Achievement saves. I strongly disagree with TMIT.
If Civ5 had cheat codes, we wouldn't be much of a fansite if we didn't make them accessible to people looking for them. My personal opinion (and there is no official position on it other than it doesn't break any forum rules) is that being a venue that provides people with something Civ-related that they find helpful can only be a good thing (and so I'd personally thank FeiLing for putting the effort in).
The argument that someone else who you will never interact with getting an achievement somehow devalues your experience makes absolutely no sense. The only way that could possibly be the case is if people viewed achievement statistics as somehow meaningful, but I doubt anyone does, and the tiny number of people that will be using these saves will have no discernible impact on those statistics in any case.
The argument that it is silly to use these saves is not an argument that they are bad, just that you would not personally like to use them. I'm not going to use them either (I don't see why anyone would aim to do any of the achievements in the first place), but I don't see why I should begrudge other people if they for some reason find value in ticking the achievement boxes in this way. If someone gets satisfaction from doing that, it in no way devalues your sense of satisfaction at having legitimately completed an achievement.
There can not possibly be bragging rights for people saying they've done achievements if they've done them this way, anymore than there can be bragging rights for people taking a Deity save posted on the forums from 1 turn before victory, pressing 'next turn' and saying 'I won a Deity game'. No-one is going to say, 'well
I got that achievement', if the way they got it was by loading up a save.
So the only possible experiences that are devalued by these saves are those of the people who use them. That is entirely on them. It does not impact on anyone else in the slightest that these saves exist, and so it makes absolutely no sense at all to decry their existence. The argument also seems to assume that achievements are somehow meaningful in the first place, which strikes me as taking it way too seriously, and competitively. They can surely be nothing more than personal milestones. I've read a lot of posts on the Civ5 forums here, and I don't think I have ever seen people measuring themselves up against others on the basis of what achievements they have. It is simply not taken as meaningful by the community to any degree whatsoever.
You could make a similar argument about CFC allowing people to post about the innumerable exploits in the game. But our job is not to maintain some sort of 'purist' vision as to how people ought to play the game. If people like taking advantage of exploits, more power to them. It's their gameplay experience, and it doesn't devalue anyone else's. It is illogical for us to create some sort of pretence as to how people should play, or what they should be attempting to achieve. I don't think people should trade everything before DOWs, but unless we're talking about a competition like HOF, there is no reason that CFC should prevent people from talking about it, or advocating it. If people want to do that, more power to them. TMIT says that this 'has no place' on CFC, but I don't see how you could possibly say that something that people find useful, and that doesn't devalue anyone's gameplay experience, 'has no place', unless you were also saying that people should be playing the game a certain way, not having fun as they see fit.
The argument may hold more validity in communities that are more multiplayer focused, or communities of other games, where achievements might actually mean something. This is why the COD analogy does not work. There is presumably actual meaning for what TMIT mentioned there, where there isn't any beyond personal satisfaction in Civ5.
Finally, I would counter 'I thought CFC was better than allowing these saves' with 'I thought Polycast was better than publishing such an illogical rant'.
Good episode, as usual, though.
So is claimed. The one-hundred-and-forty-forth episode of PolyCast, "Too Long Didn't Listen", features regular co-hosts Daniel "DanQ" Quick, "Makahlua" and Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew with returning guest co-host John "LzPrst" Ftonnessen; it has a runtime of 59m59s; listeners are encouraged to rate the show on iTunes and follow on Twitter.
, the cheat is canine.
