Are negative opinions of Civ6 allowed here?

[Pepo]

Hey, if yall are still looking for someone who preferred tiles, I'm you man. My main reason is that I think they can produce prettier maps and feel more natural in a way.
Also, while hexes do have the potential to make a game more tactical, this has not worked properly in Civ5 and does not work properly in Civ6 - because these are global scale strategy games, where small scale tactical effects are misplaced.
Same with 1UPT. Disregarding the oft-discussed AI issues they raised, these changes have not "destroyed" Civ, but they have transformed it into a (slightly) different kind of game for a (slightly) different audience.

I don't think is a problem of hexes or titles but of scale. I prefer civ IV maps, but big maps on civ V & VI also looks good. Also maybe map gen is better on civ IV, but considering I only play civ IV with mods , I don't think so

As for negative opinions, I think that manners count a lot. If you offer constructive criticism an accept that your PoV may have some flaws, only an ignorant would try to shut it down. Here in the forums it often happens from both sides in the 1upt debate, but I think that Civ 6 forums had have a lot of critical threads

 

[Gorbles]

Seems like you're making her point for her? She states an opinion and you're accusing her of making it a truism. She "speculated" on the ages of the folks but there is a direct correlation between maturity and age. Mature does mean adult after all. Are there exceptions, certainly. But if you see a group acting immaturely it's certainly reasonable to expect them to be immature (i.e. not adults).

For what it's worth, I don't think the OP's problem is that big of deal. If you come to a board about a specific topic and criticize the topic, you're going to get grief. This is the internet, the good, the bad and the ugly...

In my experience, adulthood has very little to do with maturity. As an adult, of course.

The problem is twofold. You can caveat something as <just an opinion>, but when you're making things out in a factual manner and you get people to agree, you're spreading what is in effect misinformation.

"I think global warming doesn't exist" reads a lot differently to "this is just my opinion, but we all know global warming doesn't exist, and people who do advocate for it are immature or otherwise dismissable". Only in this case it wasn't even stated as an opinion - it was stated as "in my experience". It's anecdotal, as it everyones' experience, but this is used to state an emphatic: "there is no room on these boards for negative opinions".

Which is easily proven false beyond argument, because this thread both exists and has not suffered unduly from moderation. There is no opinion here. There are claims made, which not only are not backed up by the reality here on CFC, but also actively disproved by this ongoing thread.

 

[MyOtherName]

Also, while hexes do have the potential to make a game more tactical, this has not worked properly in Civ5 and does not work properly in Civ6 - because these are global scale strategy games, where small scale tactical effects are misplaced.

I don't think there is such potential -- the idea of hex grids being "tactical" is not through any merit of hex grids themselves, but because they're associated with the old Avalon Hill war games and such. The thing hex grids do is reduce the differences between Euclidean distance and board game distance, which makes them more suitable for faithfully recreating real-life battlefields and warzones.

I was amused that my searching reminded me that Tactics II -- a wargame that does not attempt to recreate a real life setting -- uses a square grid. This is consistent with my opinion that square grids are actually superior to hex grids for game playing, since it's easier to read things off of a coordinate grid (also to provide keyboard/joystick input for motion).

 

[steveg700]

Am I not allowed to have a bad opinion of a game that is both rubbish and bordering on faulty in its current state?

As if there were an abundance of positivity these days. This forum ain't exactly Cloud-****ooland.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The problem is, this is just your opinion (as you state).

There is only opinion on the internet. There is no fact. If I want facts, I will check a textbook.

So why do you make your opinion out to be some kind of universal truism?

It isn't a truism. It's a statement of generalities based on nearly nine years of experience with this forum, and two product launches where people behaved as though they were in a circus.

Why do you dismiss the repeated attempts to pull down people who defend the game

I dismiss nothing. The vitriol extends both ways.

(which you indulge in too, actually).

When? Give me an example.

Why do you discriminate based on (perceived) age of forum posters, like that actually has a hard correlation to maturity?

I don't discriminate based on age. I discriminate based on stupidity. There can be an abundance of stupidity at any age. Read any newspaper for examples. The reason that I made the comment about age is that it generally tends to be younger posters who have issues controlling their tempers on internet forums. It has been well documented that the undeveloped human brain (that is, the immature human brain), tends to react differently to stimuli, and doesn't have the experience, wisdom, and reasoning power to respond appropriately in some situations. I'm not about to crack the books and give examples in the forums, but any decent first year text on child psychology will confirm this.

