Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

[civman2000]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - JFK
"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings ... they cannot touch the foundation of America" - GWB

You're accusing us of blind optimism when that's your signature??? Now that's hypocrisy. Also, I am not defending every part of the game. There clearly are many problems. But that doesn't mean it can't be a great game. No games are perfect. It was rushed to the shelves, but I would say firaxis has done a good job getting patches out quickly and fixing problems.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Touchy!

I haven't read this thread in three days....yet somehow I didn't miss anything relevant!

... just huge tons of fun.

This is becoming a huge thread.

Nevertheless, I'd like to mention that Zylka's made some good points that were also reflected in several different threads by many, many posters. The fact that so many react could suggest that Zylka's writing style (exagerate a bit to state your points better) is appopriate for creating large discussions.

Actually, in contrast to some, I don't believe Zylka hates this game. I think he likes playing it, but like many others - including me- has concluded that the game definitely needs some 'polishing' up before it really becomes good enough/great.

As I don't consider Zylka's avatar/posts/'penis and vagina' to be offensive (not at all, though he's been censored caused by some complaints of a few), I sometimes feel to step in the ring to take it up for him, but he manages just fine himself .

Ok, I haven't been around that long, but I think that some people fail to understand his (sometimes) sweet humour.

Of course, no one ever likes an insult.

I shut up now, the forum's yours all again!

Let's have some more fireworks!!

AJ

[Ethelred]

Let's have some more fireworks!!

No thanks. I think I have come close enough for a while. The Merciless One may decide to give me a vacation even if he can't point to any particular post to do so. Just on general principles.

Of course, no one ever likes an insult.

Wrong. I do. I like funny ones. There was a severe shortage of style or humor in most of them on this thread though. A few maybe here or there. I think someday Zylka may develop the skill if he tries. Maybe. He has to learn that blunt trauma only impresses kids.

Go way the thread is dead. Don't mention me so I won't feel compelled to post. I wasn't here. You didn't read anything from me.


Emoticons are evil. Smilies are OK.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
As I don't consider Zylka's avatar/posts/'penis and vagina' to be offensive (not at all, though he's been censored caused by some complaints of a few), I sometimes feel to step in the ring to take it up for him, but he manages just fine himself .

AJ

Keep in mind that children also play computer games. I know younger kids who peruse this public forum. They don't need that, and it is off-topic, in any case.

[Kuciwalker]

The Aluminum resource is actually represented by an aluminum soda can, not a trash can.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR


... just huge tons of fun.

Actually, in contrast to some, I don't believe Zylka hates this game. I think he likes playing it, but like many others - including me- has concluded that the game definitely needs some 'polishing' up before it really becomes good enough/great.

AJ

That's about it... I'm looking forward to multiplayer if they fix up the crucial mistakes which would make this game an infinite stalemate against another human mind. Otherwise, I'm relying on the community to fix the game's graphics - this is definitely the most subjective area which is hardest for firaxis to "fix". The game has potential, as for now it's collecting dust.

It has been fun, hasn't it?

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Nevertheless, I'd like to mention that Zylka's made some good points that were also reflected in several different threads by many, many posters. The fact that so many react could suggest that Zylka's writing style (exagerate a bit to state your points better) is appopriate for creating large discussions.

Exagerate a bit? Is that what it's called?

Exagerated "a bit" is also - speaking technically here - wrong. If bombers, for example, are merely "underpowered" as oppsed to "useless" it makes it much harder to get a constructive discussion going if one side continually overstates their position. It also doesn't help if the primary voice of one side is (donning some "Zylka camo" here, to help keep off the Ming-flak) a f*cking thickheaded worthless snob with an utterly patronizing attitude towards newbies who refuses to defend most of his words, and who's boundless insecurities* manifest themselves in (Eth cammo) "gutter language", personal attacks, and the inability to accept the "give and take" of constructive debate.

The "discussion" so far has been the origional statement, which, yes, had
good points - even if they were generally distorted ("exagerate a bit"). It also had some very dubious points, and a bunch of insults. The distortions and insults lead to more flames than constructive discussion. Then, when 3 posters with views that for the most part opposed those of Z.s actually addressed most points, then the sheetrock really hit the fan, and the "discussion" went completely to Mingapulco.

