Tech Icon Makers Challenge, April 2006

Plotinus said:
What a horrible thought! I hope not! Honestly, what's the point of having a civilopedia?

Why do you feel this way?
If the civilopedia is just to give the scenario\mod player some background info on the units,resources,wonders,improvements,Etc. that are used in it and the historical\correct info is already out there then why is it wrong to just copy and past that info in.

I understand that this would be more difficult with fantasy mods but allot of that info would be up to individual interpretation anyway.

I feel that the civilopedia is important to someone playing a game that they aren't that familiar with @ I know nothing of the War hammer world so when playing the mod I check civilopedia entries often to understand what is behind the unit,resource,wonder,Etc.
 
What would Austria be without their Alms? Beautiful alpine meadows high up in the mountains... clean crisp air, happy cows and gorgeous blonde "cowgirls" (well I digress... :lol: )

Anyway, this is my official entry into this competition...
 
Storm Grunt said:
Why do you feel this way?

Because -

(a) The Civilopedia isn't just there to give workaday historical descriptions but to add interest, at least in my opinion. It ought to form an organic whole, with the different entries all being written from the same point of view and for the same purpose. Just cutting and pasting soulless paragraphs from the Internet seems to defeat the whole purpose of it. You might as well give page references to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

(b) Wikipedia is utterly unreliable.

(c) The Civilopedia is the one part of a mod that anyone can do. You don't have to have any graphical skill, programming knowledge, or ability to comprehend the arcane workings of the Editor. So when people don't put any effort into the easiest part of the mod, it makes me rather suspicious of what the rest of it must be like!

Just my view, anyway. Personally I'm always disappointed when otherwise great mods have patchy or uninteresting pedias, but perhaps other people aren't so bothered by this.
 
I understand where your coming from plotinus,but I think you are of a higher intellect than most of us.I do not look that deeply into the civilopedia,as long as it gives me a feel for what is going on I'm fine with it.I don't like when a mod\scenario leaves it blank and I am looking to it for basic answers.

@b- If the wikipedia was incorrect in some information wouldn't someone submit a correction case?

@c-I don't agree that anyone can do this. Literary skill can be far harder to acquire then simply learning programing or graphics.I see it as an art form like painting or sculpting, if you aren't somewhat artistic you have little chance of being good at it even with lessons. I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words and comprehending what I have read,some times I have to re-read things several times to understand them.If I were to try and write all my own original pedias for my mods & scenarios They would never get done....(It took me about 15min. just to write this...I don't type well either :crazyeye: )
 
Storm Grunt said:
@c-I don't agree that anyone can do this. Literary skill can be far harder to acquire then simply learning programing or graphics.I see it as an art form like painting or sculpting, if you aren't somewhat artistic you have little chance of being good at it even with lessons. I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words and comprehending what I have read,some times I have to re-read things several times to understand them.If I were to try and write all my own original pedias for my mods & scenarios They would never get done....(It took me about 15min. just to write this...I don't type well either :crazyeye: )
Same here.
And i usualy don't have an opinion about smthing, or have multiple opinions in my head and none of my own about smthing, so it's hard to decide what to write. :(
I left adding the pedia historical descriptions part of my mod to the very last moment. I shudder at the thought of searching for stuff to cut&paste for it...let alone "compose" smthing of my own. :sad:
 
(b) Wikipedia is utterly unreliable.
I agree with that ^^. That's why if a civlopedia entry is about NATO I get it from NATO and at times I write if from scratch (ex. Berlin Wall, Fall of).
*
@ TopGun96: Your one of the best Tech Icon makers; I've seen your DPY pack and I indexed it I'll add your entry soon.
 
Helta Cata, Don't give up your pedia!.Its will make it all the better I promise.

Plotinus and Storm Grunt are both right, The Civipedia is tedeous to compile and harder to compose. Its also at the core of what the essence of Civ3 modding is all about.

As a Modder You want your ideas, thoughts to flow smoothly conveying a detailed yet understandable rendition. The Civapedia is incomparable to any other tutorial methods for its effectivness in motivating readers to become more involved. The pedia is famous soley for its slick abilty to have players absorbing loads of information while they are immersed in the pusuit of conquest.
So take advantage of it. become more involved in Pedia devlepment. Or not, the work you ve put in already quite impressive. Im just offering my opinion :)
 
William: What! you mean you understand some of my incoherent ramblins. Im glad Sometime I can't even make sense of them! All the more reason to give props the pros,the great Civapedia authur's. The mods just woundn't be the same without them :) :
(btw..Will, sorry for jacking the thread its all yours :goodjob:
 
Back
Top Bottom