Civ 5 Confirmed Features
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
- Status
Mercade
the Counsellor
The post by 2K Elizabeth: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9168018&postcount=357
shuttleswo
Chieftain
this is not true at all; i actually re-purchased civ iv when it was made available on steam because i have a laptop and use it very hard at work (hostile environments), causing frequent hard drive crashes; steam is not all that evil, really.
1) you do NOT have to be connected to the internet except when you are installing or updating the game.
2) you can install the game over, over and over again, no charge, no media required (download from the internet each time); which i have done many times. i also have all the same games installed on my laptop and desktop; you can only play on one internet connected computer at a time; but that's not normally a problem for me.
3) the game could use steamcloud which would be AWESOME, imagine playing a game on our laptop for a while saving it and automatically have the save game available on your desktop to pick up where you left off.
4) you can mod the game, and also disable automatic updating (if you do not want to break a particular mod or your save games) although it is a bit different than doing it in a traditional install; I'm not sure about having multiple versions installed at the same time; never tried or worried about that.
the only conceivable downside of steam is if valve/steam suddenlygoes out of business & nobody purchases steam & valve chooses not to release the games to users as a 'last act' you could loose the game; but i see that as such a remote possibility that it doesn't factor in my decision making at all.
Your only perceived downside.
Nothing against you - it's a fair enough opinion, but I consider far more reasons why Steam is not ideal in my decision. Lots of pros and lots of cons. Not all of the pros will apply to all people, not all of the cons will apply to others. But suggesting that there are only limited potential problems just because they are the only problems one could potentially be vulnerable to is a bit egocentric.
In the end, the argument over Steam appears to be one of either ignoring or discounting various pros or cons while at the same time either emphasising or exaggerating various pros or cons.
shuttleswo
Chieftain
yes, of course it is my only perceived downside; most of the cons I've seen posted i either don't agree with, are often outright false or exaggerated and those that aren't are vastly outweighed by the benefits of steam (good sales on games, massive connivance, portability and ease of install) again, all in my opinion.
But to imply that what i was offering in my post is anything other than my opinion is a pointless observation; of course it was my opinion; did i imply that i was stating some sort of a universal truth
?the point of my post was to correct something that the original poster said that was factually false (that steam requires a constant connection); although i freely admit that i did add an opinion at the end.
Iván de España
Chieftain
Bite, you should add Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar II in your list.
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20100506005969&newsLang=en
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...d=news_view&newsId=20100506005969&newsLang=en
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Iván de España;9173205 said:
Bite's "waiting until the anger dies down" to put up new confirmations for some reason.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,843
Would you mind giving me a link to this, as i can't seam to find where she has said this anywhere
Also, the thread has been updated
yes, of course it is my only perceived downside; most of the cons I've seen posted i either don't agree with, are often outright false or exaggerated and those that aren't are vastly outweighed by the benefits of steam (good sales on games, massive connivance, portability and ease of install) again, all in my opinion.
But to imply that what i was offering in my post is anything other than my opinion is a pointless observation; of course it was my opinion; did i imply that i was stating some sort of a universal truth
the point of my post was to correct something that the original poster said that was factually false (that steam requires a constant connection); although i freely admit that i did add an opinion at the end.
"did i imply that i was stating some sort of a universal truth
?"No of course not.
It's not really a point worth debating obviously. I just wanted to remind you that people have valid and real reasons to not want to have to use Steam beyond the single one you mentioned. Ignoring them outright is similar to outright ignoring the benefits of steam as well. It begins to sound more like politics when neither side is prepared to give even an inch to the other.
Number of things you could have added: "IMO", or "I think" or "For me" etc. Alternatively, you may be someone who prefers to never write "in my opinion" and similar things, instead preferring to imply that everything you write is just your opinion. That's fair enough but it does invite argument more readily because you could be interpreted as speaking universally.
Mustakrakish
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,525
"did i imply that i was stating some sort of a universal truth
No of course not.
