24th November 2004, 10:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 24th November 2004, 11:10 PM by A Black Falcon.)
As you said in that other thread to me, OB1, this is your last chance, for this thread at least. Act like a normal considerate person or be ignored and revealed as the person driven to attack me for not defendable reasons that you are. (okay, after this post I don't expect you to act like how I wish you would, so this is more about venting my frusterations than actually expecting any change... but with you there are just SO MANY frusterations to vent that I can't help myself. Especially when if this continues it stands a very good chance of destroying any chance of this thread staying remotely on topic with another of your stupid crusades to convince everyone else here that you hate me as much as you sure try to act like you do (I don't think that it has much of anything to do with the actual validity of the points I make anymore. I thought that once, but you have proven me wrong.)...
I probably should tone this down, but I won't. You've exhausted both my patience and my reserve of excuses for how you could be making the arguements you try to make about what i say without it being 95% purely because I am the one making the arguement.
:troll:
Posting nonsensical arguements that are only here to get me angry, like your whole presence in this thread, isn't okay. You're very lucky that TC has no moderation because with all of the stuff you've pulled over the years I'm sure that at most forums you'd have been banned a long time back for acting like you do... posting to solely anger others or arguing against a point just because I make it is stupid. You should know better. By this point you obviously don't, but you should...
Far more than enough opinions from ... pretty much every source I have read that has played all of the TES games... it's really not at all a contraversial statement to say that "TES3 is a whole lot like TES1 and TES2 just with some new features". Based on what I have read I am sure that almost anyone who has played more than one of the games would agree. You only don't because you have some idiotic drive to yell at me for every imagined reason you possibly can.
Now, some experience with the general idea is probably good, which is why I waited until playing Arena and Daggerfall before commenting more about Morrowind, but the only reason that you do not understand how similar the games are is because you have not played Arena or Daggerfall. That's the only one. So to your arguement that I don't understand Morrowind, I can equally respond that you do not understand Arana nad Daggerfall and as I made clear almost all of the arguements that I were making about the series (the whole series, not any one game!) were based on those games. Now, I'd only argue that to a limited extent as long as you'd read anything about Arena or Daggerfall because I definitely believe that reading about games (reviews, previews, discussions by players, etc) counts towards knowledge of the game, but I could.
First, I'll say for the millionth time that (given that we are talking about Morrowind), I never said that it was a bad game. I would not say that a game I'm sure is pretty good is bad, that would be stupid! I criticized some elements of the fundamental gameplay style of the TES series! That is a totally different question from saying that 'TES is bad". I guess you can't understand the difference, but to most people it should be immediately clear. Criticizing how it does things is not saying the game is bad. That arguement is totally nonsensical... you're only sticking with it so long because ... well, because as I said you're determined to attack me for everything, including and especially things I didn't say or mean.
One other thing I'd like to address supports my general theme here. I said, repeatedly, in the TES arguements that one of the things I wanted most was for someone to look through my criticism, compare them to the facts in Morrowind, and tell me which are still there and which have changed. Getting anyone to do that was really hard with you constantly yelling at me (without of course really answering any of the questions I raised, as actually debating the points I talk about doesn't seem to be a very high priority for you), but GR (and others?) finally did some of that. It was nice as it helped show me where the series had changed from the first two games I was discussing and, it is easy to extrapolate, how those changes would influence my opinion of the series.
Going back to thiis specific quote, by any standards (that is even if we ignore my first point) it is simply not true. You seem to think so, but if you go look at what I was saying 99% of the time it most definitely was not making judgements backed up with no facts (if I said this in relation to GR about Civ, it was probably either in ignorance of the fact that he has played Civ I or relating to features that did not exist in the first game). And continuing on that note, unlike me I would be quite surprised if GR has read much about Civ II or Civ III... reading about a game DOES count as a source of knowledge about it, and I have definitely read about Morrowind (in addition to listening to conversations about it). So I am sure that my knowledge level about Morrowind is higher than GR's about Civilization II or III, which defintely plays into the conversation. Not as the main factor perhaps, but it matters. GR's comment that he didn't like the first SimCity highlights how that point matters. Older PC games have many technical reasons that make them in many cases tougher for people to like.
