Why do people take it personally?

[AlpsStranger]

Criticism of the game laced with arrogance, however, is also not appreciative of others opinions. You may be right on numerous points, but waving that around will only make people resent you. All of us are going to be wrong a good chunk of the time in life and pointing that out in others is not a good way to win friends. After all, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

Saying that "reasonable customers" would find the game defective and "true fans" of Civilization would abhor Civ V are ridiculously offensive as who wants to be part of the former group and who doesn't want to be in the latter? These are beyond just stating an opinion.

Regards.

Thank you, you have eloquently stated the very essence of what I, admittedly, failed to make quite so clear. Just pretend I said exactly what he said

 

[Zechnophobe]

Ok, but let me use a very direct example of the tactics I am criticizing. Look at your viral sig there. What is someone who liked Civ3 and Civ4, didn't really like CivRev, and doesn't find Civ5 "completely unacceptable"? Am I some kind of pseudo-fan or false fan?

Are you implying that others that have been generally optimistic about the game, such as Kael or PieceOfMind, are not really fans because their outrage isn't sufficient?

This is also known as he 'true scottsman' fallacy. Basically it makes a premise:

1) All TRUE fans of civ think civ 5 is unacceptable

And then if a counter example is ever given

2) But, I've played civ for 30 years and think it is fine.

Then the counter example which should prove the premise wrong, is not counted. Why? Because duh, the premise says that since you don't think civ 5 is unacceptable, that means you aren't a true fan, and so therefore the premise is right.

It is a form of circular logic, and I don't really enjoy it. That's the reason I haven't adopted the tag. Still, I'd say that given the amount of malcontent on the topic, it does make sense to be vocal... and hopefully tactful. (I seem to recall that people are less likely to re-evaluate their opinion if they think they are talking to someone ELSE who is 'closed minded').



As for the Original Post:

Haters: Feel gyped because they did not get a product they wanted. Furthermore, the product looks targeted at a different demographic. This is doubly angering since it seems like the logic of the business plan was "Well, we can count on the hardcores buying the game no matter what, so why cater to them?"

Lovers: A lot of the jargon used by the haters is over the top. A number of claims say 'dumbed down' or 'overly simple' and they don't like these messages, since it seems to be saying that people who like the game share those qualities. Some people have outright made such claims. I'm not QUITE sure why some people have gone into quite the rigor defending the game. I imagine there is some component of Risk Rationalization, but that's just my own opinion.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This is also known as he 'true scottsman' fallacy. Basically it makes a premise:

1) All TRUE fans of civ think civ 5 is unacceptable

And then if a counter example is ever given

2) But, I've played civ for 30 years and think it is fine.

Then the counter example which should prove the premise wrong, is not counted. Why? Because duh, the premise says that since you don't think civ 5 is unacceptable, that means you aren't a true fan, and so therefore the premise is right.

It is a form of circular logic, and I don't really enjoy it. That's the reason I haven't adopted the tag. Still, I'd say that given the amount of malcontent on the topic, it does make sense to be vocal... and hopefully tactful. (I seem to recall that people are less likely to re-evaluate their opinion if they think they are talking to someone ELSE who is 'closed minded').



As for the Original Post:

Haters: Feel gyped because they did not get a product they wanted. Furthermore, the product looks targeted at a different demographic. This is doubly angering since it seems like the logic of the business plan was "Well, we can count on the hardcores buying the game no matter what, so why cater to them?"

Lovers: A lot of the jargon used by the haters is over the top. A number of claims say 'dumbed down' or 'overly simple' and they don't like these messages, since it seems to be saying that people who like the game share those qualities. Some people have outright made such claims. I'm not QUITE sure why some people have gone into quite the rigor defending the game. I imagine there is some component of Risk Rationalization, but that's just my own opinion.

