Rowain Wrote:How comes you think Thoth's opinion is objective assessment while those that like Civ5 get lumped together with Hitler-voters?
1st part:
1) Civ 5 was badly designed, it tried to shoehorn a tactical sim game engine onto a strategic sim board, being the most prominent of the stupid design decisions made.
2) It was badly flawed in terms of usability. There were massive amounts of bugs; the game was hard to run even on top end machines, despite being less detailed in quality than other games; it was seemingly (and partly) made to test an untested piece of software (DX11 was barely used before it came out), et cetera.
3) It was badly balanced. Many patches were put out simply to either nerf strategies that were too powerful or to stop players from doing something the designers didn't want them to, but were too stupid to be able to code in.
4) It was badly tested, 1) & 3) would never have gotten through if the game were tested properly, and it has been asserted a number of times (by people who'd have the ability to know) that testers were badly picked, usually chosen because they liked the design team personally or were not strong enough to speak out over overlooked problems.
2nd part:
You didn't get the point of my analogy. I was not comparing those who like Civ 5 to Hitler-voters, I was just showing that people who are part of a large crowd (or even a majority) can often be wrong in their ideas or choices. Picking Nazi-era Germany was just the easiest choice.