And with that, unless you shock me and have something intelligent or considerate to say, I don't think I'll reply to any more of your usual nearly baseless thread-ruining attacks. GR is fine, as he's actually making some reasonable responses to what I say, but you? You, as usual, are not. I don't understand why you act like this, but it is not pleasant , gets nothing done, and does not benefit anyone involved. So act like a decent human being (like most everyone else on this board does) or go away.
For point of comparison look at GR here. He does have some insults (done, it seems to me, in a much more joking manner than yours), but that's just copying (or inciting) you, it seems... but when it comes to an actual discusion when he posts he says something pertinent that obviously was written after considering what I had said. You don't do that. Now, is GR perfect? Of course not. After all, his main arguement is about how a series he has not played much is worse than one he has played a huge amount of (this does not directly compare to me because I was not saying any specific series that was better than TES... I was talking in much more general gameplay terms. But if you want to say "You're thinking Baldur's Gate vs. TES and have played ten times more BG so it influences your opinion", you'd probably have a point... It does. But I've never said that TES is bad or that I dislike the TES games or any such thing.! This is bound to be a flawed arguement. But still, at least he's tried to frame it as an arguement and mostly to stay within the bounds of decent jumps of logic... but I have very little intrest in more of your not thought through and obviously horribly incorrect attacks coming along and finishing off any chance for this thread to be saved.
Note how, like usual, everything was fine until you decided to get involved with some random insult-slinging in my direction?
ASM.
Yeah, minor wonders might just deserve a static picture like Civ III has... they aren't Great Wonders of the World, after all. But the major ones should. Oh, and exclusive units from wonders? Neat, it's a decent extension of what wonders have done before...
As for Barbarians, of course you don't get maps or tech. There are a lot of them so if you got tech from them it'd be horribly unbalancing... I would not want to see that. Gold and occasional units are fine... and probably more accurate, too... It's wiping out villages of barbarians and scattering the survivors... now, I will say one thing -- these should stop in the later times. Once it's the modern age, there is little excuse to say where barbarians would be coming from... but even if the world was fully explored in premodern times because of the technology differences it'd be definitely possible to have barbarians. But a stop to randomly spawning barbarians at some point would be good, if it's not in the game already... it's clear that you wish they had more of a role in the game, but think about this. Suppose that they make them a stronger part of the game. You'll probably ask for more... so why not just go all the way and say where this line leads: you want more opponenets in the game and eight isn't enough. Maybe that isn't a complete picture of your opinion, but if you implement everything you say the line between barbarian and civilizations would be quite blurred indeed... and the point of having the civilizations seperate is to note how they are different (and they are, in real history too! Perhaps tribes are undervalued here, but the game is about lasting culture and that comes from civilizations, not barbarian tribes). Also, cities for barbarians wouldn't make as much sense. Most of them didn't really HAVE big cities, just scattered tribes... which is the point of all the small villages and randomly generated barbarians... and also a lot of them would not use diplomatic channels. Look at history! Barbarian invasions into civilized lands happened constantly. If anything the biggest problem in the game isn't not giving them enough diplomatic options, it's not making them powerful enough to take over cities... because in real history that happened all the time (and then they would get assimilated into the population of the region, generally, making a somewhat different but still mostly based on the past civilization culture)
Along those lines though, there should be trade with barbarians (this is a definite historical fact) and perhaps in later times some simple kinds of peace treaties... though they should break them all the time in most cases, I think (and if they don't you can, which would impact your international diplomatic rating a whole lot less than breaking a treaty with a real nation).
I probably should tone this down, but I won't. You've exhausted both my patience and my reserve of excuses for how you could be making the arguements you try to make about what i say without it being 95% purely because I am the one making the arguement.
