Civ4 Demogame IV

[civplayah]

Hello, alumni of the CIV Demogame series. What about another demogame? We could get it started pretty soon, IMO. This could also be a sign-up thread, if people use it that way. I'll start.

I'll sign up.
Preferred name: civplayah

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd be interested in seeing a 4th Civ4 Demogame .

 

[Provolution]

Sorry to say, the genre is dead in terms of game-interactive narratives, and the culprit is institutionalized political correctness that transcends the game history and the forum rules themselves in zealous pursuance of the higher moral ground in all regards, even the story telling. However, if someone wants to deplore deeply into this reenactment of these adolescent value systems, be my guest, but I am getting very tired of this pseudo-moral sentiment and its repetitive use as spurious entertainment in countless forum games, I am sorry to say.

 

[Cyc]

Hey Provo. If you can round up a devious little game based on the game characteristics that you want to play, go ahead. I stay out of it and won't interject any criticism. I would really like to see the type of game you want. What would you call it?

 

[civplayah]

Sorry to say, the genre is dead in terms of game-interactive narratives, and the culprit is institutionalized political correctness that transcends the game history and the forum rules themselves in zealous pursuance of the higher moral ground in all regards, even the story telling. However, if someone wants to deplore deeply into this reenactment of these adolescent value systems, be my guest, but I am getting very tired of this pseudo-moral sentiment and its repetitive use as spurious entertainment in countless forum games, I am sorry to say.

Well, you DON'T have to be in it. If you don't like it, you DON'T have to participate. I'd like to see another one. Especially a smaller one, becuase no one feels left out. Just stay out of the forum if you hate it so much. Just don't say anything if you don't have anything positive to say. I'll defintately not participate in your game if this is the way you're going to treat people.

Is there a mod that can open us a forum? Thanks!

 

[Provolution]

You asked it as an open question, I had no idea you had to be a fanatic, politically correct fanboy to respond, sorry for responding. Next time, position the terms for replying in this thread, and you will see the ones that may agree to my sentiments (few of us, but some) choose to respond in an honest and transparent manner. Also, I did not treat anyone badly in my reply.

 

[ravensfire]

You asked it as an open question, I had no idea you had to be a fanatic, politically correct fanboy to respond, sorry for responding. Next time, position the terms for replying in this thread, and you will see the ones that may agree to my sentiments (few of us, but some) choose to respond in an honest and transparent manner. Also, I did not treat anyone badly in my reply.

Nope, but you and your style killed participation in the game. The elitist, confrontation style you support did as much harm to the DG as the election fraud several years ago. Couch your words in the psuedo-intellectual format you like, but open your eyes and see the damage done to the DG when it followed your exclusionary style.
-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Is there a mod that can open us a forum? Thanks!

I for one would like to see some discussion before creating a new forum. That is how it was handled all the previous times.

I don't think we should have political parties again. The debates and elections in the demogame should be between individuals, not between groups.

 

[civplayah]

Well, I think that the faction system is fine, and so is the traditional system. I think that in the traditional system, though there's some people who don't really get to do anything. Therefore, those people feell left out (obviously) and so maybe we could find a way in between, like more President's advisors in the traditional system...

Oh, and by the way, who came up with the original DGame format (which, if I'm correct, is the Traditional style that has the President and his advisors?)?

 

[thecommonnate]

I'll join for another game if this takes off. I agree with DS, but am also a fan of the faction system we had before, however, not so much the way it played out.

I have always thought that more active people is the best, and possibly only, remedy for the situation that emerged last time. However, with time to implement the RPG-economy game we started more than half-way into the last game in the beginning of a new one, I think these factions could gain levels of stability in-game, which would become necessary once competition emerged, therefore demanding attention be payed to all participants, regardless of size.

The latter is only secondary, though. If the game goes down the road of the faction system, I would, above anything else, like to see a follow through in any attempts to increase traffic to the game; that being an easy way for all to get involved, a team of volunteers that would report game and sub-political aspects of any new DG.

 

[GenMarshall]

I for one would like to see some discussion before creating a new forum. That is how it was handled all the previous times.

Perhaps that's my cue to pop in and get the ball rolling. .

I don't think we should have political parties again. The debates and elections in the demogame should be between individuals, not between groups.

Agreed, I guess thats why it was left out since day one due to that problem.

