Crispy Review of Civ V

Roxlimn said:

If you followed the train of thought, I mentioned that most people who think Civ V sucks appear to just be taking every reason under the sun and putting it forward. That suggests that they don't really know what's going on and just ally with whoever appears to have a similar viewpoint. There is no nuance in their critiques.

Click to expand...

Ever got the idea that there may be more than just one reason not to like this game?

As has been pointed out so often already:

• it is not only the poor combat AI
• it is not only the problem of scaling a tactical combat system with a strategical map
• it is not only the obscure diplomacy
• it is not only the one-dimensional "social policies"
• it is not only the AI "set up to win" and then failing to do so in any aspect
• it is not only the boring gameplay in case of not being involved into a war
• it is not only the poor unit graphics which require additional symbols to make the identifiable
• it is not only the fact that the game is a resource hog for apparently no reasons
• it is not only the many bugs
• it is not only still missing functionality

(And these are just the things which come to mind immediately)

For many, it is a combination, if not all, of these things.

So, it is quite easy to be in three threads about three different single items of this list and having to admit that each time the single item belongs to what disturbs you about the game.

Zechnophobe:

Zechnophobe said:

Well, there it is. I always thought someone would stoop to referring to me as 'zechnoprobe' at some point. You are the first however to actually do so. I'll refrain from referring to you as 'meanie face' since who knows how fast that downward spiral spins.

Click to expand...

My sincere apologies. I really did read your name like that. I didn't realize the error until you pointed it out. No offense was meant. It's similar to those mental block where where you fail to recognize that a given word was typed twice in a sentence. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the misread would be read or meant in an offensive manner. Would this be under the juvenile notion that body orifices are distasteful and that any reference, however distant, can be meant as an insult?

Zechnophobe said:

So, I had edited in, before you quoted me, that I did not mean 'you' the person but 'you' the category of people. I notice you quoted just below that part of the text.

What do I want to see? People not deny these problems exist, or get inconsiderate of those who point them out. It seems like by disliking the game, you take it as an attack or something, and so defend against it as if I had insulted your mother, or other loved one.

Click to expand...

When people respond to bugs by saying that they will hopefully be fixed, I do not get the impression that they are denying that there are bugs. Similarly, when people respond that Maritime CS will likely get patched, I also don't get the impression that they are denying the problem.

Zechnophobe said:

40% of fervent civ customers, not just civ 4. Either way This game is a sequel. Sequels operate under the assumption they are a progression from previous titles. That's what a sequel is. People were not so nearly distressed by CivRev, because it wasn't marketed as a sequel, and was very open about being a fairly different game experience. This was not the case with civ 5.

Click to expand...

Well, actually that's not true. Mass Effect 2 was profoundly different from Mass Effect 1, and Fallout 3 was pretty markedly different from Fallouts 1 and 2. For that matter, comparing MOO1 and MOO2 is like comparing two very dissimilar games - they only have cosmetic similarities for the most part.

Civ 4 itself was something of a marked leap from Civ 3, which itself was different from Civ 2. Indeed, there are people who prefer Civ 2 and Civ 4, but not Civ 3, so it's clearly not always the case that a sequel is a progression of the game before it.

Moreover, Civ 5 was widely known to be a radical departure from Civ 4 from the get-go. I saw this would be the case just from previews of 1UPT and hex tiles, and definitely the demo gives you a very clear picture.

There are people who like Civ 4 but hate Colonization and Civ 3, and people who likewise like Civ 3 and 5, but not 4 very much. I think it paints too wide a stroke to just say that Civ 5 alienates 40% of Civ customers. It alienated a very specific Civ customer, and those are largely those who prefer Civ 4 above all other Civs.

C-G said:

That's BS.

Not every person have to go through list of like or don't likes, haves or have nots in able to say whether they like the game in general or not.

Nobody has any kind of duty to report to you how they like about each feature (or missing one) to you. If it's crap in somone's opinion, it's crap. It's nice they tell why they think so but what's the idea of telling "well music is pretty nice though"?

Click to expand...

