6th December 2004, 6:40 PM
Quote:In a thread like this very short implies not very well thought out implies that you aren't really thinking about what you're saying or really trying to be a serious part of the discussion. So yes, it is an issue worth mentioning.
Oh, and what's "this whole thing"? Every possible issue of the many that we're arguing about here? Obviously not. Civ/SimCity? I've said my thing and GR has said he won't play Civ to see what he thinks, so that's static with me having an obviously valid point about playing games (or games similar to games; on that subject I'd even count Civ: Call to Power as a decent test of if you liked the genre... or Master of Magic, or any of the others... not quite Civilization, but similar enough to give people the idea of the subgenre's gameplay.) before saying other games are better. (oh, before you say "this goes against my Morrowind arguement", my counter is already stated: Morrowind, despite numerous small-to-large changes, has inherently the same style of gameplay as the two games prior. Playing Arena doesn't leave you qualified to review Morrowind, but playing Arena and Daggerfall does leave you qualified to compare how TES goes about its game design to how Baldur's Gate, Fallout, or Torment does.)
"This whole thing" is referring to you thinking that you're not a huge hypocrite.
Quote:I doubt anyone here could look at that post and say "yes, he's trying to make a real point"...
I've passed that point, actually. I've already proven you wrong, so now I'm having fun getting back at you.
Quote:The only good thing that came out of you entering this thread was that it led to GR saying (again?) that he had played Civ I a little. Which might have been said anyway, who knows, but that's the only thing... and as I said earlier, that increases his credibility a little on the issue. Of course then I made the point that in age and features and the rest Civ I is effectively compared to SimCity Classic, Civ II to SC2k, etc and he said he disliked SimCity Classic (at least in retrospect), so I'd still say "play Civ II and come back to me". And anyway, my main point has always been not that SimCity is a bad series (it's a great series! Very fun games!) but that I think Civilization is better. (and would stereotype SimCity andThe Sims as the casual gamer's strategy/simulation game and Civ II/III as a more hardcore gamer's strategy game... Warcraft is somewhere in between.)
As for Rush vs. Rare games, the main difference is obvious: I, and you, have played both lines of games for a decent amount of time. Which puts it squarely into the realm of opinion. I'd say the same about SimCity vs Civ (though I would still use the 'casual/hardcore' thing because it's true) if GR had said that he had Civ II or Alpha Centauri, you know.
Whiiich brings us back the original issue of you bashing Morrowind based off of ZERO playtime experience, whereas GR actually played some Civ!!
Quote:There you go off on your normal "making-up-"facts" routine again. You know if you read anything I write that I quite definitely note when what I'm saying is based on what someone else wrote or if it's based on my own experience... you can imply that that's not true all you want but repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Though you've obviously never learned that lesson.
Essentially, here's the basis of your case against what I said about Morrowind: "you haven't played it and past experience in the series is irrelevant". Part one, that I haven't played it, is obviously true. Part two, I doubt that many people anywhere would back you up. That idea is just so clearly foolish that only someone as desperate as you to come up with something to visciously argue about would find fault in it... if you want me to be more clear, I will give two reasons to why that logic fails. First, I created the thread that spawned most of the arguement not to talk about Morrowind but to talk about Arena and a bit about Daggerfall and what my impressions of the series as it was shown in those games were. Did I later talk about Morrowind? Some. After you brought it up as the focus, mostly. And I mentioned some of my sources (further refuting some of your case). But mostly I was saying things like "the TES series" because I meant all of them... not a specific one. And these were only things that I was either sure were in all the games (yes you can know something about a game's features without playing it, especially on the not-very-detailed level I was talking about) or things that I was asking about. Because you see, the second reason major flaw in your case is that I was asking "please compare what I say about TES1 and TES2 to what you know about TES3 and tell me where the major differences are from what I describe". You refused to do that and instead bashed me to no end. (GR by the way did eventually answer some of my questions, but he didn't remember the game as well...) Why? Because you didn't want to be a nice participant in the thread, you wanted to ATTACKATTACKATTACK of of COURSE you skipped over the parts where I said the reasons for why I was making the post and what I wanted people to say about it...
Now, I did in part write that post in hopes you'd read it and respond, but I wasn't looking for an arguement like that. What I was thinking was that since I'd played the series now I had a much greater understanding of how it worked so I could talk much better about how that style of gameplay relates to more standard RPG gameplay styles, which is really the main issue here... and on that level the series has been very consistent. If you'd
In a comparison I'm sure I used before in this discussion, if someone said to me "I hated Warcraft II so I know I'll hate warcraft iii even though I haven't played it" I would say in part "try Warcraft III, you might be surprised", but more importantly I'd ask why they disliked Warcraft II because in so many ways WCII is just about the same as WCIII. If they hated stuff like the older-style interface, resolution, 2d graphics, small unit selection unit, etc. then certainly they might like war3. But if their problem was with the underlying concept of a Blizzard RTS, well, I wouldn't expect much from them and Warcraft III. The games are too similar despite their differences.
I am quite sure that The Elder Scrolls works the same way -- big changes from game to game, but the underlying gameplay themes and concepts remain the same. If they changed too much either there'd be fan outcry that I've never heard of or the series would have changed its name...
I find it amazing how long you can stick to the same bullshit. Your theory that a person only needs to play one or two games in a series means that you automatically have a formed opinion on another entry into the series--without having played it!!--is really, really amazing to me. Seriously, I am at awe with you. I mean you have to realize just how retarded you sound, but you still stick to your guns! I salute you!!