I really have been fairly critical of the game, and I think anyone who reviews my posts would be forced to admit that I am a poor fanboy indeed. I admit that I am treading on grounds of legitimate disagreement with many distinguished and skilled players with my macro-oriented preferences, but I am not implying that they don't have the right to their opinion. I will state flatly that it is a damn shame the game was released in the state it was in, and I have no problem with labeling those that deny this rather obvious fact as fanboys. No fair minded person can claim that 1.0.0.20 is what we should have a month after release.

You pretty much nailed my issue with this entire ordeal. I simply dislike the tactics being employed by a large number of the detractors. They lower the level of discussion and have damaged the culture of what I generally consider to be one of the more sane and rational game specific discussion boards. Feel free to hate Civ5 with the heat of a thousand suns and even to say so. All I desire is a cessation of hostilities and an end to delusions of winning some kind of 'forum war.'

 

[Palfouri]

They lower the level of discussion and have damaged the culture of what I generally consider to be one of the more sane and rational game specific discussion boards.'

You must not have been here for Civ IV's release.

 

[AlpsStranger]

You must not have been here for Civ IV's release.

I think I was a lurker back then and vaguely recall it. It is sort of amusing to think that Saint Civilization Four the Perfect was once the end of the series and a supreme abandonment of what made Civ a successful franchise.

I actually still love Civ4 and it has enough merit to stay on my hard drive alongside Civ5 indefinitely.

 

[polypheus]

I think I was a lurker back then and vaguely recall it. It is sort of amusing to think that Saint Civilization Four the Perfect was once the end of the series and a supreme abandonment of what made Civ a successful franchise.

I actually still love Civ4 and it has enough merit to stay on my hard drive alongside Civ5 indefinitely.

I don't recall that at all. For Civ4, it was more criticism of technical issues and bugs and less so based on game-play and core design issues. Not that those criticisms didn't exist but nowhere to the degree for Civ5 at least to my recollection. My impression is that far more people on the forums are saying that Civ5 is "a supreme abandonment of what made Civ a successful franchise" than people said of Civ4.

 

[C~G]

WTF?

I mean seriously.

Get your heads out of where ever they are!

We aren't talking about you but ABOUT THE GAME.
Oh, wait we are. But as fans and customers who should be worried.

I adopted the sig since it says like it should that this product that is available and is supposed to be belonging to Civilization series is UNACCEPTAPLE as it stands now.
Whether it's because of bugs, flaws, streamlining, different approach or no brains AI is up to you decide.

It's true that if you consider this current Civ being worthy of Civilization tag, you might have liked some strategy games and might have played Civ earlier but you aren't or never have been true Civ fan. Period.

But that is your problem, not ours, since the focus of us "vocal" folks isn't disturb this forum neither it's occupants but to make sure that enough customers/fans join making that company understand that they don't need crappy products even if it comes Sid Meier's/Civilization name with it.

Come on lads, you should expect more from product you have bought let alone something that you are referring as being fans to since you get aggrevated of someone saying you aren't.

And you know what? it's pretty much not the haters or likers who decide the faith but those who are in between opinions that by voicing their opinions and also voting with their cold hard cash that actually "wins these wars".

If Civilization series turns into Civilization Revolutions series, we know who to thank for then (you).

I have no desire to say anything else about this subject.

Moderator Action: Is this trolling or not? I think so. This post is an example of trying to add fuel to the fire rather than actually contributing to the discussion. Let me note a things:

...is UNACCEPTAPLE as it stands now." Well not really; lots of folks do like the game. Your use of "absolute" language is inflammatory. It is your opinion and nothing more.

"...but you aren't or never have been true Civ fan. Period." You are not the arbiter of who is a Civ fan and who is not. Again you are trolling and egging for a fight.

"...the focus of us "vocal" folks isn't disturb this forum neither it's occupants" This post is a perfect example of why this statement is not true at all.

"...If Civilization series turns into Civilization Revolutions series, we know who to thank for then (you)." And now you blame the future on those who disagree with you. More nonsense designed to troll others.