I didn't demand that every person enumerate their likes and dislikes about the game, but it appears that every person who dislikes the game dislikes pretty much everything about it and has nothing good to say. It's not BS - it really does appear as if they don't really know why they hate the game, and just glom onto anything and everything that gets mentioned.

I mean, they didn't use to know that ICS was possible in the game, then they discover that it is, and suddenly, THAT's the reason, even though they weren't even aware of it before!

Soro said:

Yet once again, you previously asked, "Wasn't it clear from the get go that they wanted to reboot the franchise and head somewhere distinctly away from Civ IV?" It is of course possible to quibble one's way out of interview A, B, C, or any others that appear to do just this, by finding any set of circumstances to wish it elsewhere. At base, however, the objection remains untouched. It wasn't possible for quite a few people to understand that the franchise was heading into a place far away from Civ IV, thanks to interviews whose content emphasized continuity, as in the example I provided.

Click to expand...

To be quite fair, the game is recognizably a Civ series game, so it has continuity in the sense that Civ 1 is related to Civ 4, and Civ V doesn't fall all that far from that tree.

Soro said:

Sadly, no, and certainly Shafer is complicit in this when he has repeatedly stated--as he does in that EuroGamer piece,"We want to keep the hardcore players." This can't reasonably be set aside.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. They want to keep the hardcore players, of course. They also want to be as rich as Bill Gates and to be bigger than EA. Saying what they want - does anyone even take that seriously?

Soro said:

Consider them unblooded, instead: products of a culture that teaches them to implicitly trust the content of commercials, rather than doubt. A condition that Civ V's release has, hopefully, remedied. Whether one likes or dislikes it, it is drastically different from Civ IV, and I sincerely hope many won't pay attention to the content of PR releases, gamesite previews, developer diaries, and interviews in the future.

Click to expand...

Would these be the same commercials that suggest that eating at McDonald's is good for your health, that wearing shoes and particular scents will cause attractive women to chase after you, and sugar-encrusted processed mystery carbs is a great breakfast choice?

This would be the same culture that deceived its citizens about rationales for war, that design history lessons in school to serve national interests regardless of truth, and continue to insist that lack of transparency in government is a good thing?

You mean that culture?


lschnarch:

All of those characteristics about the game were obvious from the demo. If a player doesn't like that many things about the game, then it is inconceivable why he would venture to purchase such a game, knowing that it is largely abhorrent to him on so many fundamental levels.

Furthermore, many of these issues that are pointed out are present in previous versions of Civ, which these people purport to like. Again, it appears as if they are just trying to grasp at anything and everything to try to justify their antipathy.

Roxlimn said:

To be quite fair, the game is recognizably a Civ series game, so it has continuity in the sense that Civ 1 is related to Civ 4, and Civ V doesn't fall all that far from that tree.

Click to expand...

And yet, as you wrote above to another forum member, "Moreover, Civ 5 was widely known to be a radical departure from Civ 4 from the get-go." It falls far from that tree, a true radical departure, but it doesn't. Perhaps it would be fairer to state that it is radical departure--one of your positions, above--but was not presented as such, at least part of the time, so as to grab veteran players. Without thought to what that would do to brand trust, ultimately.

I don't understand. They want to keep the hardcore players, of course. They also want to be as rich as Bill Gates and to be bigger than EA. Saying what they want - does anyone even take that seriously?

Click to expand...

Can you ask that question after reading these forums and others? Or the reviewers that actually quote tacky phrases out of the PR releases?

Would these be the same commercials that suggest that eating at McDonald's is good for your health, that wearing shoes and particular scents will cause attractive women to chase after you, and sugar-encrusted processed mystery carbs is a great breakfast choice?

This would be the same culture that deceived its citizens about rationales for war, that design history lessons in school to serve national interests regardless of truth, and continue to insist that lack of transparency in government is a good thing?

You mean that culture?

Click to expand...

I do love a good, biting snark.

Soro:

The remark is clearly an oxymoron. Civ V is "a radical departure from Civ 4" in that it is not iterative or a progression of every concept within Civ 4, but as you can very well confirm for yourself, you still have cities, you still research tech, and you still improve tiles. It does not fall far from the Civ tree, since it's broadly quite similar to Civ 3 and Civ 2.

