ThERat said:
I guess amongst the beta's there were no hardcore warmongers.
You've been doing a lot of guessing. That's your prerogative, but every time you guess wrong and pass it around, you are doing a disservice to your fellow civvers.
I can't correct the record or answer any questions about what went on during development. Which means I can't go any further on that topic.
I guess this is where I start to get a taste of "walking in the other guy's shoes for a while." I've always been on the fan side of this type of exchange, and it is enlightening to see things from the other side of the aisle. The most unfortunate thing of all is the degree to which the net becomes an echo chamber for false or misleading information. The statement I quoted above is a perfect example, an instance where someone pulls something out of thin air because he, personally, cannot imagine another explanation for XYZ result. It doesn't take long before it passes around, reinforces itself, and becomes its own form of urban legend.
*sigh*
Nor can I spend too much time trying to answer charges of this sort. It's a numbers game with the deck stacked against me, even if I had the mind to try. Some things like this begin innocently enough, then snowball. Others begin with a legitimate gripe but take on a life of their own. Some begin out of malice. One should not assume the latter -- most are just misunderstandings -- but it would help if people were more cautious with making assumptions.
ThERat said:
At another spot, I siege the AI and they sit back to throw a single unit at me every other turn. Is that so much smarter?
If you're expecting it to play as a thinking opponent, you're expecting way too much.
There are still weaknesses. It's a bunch of code, after all.
If you haven't found cases where it -is- performing much better, though, then you haven't looked very far.
I hope that most folks will give Civ4 the benefit of the doubt, rather than rushing to judgement based on guesses.
ThERat said:
You know that a lot of discoveries and inventions are made by luck, chance, coincident etc. Even your continent was 'discovered' by chance. You can name so many inventions. Coincidentally some inventions humans want so badly and plan all they can, get not any breakthrough (Cure for cancer for example).
American continents were not found (by European explorers) by chance. They were discovered by a very risky and bold exploration that found something other than what it expected to find, but was more correct in its base assumptions than false. (The world was, indeed, round).
The unknown remains unknown until it is known. There is no miracle involved in the process of elimination. The exact moment of the breakthrough is a chance matter, but the search is not by accident. Depictions of "accidental" inventions are mostly hype. A thorough analysis reveals the consciousness and intentions behind the explorations that led to these outcomes.
The one thing that has never been in short supply, though, is naysayers. Every innovator who ever lived has run in to numerous, even countless naysayers, telling him (or her) that he is wrong. Considering how many there are, one can understand if the ones who may have something legitimate to observe can get lost amidst the noise of those who really don't have a clue. A wise innovator will listen, but he (or she) also has to know how to tune OUT, as well. Or else they will simply be lost in the sea of criticism.
I've tried to be helpful here, but now this is me tuning out. I hope you can understand.
- Sirian