:troll:
Posting nonsensical arguements that are only here to get me angry, like your whole presence in this thread, isn't okay. You're very lucky that TC has no moderation because with all of the stuff you've pulled over the years I'm sure that at most forums you'd have been banned a long time back for acting like you do... posting to solely anger others or arguing against a point just because I make it is stupid. You should know better. By this point you obviously don't, but you should...
Quote:And you know this how? You never played the game, stupid!
Far more than enough opinions from ... pretty much every source I have read that has played all of the TES games... it's really not at all a contraversial statement to say that "TES3 is a whole lot like TES1 and TES2 just with some new features". Based on what I have read I am sure that almost anyone who has played more than one of the games would agree. You only don't because you have some idiotic drive to yell at me for every imagined reason you possibly can.
Now, some experience with the general idea is probably good, which is why I waited until playing Arena and Daggerfall before commenting more about Morrowind, but the only reason that you do not understand how similar the games are is because you have not played Arena or Daggerfall. That's the only one. So to your arguement that I don't understand Morrowind, I can equally respond that you do not understand Arana nad Daggerfall and as I made clear almost all of the arguements that I were making about the series (the whole series, not any one game!) were based on those games. Now, I'd only argue that to a limited extent as long as you'd read anything about Arena or Daggerfall because I definitely believe that reading about games (reviews, previews, discussions by players, etc) counts towards knowledge of the game, but I could.
Quote:It's the exact same situation, actually. The difference being that GR never said that the games he didn't play were bad. You DID.
First, I'll say for the millionth time that (given that we are talking about Morrowind), I never said that it was a bad game. I would not say that a game I'm sure is pretty good is bad, that would be stupid! I criticized some elements of the fundamental gameplay style of the TES series! That is a totally different question from saying that 'TES is bad". I guess you can't understand the difference, but to most people it should be immediately clear. Criticizing how it does things is not saying the game is bad. That arguement is totally nonsensical... you're only sticking with it so long because ... well, because as I said you're determined to attack me for everything, including and especially things I didn't say or mean.
One other thing I'd like to address supports my general theme here. I said, repeatedly, in the TES arguements that one of the things I wanted most was for someone to look through my criticism, compare them to the facts in Morrowind, and tell me which are still there and which have changed. Getting anyone to do that was really hard with you constantly yelling at me (without of course really answering any of the questions I raised, as actually debating the points I talk about doesn't seem to be a very high priority for you), but GR (and others?) finally did some of that. It was nice as it helped show me where the series had changed from the first two games I was discussing and, it is easy to extrapolate, how those changes would influence my opinion of the series.
Going back to thiis specific quote, by any standards (that is even if we ignore my first point) it is simply not true. You seem to think so, but if you go look at what I was saying 99% of the time it most definitely was not making judgements backed up with no facts (if I said this in relation to GR about Civ, it was probably either in ignorance of the fact that he has played Civ I or relating to features that did not exist in the first game). And continuing on that note, unlike me I would be quite surprised if GR has read much about Civ II or Civ III... reading about a game DOES count as a source of knowledge about it, and I have definitely read about Morrowind (in addition to listening to conversations about it). So I am sure that my knowledge level about Morrowind is higher than GR's about Civilization II or III, which defintely plays into the conversation. Not as the main factor perhaps, but it matters. GR's comment that he didn't like the first SimCity highlights how that point matters. Older PC games have many technical reasons that make them in many cases tougher for people to like.
And with that, unless you shock me and have something intelligent or considerate to say, I don't think I'll reply to any more of your usual nearly baseless thread-ruining attacks. GR is fine, as he's actually making some reasonable responses to what I say, but you? You, as usual, are not. I don't understand why you act like this, but it is not pleasant , gets nothing done, and does not benefit anyone involved. So act like a decent human being (like most everyone else on this board does) or go away.