"I have no desire to say anything else about this subject." This is the best sentence in your post. follow it. We do not need any more of the rest of it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[AlpsStranger]

It's true that if you consider this current Civ being worthy of Civilization tag, you might have liked some strategy games and might have played Civ earlier but you aren't or never have been true Civ fan. Period.

Thank you for discrediting your entire camp for me. Saves me a lot of work. Behold, they will now instruct us on what to think. The true face of the people that I am calling out has surfaced at last.

You have a choice. We can either discuss and debate, or we can allow children like C~G to use Jr. High level pack tactics to dictate what we think and feel. He has no right an no ability to make this distinction. He cannot tell me, you, or anyone else whether or not we are a 'True' anything.

I may be harsh and outspoken, but I would never say what C~G is saying. This is an example of the sort of non-thought that it is everyone's responsibility to oppose in any context, not just in Civilization 5's general discussion forum.

All of the symptoms are here. Quoting Thormodr as if they were a prophet. Using the strangest out-of-context example of hyper-Calvinist reasoning I've ever seen. This has somehow become exactly like an argument with a religious zealot.

 

[C~G]

I suggest you change the last statement BTW...

 

[AlpsStranger]

I suggest you change the last statement BTW...

Or? You're the one telling an entire group of forum users what they are and aren't. If the moderators are going to let you say that and punish me then I am finished here.

 

[C~G]

Have you read the sig at all?

It's battle cry for f's sake. "X thinks that all true civ fans have responsibility to"...it's not the same as "something equals this and that"

And I stated that for me it's clear that someone cannot be true fan of civ if all things accounted thinks that product is acceptable.

I'm not saying you are a child, firaxis fanboy maybe...

 

[AlpsStranger]

Have you read the sig at all?

It's battle cry for f's sake. "X thinks that all true civ fans have responsibility to"...

And I stated that for me it's clear that someone cannot be true fan of civ if all things accounted thinks that product is acceptable.

I'm not saying you are a child, firaxis fanboy maybe...

Yes, and that statement is offensive and insulting on the face of it, and I refuse to let it go. It is not a reasoned statement and has no place on this forum or any other.

I am more than interested in a nuanced discussion of the many flaws in Civilization 5, but I have no place to hold the discussion because a group of people has decided that this is a place to wage some kind of imaginary war on the supposed dumbing down of gaming. This is not the place for that war, this is a place for discussing Civilization 5. Not Civ 0.5, not Shafer 5, or anything else.

 

[Venereus]

Thank you for discrediting your entire camp for me. Saves me a lot of work. Behold, they will now instruct us on what to think. The true face of the people that I am calling out has surfaced at last.

You have a choice. We can either discuss and debate, or we can allow children like C~G to use Jr. High level pack tactics to dictate what we think and feel. He has no right an no ability to make this distinction. He cannot tell me, you, or anyone else whether or not we are a 'True' anything.

I may be harsh and outspoken, but I would never say what C~G is saying. This is an example of the sort of non-thought that it is everyone's responsibility to oppose in any context, not just in Civilization 5's general discussion forum.

All of the symptoms are here. Quoting Thormodr as if they were a prophet. Using the strangest out-of-context example of hyper-Calvinist reasoning I've ever seen. This has somehow become exactly like an argument with a religious zealot.

You really should reconsider that last statement. If you think quoting Thormodr has something to do with idolizing him/her, then you're pretty lost. As far as I've noticed, the people in this forum are pretty smart, they wouldn't do that. And I don't think Thormodr wants to become "our leader" or something like that.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Have you read the sig at all?

It's battle cry for f's sake. "X thinks that all true civ fans have responsibility to"...it's not the same as "something equals this and that"

And I stated that for me it's clear that someone cannot be true fan of civ if all things accounted thinks that product is acceptable.

I'm not saying you are a child, firaxis fanboy maybe...

So you know he's a fanboy because he likes civ 5, and he likes civ 5 because he's a fanboy?

