Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid!
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post, thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
that thread is quite nuts, as his main complaint is some sort of āyou can no longer take over the world as easilyā thing, while civilization always had anti-snowballing mechanics. (He also doesnāt mention the spinoffs like alpha centauri, colonization and call to power, which (apart from call to power I think) should be part of the conversation as they were created by the same teams/software houses as the civs at the time. But the changes in those games would undermine his message of āruling class (?? Firaxis ruling class really??) cultural declineā. And not just a higher focus on different game mechanics because they want every game to have a distinct different felling to try and get new people involved, the market has changed and pure 1991 style civilization games donāt do as well and donāt recoup your budget. The problem also seems to be that he is a āconquererā type player while civ tries to also appeal to the ābuilderā type players, and I think more modern civs also try to appeal to the āmultiplayerā type player which is in conflict with the āconquererā type. (I made the specific types up here, but there are general types of players, and somebody interested in a āclash of civilizations I want to take over the worldā type of game is going to want a different type of game than a āclash of civilizations I want to build the best civā game or a āclash of civilizations, I want to play a game with my friendsā game).
This thread feels like a shapiro, and I have only glanced at game design theory as an amateur.
Edit: sorry my comment is obviously bad as I didnāt first replay all the civ games before making this comment. ;) But if I had, I would remember that in the first game you could āwinā the game by building a spaceship to alpha centauri, as the game was score based (I think a successful big spaceship gave a massive score boost), not āwin by taking out all other empiresā based (which iirc just ends the game, aka he confused completing a game with winning a game). In civ1 you donāt play against others, you play against your earlier self via the high score system.
Also any hardcore Civ player will tell you that full conquest is basically the only possible win strategy on Diety (the highest difficulty level), because the AI gets such sick bonuses to all stats that you canāt compete on science or anything else. Conquest is literally the meta!
Honestly, I am more disgusted by this guyās bad takes about Civ than the reactionary talking points. If you want to be an obnoxious white gamer dude at least do it correctly you piece of shit.
deleted by creator
In Civilization: Beyond Earth you can literally become an imperialist Earth puritanian faction whose agenda is eradicating all native life and colonising the planet.
Woke?
For example, in Civ V you can only play peaceful flower-smelling whimpy-ass woke hippies, like Askia
deleted by creator