Civ 4 itself was a radical departure from previous Civ franchises in several respects, so this can be seen as a return to form.

Soro said:

Can you ask that question after reading these forums and others? Or the reviewers that actually quote tacky phrases out of the PR releases?

Click to expand...

Point taken. Alright then, why would anyone interpret that to mean that "hardcore players" are the primary target for Civ 5? I mean, "We want to keep the hardcore players," even by itself, clearly suggests that they will do something entirely different, but hope to keep the hardcores anyway.

Soro said:

I do love a good, biting snark.

Click to expand...

Still goes to point, though. You are referring to a culture where mass misinformation is an everyday occurrence. How would living in such a culture condition one to believe mass media?

Roxlimn said:

The remark is clearly an oxymoron. Civ V is "a radical departure from Civ 4" in that it is not iterative or a progression of every concept within Civ 4, but as you can very well confirm for yourself, you still have cities, you still research tech, and you still improve tiles. It does not fall far from the Civ tree, since it's broadly quite similar to Civ 3 and Civ 2.

Civ 4 itself was a radical departure from previous Civ franchises in several respects, so this can be seen as a return to form.

Click to expand...

The remark is clearly an oxymoron to you; and the matter of "return to form" is equally subjective. That being the case, I don't think anything further is to be gained from conversation on this point.

Point taken. Alright then, why would anyone interpret that to mean that "hardcore players" are the primary target for Civ 5? I mean, "We want to keep the hardcore players," even by itself, clearly suggests that they will do something entirely different, but hope to keep the hardcores anyway.

Click to expand...

At the risk of making a broad and unfair generalization, most people will, most of the time, interpret multiple statements heading in different directions in a fashion that favors themselves. And the comment about "hardcore players" is misleading, as are other statements Shafer made--while statements to the other side of the balance ledger about Civ V, hardcore veteran players preferred to ignore. It is a strategy after all that has proven successful in the past. Whether they've over-played their hand in this case remains to be seen.

Still goes to point, though. You are referring to a culture where mass misinformation is an everyday occurrence. How would living in such a culture condition one to believe mass media?

Click to expand...

Education does not include a very early exposure to and study of the rules of logic. The example of parents and peer groups following the mass media also inclines other family/peer group members to this. (Levi-Strauss wrote exhaustively on the subject, for what that's worth.) The lack of anybody saying, "Hey, back up, analyze that commercial, and see what emotional buttons they're aiming for in your makeup" means a vacuum has been established in which marketers can set up shop for nearly anything they want. And there are entire schools in modern universities that teach just how to do that.

Well, actually that's not true. Mass Effect 2 was profoundly different from Mass Effect 1, and Fallout 3 was pretty markedly different from Fallouts 1 and 2. For that matter, comparing MOO1 and MOO2 is like comparing two very dissimilar games - they only have cosmetic similarities for the most part.

Click to expand...

Fallout 3 also got a fair bit of backlash, but I think it was a little more reasonable due to the incredible distance between titles. I can't speak on MOO2 vs MOO1 since I didn't play one.

So let's talk about ME1 vs ME2. This is actually a great example now I think about it. You see, I think both ME1 and Civ 4 have a lot in common. They are both widely considered good games, and have a large following. They are, however, both known to have big areas in need of improvement. ME1's item management for instance, or Civ4's late game stagnation and weird espionage system (including or not including BTS actually).

The difference is, that ME2 was a fairly different game, that addressed these concepts, and added a bunch of other cool things. Civ 5 in comparison seems to have addressed few things in civ 4, added additional woes... and I guess they did add a few cool things too.

Realize what I'm saying here though. Item management in ME2 vs ME1 are about as different as you could possibly be. One is a Diablo-esque item find with customizable weapons. Two is an incredibly streamlined (yes!) system of linear upgrades. They Streamlined a TERRIBLE system for one that looked nothing like it. It may have been jarring at first, but on the whole it was really good.