Oh, and by the way, who came up with the original DGame format (which, if I'm correct, is the Traditional style that has the President and his advisors?)?

That would take an archeological expedition into the depths of CivFanatics Forums to find that information. IIRC, the Demogame concept ia ~8 years old.


Now to move onto the discussion (and away from fingerpointing on who caused the collapse of the Demogame)

The primary agenda will be setting the ruleset/consitution to the demogame. However, we should discuss on which system we should go along with. The Traditional Format (Previous Demogames from Civ3 Demogame I - Civ4 Demogame II), The Fraction Format, or a balance of both. IMO, defining what format we should go with should be tackled first before going onto what the government system should be.

Another area of consideration to consider is attracting more people to the Demogame. We can reach out to other Civ4 players through news announcements, adding the Demogame link to our signature, reaching out to secession game players, etc.

 

[Strider]

Well, I think that the faction system is fine, and so is the traditional system. I think that in the traditional system, though there's some people who don't really get to do anything. Therefore, those people feell left out (obviously) and so maybe we could find a way in between, like more President's advisors in the traditional system...

Oh, and by the way, who came up with the original DGame format (which, if I'm correct, is the Traditional style that has the President and his advisors?)?

The traditional system (as you know it) was made by far to many people to list here, but if I had to name the arguably most influential I'd have to say Shaitan.

Sadly I am inable to take any leadership role. In the past I've jumped at the chance, but college work quickly overwhelmed me almost every time. Between a fiancée and my final year of college coming up soon I doubt I'll be able to fit this into my schedule.

 

[civplayah]

Okay. So far we have 3 people that said they would be in it. DaveShack, Cyc, Ravensfire, and Provolution posted but have not joined officially yet. Maybe after they join (If any of them will) we can open a forum and set the rules?

 

[DaveShack]

A viable game would need a lot more people.

I think you should start by discussing what kind of game it should be. I'd be unlikely to even try to participate in another game with group elections, or elections that don't end on predetermined fixed terms. Also consider something which allows a broad range of player types to participate without feeling like they are unnecessary or unwanted. The last game ended up with an exclusionary atmosphere, which can be fun if you're "in", but extremely unfun if you're "out".

You might also want to recruit some people to help organize.

 

[Cyc]

Well, here's our chance to switch back to a Civilization 3 Conquests Democracy Game!

 

[ravensfire]

A viable game would need a lot more people.

I think you should start by discussing what kind of game it should be. I'd be unlikely to even try to participate in another game with group elections, or elections that don't end on predetermined fixed terms. Also consider something which allows a broad range of player types to participate without feeling like they are unnecessary or unwanted. The last game ended up with an exclusionary atmosphere, which can be fun if you're "in", but extremely unfun if you're "out".

You might also want to recruit some people to help organize.

Pretty much sums it up for me. This DG had some tremendous aspects to it (RP came back for the first time in a long time), but overall hurt the DG concept.

-- Ravensfire

 

[vra379971]

For this to work there is going to need to be a permanent Civil Service. They will be in change of maintaining framework, and enforcing rules as well as guiding the the RPG section of the game.

 

[civplayah]

For this to work there is going to need to be a permanent Civil Service. They will be in change of maintaining framework, and enforcing rules as well as guiding the the RPG section of the game.

I think Ravensfire and you would be pretty good at that. (And maybe me). I think that we should try a traditional game, because the faction game destroyed all of the faction members that were voted out of power. I think there should be positions for everyone, so that way, everyone contributes, everyone's happy, and the civ prospers even more with 40 genius minds at their best.

 

[DaveShack]

I think a position for everyone would probably be bad too. We do need some righteous indignation to keep the spice in the game. But there needs to be a defined end to each leader's power, and a reasonable expectation that those out of power can have a real influence on events.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Can I ask a question? What is the purpose behind a Demo game? I honestly don't understand - my understanding was that it would run like it does in the MTDG, except with only one team vs. a bunch of AI's.

Honestly, I couldnt' figure out what the heck was going on with the factions or anything - I think I signed up for the last one, but couldn't figure out whether it was a game or a story or roleplaying or what - it was very, very confusing to me.

Something like this - geez - this could be the flagship game of the site - where everyone takes on the AI in a big free-for-all, adding their bits here and there, written up in epic fashion - CivFanatics vs. the AI!!