c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

[High Lord J]

all these people talk about is how hard it is and they call that a bad thing.

1: Waah I don't always get a perfect starting point all the time.

Nobody does that is why it is fun. You have to work hard and conquer a new place when your land doesn't suite you. Build workers to improve the land and such. I find it a good feature that you often get a bad starting point and through history most civs didn't start out in a perfect position.

2: Waah I don't have enough resources.

Your not supposed to. You have to chance your strategy based on resources that is the fun part. It helps give you a new game each time you play so shut up!!!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though?

i fail to see where the censorship is? we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3

The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining?

read my PS on the intro article

Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion?

The Column != Forums

Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads?

bashing of any kind is prohibited anyway

Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

when was the last time someone was banned only because his opinion was different?

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?

perhaps you need to read more carefully of what is and have been posted?

[AAGamer]

Well unfortunaly this doesnt seem like a forum to place opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Where does this type of "broad stroke" censorship end though?
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
i fail to see where the censorship is? we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3.. End Quote:

This is the definition of Censor as per Webster's

Roman magistrate with authority to regulate the moral conduct of the citizens: an officer who examines written and printed matter with power to delete or suppress the contents: a stern critic: (pysch.) an unconsious inhibitive mechanism in the mind that prevents what is painful from emerging into consciousness---v.t. to subject to censorial examination: to delete, suppress as a censor might. --adjs. censo'rial, belonging to a censor, or to the correction of public morals......

Unfortunatly what SpencerH said is quite accurate.... Censorship....... Now when you reply to this --- no condesending tone allowed and make sure you censor it first!!!

But seriously this is a good forum----- I have been reading for a quite a while but have saved my comments... Let people say what they have to say and they'll be done with it, but if you get adversarial or confrontational you may be surprised who shows up...
Thanks Mark

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MarkG
i fail to see where the censorship is?

2 articles this time, the last of their kind....

My point is, what "kind" is that?

The comments are negative towards CIV3 therefore its whining?

read my PS on the intro article

The point of all this is that I believe we've given too much space to the minority of civ3 players: the ones who didnt like parts of it or all of it for that matter.....

PS. Yes, the general title of this issue is provocative(if you get the pun ) and certainly not characteristic of what we have published about civ3 on the Column.

So you've given too much space to them but they're not characteristic of whats been published

Is there no place now for legitimate dissent with the majority opinion?

The Column != Forums

Whats next, no firaxis-bashing in the threads?

bashing of any kind is prohibited anyway

Will we be banned for the "no comment" comments and have to burn the (your) T-shirts?

when was the last time someone was banned only because his opinion was different?

Those are rhetorical questions with a philosophical, rather than practical focus. I apologise if they are badly worded.

Perhaps you need to clarify your position?

perhaps you need to read more carefully of what is and have been posted?

I read it quite carefully, thanks.

we're just saying that we've given more space than needed to these kinds of articles. we believe it's time to be more fair towards civ3 in terms of what's posted on civ3

That seems resonable to me, but not the idea that you wont publish any more dissenting views. What I was trying to evoke was a clarification of "whining" vs "legitimate concerns". I think most, but not all, gripes with CIV3 have been handled with the patches. What happens with PtW though? It may be great out of the box (I hope it is), but it may not be! The inference from your statement is that you will not publish any more dissenting views. I think thats a mistake.

[Switch]

I think, SpencerH, that Mark is saying that he's currently going to stop using negative, repetative columns, because most people on these forums have heard them a hundred times over, and most people want something orignal. Sure, criticizing is good, at least constructive, but there comes a point when everything is just repeated blithering, and no one really cares to read the columns due to a usualk lack of orignal content.

And personally, I also think that people are over-exagerating Civ3's problems WAY too much, ex. You might get a lot of difficult starting positions, so DON'T BUY THE GAME!; I don't like the culture system, it's unrealistic, so DON'T BUY THE GAME!; There are a few problems, so the ENTIRE GAME IS UNPLAYABLE!, etc. Sure, the game has problems, but most people are making them out to be a lot bigger than what they are. As a comedian once said, don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.

[MarkG]

Mark is saying that he's currently going to stop using negative, repetative columns, because most people on these forums have heard them a hundred times over, and most people want something orignal.