Number of things you could have added: "IMO", or "I think" or "For me" etc. Alternatively, you may be someone who prefers to never write "in my opinion" and similar things, instead preferring to imply that everything you write is just your opinion. That's fair enough but it does invite argument more readily because you could be interpreted as speaking universally.
Ah, here we go again...
On steam I don't have anything to say, never used it - don't know anything about it...
On this however I have to stand with shuttleswo.
Why, why do one must add these "IMO", "I think" etc? Is it not obvious tis one's opinion whenever spoken?
Hmm... the very "fact" that you'd imply that one must use these in order to NOT look like someone who's trying to be the "all universal truth knowing", shows that you'd actually think there IS such? Why would it be important to use these otherwise? Or is it not?
AAAHhh confusing... 
Oh and the facts... Facts, facts, facts...
In my experience (not to imply that I have lots of it
) everyone has their own "facts". On numerous occasions I saw 2 parties squabbling about something and throwing "facts" at each other, which usually only led to third party showing up and throwing "facts" of their own. Hiding behind "facts" is as useless as these "IMO" etc.
I may be a madman ranting and I'm sure 99,9% of people here would disagree with me, but
AAhhg What!? Who's there?
That's it. I'm unsubscribing to this thread.
I had it with the entire Civ5 board and their claims that...
*one land based military unit per tile will ruin Civ5
*the hex grid will ruin Civ5
*religions being changed will ruin Civ5
*not having Spain/Poland/Italy/Sealand will ruin Civ5.
*not being Civ4 will ruin Civ5
*one tile culture expansion will ruin Civ5
*no roads over the entire map will ruin Civ5
I had hoped to find solace in this thread, and only have to check up on it when something new was announced. Now I'm done. The comments for the announcement of Civ5 on Steam are already full of the most over-reactionary, "my mommy doesn't love me anymore," rhetoric I've seen on CivFanatics. Bringing that stupidity to this thread is just finding more soapboxes to for the perpetually angry "Civ fans" to stand on.
Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.
I agree, it would be great to have a thread with just confirmed news on Civ5, instead we get all sort of rants from people who whine about a game they didnt even see yet.
That's what the first post is for. It's not that hard.
Ah, here we go again...
On steam I don't have anything to say, never used it - don't know anything about it...
On this however I have to stand with shuttleswo.
Why, why do one must add these "IMO", "I think" etc? Is it not obvious tis one's opinion whenever spoken?
Hmm... the very "fact" that you'd imply that one must use these in order to NOT look like someone who's trying to be the "all universal truth knowing", shows that you'd actually think there IS such? Why would it be important to use these otherwise? Or is it not?
Oh and the facts... Facts, facts, facts...
In my experience (not to imply that I have lots of it
Hiding behind "facts" is as useless as these "IMO" etc.
I may be a madman ranting and I'm sure 99,9% of people here would disagree with me, but
AAhhg What!? Who's there?
As I said, some people prefer to not have to write "IMO" and the like all the time and I said that's fair enough. At times I have felt that way myself and have wanted to make my comments more concise by chopping out the "IMO" fluff. In academic writing (e.g. essays) that convention is usually expected and demanded.
However, I have a background in science and in particular maths so I am quite comfortable with (or at least I used to be!) formal logic and its foundations. There are such things as universal facts. Even if they are only true because of a definition.
Even if you don't accept that there are universal facts, there are obviously things you can say with a huge degree of certainty - e.g. the world is round, not flat. Putting "IMO" on statements like that would indeed be pretty ridiculous.
If I said to you, the only safety risk with nuclear power is the handling of the nuclear waste, and assuming you didn't know much about the subject yourself, you'd be more likely to assume I was coming from some position of authority than if I had added "IMO". Of course, the claim is false; there are certainly other safety risks involved with nuclear power.
More to the point, if someone said the above statement about nuclear power, I would feel more need to point out to them that there are other safety risks associated with nuclear power.
