Civ6 Live stream in 12 mn (3PM EST)

[Mahasona]

Oh god, sorry if the pics turns out gigantic, not sure how to post an image jpg.

 

[Ryika]

Put it below a Spoiler-Tag, then it's not visible unless the Tag is opened.

 

[Camikaze]

So he mentioned it, you responded and when I'm asking for proof for the claims that were made it's suddenly too far off-topic?

The claims being made are that the interview was good and that the interview was bad. Those claims are being made against an agreed backdrop which itself is quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, namely the interviews/streams.

 

[Ryika]

The claims being made are that the interview was good and that the interview was bad. Those claims are being made against an agreed backdrop which itself is quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, namely the interviews/streams.

No, the claim that was being made and the claim that you responded to was:

I think it's worth noting that the Civ playing experience of the female interviewer is a topic of discussion while the experience of the other interviewers hasn't come up. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I think it's at least worth recognizing that this is very trend - to assume that men are qualified for the job they're doing while it has to be proven that women are qualified for the job they're doing, especially in gaming.

That's specifically the part you quoted, so I don't see how you could get around the fact that that's specifically the part that you responded to when you wrote:

Just to address this, I get what you're saying because it's definitely something that can and does happen, but in terms of my comment, a) that was the only one of these livestreams I saw, and b) the subtext was instead meant to relate to the weak information we typically get from 'big' interviews designed for a wider audience.

(etc.)

No matter how you turn it, he went partly off-topic with that comment, you responded to the off-topic part of his comment, I then asked a question about the offtopic-part of the comment. If you think it's not okay to respond to his wild claims then you shouldn't have made responded to his claim with "because it's definitely something that can and does happen" in the first place.

 

[Gorbles]

I think if you're going to drag the thread down this kind of route you should provide evidence to back up your claims that m15a's claims are indeed wild claims because all anyone has to go on here are claims

Unless of course you actually know a bit about the industry and Twitch / stream chats in general in which case it's pretty much common knowledge, sorry.

I watched the German stream and the later-on stream with an English chat channel and the difference in quality of the comments made was absurd. I mean my German is by no means anywhere near great but I was with friends who ostensibly are, and there were a lot more insults (particular around the woman interviewees, for that one where Ed had two women interviewing him) on the second stream. There's some evidence for you!

It does happen. This isn't a formal debate, burden of proof is nonexistent. If you don't want to look up the numerous documented cases where this happens, people shouldn't have to fall over themselves to oblige. Particularly, as Camikaze keeps pointing out, given that this is completely tangential to the discussion at large.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Anyone got a link where we can hear Cleopatra talking?

 

[Ryika]

I think if you're going to drag the thread down this kind of route you should provide evidence to back up your claims that m15a's claims are indeed wild claims because all anyone has to go on here are claims

That's not how it works. You make a claim. You provide evidence. If you don't, then your claim can be dismissed. Easy.

Just like if you claim that Unicorns exist and I then dismiss your claim that Unicorns exist I don't need to provide proof that Unicorns don't exist, because that's the base assumption. It's valid until you provide evidence that it's invalid.

Even more so, it's virtually impossible to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, that's an insane standard to ask for, especially when you'd only need to provide me with a few good examples of female game journalists being put under greater scrutiny by the audience just because they're female by people who are not just clearly trolls. Look at people like Dodger (PressHeartToContinue), does she constantly need to prove herself? No, she, just like everybody involved in gaming, has proved herself in the beginning by showing that she knows what she's talking about and was accepted. Just like every male individual in the same situation would be.

Unless of course you actually know a bit about the industry and Twitch / stream chats in general in which case it's pretty much common knowledge, sorry.

I watched the German stream and the later-on stream with an English chat channel and the difference in quality of the comments made was absurd. I mean my German is by no means anywhere near great but I was with friends who ostensibly are, and there were a lot more insults (particular around the woman interviewees, for that one where Ed had two women interviewing him) on the second stream. There's some evidence for you!

This is evidence for what? That the women made herself look bad at the beginning while the men didn't? Well, d'oh. Again, say stupid things and people will make fun about you. Doesn't matter which gender.

Your claim is that women are treated harsher than men if they behave the same, to provide evidence for that claim you have to compare two people doing about the same thing, not having a woman making herself look bad at first while the man you're comparing her to seems professional from the very beginning.

/edit: Although, after thinking about this line a second time, yes, I can see that women who make themselves look bad probably have a harder time getting rid of the stigma if they then do a better job later on. That's very different from the original claim though.

It does happen. This isn't a formal debate, burden of proof is nonexistent. If you don't want to look up the numerous documented cases where this happens, people shouldn't have to fall over themselves to oblige.

Yeah, I have to look up the vague cases that in your opinion totally exist but that you too weren't able or willing to link to.

"It totally exists, look it up!" is the number one argument that makes me think that somebody is talking out of their behind.

Particularly, as Camikaze keeps pointing out, given that this is completely tangential to the discussion at large.

This could be a good point if you yourself hadn't chosen to join in on the discussion.

 

[janboruta]

Anyone got a link where we can hear Cleopatra talking?

We can't, they talked over her in all the streams so far. At least that's what I had the (bad) luck of seeing.

 

[darko82]

Those units are too big.

 

[Gorbles]

Ryika, it's not on me to do your background reading for you. You seem to think that it is. That's entirely fair, but you'll be waiting a while

Feel free to dismiss said claims. Maybe you should've lead with that, instead of repeatedly dissecting posts to try and prove your logical superiority. The abuse women suffer from compared to the abuse men suffer from (and the stereotypes that perpetuate these beliefs) is a tad more well-documented than the existence of unicorns, sorry.