Civ 4's terrible problems? Stack of doom? Okay check, civ 5 got that one done! But what about end game stagnation? That's MORE present in 5 than 4. Everything else that got slicked down into a lean morsel... was a delicious steak before, not a stew of frothy putrescence. And yet it was thrown to the dogs.

Civ 4 itself was something of a marked leap from Civ 3, which itself was different from Civ 2. Indeed, there are people who prefer Civ 2 and Civ 4, but not Civ 3, so it's clearly not always the case that a sequel is a progression of the game before it.

Click to expand...

Civ 3 did some awesome things. The game mechanics in it really headed down the right path. Consider all the 'great ideas that didn't quite work out right' from that game:

1) Golden Ages
2) Generals
3) Culture
4) Paying money for unit upkeep instead of production
5) Strategic resources and Luxury Resources.(and trade routes for them)
6) City Bombardment (Diplomats and Spies in civ 2 were the city busters... how weird was that?)
7) Unique Civ Units

All of these things were cool new fields of exploration, that just didn't get done right. They implemented them weakly, and I forgive them for it since it was so new. Civ 5 on the other hand, didn't just add delicious new treats to the game, they liberally removed others.

Moreover, Civ 5 was widely known to be a radical departure from Civ 4 from the get-go. I saw this would be the case just from previews of 1UPT and hex tiles, and definitely the demo gives you a very clear picture.

Click to expand...

The demo was released when the game came out, so obviously that is not 'from the get go'. Hexes really aren't that big of a change except in art assets. I mean, you could play civ 4 on hexes with only minor tweaks, and it would be a marginally better game. 1UPT was a pretty big change, but is almost entirely combat based. There was no reason to think the peaceful game would have so many interesting elements removed from it.

There are people who like Civ 4 but hate Colonization and Civ 3, and people who likewise like Civ 3 and 5, but not 4 very much. I think it paints too wide a stroke to just say that Civ 5 alienates 40% of Civ customers. It alienated a very specific Civ customer, and those are largely those who prefer Civ 4 above all other Civs.

Click to expand...

Polls here have shown that only about 60% are neutral or better in their appreciation for civ 5. People who actually like the game (above neutral) are 40%. No question of previous favorite game was asked. This is the number I am referring to, and it reflects the opinions of people on civ fanatics who voted in the poll.

Soro said:

At the risk of making a broad and unfair generalization, most people will, most of the time, interpret ambiguous statements in a fashion that favors themselves. And the comment about "hardcore players" is misleading, as are other statements Shafer made--while statements to the other side of the balance ledger about Civ V, hardcore veteran players preferred to ignore. It is a strategy after all that has proven successful in the past. Whether they've over-played their hand in this case remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

So "hardcore" Civ players were duped because they heard what they wanted to hear - ie, they were gullible? A bit harsh, but I suppose that's possible.

Soro said:

Education does not include a very early exposure to and study of the rules of logic. The example of parents and peer groups following the mass media also inclines other family/peer group members to this. (Levi-Strauss wrote exhaustively on the subject, for what that's worth.) The lack of anybody saying, "Hey, back up, analyze that commercial, and see what emotional buttons they're aiming for in your makeup" means a vacuum has been established in which marketers can set up shop for nearly anything they want. And there are entire schools in modern universities that teach just how to do that.

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand. Do you mean to say that it's not obvious to Westerners that eating at Mcdnoald's is not a healthy habit, despite what the commercials might say? Are you saying that Westerners, as a rule, just believe whatever it is the marketers tell them to believe?

If so, then the West would appear to me to be a more veritable monolithic mind-controlled mob than nearly anything that's happened in China or Russia.

Zechnophobe said:

The difference is, that ME2 was a fairly different game, that addressed these concepts, and added a bunch of other cool things. Civ 5 in comparison seems to have addressed few things in civ 4, added additional woes... and I guess they did add a few cool things too.

Realize what I'm saying here though. Item management in ME2 vs ME1 are about as different as you could possibly be. One is a Diablo-esque item find with customizable weapons. Two is an incredibly streamlined (yes!) system of linear upgrades. They Streamlined a TERRIBLE system for one that looked nothing like it. It may have been jarring at first, but on the whole it was really good.

