 WeeAshley wrote:
scaramouche wrote:
Big talk from someone...who along with 8 other alliances attack one alliance! |
See, having more allies in the attack just sounds smart to me - not insulting at all. I mean, if you are going to battle it makes sense to stack the deck in your favour. No? I'd hate to play other games with someone that said stuff like this:
Risk: "Big talk from someone... who has more armies than me." Monopoly: "Big talk from someone... who has more money than me." Tennis: "Big talk from someone... who has taken more lessons than me." Football: "Big talk from someone... who has more superbowl wins than me." Crazy 8s: "Big talk from someone... who has more 8s than me."
I admittedly don't get it. My best guess is that it has something to do with those parents who let their child win at games too often.
“Never fight fair with a stranger, boy. You'll never get out of the jungle that way.”
Edit: quote formatting.
|
To take up on our discussion from this morning, I don´t think it is THAT easy, due to different causes:
As you said yourself, and the threads with copious ammounts of posts trying to proof that the own side is the "right one", there is a code of civility involved that "should" be kept up. But quite obviously the notion of civility, and more important here, the extent of it, might be percieved quite differently. In many cases in real-life the ganging up of many persons against another single persion would be percieved as the epitome of anti-civilizedness, because it is so obviously unfair, no matter how logical it may be from the point of realpolitics.
You may say, that this is just a game, but again the character of the game and the extent of it might be seen quite differently. This game is complex enough to be played by players just interested in building up towns, trading, crafting and interacting with NPC´s, Tournaments and chatting with friends. For people that are playing it (mainly) for those reasons it can get quite uncomfortable and "unfair" (because against the perceived character of the game) to be "draged" into a war as a "victim" (of course a matter of perception again, for all of us here. And frankly, I don´t buy the account of any of those two opposing factions here to 100% though i tend to believe H? more. Just to reveal where I am standing in this issue). I would not be suprised or really pissed off if I would play a game of Risk (hope the game has that name in english too^^), or for that matter any strategy game, and the others are fighting me or even banging up on me. But i would very surly not play a game of Settlers of Catan (or other building-up-games) again with people that are just playing against me.
To the issue of the extent of the game: your notion of civility seems to be aiming at the meta-level, but other people might be taking the game-level much more serious than you. And I don´t think it´s dump or an error of category, but I think humans usually do it least to some degree with made-up things like games or the arts (obviously you are taking "real" fun in the game here, wich is of course good :) others take fictious novels somehow seriously and can get something for their RL out of it on this account, what is of course also a good thing. I am starting my paper for University I am working on with a citation from Frank Herberst "Dune" for example^^). But players taking for example their towns much more serious than you can really have big problems with other players destroying their towns (because they see them as under the protection of civility (that is on the "real" sinde of the game), they extend it to the towns, you just refer to the meta-level with your notion. So you end up in disagreement without anybody beeing "right" or "irrational" in my humble opinion). And I am not saying this because my parents let me win, I lost for more than a year chess against my father before stopping it, and more often than not I am not even the 2nd in my playing-evenings with 3 other friends nowerdays.
That leeds to the motivation, and a more general remark on what some other distinguished players have written here. Of course persons can play games for the challange and contest (never understood that, I seem to be a reborn egalitarian stone-age hunter-gatherer), but another motivation is to have fun interacting with the environment and other players. And there are quite obviously players NOT enjoying that part of Illy if war and agressive interaction is involved. There were niches for those players in the past and now, and I really hope there will be niches for them in the future (that´s why I will stick to the training alliance, of course next to the joy of helping others), otherwise I would leave here, not because the other players are mean (they are just playing what they perceive a fair game), but because I just don´t enjoy playing war and challenging other people or be challenged by them. From personal and intellectual experience I can just say that I don´t think that that tend to make a person better in any aspects of existence i deem productive (totally personal judement of course, probably at least partially wrong, because it worked somehow for quite some time in human history). And I think that´s at least to some part that what Rill and Sliveen also pointed out, when people see there perception of the character of this game falsified (for example because they beleif the Consone-cause and see "innocent victims" beeing pushed out without having done anything wrong (and so see themselves as no-wrong-doers endangered)) or there way of playing and enjoying this game (trade/chatting) impinged upon, they could quit.
Sorry for the bad english, but reading and writing are different things
Tweet
This ****ing war
Topic Options
