That’s someone who drinks ethyl alcohol competitively right? Like me.
Haha, that was a good one. Note that here we’re talking about a pretty clear cut “fact” which has been repeatedly verified over the past 25 years, rather than lazy games journalism. As it is evidence that a treaty was signed by almost every country that matters has signed, recognising climate change to be a potentially existential challenge to human civilisation.
As you say it is both a fantastic balancing mechanic and educates players at the same time. Most striking is that it was a mechanic which used to feature prominently in the end game back in the day… and how little we have talked about its disappearance.
Signed and promptly ignored because “it’s bad for the economy”. At least the rescindist was honest about what mattered to them.
But yes, it’s weird that modern Civ is just an escalation of bonuses, and has even added an explicit list of actions to follow in order to get unending growth.
See, this is the part you’ve completely fabricated with your “right of Lenin” crap that makes you sound like an apologist for skinheads. When I talk about punching Nazis I mean real life fucking Nazi like the one who killed 17 of his classmates and teachers only weeks ago.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I talk about punching Nazis I am talking about actual, self-designated Nazis. I don’t label anyone a Nazi. That’s their job.
Something like this.
Yeah I keep saying they self-select but this “other” side makes shit up in their head where Nazis somehow means someone not wearing a swatiska or running around telling everyone how much they love Hitler and wish the other side won WW2.
In plain English, just in case it’s still unclear, we know the Nazis because they call themselves… Nazis. They’re not shy about it. They used to hide it, now they flaunt it , maybe because… oh well there are a hundred reasons and one of them is in the White House.
And the funny thing? My wife is on the “other side”. We just had this discussion. We have agreed to disagree.
And that’s all you had to say instead of accusing me of defending them. Great, we agree that real, self proclaimed Nazis are scum! I still don’t agree with punching people except to stop violence.
Well, sure. There are lots of idiots on Facebook and Twitter and so forth, and there are extremist liberals who actually give the term antifa the bad name it’s been tarred with. When some of them talk about physical violence, I can understand not being cool with that because they might mean it. The guy who punched Spencer might be regarded as a hero for how gratifying it is to see a right-wing extremist served a taste of his own hate, but he’s also a thug who was hopefully charged with assault.
But context counts for a lot, and when someone here makes an offhand comment, the concern trolling is awfully specious. Do you really thing Brad Grenz is going to go out and punch someone? Of course you don’t. I doubt kedaha thinks so either, and when he uses that to concern troll and set up false equivalence, it’s disappointing that some of the folks here swallow the bait.
-Tom
I remember when concern trolling was called playing devil’s advocate, and was considered a valuable way of looking at a problem from different angles.
Was it ever used that way? With the “trolling” part and everything? Seems to me the trolling undercuts the being concerned. But I hear you. There was probably a time “white knighting” was considered a compliment.
-Tom
I’ll apologize for my intemperate language too. It was out of line.
I figured somebody would call me out on that, and I’ll have to concede that I may wrong - “concern trolling” as best I can tell is an internet invention without a formal definition, so I’ve had to infer one from how I’ve seen it applied. And that’s how it’s always struck me - if you present a possible outcome in opposition to one being proposed based on current information in an attempt to find flaw in the argument, that’s called concern trolling. If that doesn’t line up with your intended use, I’m open to correction.
I’ll just post this and then drop the subject because it doesn’t belong in Games any more.
There is certainly a strain of left wing thought that calls people on the right Nazis who aren’t. See, for example, this and this.. (Are these evenhanded enough? Every other link I found leads to right-wing sites like National Review which probably won’t convince you.) So the question of whether the person saying to punch a Nazi means a real white supremacist or just someone on the right is actually pertinent. As long as it’s the former, they certainly deserve it even if I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.
Uh, for someone who claims to have been out of line, you’ve got to be one of the more reasonable posters we’ve got. Therefore, I refuse your apology and encourage you to get out of line more often.
-Tom
I was probably concern trolling above, but I do think there’s a difference in concern trolling and being a devils advocate. One is just raising problems, legitimate or not with the intent to cause the idea to fail, the other is raising problems to make the end result stronger. The difference probably does not come across in forum posts much if at all.
Should the day come where I feel the need to punch a Nazi, I also expect to get arrested for assault… unless we waited too long in which case it will be a minute or two before my death because that’s what these people do. Millions died under the leadership of the Nazis which means, even though we won, we waited too long.
Do I run around hitting every kid in the grocery store doing a Hitler solute, of course not. We just have regular red neck white supremacy here so far so that doesn’t really happen… Spencer on the other hand, if he shows up here… maybe. ;-)
Considering how I was just having a conversation with my three year old about how pointing out that I am white and Mommy is black isn’t actually a polite thing to do, I’ll likely be right there with you if it ever comes to that. Fingers crossed, it won’t.
Edit: And if there’s a better way to handle that conversation, I’m all ears.
Last Civ I played extensively was Civ 3. I think the first three Civ games had global warming right? Or did they just have excessive pollution in the early ones. I remember at least one of them had global warming if you didn’t go around the map cleaning the pollution.
Edit: Looking it up. It looks like Civ 3 had the global warming I remember, with terrain squares turning into worse squares. Looks like Civ 4 had global warming, but it didn’t trigger unless you did the Manhattan Project.
It may be a good balance mechanic and educational, but it still comes across as either punishing the player for success or a penalty outside of your control because the AI never cared about stopping it. Civ4, the last one I played, really isn’t about anything but steady improvement. There really aren’t any other mechanics I can remember that serve as a brake in the same way.
That isn’t to say that a Civ game with more rise and fall elements wouldn’t be really interesting. Global warming would fit right in to such a game. But Civ as designed isn’t it.