Click to expand...

The item management in ME2 could only be described as "really good" insomuch as anything nonexistent could be described that way. In that sense, then yes, it was "really good."

Espionage is "really good" in Civ V, too.

Zechnophobe said:

Civ 4's terrible problems? Stack of doom? Okay check, civ 5 got that one done! But what about end game stagnation? That's MORE present in 5 than 4. Everything else that got slicked down into a lean morsel... was a delicious steak before, not a stew of frothy putrescence. And yet it was thrown to the dogs.

Click to expand...

That depends on your perspective I suppose. I know of players who hated the religion in Civ 4 because it was so grossly unrealistic and quite bothersome. I mean, you can't build happiness unless you have a religion? That's a radical departure from Civ 3 and some players didn't know how to deal with happiness issues coming into Civ 4 without religion.

End game stagnation is largely only present with Cultural wins. You can win space race in 200 turns, domination faster, and there are complaints that diplomatic is just too fast and easy.

Health is no longer an issue. That got streamlined out. Does anyone really complain? Not me. Doesn't seem to have occurred to you. How does it add to the game to have a second, redundant "happiness" mechanic to manage on top of the base one? It wasn't harder - it was literally just another happiness mechanic that was virtually identical to the actual happiness mechanic.

Distance has been folded into happiness. I like this. I did view distance maintenance with profound distaste. This is because distance maintenance directly affects the spread of empires, and in the Age of Exploration, empires were anything but contiguous and compact. It wasn't practical to have an empire so widespread that the sun never sets on it. That is now possible. I like it.

What about spaghetti roads? Anyone clamor to bring that back?

Slavery mechanics? Does anyone miss having to calculate growth and slavery turns to be able to build normal infrastructure?

A lot of this looks very similar when you're on the designing end of the game. There are many things which I liked in Civ 4 that are not in Civ 5, and many things that irked me in Civ 4 that are not in Civ 5. On the whole, viewing it as its own game, I think the balance is positive.

Zechnophobe said:

Civ 3 did some awesome things. The game mechanics in it really headed down the right path. Consider all the 'great ideas that didn't quite work out right' from that game:

1) Golden Ages
2) Generals
3) Culture
4) Paying money for unit upkeep instead of production
5) Strategic resources and Luxury Resources.(and trade routes for them)
6) City Bombardment (Diplomats and Spies in civ 2 were the city busters... how weird was that?)
7) Unique Civ Units

All of these things were cool new fields of exploration, that just didn't get done right. They implemented them weakly, and I forgive them for it since it was so new. Civ 5 on the other hand, didn't just add delicious new treats to the game, they liberally removed others.

Click to expand...

Arguably, strategic resources were done better in Civ 3 because you didn't have to found a dinky little city in the middle of nowhere just to claim a strategic resource no one was competing for.

That got streamlined away in Civ 4.

Civ 4 has no Armies, which was in Civ 3. Instead of developing an interesting mechanic, they just scrapped it. Trade routes are simpler in Civ 4 than in previous installments as well - no need to build Caravan units and such. Some people liked that, and it got "streamlined away."

No transferring of food from one city to another. No transferring of production, either. Streamlined away.

Civ 4 is like Civ 5 in this manner. It just so happens that you didn't personally care for all the things in previous Civ games that they removed in Civ 4.

Zechnophobe said:

The demo was released when the game came out, so obviously that is not 'from the get go'. Hexes really aren't that big of a change except in art assets. I mean, you could play civ 4 on hexes with only minor tweaks, and it would be a marginally better game. 1UPT was a pretty big change, but is almost entirely combat based. There was no reason to think the peaceful game would have so many interesting elements removed from it.

Click to expand...

No? They're overhauling the combat engine! You can't expect them to do that, and still rework all the broken things from Civ 4 into something that was actually workable. It's better to just leave those things out to be included in later expansions, than put them in and have to deal with gutting the code in later installments.