For point of comparison look at GR here. He does have some insults (done, it seems to me, in a much more joking manner than yours), but that's just copying (or inciting) you, it seems... but when it comes to an actual discusion when he posts he says something pertinent that obviously was written after considering what I had said. You don't do that. Now, is GR perfect? Of course not. After all, his main arguement is about how a series he has not played much is worse than one he has played a huge amount of (this does not directly compare to me because I was not saying any specific series that was better than TES... I was talking in much more general gameplay terms. But if you want to say "You're thinking Baldur's Gate vs. TES and have played ten times more BG so it influences your opinion", you'd probably have a point... It does. But I've never said that TES is bad or that I dislike the TES games or any such thing.! This is bound to be a flawed arguement. But still, at least he's tried to frame it as an arguement and mostly to stay within the bounds of decent jumps of logic... but I have very little intrest in more of your not thought through and obviously horribly incorrect attacks coming along and finishing off any chance for this thread to be saved.
Note how, like usual, everything was fine until you decided to get involved with some random insult-slinging in my direction?
ASM.
Quote:1. If you conquere the Barbarian settlement , You wont get anything from its people , No Tech and no maps , No Gifts. Since you have just agressively annexed the city you just eliminated all males of fighting age so no special units. The only reason you should conquere them is if they are too savage and hostile to be reasoned with or too deny a rival world power.
A simple way of implementing it is following what CIV 3 added already with cultural straits , If you havent noticed when you pick your race they have a staus like Scientific ,industrial ,Militaristic,Religious,Exspansionist,Agricultural,Sea faring. Already each Civilization in the third game has two of the above types , The Barbarians would be the same , Warlike Barbarians might respect a warrior nation more then farmers and priests same goes with the rest.I can already see the Sea People as exspansionist sea faring people,As long as one strait is common with your civ and the barbarians you could be abled to trade and intergrate with them if not, They will mock you or be disinterested.
As for Wonders Big wonder more dramatic movies , Small minor ones you get the drift.
In conquests some of the wonders can give you exclusive rights to create a special unit , The Statue of Zeus lets you have Ancient Cavalry and You get Cruisaders for another one later on.
Yeah, minor wonders might just deserve a static picture like Civ III has... they aren't Great Wonders of the World, after all. But the major ones should. Oh, and exclusive units from wonders? Neat, it's a decent extension of what wonders have done before...
As for Barbarians, of course you don't get maps or tech. There are a lot of them so if you got tech from them it'd be horribly unbalancing... I would not want to see that. Gold and occasional units are fine... and probably more accurate, too... It's wiping out villages of barbarians and scattering the survivors... now, I will say one thing -- these should stop in the later times. Once it's the modern age, there is little excuse to say where barbarians would be coming from... but even if the world was fully explored in premodern times because of the technology differences it'd be definitely possible to have barbarians. But a stop to randomly spawning barbarians at some point would be good, if it's not in the game already... it's clear that you wish they had more of a role in the game, but think about this. Suppose that they make them a stronger part of the game. You'll probably ask for more... so why not just go all the way and say where this line leads: you want more opponenets in the game and eight isn't enough. Maybe that isn't a complete picture of your opinion, but if you implement everything you say the line between barbarian and civilizations would be quite blurred indeed... and the point of having the civilizations seperate is to note how they are different (and they are, in real history too! Perhaps tribes are undervalued here, but the game is about lasting culture and that comes from civilizations, not barbarian tribes). Also, cities for barbarians wouldn't make as much sense. Most of them didn't really HAVE big cities, just scattered tribes... which is the point of all the small villages and randomly generated barbarians... and also a lot of them would not use diplomatic channels. Look at history! Barbarian invasions into civilized lands happened constantly. If anything the biggest problem in the game isn't not giving them enough diplomatic options, it's not making them powerful enough to take over cities... because in real history that happened all the time (and then they would get assimilated into the population of the region, generally, making a somewhat different but still mostly based on the past civilization culture)
Along those lines though, there should be trade with barbarians (this is a definite historical fact) and perhaps in later times some simple kinds of peace treaties... though they should break them all the time in most cases, I think (and if they don't you can, which would impact your international diplomatic rating a whole lot less than breaking a treaty with a real nation).