Tweet
"It would be nice to have real arguments with the post though... "
Well, I feel obligated to respond to any plea for "real arguments", but the use of sarcasm in place of a real argument was intentional. The sarcasm was directed against positions I think are so foolish that I have trouble formulating a real argument... at least, one that wouldn't simply state things I think are bloody obvious. Sarcam is a way to get some amusement out of stateing things you think are bloody obvious.
Realism: Maybe its because I do play lots of wargames (even the board-game type... and I'm not refering to Axis&Allies) and enjoy simulations, but the distinction between a wargame/simulation and a strategy game seems quite clear to me. Civ3 is a strategy game - not a war game or simulation - that's supposed to be simple and appeal to a wide audience. Civ3 is already highly unrealistic, and realism generally complicates things. In strategy games (most esp. "simple" ones) it's generally a bad idea to sacrifice game-play for realism. There are valid game-play reasons for, for example, having bombers not sink ships (you have to actually make some ships of your own) or allowing 1 Resource to supply an entire civ (a multiple resource system would, I believe, be vastly more difficult for the AI to cope with)
Anecdote: Criticising a system via anecdotes is futile (you can read "futile" as a euphanism for "idiotic". I sure to see it alot, though. (Everywhere, not just here.)
Mob Rule: This was just me venting irritation with the fanatic Civ3 critics who strike me being completely misguided. They should really be saying "We demand a true sequal to Civ2." not "Civ3 sucks."
Aye AI! (Isn't that a stupid name? Can't you see them really using it?) A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the fact that game development isn't free, and that Civ3 is a bit more complicated than Chess. Ok, a lot more complicated. Compaines have thrown a lot of $$ at chess programs, and chess is far easier to analyze than Civ3. Civ3 AI could certainly be better, and is often clueless, but its still one of the best I've seen.
Sid Meier's Sid Meier's Civilization III: Addressing one's complaints to Sid Meier strikes me as either singularly stupid, or malicious. (Or both, of course.) After "Robert Hienlein's Starship Troopers" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and all the other lies called "Marketing" everyone should realize that Names get attached to product for no good reason. Hmm... I guess I'm having trouble framing an "argument" here because I don't really understand why "Sid" should come into the discussion at all.
Well, I feel obligated to respond to any plea for "real arguments", but the use of sarcasm in place of a real argument was intentional. The sarcasm was directed against positions I think are so foolish that I have trouble formulating a real argument... at least, one that wouldn't simply state things I think are bloody obvious. Sarcam is a way to get some amusement out of stateing things you think are bloody obvious.
Realism: Maybe its because I do play lots of wargames (even the board-game type... and I'm not refering to Axis&Allies) and enjoy simulations, but the distinction between a wargame/simulation and a strategy game seems quite clear to me. Civ3 is a strategy game - not a war game or simulation - that's supposed to be simple and appeal to a wide audience. Civ3 is already highly unrealistic, and realism generally complicates things. In strategy games (most esp. "simple" ones) it's generally a bad idea to sacrifice game-play for realism. There are valid game-play reasons for, for example, having bombers not sink ships (you have to actually make some ships of your own) or allowing 1 Resource to supply an entire civ (a multiple resource system would, I believe, be vastly more difficult for the AI to cope with)
Anecdote: Criticising a system via anecdotes is futile (you can read "futile" as a euphanism for "idiotic". I sure to see it alot, though. (Everywhere, not just here.)
Mob Rule: This was just me venting irritation with the fanatic Civ3 critics who strike me being completely misguided. They should really be saying "We demand a true sequal to Civ2." not "Civ3 sucks."
Aye AI! (Isn't that a stupid name? Can't you see them really using it?) A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the fact that game development isn't free, and that Civ3 is a bit more complicated than Chess. Ok, a lot more complicated. Compaines have thrown a lot of $$ at chess programs, and chess is far easier to analyze than Civ3. Civ3 AI could certainly be better, and is often clueless, but its still one of the best I've seen.
Sid Meier's Sid Meier's Civilization III: Addressing one's complaints to Sid Meier strikes me as either singularly stupid, or malicious. (Or both, of course.) After "Robert Hienlein's Starship Troopers" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and all the other lies called "Marketing" everyone should realize that Names get attached to product for no good reason. Hmm... I guess I'm having trouble framing an "argument" here because I don't really understand why "Sid" should come into the discussion at all.
Comment