARE* defending them. And you can twist this a million folds over, but in the end it still looks the same. And believe me we are more than educated on why Firaxis really does business the way they are now, we know! You'll just find yourself regurgitating your words and tripping over explainations to keep up. We argue because we're mad, simple as that. And I'm not going to stop flaming Fraxis until I achieve my personal victory, but thats my business. And in the meantime I argue because people (ahem) keep fueling my arguements! Sometimes I forget why I'm here to begin with.

I'm sure the reason is that for some people the world is more comfortable living in a "I spent $50 for this POS and I don't care why!" world. Charles, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I think you do make an effort to try to understand more than one facet of the story. Ultimately, and I realise this is only a pipe dream, I'd like to see those who don't like the game reach an attitude more along the lines of "I see why Firaxis have done things the way they have. I don't happen to agree with them, and I don't like the game. But maybe it's just not the game for me and I should move on to one of the many other games that are out there". While the people who like the game can have the attitude along the lines of "Sure, some people don't like the game, but it works for me. I can see their critcisms, but what they dislike about the game doesn't bother me enough to stop playing, infact some of that stuff is the reason I play it".

I respect all of that, but your wrong in one area - at this point there is no such thing as "people hate the game because the game just isn't for them" because the only people that are willing to burn the many hours in these forums arguing/discussing the game are the people that care about it, whether they like it or not the basis is till there. Both sides bare substance for discussion, yes even yours! But the one thing that cannot be argued is who should be here and who should not. I won't go as harsh as to say I hate Civ3, because that would be lying. I do like it, but thats all the more reason for me to be upset for the mistakes and problems with it. I strongly believe that 90% of the people that have gripes with Civ3 are people who have been "hurt" or "let-down" and the more violent and vicious they get the more "hurt" they are. Do you understand my meaning?

I've gone on long enough, so I'll just close by asking is what I've described really such a bad thing?

Not at all, I respect you for trying to help those who need the guidance, but your flaw is that you assume that everyone who has a problem with the game or it's developers - needs guidance.

Charles.

[OneInTen]

OK, first up for what it's worth I dislike having my post cut up into little paragraphs and replied to one at a time - as a long time inhabitor of various web forums, newgroups, mailing lists and the like, I know how easy it is to make your side of the story seem much better when you post in that fasion. I've used the tactic myself many a time. Heck, I've done parodies of it. I'm not saying you're intentionally trying to mislead, but I really think the style is appropriate for answering questions and not for general debate, thus I tend to mistrust anyone who uses it in that way.

Oh yeah, that includes myself ...

Anyway, onto more important things:

Why am I here - for entertainment. No other reason. I'm a forum whore, I guess you'd say. I tend to read a few for a bit, eventually get the urge to jump in, post frantically for a period of time, and then move on to the next lot once the "regulars" and I can predict so easily what each other will say that it becomes boring.

I do find it presumptuous to believe that just because of my registration date it means I haven't actually read the earlier posts in the forum. I've certainly kept pretty close track of everything that's gone on since the release of the game. I've seen the too-ing and fro-ing. And I still don't think I've seen anything convincing to prove the things you claim to be facts.

Frankly I don't think it can happen, since it seems that the problems with the game are as much psychological as they are actual. I don't mean that in a bad way, or that people who dislike the game have something wrong with their heads! I mean that given the game carries the civ name, many seem to think it somehow needs to be the game to end all games to justify its existence. I mean, if you look at it logically, even the critics who "only" got 50 hours of gameplay out of the game have done much better than most games, and indeed have gotten better value for money than most forms of entertainment. But the emotional attachment to the game demands something more. I can't argue against that sort of emotion with logic any more than the emotion can sway my logical analysis of it. I guess also I should consider that part of the whole emotional attachment is the feeling of emotional investment in the game, which I will be the first to admit I don't have in civ 3.

(Just for the record, I don't consider emotion to be a bad thing, or logic to be superior to it, I merely think that the two are mutually incompatible when it comes to trying to make sense of an argument since they operate at entirely different levels. Personality type testers show me to favour the emotional over the logical, so I guess it's ironic that I'm on the other side here)

As for reviews, that bad reviews of products don't get published is rubbish. I can't recall ever seeing an edition of a gaming magazine without at least one really bad review (ie anything under 50% ... usually to score that low the game has to really stink and the reviewer will say so in the text of the article). Of course I don't read that many paper gaming mags. Online reviews also seem to be, on the whole, pretty fair when they come to the treatment of games too. If you want examples of hyped up flops that got the reviews they deserved, look no further than "Daikatana". That must have averaged about 2 out of 10!

I ask of you - if all this is "common sense", as you say, then why the heck do I have to say it. I'm only stating it because, as far as I can see, it is not being done. It seems rather silly to me that if you or someone else posts a point, I post a counter point, and then you post that what I've said is something you know. If you know it, why were you contradicting it in the first place?

The whole idea is sureal, I feel like I'm trapped in a Woody Allen movie or something. It's almost like you're arguing against me by agreeing with all my points yet saying they're invalid anyway!

As for guidance, that's not really how I see it. Perhaps mutual enlightenment. I post a point, you post a point, we may not agree, we may not even really understand what the other is really saying, but who knows. Often I've found 6 months down the track I realise the point someone was trying to make and sometimes I even see that they were right.

I don't believe in posting "me too" posts. Agreement never really taught anyone anything. It's only through pushing and probing at people's arguments and beliefs that progress is made. I've been told I'm not only a devil's advocate I'm also the devil in the past. I'll probably be told the same again in the future. But doing so makes me think, and it makes other people think too.

Maybe you're not one of the people who I make think. That's ok, at the end of the day I'm posting for my thinking benefit not yours.

I really don't know what else I can say to you ... you post about problems, I offer suggestions as to why those problems exist. Why? Because I generally find that if you understand the hows and why's of the problem, it's generally easier to accept. But your response to me doing so has been, well, not particuarly positive really.

Why post if you seem to express that you'd rather people didn't reply?

It just reminds me of what my mum used to say if she offered help but I refused it - "I try to help you but all you want to do is poo in my face".

I mean, I can't change the way civ 3 is. You can't change the way it is. Surely the only thing we can do is to try to figure out the hows, whys, whos, whats, wheres and whens of it all. But that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're saying you'd rather people didn't do.

So if my motives irk you, or seem patronising, or whatever your objection is, just don't think about them. I'm just another argument on the forum. I'd really prefer that if you respond that you responded with why you disagree with what I'm saying than how you feel it's unnecessary for me to state it. It think it'd be more constructive and lead to less of these sorts of threads that really, at the end of the day, cover the same ground that I've covered with other people, and I'm sure you've probably had the same sorts of meta-discussions with other people too.

[copcartman]

Charles, I believe you're taking this all too serious. This discussion is concerning a computer game!

(feel free to respond with 5 pages of thrashing because I don't agree with you)

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
I claim that Firaxis knew this and hyped the damn game and manipulated sales and paid game sites for posative

And all without the troublesome problem of actually having evidence.