Two Camps and should there be a declaration of war?

[Capt Dizle]

It is no secret that the regular posters here are divided into three camps, the critics, the fanboys, and the neutrals.

But, who is in which camp? Vel, for example was once a fanboy and is now a critic. Yin, well, we know where he stands. I wonder, shouldn't we have a list somewhere that identifies who is in which group?

I thing this would be a good thing.

How do you feel about this and which group are you in?

Secondly, shouldn't we just go ahead and have an outright declaration of war. A civil war mind you, in the spirit of Vel's recent thread, in which bonafide members of each group agree to refrain from personal attacks and focus instead in meaningful debate.

Is a war (formal debate) justified? And, shouldn't we hire some judges with formal debate experience to moderate the proceedings?

A formal debate would, I think, settle this issue once and for all.

[Aeson]

The problem is it is a matter of opinion in most cases. The game sucks if you don't enjoy playing it, and is good if you do. People can debate all they want, but it doesn't change how each person enjoys the game. It wouldn't settle anything because each camp is right in their views, if not always in how they express those views.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, as a critic, I think that a formal debate would eliminate this POV that its a matter of "whether someone likes it or not". I think that the game can be "proved" inferior to other earlier releases if we apply the rules of formal debate with trained judges.

I don't think its a issue of opinion at all.

[AnnC]

Sign me up...

I'm in the neutral camp.

[Qilue]

Just a post to throw bullets into the fire.

Initial release of Civ2, widely reviled by Civ1 vets.
Initial release of Ctp, widely reviled by Civ2 vets.
Initial release of SMAC, widely reviled by Civ2 and Ctp vets.
Initial release of Ctp2, widely reviled because the first was so poorly received.
Initial release of Civ3, widely reviled by Civ2, SMAC and Ctp2 vets.

I guess this puts me into the neutral camp.

[Aeson]

It's hard to classify most people, other than the extremists. When dealing in matters of opinion I like to take the less obvious (from my standpoint) side in many cases. I'd be pointing out the flaws with Civ3 myself if they hadn't already been so overstated in numerous threads. I would like to see a more in depth combat system, diplomacy, slower tech rate, a wider range of government choices, and a valid scenario editor. The arguments for those things have already gone far past what I feel is needed though.

[Aeson]

A game's worth is in it's entertainment value. An inferior game is one which doesn't entertain. No game will entertain everyone equally. All this adds up to each person having their own valuation of the games worth. How much I enjoy the game is not up for debate. I know this "value" to be what it is. Your valuation of the game will be different most likely, and is just as valid of an observation in it's own right.

I personally feel SMAC was a better game for it's time. I tried going back and playing SMAC a few times since I first played Civ3. Each time the gameplay just feels outdated to me now, I prefer Civ3 even though SMAC was a great game. Not everyone is going to agree with any comparison of different games. It would be like debating which color is your favorite. Everyone has their valid opinion, but no opinion can be valid if applied to everyone.

[Capt Dizle]

Already painted into a corner, I feel the need to make a ridiculos statement explaining how the fate of the free world is inextricably intertwined with the need to "prove" that Firaxis failure to provide an acceptable sequel to Civ's sequel demonstrates the moral decline of Western civilization.


That position might be a tad difficult to defend in a formal debate.

[Aeson]

From Firaxis' (and Infogrames) standpoint there is a "best" game. This is the one that pleases the most paying customers. If you want to get a roll of who is in which camp, this might help "prove" to Firaxis what their customers want.

There is a common perception (whether valid or not) that critics tend to be more outspoken in their views. The more extreme the critic, the more outspoken they are. Those who are generally pleased with the game don't feel the need to come onto the message boards and post their support for the game as much.

If compiling a list of where posters stand could show Firaxis that future releases won't be as supported, then it makes an impact. As the number of posters here only makes up a small percentage of overall Civ players, it would be difficult to show.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, the most damning evidence of the purely pathetic essence of Civ3 is that someone like me, who is a hopeless hardcore game player, finds more entertainment criticizing a game than playing it.

[Aeson]

Aye, but to Firaxis you are in the statistical minority until you prove otherwise. How many copies did/will Civ3 sell? At best (worst?) there are a couple hundred people on the message boards ranting about how bad a game it is.

[Solver]

Can not agree with such camps.

Actually, we also have a camp of whiners, who whine but no constructive criticism. Both fanboys and good critics are making some constructive criticism.

I love the game like I dunno what, but I have also made some constructive criticism about a few things. Constructive, mind you, is criticism with possible solutions.

[SpencerH]

Initial release of Civ2, widely reviled by Civ1 vets.
Initial release of Ctp, widely reviled by Civ2 vets.
Initial release of SMAC, widely reviled by Civ2 and Ctp vets.
Initial release of Ctp2, widely reviled because the first was so poorly received.
Initial release of Civ3, widely reviled by Civ2, SMAC and Ctp2 vets.

I also think there is a tendency for more experienced Civ-gamers to be critical of previous versions. I dont think that this tendency explains the current level of criticism however. In my case for example,
CIV loved it
CIV2 loved it
SMAC/SMACX loved it
ctp2 CIV2 with some interesting variations
CIV3 CIV2 with some improvements and many many problems.

Given the time between CIV2 and CIV3 I was expecting a lot more. I would say that I'm in a criitically-neutral camp. If they come out with MP and (much better) editor for free and some more patches my response will shift to more positive.

Unfortunately, I think we're going to see the same process that we did with CIV2. Sell CIV2. After seeing the huge success of the mods made by gamers produce and sell CIV2 "fantastic worlds" with a better editor. Finally sell CIV2 "Gold" wth multiplayer. If CIV3 had been a better game (for me) I might have bought more versions, but it's not. I'll not pay a penny more for any more versions.

Actually, we also have a camp of whiners, who whine but no constructive criticism. Both fanboys and good critics are making some constructive criticism.

I dont think fanboys includes critics of the game does it? Almost by definition a "fanboy" doesnt see the faults in CIV3.

[Harovan]

I don't see a single group I would fit in. Probably I belong in all three.

- I'm a fanboy, because I enjoy to play the game even with it's flaws, I like the culture and strategic resources, and some other changes like caravans and terraforming being removed. Even with the corruption and the culture flipping I can live, although this brings me to the next group:

- I'm a critic, because I don't like, that the game in it's current state has a very limited fun factor. It is not well balanced. Tech trading is broken, pop rushing and drafting has turned from too powerful to almost unusable. Navies are too slow. Corruption, while it's a good feature limiting expansion in the landgrab phase, turns into a serious problem later. Culture flipping during wars occurs too often and IMHO it's bad for fun, that I have to raze an enemy to effective defeat him. There is much potential, and I'm sure that the game can and will be improved. Ah yes, last not least, Firaxis still owes us MP and scenarios.

- I'm neutral because I don't like both extrema: whining and ranting without constructive criticism, and at the other side praising the game as being perfect.

[Azrikam]

Actually, we also have a camp of whiners, who whine but no constructive criticism. Both fanboys and good critics are making some constructive criticism.

There are just as many positive whiners (for lack of a better phrase), who just say, "Civ III is great! If you don't like it, play something else!" as they are negative whiners who say "Civ III sucks! I hate it!", without offering any valid criticism.

Actually, I would say that there are more positive whiners than negative ones. Most of the people who don't like the game have at least one reason why they don't like it.