I literally don't understand your criticism of my joining in, either. The only way to express that point would have been to join in, and regardless of me joining in this discussion is still tangential. So I'll bow out! My posts still stand, regardless. This isn't Schroedinger, here.

 

[Ryika]

Ryika, it's not on me to do your background reading for you. You seem to think that it is. That's entirely fair, but you'll be waiting a while

Feel free to dismiss said claims. Maybe you should've lead with that, instead of repeatedly dissecting posts to try and prove your logical superiority. The abuse women suffer from compared to the abuse men suffer from (and the stereotypes that perpetuate these beliefs) is a tad more well-documented than the existence of unicorns, sorry.

Yes, I dismiss your claims, because they're nonsensical. If they were so well documented then you would provide some evidence, it's that simple. You could prove your point, you could point me and anyone who may be reading this and may not be too sure whether you're right or not to some cases that prove that I'm wrong and show anyone else that the thing that was brought up is a real problem and not just an imaginary one.

But you don't have any evidence other than the belief that it's totally true, that's why you have to dance around the issue by saying "I don't have to do the reading for you!". It's pathetic, and the same thing that people in your position always do. "Go educate yourself!" is the slogan of Ideologues who know they don't have the facts on their side.

Anyway. This is going nowhere - the initial claim was silly, the end.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: Please get back on topic disusing the stream or I will close the thread
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Krajzen]

Those units are too big.

I have mixed feelings about their size. On one hand I preferred more tiny soldiers because of "epicness" and "scale" (especially as I played with graphic mods which made units have even more tinier models...) while battles look weird now with two tanks and eight men invading an empire.
On the other hand, however
*New unit models are much more detailed and can be appreciated better (especially unique units)
*Bigger unit models are more distinctive without need to look for unit icons
*Less models will make PC process the game a bit faster I think.

 

[King Jason]

Overall the leaderscreens seem to be lower budget/less background detail so that they're less work intensive to create than V's. Yet at the same time we're still only getting 18 civs in the base game, so unless they reintroduce multiple leaders per civ I'm pretty disappointed with them.

This train of thought always confused me; As if to suggest time spent on leader art is some sort of closed loop. I read some version of this every single time one of these games comes out. "The leaders look like crap, so naturally we should get more" is kind of a false flag.

Sure - if the entirety of the design process of implementing a civilization into the game rested on it's leader portrait, then less production time should equal more civs.

But with a combination of a possible 18(+) units; a possible 18(+) buildings; a possible 18(+) traits (or UAs); This, along with the existence of 18 civ-specific agendas and then an undetermined amount of hidden agendas that cycle in and out across games; as well as the languages and cultural aesthetics (building appearances, in-game art assets/icons such as flags, buttons, colors, etc), make for a sizable amount of dev time to add 1 civilization the game before you even get to the diplo screen.

Most of the above also needs to be balanced, as well. It doesn't really matter if the section of the art department can (in your opinion) crank out a leader and diplo screen easy as pie if the rest of the design team can't catch up.

The last two major releases of civ have had 18 civs at release, and civ 3 had 16.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Sure - if the entirety of the design process of implementing a civilization into the game rested on it's leader portrait, then less production time should equal more civs.

But with a combination of a possible 18(+) units; a possible 18(+) buildings; a possible 18(+) traits (or UAs); This, along with the existence of 18 civ-specific agendas and then an undetermined amount of hidden agendas that cycle in and out across games; as well as the languages and cultural aesthetics (building appearances, in-game art assets/icons such as flags, buttons, colors, etc), make for a sizable amount of dev time to add 1 civilization the game before you even get to the diplo screen.

Most of the above also needs to be balanced, as well. It doesn't really matter if the section of the art department can (in your opinion) crank out a leader and diplo screen easy as pie if the rest of the design team can't catch up.

The last two major releases of civ have had 18 civs at release, and civ 3 had 16.

If they ever start start doubling up on leaders for certain Cubs (which is very possible, given the language of the Deluxe Edition DLC description & Ed Beach's recent statements that the new leader screens optimized leader creation, which was apparently the hardest part of making a civ), then I don't expect every single unique trait would be altered. Otherwise the civilization itself loses its cultural identity.

In should think each leader would have their own UU, maybe UB, and Unique Agenda. I expect certain uniques would remain consistent to the civ, especially the Unique Ability

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I am happy that civs will get more unique bonuses in civ6 as well as diplomatic agendas. I'll take civs that offer more interesting gameplay over flashy backgrounds any day.

 

[Guandao]

Is this all Firaxis will show in E3?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Is this all Firaxis will show in E3?

There is still an IGN showing scheduled for today and probably some unannounced showings popping up as well. However, they will probably just be showing the same video over and over.

It is possible that Ed will slip up and accidentally reveal something he didn't mean to release at this point, but that is wishful thinking.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

There is still an IGN showing scheduled for today and probably some unannounced showings popping up as well. However, they will probably just be showing the same video over and over.

It is possible that Ed will slip up and accidentally reveal something he didn't mean to release at this point, but that is wishful thinking.

Or that he forgot telling some information he did plan to...

 

[moysturfurmer]

There is still an IGN showing scheduled for today and probably some unannounced showings popping up as well. However, they will probably just be showing the same video over and over.

It is possible that Ed will slip up and accidentally reveal something he didn't mean to release at this point, but that is wishful thinking.

"Slip up." Could be that he'll intentionally reveal a small new nugget of info today to keep us sad obsessives frothing at the bit. Otherwise ever interview he gave would have been redundant after the first one. Redundant interviews = less sad obsessives watching = lower perceived interest = less money being thrown around by publishers.