(Or maybe Z. is just a lazy SOB? Z.'s already said that many of the points were simply drawn from other discussions. When pressed to defend the points, which Z. seems to treat as rock-hard facts, Z. simply found it easier to lash out, rather than actually think. No malice, just taking the path of least resistance.)

Ok. You like huge threads? Flame wars are "tons of fun."? Well, yeah, then by those standards Z.'s the best thing since sliced girlscouts. OTOH, if someone wants to say, talk about Civ3, then there are some problems...

Z., is (Zylka cammo again) someone so f*cking thick headed that it's simply impossible to actually have a decent discussion if you should deign to disagree on anything more than minor points. I, and I suggest to E. that he does this too, will shift my responses and attempt to simply make corrections of his worst mistatments (and address them to others, not in response to Z.) and mock (as opposed to insult) when he, ah.... "exagerates" more than usual.

*Making the _assumption_ that Z. not just a total jerk, motivated wholly by malice.

P.S. - I can't wait to see Z.'s response to this. Yeah, I know, this P.S. may interfere with the natural development of Z.'s response, but I'm curious. Will it be a long, rambling, message chock full of insults and "gutter language"? Or something short, and to the point: An arrogant statement directly followed by a personal insult? Or will I really just be ignored, as (I wish it were really so!) Z. has previously stated is his intent? I generally have a pretty good guess about what the response will be, but I have no idea for this one. The response might even be - bizzare as it sounds - civil and without rancour. (Who wants to make a bet?)

[Trevman]

After skimming through this thread, all I can say is that it seems impossible for people in this thread to have a reasonable argument without cussing and attacking eachother on every single fault. It seems to me that this thread has completely erupted in flames and just stands to prove that the "optimists" and "pessimists" cannot get along in a reasonable debate.

[Ming]

Tarquelne...

See you in week...
You just don't get it. You get restricted for personal insults, and then the first thing you do when you get back is start up all over again...

Not very smart.

Bye... Maybe this time you might actually learn something But I doubt it...

[Zylka]

Hmm

Anyone know what "sliced girlscouts" are?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Trevman
After skimming through this thread, all I can say is that it seems impossible for people in this thread to have a reasonable argument without cussing and attacking eachother on every single fault. It seems to me that this thread has completely erupted in flames and just stands to prove that the "optimists" and "pessimists" cannot get along in a reasonable debate.

IMHO, I've been civil about it. Maybe not E and Z, but I have.

[TheDarkCavalier]

Nice thread...

Tons of insults, stupid things etc... etc.... I fear the "huge thread" is gonna be closed... again.....

[notyoueither]

Re: HAHAHA too easy...

Hey Ming. I guess you missed this one, eh?

Originally posted by Zylka
I'm not responding because each time I do, you can't seem to get it through your thick f*cking heads how badly you've lost the argument . It's one thing to not realize how inept you have come off with the initial arguments, quite another to keep repeating them with faltering effect.

Looking back through this thread, the majority of posters "agree with most of what [I] have said", whilst two or three of you persist with attention seeking idiocy. I don't have all that much time to repeat superior responses to your pathetically structured ramblings. Your grammar needs serious attention, and I will not put up with sub-mediocrity any further.

Get an education, failures

Zylka

And this one:

Originally posted by Zylka
I stopped responding a while ago... remember, when I said I was sick and tired of patronizing worthless newbies?

Oops! Just what am I doing right now?

or a part from this one:

Originally posted by Zylka
...

What the f*ck else do you expect from me? That's it. I tried to offer truce, but I'm tired of patronizing worthless newbies such as yourself.

...
Regards,
Zylka

That's just going back to page 5.

I'm not saying you should not have banned Tarq. I am not saying you should ban Z. I will grant that Tarq's post almost begged for it.

All I want to point out is that from the entire thread, it might be difficult for Tarq and others to figure out which personal insults are grievous enough to warrant banning and which aren't.

BTW. I noticed from pages 5 through 8 that with these 3 exceptions, Z's posting seemed to be a bit more artful than many (or some) of his critics would give him credit for. Perhaps he is a bit practiced in where the boundaries are and how to elicit vehement responses. If that is the case, what would that make him and this entire thread?

[TechWins]

Yes it was me. You apparently didn't read it. Naughty to critisize what you didn't read.