Zechnophobe said:

Polls here have shown that only about 60% are neutral or better in their appreciation for civ 5. People who actually like the game (above neutral) are 40%. No question of previous favorite game was asked. This is the number I am referring to, and it reflects the opinions of people on civ fanatics who voted in the poll.

Click to expand...

Other polls here show that people who are negative on Civ 5 tended to favor Civ 4 over all other Civs.

Roxlimn said:

So "hardcore" Civ players were duped because they heard what they wanted to hear - ie, they were gullible? A bit harsh, but I suppose that's possible.

Click to expand...

You apparently had trouble reading what I wrote. Please tell me which part of "And the comment about hardcore players is misleading, as are other statements Shafer made" is difficult to understand, and I will rephrase accordingly. The fault lies with Firaxis' marketing folks, and with Shafer and other members of his team who followed their "scripts" despite their numerous inaccuracies. That this played into the expectations of some players doesn't muddy the water of who is to blame, here.

Soro, Roxlimn has a habit of having trouble reading...lol

To be honest, I think you guys are kind of a lost cause at this point, since it appears like you just don't like the game for reasons you can't articulate, and you're just jumping on whatever the latest bandwagon thread appears to be. It's not that these reasons are actually true - you just don't like the game for some reason you don't appear to know and just cite anything and everything as the reason, even when those reasons don't pan out later on.

Click to expand...

Dude, i don't follow the bandwagon, i consider myself a leading force of it...lol

Don't appear to know what's wrong with CIV 5 ? HA, excuse me; professor.
I only play wargames for twenty years, with heavy interest in tactical & strategical thinking and execution and that's all you have to say to me....hahahahaha...exuse me, but you are really funny.

I can't help it you cannot read properly, and while i don't feel the need to repeat myself over and over again i wil sum it up one more time for you. Not that it will change anything, as i already know how ignorant you seem to be to read and understand others. So for the last time:

1) 1 UPT (ruins the gameplay >>> and not only while the AI sucks, 1 upt SUCKS period)
2) CIV is a strategic game, there is "no room" for tactical warfare on that scale (well, atleast not anything that comes close to "realisctic")
3) Many things are "streamlined", the forum is filled with examples; take your pick; there are plenty to choose...
4) the UI look great, the execution is chaotic. Again, look for the examples; the forum is filled with them.

You don't have to agree with them, but that doesn't take away that those issue's ARE there, for anyone to SEE; and by lookin on the forums; i am surely not the only one that sees them.

CIV 5 is a "broken diamond", to me broken beyond repairing. Cause some mechanics are there to stay, or are mechanics some even like them. Well, unfortunately i am not one of them, acept that and move on.....

Bye.

Soro:

Soro said:

You apparently had trouble reading what I wrote. Please tell me which part of "And the comment about hardcore players is misleading, as are other statements Shafer made" is difficult to understand, and I will rephrase accordingly. The fault lies with Firaxis' marketing folks, and with Shafer and other members of his team who followed their "scripts" despite their numerous inaccuracies. That this played into the expectations of some players doesn't muddy the water of who is to blame, here.

Click to expand...

You're blaming Firaxis' marketing folks for presenting their product in the best possible light? Forgive me, but isn't that what marketing folks are supposed to do? I mean, if Firaxis didn't want to put its best foot forward, then shouldn't it just fire its marketing team?

Didn't you just say that players were misled because they chose to interpret marketing statements in manners that favored them, rather than for the marketing propaganda that it obviously sounds like?


Jediron:

Every time something negative comes up about Civ 5, you're there to cheer it on. Either you're being unnecessarily partisan and at least dishonest in your dislike of particular things you didn't know before, or you don't really know what you don't like, and you're just picking things up as you go along. I'm not singling you out here. Many forum disruptors behave this way.

As you say yourself, you have gone beyond wanting Civ 5 to be good and offering constructive criticism because you feel that Civ 5 is unfixable. Therefore, your commentary is nothing but disruptive to the Civ 5 forums.

Repeating your statements verbatim doesn't do anything, really, so let's please have this the last time you say them. Please.

Roxlimn said:

You're blaming Firaxis' marketing folks for presenting their product in the best possible light? Forgive me, but isn't that what marketing folks are supposed to do?