When shuttleswo said there was only one conceivable downside to using Steam, I challenged that assertion and chose to emphasise that it was his/her opinion. Of course, to him/her it's obvious it's his/her opinion. Actually I went further and said it was his/her perception and implied that their opinion may have been based on incomplete information.
Does anybody ever think about building water canals on rivers? Or through narrow part of continent, like Panam or Suez. Expensive, thus still being able to build and completely change the trade lines.
Or, specifically, Vikings were able to use their warships deep into country through rivers.
Sometimes just could be fine to connect city through one tile/hex with the ocean.
Or, specifically, Vikings were able to use their warships deep into country through rivers.
Sometimes just could be fine to connect city through one tile/hex with the ocean.
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
In civ this is done with cities (and forts in BTS) or not at all, I think it'd be too complex to add this in, how would this work, what would be the limits?
What?
dcmort93
The Stig
Maybe for cities of a certain size but that would be rather ridiculous to do that with every city
backnine31
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 24
Sticking with the "canals" comment....I would love to see a "moat" improvement be made possible, especially for early game cities (pre-gunpowder). I'm not sure if/how amphibious promotions will impact or be impacted by Civ5 but...I always really wanted moats in CivIV. I usually play Monarch and have started trying Emperor and I could really use the extra protection for my lowly archers as surrounding civ's and barbarians outpace my early game development.
Anyone else suggested that yet? Too late to get in the new game ya think?
Anyone else suggested that yet? Too late to get in the new game ya think?
Mustakrakish
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,525
"That's what the first post is for. It's not that hard."
Indeed, was about to say the same. It's always funny to see people complain about "complainers".
They remind me of Soviet times pioneers (kids with red bands on their arms, who walked around singing about communism and doing good deeds like helping an old lady to cross the road etc.) Don't know why, maybe because they feel so righteous about themselves...Didn't expect you to respond though, I thought I pointed out that I don't expect anyone to agree with my... "philosophy", nor they should (I'm not on the mission).
I said my piece about the obviousity (that's not a word is it?) of said by shuttleswo being his opinion, NOT about validity or how biased his opinion is (I'm not here to be politically correct by the way). Actually I may disagree with him completely, but you'll never know... You know why? Because I'm not on the mission to change people's opinions or perceptions.
The thing is, I'm the nemesis of Captain Obvious!
I'm not trying to make my comments more concise by chopping out the "IMO" fluff. To be honest I've never thought of it that way...
I never said/thought I didn't believe there is, or accepted "universal facts" or truth (Maybe you should read that part again and see that I was talking about a person who knows everything, every truth there is, every question about life etc etc etc... God if you will) and I don't believe you thought I didn't. I don't believe you're not smart enough or unreasonable (I'm sorry if that offends you, it is not my intention) to think so, you just wanted to use it, your argument, that loophole you imagined to find in my... em "philosophy".
You're obviously smarter than me, I don't have sciences background (honestly, no sarcasm, I'm dead serious)...
Yees canals... and bridges. I had wet dreams about those...
SicFak I sort of fused the response to you with the response to shuttleswo. He/She was the one who talked about universal truths.
What you've written is interesting (and trust me none of it offends me - I'm not easy to offend) but I don't really have much interest in talking about this philosophy as you call it. Quickly though, on the topic of "universal truths" they never are statements about the physical world. One can never establish a universal truth about the world because we can only perceive the world through our senses, and our senses can be deceived at times. It was Descartes who wrote a lot on that subject IIRC.
Universal truths can only be abstract. The most interesting and familiar ones to me are in mathematics.
What you've written is interesting (and trust me none of it offends me - I'm not easy to offend) but I don't really have much interest in talking about this philosophy as you call it. Quickly though, on the topic of "universal truths" they never are statements about the physical world. One can never establish a universal truth about the world because we can only perceive the world through our senses, and our senses can be deceived at times. It was Descartes who wrote a lot on that subject IIRC.
Universal truths can only be abstract. The most interesting and familiar ones to me are in mathematics.
- Status