 

[AlpsStranger]

So you know he's a fanboy because he likes civ 5, and he likes civ 5 because he's a fanboy?

And the funniest part is, I only kind of like Civ5. My opinion on it is massively gray and nuanced. The idea that I am a Civ5 fanboy is perhaps the silliest part of any of this. I'm an uncluttered forum fanboy.

 

[Bushface]

"Why do people take it personally ?" asks the thread title. I cannot answer for anybody else, but I myself, personally, take the position that I myself, personally, am most horribly disappointed with this latest incarnation of the Civ series. It is not what I was led to expect, an improvement on its precursors, but instead is a grossly simplified game full of colossal imbalances and should never have been sold in its present form.
Perhaps the most obvious changes are those to 1UPT and hex tiles: these I can handle. But conquering the world with three horsemen and some archers is just too easy to be fun, and surely fun is the principal element of any game. As for simplification, the best example must be the list of not "the most powerful civilizations" but those "with the pointiest sticks". That, I think, epitomises how infantile the game is, and why so many "old hands" have voiced so many criticisms in this forum and elsewhere.
Yes, I am an old hand, having played Civ since the original came out (and being by no means a youngster), and I do feel personally disgusted with Civ5. I have played only three games, and will play no more until the first patch is released: I hope that will be the first of several improvements. Nor will I pay for the doubtful privilege of being able to choose an extra leader or two.

 

[C~G]

You really should reconsider that last statement. If you think quoting Thormodr has something to do with idolizing him/her, then you're pretty lost. As far as I've noticed, the people in this forum are pretty smart, they wouldn't do that. And I don't think Thormodr wants to become "our leader" or something like that.

Actually that message was shorter earlier and I tried to warn this fellow of his "bad habits" with calling names in friendly manner...

I am more than interested in a nuanced discussion of the many flaws in Civilization 5,

So you think Civ V is acceptable/unacceptable as it is now?

This is not the place for that war, this is a place for discussing Civilization 5. Not Civ 0.5, not Shafer 5, or anything else.

I see.
You aren't of course trying to suppress other people with this view?

So you know he's a fanboy because he likes civ 5, and he likes civ 5 because he's a fanboy?

Actually I have no idea (totally lost since he's contradicting himself) what he is. Maybe I should ask him?

EDIT: Oh, BTW there never has been any "camp". I'm just lonely wolf, righteous crusader or headless chicken when commenting these..

 

[Smakemupagus]

IIRC, over 20 of the people said less than $1. That's not an honest opinion. It's just anger.

nonsense. if one will never play it it's not worth $1. just because you don't agree doesn't make it a dishonest opinion.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Actually I have no idea (totally lost since he's contradicting himself) what he is. Maybe I should ask him?

I've not contradicted myself on anything other than perhaps minor details of my opinion as it has fluxed back and forth on some points. My broad opinions remain the same.

-The release state of the game isn't great. It is quite shameful in many ways.

-The game has a few deep flaws that will need to be corrected, possibly in an expansion as a few of them are too deep for mere patching. The terrain yield simplicity is probably my personal gripe of choice(other than big things like the poor AI)

-The state of the game is not fully hopeless and nothing is completely beyond repair.

-The game is currently not as good as Civ4+BTS but can still provide a somewhat amusing change of pace. It is still better than any number of other games I have installed.

-People have the right to discuss the flaws of the game freely.

-People should not attempt to shout down criticism but engage in discussion about it.

-Detractors should not attempt to impugn the intelligence or integrity of those that enjoy the game, explicitly or by implication.

-Viral signatures and joke titles like Shafer 5 are beneath this forum. The World of Warcraft forum is that way --->

-Moderators should stop any activity that is designed not to express a viewpoint but merely to vent or browbeat others.

 

[AlpsStranger]

You aren't of course trying to suppress other people with this view?

'Civilization 5 isn't very good due to X' is a view. Shafer 5 is a grating pun that I hated three seconds after seeing it.