That being said, some people never grow up, and I will admit that it is hard to differentiate them from children on the forums.

 

[Browd]

There is only opinion on the internet. There is no fact. If I want facts, I will check a textbook.

Even a textbook is just an expression of the opinions of the textbook's author. Those opinions may be well-informed, and based on considerable study and reflection, and therefore deserving of some respect and deference, but opinions they remain.

 

[Gorbles]

There is only opinion on the internet. There is no fact. If I want facts, I will check a textbook.

It isn't a truism. It's a statement of generalities based on nearly nine years of experience with this forum, and two product launches where people behaved as though they were in a circus.

I dismiss nothing. The vitriol extends both ways.

When? Give me an example.

I don't discriminate based on age. I discriminate based on stupidity. There can be an abundance of stupidity at any age. Read any newspaper for examples. The reason that I made the comment about age is that it generally tends to be younger posters who have issues controlling their tempers on internet forums. It has been well documented that the undeveloped human brain (that is, the immature human brain), tends to react differently to stimuli, and doesn't have the experience, wisdom, and reasoning power to respond appropriately in some situations. I'm not about to crack the books and give examples in the forums, but any decent first year text on child psychology will confirm this.

That being said, some people never grow up, and I will admit that it is hard to differentiate them from children on the forums.

1. I'm in absolute agreement. Perhaps stop phrasing things as absolutes, then

2. It is a statement of personal experience, embittered by nine years of fighting opinions you disagree with. I've seen it happen, I've had it happen to me (elsewhere). The circus is omnipresent, and you're making it worse by grouping people into large and over-generalised factions.

3. You said negative opinions are unwelcome. Emphatically. As a factual statement. Are unwelcome. Not "may be" unwelcome. And in this war of words that all Internet discussions are, these things carry weight. They're linguistic techniques, whether intentional or not.

4. As you wish:

A few of us, during the release phase of Civ 5, speculated that a large group of 12 to 15 year olds had suddenly commandeered mummy's laptop and had discovered the forums here at CFC. Posters certainly weren't acting like the (mostly) adults that we knew from the Civ 4 forums. They were acting like a group of badly behaved children. In some cases, that is still true today.

Bolded for emphasis.

5. By tying perception of what you consider "stupidity" to an image of acting like teenagers, or children, you discriminate based on age. Teenagers are just as capable of insight as middle-aged people. That's not to say they're perfect, but then again, neither are any adult demographic I've had the pleasure of coming across. Wisdom is not anything that can be documented. It's lessons learned over time that are possibly linked to repeated-firings of singular neuron paths that enforce previously-learned lessons. Not all wisdom is good, you see. Wisdom is a judgement call; a mental reaction the same way reflexes are physical. The same goes for experience, and reasoning power, all of which are synonyms for pretty much the same thing. You're basing weight of opinion solely on seniority, i.e. you are weighting on age. You are therefore, quite obviously, discriminating against those who are younger.

You double down on this by assuming people you disagree with must be children, or teenagers of some description.

You are right - the vitriol does extend both ways. But this has absolutely nothing to do with your declaration that negative opinions aren't welcome here. You haven't been moderated in the slightest. Other users disagreeing with your opinions is not your opinions being unwelcome. It simply means you do not exist in an echo chamber.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

It is never a good idea to use absolutes....

 

[Oleary]

It is never a good idea to use absolutes....

Clever fella. lol.
I have to assume there's some history between the two. This is way over the top for something this trivial.

 

[Lewi11]

Seems like you're making her point for her? She states an opinion and you're accusing her of making it a truism. She "speculated" on the ages of the folks but there is a direct correlation between maturity and age. Mature does mean adult after all. Are there exceptions, certainly. But if you see a group acting immaturely it's certainly reasonable to expect them to be immature (i.e. not adults).

For what it's worth, I don't think the OP's problem is that big of deal. If you come to a board about a specific topic and criticize the topic, you're going to get grief. This is the internet, the good, the bad and the ugly...

It's alright. That Gorbles bloke also pretty much told me my subjective opinions on debatable points were wrong even after I admitted numerous times that they were only my subjective opinions.

I think he's just going for a religious\idealogical victory in this forum. Just let him have his win.

 

[Gorbles]

That's not what happened, but I have no desire to rehash an argument that you abandoned just for you to raise it against me at a later point in this or another thread. Poor form.

