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

[civman2000]

We’re voicing our opinions, not claiming to voice yours

"We"??? It sounds like although you may not be voicing ethelred's opinion, but you're voicing the opinions of others without any proof that "they" agree. You are the minority, according to the most recent poll, "Is Civ III good?"

[Zylka]

This is getting more than tiresome.

Well given the equally hostile and insulting tones, I think one thing is sure. No matter how far we go back and forth with sordid little bltching, I will not convince you of my stance, nor will you convince me of yours. I have my supporters, and you have yours.

We have both put our takes on 65 points of the game out on the table. No matter how much we sugar coat our opinions with patronizing quips, in the end, the argument on each point remains the same.

Is this agreed?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by civman2000


"We"??? It sounds like although you may not be voicing ethelred's opinion, but you're voicing the opinions of others without any proof that "they" agree. You are the minority, according to the most recent poll, "Is Civ III good?"

I have left a good amount of civ3 gamers out of the whole, guilty as charged. In my opinion, the ones I have left out (to the end of majority assumptions) are the ones who

1- Know nothing about civ1 or 2
2- Are not looking for a timeless game, as most of the vets are. They will be gone shortly.

So in conclusion, most of my population takes are of players who want to stick around the longest, especially in multiplayer. The whole argument relates to the fact that I don't believe this game is (at current rate) a timeless one.

Fair?

[civman2000]

I happen to have played civ2 for about 3 years before civ3 came out. I played civ1 a couple times too. If you look closely at every part of the game, there really weren't that many changes from civ1 to civ2 (hp and fp, better diplomacy, a few more units and wonders, a pretty crummy way of making scenarios (before CiC and FW)...anything else??), nor are there any less from civ2 to civ3 (culture is completely new, as are UUs and CSAs, trade, espionage, diplomacy all with major improvements...). I would also say (though I do not claim to have any proof) that a large majority of civ3 players have also been civ2 players...

[Tarquelne]

Re: This is getting more than tiresome.

Originally posted by Zylka
Well given the equally hostile and insulting tones, I think one thing is sure.

I'd be perfectly willing to cut the hostility if you do. I'd be very suprised if E. doesn't feel the same way.

No matter how far we go back and forth with sordid little bltching, I will not convince you of my stance, nor will you convince me of yours.

I'm perfectly willing to have my mind changed if I see an argument I accept, and I am willing to entertain new arguments. (Look to the "Lack of strategic depth" thread for proof of that, or maybe the "Multiple Resources" thread. (I didn't exactly change my mind in either, but I significantly modified my position.)

(I'm also curious to see if you do have any good counterarguments, of course.)

I have my supporters, and you have yours.

?? I pay attention to what you write, not how many people agree or disagree.

No matter how much we sugar coat our opinions with patronizing quips, in the end, the argument on each point remains the same.

Is this agreed?

???? For me, argument is there to try to arrive at agreement, which is (hopefully) where the truth is found. I never liked the "Lets agree to disagree." thing (except in matters of taste.) If you continue to write things I strongly disagree with I (and others) will continue to attempt to point out the errors or present alternative positions. You can, of course, respond or not, as you see fit.

However, if you simply wish to "vent" your discontent please do say so. (This has come up before - sometimes people just want to air thier frustrations/dislikes.)

I think imagine we'd all be able to actually agree on many things if you start qualifying your statements and making your assumptions explicit.
For example:

"50 - colonies are useless."

"Useless" is a rather extreme term. You use it quite a bit. Colonies clearly _do_ have thier uses. Untill you tone it down to something like "not as usefull as they should be." or "useless too much of the time." it's much more difficult to have a constructive discussion. You're putting the entire burden of presenting _your argumetns_ in a reasonable manner on those who disagree with you. Not a good way to have a discussion.

and

"as most of the vets are" + "especially in multiplayer"

Goes a long way toward your (rather offensive, IMO) harping on the importance of being in the "majority" and discounting "minority" opinions.
That's an assumption lying behind many (most, all?) of your statements that - now that its in the open - can be used to appropriately modify the whole discussion: "Zylka's 95 thesis on why Civ3 is an utter disappointment to people who LOVED Civ2 multiplayer and scenarios."
Seen in that light, I imagine an number of your arguments are improved.

[Zylka]

Ok. Remember that a lot of my "assumptions" (ie. colonies are useless) are left simply as that because they have been hammered over and over by other unhappy gamers. Pretty much every single point in there could have a full page essay justifying it, but I leave it at point blank because those essays have already been written repeatedly.