AMEN

[MarkG]

btw, by the time of PtW we will have one more way for people to express their opinions, beyond the forums and the column

[Purple]

If I understand the thrust of the new policy, it is not negativity that will be "censored," but repetitive negativity. If someone comes up with an original criticism, that would be an acceptible topic for a column.

On the other hand, I would not want to read repetitive fawning. We've witnessed plenty of that, too.

[Jawn Henry]

Too many people compare Civ3 to Civ2, as if it should be a successor, an "offspring", like if there should be direct lineage between the two. I feel this is a pitfall, and is why many "disgruntlees" are, well... disgruntled. The title of the game would have us believe it is meant as this, but when you really get down to look at it, Civ3 is an entirely new game, and should be treated as such.

Instead of treating it as a crowning achievement that failed, why don't we treat it as a new begining, something new to build upon. This is what we got - let's work with it.

I've got my gripes about the game, there's no doubt about it. I used to dislike Civ3 very much - though i knew it was a good game in itself. I just couldn't figure why i didn't like it : that never happened to me for a Civ game. It's because i expected it to be some sort of super-improved Civ2. Sorry, it isn't. IMHO, it is different enough to say it's a whole new game. We're staring anew, people. Civ2 isn't better or worse than Civ3. Just different.

My 2 cents...

JH

[sabrewolf]

i must admit: when i read these columns i thought "not again". i don't mind citisism, after all, civ3 isn't perfect. but a lot of the grumbling is based on inexperience.

specially the "10 reasons not to buy civ3" pi$$ed me off a LOT.
- reasons 1-5 were ALL based on starting locations... well, that's ONE point to me, not 5.
- reason 6 (AI cheatin)... well, it looks like good old dirk was reloading 100 times to realize, that the random generator is based on things like unit number, turn number and so on and isn't completely random. looks like he cheated, so don't blame the AI to do the same
- the best was reason 9:

"My impression is, you survive with luck. When playing on level "prince", the third easiest level, you survive with big luck"

now i'm not a very good player either, but to admit hardly being able to survive level 3/6 and blaming that on the AI is a joke. that a POSITIVE aspect of the game, not a negative one.

so much to the topic

but back to thread conversation:
markos, i don't think you should exclude further critisisms. only the bad ones. and the rate of negative articles published should be the same as the rate of negative articles written...
... but having seen so many "civ3-suckz"-columns recently, i believe a break could be healthy

[SpencerH]

The answer is to publish a positive article with the negative ones, or to provide a direct rebuttal. I would say there are lots of people who could/would do it if asked.

[Switch]

Actually, I agree with that. Rebuttals Who woulda thought? And we have a perfect medium through which to do so: These very forums!



BTW, sorry if I sounded sarcastic, I didn't mean to

[tniem]

I agree with what one poster said above. It isn't that you shouldn't post negative comments, they should be educated. It seems at times that the column is in such need of something that you take whatever is provided. Maybe we should just go a week without it or with you begging for more. Make someone rewrite things that they have posted if they are not good. Have someone edit it. Have someone look at it for content. And yes I know this means someone has to do it.



By the way, I have worked for the past two hours on a column. I am going to send it to Dan tonight. I would love it if you guys would read it and tell me it either a) is pretty good, b) is good but needs work here, or c) go back to the drawing boards. Seriously, this thing is going to be read by many people. Some basic editing and rewriting should take place.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
specially the "10 reasons not to buy civ3" pi$$ed me off a LOT.

I didn't take this article serious. It's bare of all logical sense. While criticism in the style of Libertarian, Zylka or jimmytrick is at least intelligent and tolerable (even though one might not agree), this article is merely the childish rant of a piss poor player, who blames the game for the fact, that he is unable to win.

[Adriano]

I hate Civ III,although there are some good ideas in, so I enjoy reading pieces like Dirk's!!.
But.....a moment please.....Why I hate Civ III so deeply?.
..cause I loved CivI&II so much!.
This is the reason why the community is alive !!!.
This is the reason why I'll keep on buying all Civ and Ctp games( I bet Dirk too....)!
So I think to choose if an article is enough original it's a big mistake!
We all deserve professional games......the level and the quality of AI is going down not growing up.