Click to expand...

No, of course it isn't. Why, do you believe that this is the purpose of marketing?

Didn't you just say that players were misled because they chose to interpret marketing statements in manners that favored them, rather than for the marketing propaganda that it obviously sounds like?

Click to expand...

Didn't I just write misleading statements, rather than marketing statements, and quote a paragraph of those statements? You really do need to learn to read for comprehension. Would you like some recommendations on sites that improve this ability in people who think it's fun to appear to misunderstand others, for lack of anything more constructive to do with their time?

Soro:

I have to confess that I have no idea what your rhetorical device is meant to demonstrate. Your statements are not marketing and they have not been presented as marketing. Therefore, it was only natural for me to take you at your word. Shafer's interviews are not of the same make.

Is this an attempt to salvage a failed line of argument?

Roxlimn said:

I have to confess that I have no idea what your rhetorical device is meant to demonstrate. Your statements are not marketing and they have not been presented as marketing. Therefore, it was only natural for me to take you at your word. Shafer's interviews are not of the same make.

Click to expand...

I'll ask, again: why do you believe it's the purpose of marketing to present a product in the best possible light? If you don't want to answer, you're welcome to let it all drop, but please, don't try to obscure matters because you're embarrassed. That won't do, at all.

Is this an attempt to salvage a failed line of argument?

Click to expand...

To what are you referring, here? The fact that you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge this is about misleading statements in Shafer's interviews? I agree, that failed. Or are you referring to your repeated attempts to get me to say something other than I mean?

Soro said:

I'll ask, again: why do you believe it's the purpose of marketing to present a product in the best possible light? If you don't want to answer, you're welcome to let it all drop, but please, don't try to obscure matters because you're embarrassed. That won't do, at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Every person I know who's worked in marketing agencies generally try to present their products in the best possible light. I confess that this is a very new suggestion. Are you saying that all those professional marketing people were wrong, and that the purpose of marketing is to present product in the worst possible light?

Soro said:

To what are you referring, here? The fact that you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge this is about misleading statements in Shafer's interviews? I agree, that failed. Or are you referring to your repeated attempts to get me to say something other than I mean?

Click to expand...

It's about statement in Shafer's interview, so let's not characterize this as me ignoring things. I just don't agree that those statements were inherently misleading.

And I don't have to make you say something you don't mean. I can just quote you.

Soro said:

At the risk of making a broad and unfair generalization, most people will, most of the time, interpret multiple statements heading in different directions in a fashion that favors themselves.

Click to expand...

See? That's it right there. People interpreted a vague statement of wanting to cater to them as solid statements that said that the game in question was directly aimed at their demographic, even though that meaning wasn't actually said.

Roxlimn said:

I'm not sure. Every person I know who's worked in marketing agencies generally try to present their products in the best possible light. I confess that this is a very new suggestion. Are you saying that all those professional marketing people were wrong, and that the purpose of marketing is to present product in the worst possible light?

Click to expand...

Ah, the appeal to authority, based on "all those" unknown authorities. And the switch from a subject that could have multiple answers, to one that can only have two: either best possible light, or worst possible light. Leaving aside your penchant for employing multiple logical fallacies when others ask you questions, instead of the other way around, I'll ask again: why do *you* believe it's the purpose of marketing to present a product in the best possible light? Still waiting for an answer on that.

It's about statement in Shafer's interview, so let's not characterize this as me ignoring things. I just don't agree that those statements were inherently misleading. And I don't have to make you say something you don't mean. I can just quote you. (Quote follows.) See? That's it right there. People interpreted a vague statement of wanting to cater to them as solid statements that said that the game in question was directly aimed at their demographic, even though that meaning wasn't actually said.

Click to expand...

There's this little thing of yours, called lifting a statement out of context...? You'll want to watch for that in the future. Some one may actually catch you out on it. Oh, wait. I already have.