Keep in mind that those points are a vast summation of what I have read from other civ3 critics, they did not pop out of thin air.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by civman2000


"We"??? It sounds like although you may not be voicing ethelred's opinion, but you're voicing the opinions of others without any proof that "they" agree. You are the minority, according to the most recent poll, "Is Civ III good?"

Am I looking at the same poll? 38% say it's a good game.

The remaining say it's either flawed, average, or a disgrace. A flawed, average, or disgracefull game is not a good one. Care to follow that up?

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Zylka
Ok. Remember that a lot of my "assumptions" (ie. colonies are useless) are left simply as that because they have been hammered over and over by other unhappy gamers.

Short version: I think that's pretty lame. I do not wish to give offense, here. (I've done that enough elsewhere.) But, given my background, given my POV, given the way I approach discourse, it's lame.


Long version:
First, "colonies are useless" better not really be an assumption, and not an extreme or poorly-qualified statement.

Second, I simply don't believe that "colonies are useless" has been "hammered over and over". USELESS is absurd. I've seen plenty of criticizsm of colonies.... heck, I've engaged in it. But "useless" isn't a position I've seen succesfully defended. If you really think it's defensible you should defend it. If you don't agree with it, why state it? Do you really want us to assume that most of the list is simply parrotted opinions?

Third, if you're not simply "venting" I think you should feel obligated to put up some defense for what you write, or at least explicitly say (as you just have done) that you're not interested in defending your statements, and bow out of the conversation. However, that statement really ought to be made early - not 2 threads and 8 pages after your origional post.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Zylka


Am I looking at the same poll? 38% say it's a good game.

The remaining say it's either flawed, average, or a disgrace. A flawed, average, or disgracefull game is not a good one. Care to follow that up?

Polls where the participants vollunteer to vote are simply bogus. (Unless your target population is those who vollunteer to vote, of course.) Esp. web form polls. That should be obvious.

[Zylka]

You haven't complimented any of my in depth explanations, just picked on a few which I hadn't specified. Thanks for coming out, better luck next time.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Tarquelne


Short version: I think that's pretty lame. I do not wish to give offense, here. (I've done that enough elsewhere.) But, given my background, given my POV, given the way I approach discourse, it's lame.


Long version:
First, "colonies are useless" better not really be an assumption, and not an extreme or poorly-qualified statement.

Second, I simply don't believe that "colonies are useless" has been "hammered over and over". USELESS is absurd. I've seen plenty of criticizsm of colonies.... heck, I've engaged in it. But "useless" isn't a position I've seen succesfully defended. If you really think it's defensible you should defend it. If you don't agree with it, why state it? Do you really want us to assume that most of the list is simply parrotted opinions?

Third, if you're not simply "venting" I think you should feel obligated to put up some defense for what you write, or at least explicitly say (as you just have done) that you're not interested in defending your statements, and bow out of the conversation. However, that statement really ought to be made early - not 2 threads and 8 pages after your origional post.

The thread topic is 2500 words, I got a little bored filling in every point after I first outlined them. You haven't looked at what I have gone in depth on, just a few of the headers which I couldn't bare to specify since they're so painfully obvious. 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.

Have fun defending this mediocre game to the every end, and have even more fun playing the retarded ai. If you're willing to ever play multiplayer, I'll be more than happy to cave your head in like a melon.

Regards,
Zylka

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Tarquelne


Polls where the participants vollunteer to vote are simply bogus. (Unless your target population is those who vollunteer to vote, of course.) Esp. web form polls. That should be obvious.

I was responding to someone who argued that the polls offered support for this being a good game, not giving you an opportunity to come out of left field and nitpick.

[civman2000]

I never said I disagreed with you on everything. Colonies are definitely 99% useless (though not completely). And about the poll, tarqueline is right, but in any case only about 20% rate it a disgrace like you or average. The "could've been" option still counts as at least "good," and can be turned into "great" with a few more patches...

[Zylka]

Please do, I enjoy people screaming that one or two points weren't specified, and ignoring the other 2490 f*cking words.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by civman2000
I never said I disagreed with you on everything. Colonies are definitely 99% useless (though not completely). And about the poll, tarqueline is right, but in any case only about 20% rate it a disgrace like you or average. The "could've been" option still counts as at least "good," and can be turned into "great" with a few more patches...

"Could have been" suggests "could have been good, but it wasn't". Does it get any simpler?