Clever fella. lol.
I have to assume there's some history between the two. This is way over the top for something this trivial.

Oh, not at all. I just treat serious debates seriously, that's all. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[Gub]

A few of us, during the release phase of Civ 5, speculated that a large group of 12 to 15 year olds had suddenly commandeered mummy's laptop and had discovered the forums here at CFC.

Prior to the release of a large mainstream title, it shouldn't come as a surprise that hype express will be making stop at all the major fandom hubs that you can stumble on google.. Nor the fact that teenagers are one of the largest demographics of internet, and btw these days in the industrial world, they usually has more access to the internet than most adults do.

In my humble experience, negative opinions are frowned upon in these forums, and in some cases, even a simple question can result in the most misplaced nerd-rage that it's unbelievable. Particularly if it involves the upcoming, soon to be released Civ game. Speculation is ridiculed, discussion is quashed, and any sort of dissenting opinion is met with harsh rhetoric.

In my humble experience, on any dedicated fan forums, certain opinion often are frowned upon, and in some cases, even a simple question can result in the most misplaced nerd-rage that it's unbelievable. The particulars depends on where the wind blow. The moment they become disruptive, they are dealt pretty much in the same way.. to maintain discussion not avoid it.

Although I would argue that THE greatest offenders in this regard, your so called nerd rage and bullies, are rarely coming from the influx of new comers and casuals, but often among the old timers who have groomed unrealistic expectations and sense of entitlement.. "hell hath no fury like a fanatic scorned." Ever been on RpgCodex

If you don't toe the line you get attacked. Plain and simple.

Can you give me an example of someone making well thought criticisms being "attacked"? Not the garden verity of IDONTLIKEITs from people looking to validate their dislike of the changes made to Civ, realities of game industry, product launch, new\younger fans etc in one liner fashion and at every single opportunity.

 

[Oleary]

It's alright. That Gorbles bloke also pretty much told me my subjective opinions on debatable points were wrong even after I admitted numerous times that they were only my subjective opinions.

I think he's just going for a religious\idealogical victory in this forum. Just let him have his win.

Got'cha. thanks for the heads up.

 

[Oleary]

That's not what happened, but I have no desire to rehash an argument that you abandoned just for you to raise it against me at a later point in this or another thread. Poor form.


Oh, not at all. I just treat serious debates seriously, that's all. Is there something wrong with that?

Not at all. Have at it.

 

[Lewi11]

That's not what happened, but I have no desire to rehash an argument that you abandoned just for you to raise it against me at a later point in this or another thread. Poor form.

Seeing you're on your moral high horse, let's see about that.

If you can't handle being told you could be wrong, I completely fail to see how you expect developers to accept you calling them wrong, misguided, or whatever else you'd like to call them.

I have already told you that I backed down on one statement about player testing that I may have been wrong on. I have no problem with being called out on any comments I make that may be wrong on factual points. In fact, in case I had made any other wrong comments that I didn't remember, I specifically asked you which of my other comments you deemed to be "inaccurate". 4 or 5 replies later you still have nothing to offer on this yet you still continue to infer I must be wrong about something and can't handle being told I'm wrong.

I assume the reason you have nothing to offer is that most of my negative comments are to the effect that the AI doesn't pose a strategic challenge in combat and therefore the game is not challenging or enjoyable. This is obviously my own subjective opinion and not a fact. I accept that others may find the AI combat challenging or still enjoy the game despite not finding AI combat challenging. Subjective opinions on debatable points like these are, by definition, neither right or wrong. It is on these kind of points that I object to being told I'm wrong, stupid or have short memory. I thought this was obvious in my previous comments. If, however, I've made/make a comment on a factual point that you know to be incorrect, then please, tell me I'm wrong!

I have never called the developers wrong or misguided. In fact, I don't believe I've ever called the developers anything. I have no idea where you even got this idea from. I think you're just clutching at straws now.

Well, given that I didn't say you're stupid or have a short memory, you should have no problem then. You were replying to me. If you did not mean me, then maybe you should've stopped replying to me.

You replied to my comment first and you have since continuously told me (or at least inferred) that my negative comments (which you can't identify) must be wrong, I can't accept when I'm wrong and that I have some sort of problem with positive comments. I was merely explaining why I objected to being insulted and told my subjective opinions were wrong. THAT is why I was replying to you. Not because I thought you were one of the ones telling me I'm stupid or have a short memory. I thought this was quite obvious.

