Hey,
since aoeIII plays in a historic setting, many discussions here revolve arround history. I know, history is a wide field and unlike natural science there is plenty of room for debate, but i have the feeling most of the trouble is uncalled-for and could be avoided by using Google or Wikipedia before answering. I would be interessted , how much we agree on following two things:
Do you think of Wikipedia as a valid source for info about history?
- yes, the site is better than its reputation
- yes, but just for basic info (dates, population, casualties …)
- there are better sites for history → link in the comments
- no, never
errare humanum est, but nobody needs know that you have been wrong. I had a lot of heated discussions in my life, where i was defending my wrong statements. And there is no worse feeling, than going on Wikipedia and reading in the first sentence, that my position is far from right. Looking it up, takes just seconds and avoids embarrassing situations (like misremembering something and calling the other person “to dumb to read”).
- seems legit
- seems legit, but its difficult to remember in an argument ;D
- no, i have reasons not to use wiki/google/… → comment below
- shut up, i want to be wrong / im trolling on this froum
i hope we can turn down the rambling on this forum and relax a bit (atleast in historical debates, gameplay is much more controversial ^^)
3 Likes
I can confess that i’ve been a bit too hot-headed when it came to certain additions to the game and i will try to move past it, the changes that have been made will stay regardless of how much i complain about it.
2 Likes
The game itself is not a real history, but a very reference to history.
For example, the Chinese fighting the Incas in South America is not historically correct.
And developers don’t like players discussing any topic of discrimination in colonialism.
Discussions between players are difficult to avoid related topics,
2 Likes
Comes down to it’s a game and people need to understand that it is not a piece a history, it is based on history but the game itself is not history
The main point of the game is to be fun
Indeed, to be fun by using history.
“History” is a very broad subject and I don’t expect anybody to be an expert on every single topic (or even any historical topic). For non-academic discussions Wikipedia is absolutely fine. Most everything is cited and obviously it shouldn’t be trusted (for purposes of non-academic discussions) when it isn’t.
I also don’t expect everybody to double-check Wikipedia before saying anything. That would take too long and would have a “chilling effect” on organic conversation. I just recommend that people be open to the fact that they can make mistakes and to not be stubborn.
1 Like
I never got into a discussion about historical events on this forum, because I try my best to not get in arguments where the subject in discussion is something that I don’t have at least some degree of experience/knowledge on it. That’s why I like to discuss things related to the game itself and things that I have some sort experience/knowledge on that I think I can add to the discussion.
I might sound incredible arrogant on this statement, but I guess the problem on this forum is caused by people trying to argue about subjects that they have very little experience/knowledge on it.
I’m not saying that everyone has to be an expert on everything, I have a lots of topics myself that I don’t have no clue about it. And that’s why I read this forum, I have the hopes that I can get some insights from people that have a different experiences that I do. But I mean, if you don’t have knowledge on a particular topic, I think is much better just to not get involved in a discussion on that matter.
EDIT: I voted on the "Shut up, I want to be wrong. I’m trolling." option, just for the meme.
2 Likes
My impression is that the forum is losing momentum due to the current tone/type of posts (hence i dont come here as often)
Apart from the bug reporting, most of the “discussions” are either about “the CIV is OP please remove” or the “Civ needs a buff since i just lost with it” or the classic doomthread about “historical authenticity”
The balance changes discussions are mostly irrelevant here, and since the devs consult with the ESOC forum (due to their level) and not with this one (and most complaints here are not rooted in a competitive level), the discussion seems a little hollow.
The historical posts divide into two parts the good ones about a deep dive in a new possible civ (there is one regarding persia which is actually quite cool) and complaints about the lack of historical authenticity/outrage at the possibility of a civ that do not meet some requirements (any post regarding Germany/HRE/Austria is a good example).
These are particulary bad since they easily turn into doomthreads, with members whose tone usally is confrontational - independently of their actual knowledge of history - and that usually goes like "the civ is this, the civ must be this or else or the civ does not belong in the game, and if they put them in the game they are destroying everything as it lacks historical accuracy. (this was particulary bad in the USA civ… but can also applies to the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and Ottomans).
PS: Moderators should be more active in stopping doomthreads and large off topics
3 Likes