Soro said:

Ah, the appeal to authority, based on "all those" unknown authorities. And the switch from a subject that could have multiple answers, to one that can only have two: either best possible light, or worst possible light. Leaving aside your penchant for employing multiple logical fallacies when others ask you questions, instead of the other way around, I'll ask again: why do *you* believe it's the purpose of marketing to present a product in the best possible light? Still waiting for an answer on that.

Click to expand...

Er. I thought I answered that. Here's the more succint version: because my friends told me so. Where is your rebuttal headed anyway?

Soro said:

There's this little thing of yours, called lifting a statement out of context...? You'll want to watch for that in the future. Some one may actually catch you out on it. Oh, wait. I already have.

Click to expand...

There was no context lost in that quote.

Roxlimn said:

Er. I thought I answered that. Here's the more succint version: because my friends told me so.

Click to expand...

I find that remarkable, given that you're such a thoughtful person who clearly considers very carefully everything you write, every last word, before you place it in print. It's a very good habit, and I can't help but find myself surprised that you say it doesn't mirror your actual thought patterns, but that you simply accept what some other unnamed people tell you.

Please, think this through. When you've done so, and have come up with a good answer based on your own experience and observation, we'll of course discuss this further.

There was no context lost in that quote.

Click to expand...

Sure there was. I suggest as an experiment that you go back to the post in which I quoted the EuroGamer interview, in answer to a question of yours, and showed just how misleading Shafer's statements were. Then work forward, and notice my repeated references to misleading statements by Shafer in later posts of mine on the same subject. I'm certain you'll find them. I'll be glad to give you my opinions on how deliberately misleading statements can play into naturally human emotional predispositions at greater length, but you really need to read more carefully.

Soro said:

I find that remarkable, given that you're such a thoughtful person who clearly considers very carefully everything you write, every last word, before you place it in print. It's a very good habit, and I can't help but find myself surprised that you say it doesn't mirror your actual thought patterns, but that you simply accept what some other unnamed people tell you.

Please, think this through. When you've done so, and have come up with a good answer based on your own experience and observation, we'll of course discuss this further.

Click to expand...

They are not unnamed people. My father used to work as the marketing manager behind the local branch of Mastercard and then Visa. He used to take me to strategy meetings and such. My friend works as one of the sales representatives of Oracle in Singapore. One of my former classmates was regional vice president of marketing in Proctor and Gamble. My current neighbor and acquaintance runs a highly successful marketing agency in the local business district.

Given the pedigree and success of these marketing people, I was inclined to accept their stated goals of marketing. Were they wrong? They seemed to do really well at their jobs.

Soro said:

Sure there was. I suggest as an experiment that you go back to the post in which I quoted the EuroGamer interview, in answer to a question of yours, and showed just how misleading Shafer's statements were. Then work forward, and notice my repeated references to misleading statements in later posts of mine on the same subject. I'm certain you'll find them.

Click to expand...

Nope. Don't see any lost context.

Roxlimn said:

They are not unnamed people. My father used to work as the marketing manager behind the local branch of Mastercard and then Visa. He used to take me to strategy meetings and such. My friend works as one of the sales representatives of Oracle in Singapore. One of my former classmates was regional vice president of marketing in Proctor and Gamble. My current neighbor and acquaintance runs a highly successful marketing agency in the local business district.

Given the pedigree and success of these marketing people, I was inclined to accept their stated goals of marketing. Were they wrong? They seemed to do really well at their jobs.

Click to expand...

Not an answer to my question, is it? Think about it. The question, I mean.

Nope. Don't see any lost context.

Click to expand...

I know. You're trying, but you really don't see. Suppose we just leave this one, and move our separate ways?

Soro said:

Not an answer to my question, is it?

Click to expand...

This was your question:

Soro said:

why do *you* believe it's the purpose of marketing to present a product in the best possible light? Still waiting for an answer on that.

Click to expand...

I answered that.

You did not follow up with another question. You commented about my willingness to accept authority on the purpose of marketing, and I elaborated. Could you quote which question you think went unanswered?

To be honest, I think you're just playing pointless rhetorical games at this point because you've run out of meaningful things to say. If you can't say anything more than doesn't sound like a BS gotcha backwards question, I'm outta here.