 

[Gorbles]

I thought I was just in this for an ideological victory? Being on a moral high horse is integral to that kind of thing? So you want to continue on the grounds that I support the moral high ground, but you told people not to bother because . . . I was supposing that I held the moral high ground.

See, now that's nitpicking. Or trying for an "ideological victory", as you call it. I honestly prefer to be much more constructive than that. Even if you don't agree with what I want out of this discussion, that doesn't mean that I don't want something (constructive) out of this discussion.

As it stands, my point is simple:

Negative opinions are allowed on these boards.

This answers the premise laid out in the OP. Anyone I argue with, I argue because they seem to think negative opinions aren't allowed . . . while repeatedly stating negative opinions.

For your comment on the developers, you, uh, specifically suggested that they use these forums to "astro-turf". I'm not sure there's any way to take a comment like that. You also like comments that criticise the state of the game, without actually expanding on design flaws yourself. So, if you agree with criticism of the game (regardless of whether or not the criticism is accurate), you must agree that in some part the developers made mistakes. Were wrong. Do you disagree?

My line there was an observation that you don't handle personal critique very well, but you ground your posting here on critiquing other people (i.e. the developers for their design choices in Civilisation 6). I didn't mean anything more than that, and at this late stage in the thread you might be reading more into my intentions than I ever meant.

If I'm not explaining myself clearly (and evidently I haven't been, for you to misinterpret me so badly), then it's equally-possible what you think "clearly obvious" isn't obvious to me. Let's have some more faith in this, please. I understand your frustrations around the game, and the frustration inherent in thinking your opinions aren't valued.

But you must also understand that there is no silencing of critical thought going on, here. If you do, then what else do we have to argue about?

 

[Oleary]

Seeing you're on your moral high horse, let's see about that.



I have already told you that I backed down on one statement about player testing that I may have been wrong on. I have no problem with being called out on any comments I make that may be wrong on factual points. In fact, in case I had made any other wrong comments that I didn't remember, I specifically asked you which of my other comments you deemed to be "inaccurate". 4 or 5 replies later you still have nothing to offer on this yet you still continue to infer I must be wrong about something and can't handle being told I'm wrong.

I assume the reason you have nothing to offer is that most of my negative comments are to the effect that the AI doesn't pose a strategic challenge in combat and therefore the game is not challenging or enjoyable. This is obviously my own subjective opinion and not a fact. I accept that others may find the AI combat challenging or still enjoy the game despite not finding AI combat challenging. Subjective opinions on debatable points like these are, by definition, neither right or wrong. It is on these kind of points that I object to being told I'm wrong, stupid or have short memory. I thought this was obvious in my previous comments. If, however, I've made/make a comment on a factual point that you know to be incorrect, then please, tell me I'm wrong!

I have never called the developers wrong or misguided. In fact, I don't believe I've ever called the developers anything. I have no idea where you even got this idea from. I think you're just clutching at straws now.


You replied to my comment first and you have since continuously told me (or at least inferred) that my negative comments (which you can't identify) must be wrong, I can't accept when I'm wrong and that I have some sort of problem with positive comments. I was merely explaining why I objected to being insulted and told my subjective opinions were wrong. THAT is why I was replying to you. Not because I thought you were one of the ones telling me I'm stupid or have a short memory. I thought this was quite obvious.

Take your own advice that you gave me. People like that aren't worth the effort. At some point, he'll learn it's better to be thought a fool then open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Moderator Action: Getting personal is uncivil and trolling. If you have a problem with a post, please report it and allow staff to handle it. This only derails the thread and moves it to a discussion of posters instead of the topic. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[blasto]

Looks like we have one master debater and one cunning linguist.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread needs to find its way back to a topic, discussing issues with Civ VI. If it continues to be about each other, it will be closed.

And can we please keep it family friendly, we are currently pushing the limits.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Can you give me an example of someone making well thought criticisms being "attacked"? Not the garden verity of IDONTLIKEITs from people looking to validate their dislike of the changes made to Civ, realities of game industry, product launch, new\younger fans etc in one liner fashion and at every single opportunity.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilization-5-and-dlc.366430/

If you don't mind reading an eight page thread, there are a number of examples in the thread. It's kind of restrained and not nearly as volatile as some of the other threads in the early Civ 5 forum, but it's all I could find on short notice.