Yes, I did read the whole thing. I wasn't completely positive that it was you who made that reply, and I didn't want to assume without showing my assumption.

Since that is a utterlly false claim and since you are trying to or at least pretending to be evenhanded I suspect you didn't actually read the entire thing. Even Zylka noticed that I agreed with him on some.

Maybe you're right, it wasn't every one of your posts that you disagreed with Zylka, but one thing is for sure, it was a large abundance of them. Many of which, IMO, didn't deserve to de completely disagreed. The tone in which you replied to all of Zylka's these seemed as if you were trying to defend Firaxis for Civ3.

As far as I can tell I was correct on nearly all points.

Well, of course you'll feel that way; you're referring to your opinion. Then again that applies for all of us so no big deal.

I guess you haven't played a lot of games. Or were very carefull aobut which you bought.

I'll elaborate on this line:

Now where the blame for that should fall is another issue.

It's not neccasarily that Civ3 is a bad game or anything, in fact, Civ3 is a very good game compared to most others. However, when you have very high expectations for a game, and rightfully so when it's a sequel to the fantastic game of Civ2, like I had for the game Civ3 would be considered a dissapoint. Now that's not even to say that Civ3 is a worse game than Civ2, though, and not to say that Civ3 is a better game than Civ2. I could never go back to play Civ2 again (unless it is a boring summer day and I am looking to rekindle the old times ) because of all the improvements Civ3 has made. On the same note, it's very hard to go to Civ3 coming from all of the great aspects of Civ2. Many of my complaints with Civ3 have been solved (actually more less deterred) by the Blitz mod, but still many things just don't feel "right". The excessive AI expansion is and always will be my biggest complaint with Civ3. Why exactly does the AI need to build a city on a single-tile desert island that is half way around the world from it's mainland? The corruption that the city will suffer will hinder it from being even marginally productive or useful. I should note that I don't particularly like the corruption model one bit. More inuitive ways could have been implemented to help solve ICS instead of having a ridiculous corruption model. To speak of the good apsects of Civ3, the improved pathfinding is the main reason why I can't ever go back to Civ2. Certain features with the interface are nice, while, others are also very limiting. Resources and culture, while, not completely refined, add a certain aspect of strategy to the game that is needed. The lack of extra "goodies" (i.e. casualty list, wonder movies) with Civ3 take away a lot of the fun when raising a civ, on the other hand, UUs add some extra flavor to the game. The abusrd lack of playtesting gameplay issues must be embarrassing for Firaxis. At least I hope it is the lack of playtesting that makes for an unbalanced gameplay (other possiblity would be severe ignorance of the game). By now you should be able to understand my position with the game.

Actually I haven't given Alpha Centauri a chance to disapoint me.

Why do you word that sentence in such a biased way? I actually found SMAC to be a good game, but the whole fantasy/space scene restricted me to only playing a few games (not a big sci-fi fan). One of the main reasons why I like Civ (not SMAC) is because of my interest in history and SMAC doesn't fulfill that for me with it's sci-fi setting. I guess it's, also, a matter of relation too.

You're accusing us of blind optimism when that's your signature??? Now that's hypocrisy. Also, I am not defending every part of the game. There clearly are many problems. But that doesn't mean it can't be a great game. No games are perfect. It was rushed to the shelves, but I would say firaxis has done a good job getting patches out quickly and fixing problems.

When did I specifically point out any names, besides Ethelred, FG, and Zylka? Therefore, how could you include yourself as part of "us"? The only possiblity I could see is you making false implications that I included you as part of the "blind optimism" group.

I don't see why you referrenced to my signature when that is completely irrelevant to the situation.

Whoever said that you were defending every part of the game? Read right under your quote for more information.

First, read my reply to Ethelred for information concerning my point of view abot Civ3, then I'll speak of new information. I agree with everything you said from "No games are perfect..." and after. The only problems I've had with Firaxis since release are their lack of denial for the certain poor features of Civ3, their lack of fan interaction since that time, and the long waiting times between patches, however, I do have some understanding for my last problem.

[Ethelred]

Re: Hmm

Originally posted by Zylka
Anyone know what "sliced girlscouts" are?

I hope not.

I do know what sliced sugar daddy is though.

I printed police photos for a book on the case. You do NOT want any specifics.