SE5 screenshots ugly?

[Fyron]

No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

Would you care to point out some concrete facts to illustrate why Civilization 4 is worse than Civilization 2? The ability ot automate your workers alone is a point that means that no comparison can ever come out in the favour of Civ2.

This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.

[ToddT]

Imperator Fyron said:
No, what's laughable is the idiotic assertion you just made that only one person worked on AOE3.

The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

never really noticed the non-optimal wording, just what was meant by the sentence, one guy worked on water affects for a year. not surprising really, given modeling water in 3d is not simple or straight forward.

Was going say more, but I see no point, other than what interested me in this game had little to do with graphics.

[Graeme Dice]

Imperator Fyron said:
The sentence may not have been worded optimally, but he said that the water effects had one guy working on them for an entire year, not the whole game itself.

And so what? What possible gameplay improvements would you have received by instead spending those wages on another designer. Did they not have enough designers to make sure that they got everything they wanted into their game? There's a small, extremely vocal group of gamers who are convinced that somehow, there would be better games if only people didn't spend money on graphics. This assertion is laughable, since game design is an artistic process. If you don't have a good designer, then no amount of money will create a good game.

This is entirely, absolutely, your opinion. Please stop deriding others for posting their opinions "as facts" when you do exactly the same, repeatedly. It does not strengthen your arguments.

Oh? It's nothing more than my opinion that Civ 3 and 4 are better because they allow you to automate away tedious micromanagement. If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments. Note that neither you, nor anyone else has presented a _single_ reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is. And yet, when I present an actual argument, you completely ignore it.

Here's some more actual arguments so that you can continue to concede defeat by ignoring them. Civ 1 was a decent game, but it was made horribly tedious by the constant need to micromanage your pioneers. I assume that Civ 2 was the same, unless it actually had some way to not force you to micromanage them. Civ 3 and 4 fixed this major issue by freeing you from having to deal with the extraordinarily tedious worker shuffle. Now, there's absolutely no possible way to claim that the ability to turn on automated workers makes the game worse, since if you actually are one of those masochists who enjoy rote micromanagement you can simply not turn it on.

I'm sure that somebody else will come back with complaints that Civ 4 doesn't allow you to use infinite city spam, or some other tactic that was present in Civ2, making it the worst game in the series yet. To that I say: If you really want that to be the best way to win the game, then go mod it. I'm sure there's at least a couple of hundred people worldwide who would like to play your mod.

[Fyron]

Graeme Dice said:
If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.

Where did I say this? How does the following lead to graphics being an insidious cancer?

"Some [companies] can devote enough [programming man-hours] to both parts, some (eg: most console developers) devote too much to graphics and not enough to gameplay, and some probably devote too much to gameplay and not enough to graphics."

I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments.

Actually, you are the one that was doing that (in a couple of posts on different arguments), and I was merely pointing out that it can go both ways. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the worker automation is a good feature to have (though I do think the worker AI tends to make some poor choices sometimes), but it is still opinion either way... The issue arises when one presents numerous opinions in his arguments, then decries the same exact method taken by others.

...reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is.

Maybe this is because I have said absolutely nothing of the sort? Where have I asserted such a claim? Why would I try to support a claim I do not believe to be true, and have never even hinted at?

Of course, even if you love all of the civ games, you would still technically have to consider one of them the worst of the series. Not worst because you think it is bad, but simply by virtue of not liking it quite as much as the others.

The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.

Really? Most of my turns around 40 are still in the 5-10 minute range. Even if I am at war, it rarely takes upwards of 20.