kohlrak: Well, aside from some advanced math and science, if we're to speak realistically, those are't exactly good attack vectors, anyway, right? I've head conspiracy theorists going out talking about some "hallow earth theory" because planes never fly directly above the polls. I think it might just have something to do with conservation of gas, but also safety as many navigation systems rely on compasses. That said, that's a pretty realistic representation, no? But, then again, are landmass sizes even to scale?
HereForTheBeer: None of it is to scale, except maybe the bits right at the equator. The landmasses are wrong ,the oceans are wrong, and for certain the areas near the poles are very wrong on a cylindrical representation of a globe.
Anyway, just ribbing about the whole flat Earth thing since the games do represent the Earth on a flat plane that's wrapped into a cylinder. It's silly to expect scientific accuracy of these systems, and let's instead just play the games as they are programmed.
There's something to be said about judging a game by authenticity. After playing Falcon 4, I just don't feel the same about Ace Combat. Not to say I can't play it, but it's a totally different feel, and it's worth merit.
Zabohad: Something on topic on "meta-level". There is one thing that troubles me about "debating" (on this thread and everywhere else) that wasn't mentioned yet (either that, or I missed it), so I add it here.
Both sides of the argument are usually so sure that "If we can not agree, one of us must be wrong. And because I know I am right, it must be YOU who is wrong.", they didn't consider the third option: fundamental misunderstanding (I bet it has a name in English today, "something-something fallacy" or "Whatsher-Nameagain theorem", but I don't know the name).
There is the already classic Orwellian 2+2=5 example of obviously false statement, let's run with it.
If A states that "two plus two makes five", B usually automatically sign A off as troll, brainwashing victim, brainwasher or idiot. It's pretty rare that B do something like this:
B> Would you start counting from one up, please?
A> Why? You think I cannot even count on fingers?!
B> No, no insult intended, I just want to check something. Please?
A> All right; one-two-three-five-four-six-seven-eight-nine-
B> Thank you, that's enough. And how much is eight minus four?
A> Three, of course.
B> The third power of five.
A> Wait a sec... sixty-five I think.
B> Thank you very much, now I know why we were arguing. Believe it or not,
neither of us is stupid!
Right: if you can't agree to the definitions of the terms, then you can't even hold a discussion. It's like two people with two different forms of color blindness arguing over the color of an object. That doesn't seem to be going on in this case, though, but something related to that most certainly is going on: we have totally different views on fundemental things, which i actually thought about bringing up, but concluded that if no one's really willing to read anything, it's not even worth it. For example, people on the right distrust science due to all the scandals, backpeddling, etc, while a good portion of the progressive left fundementally oppose empiricism if it doesn't fit the narrative. Imagine being that poor scientist who discovers something that the right is skeptical of, but can't get it published because it goes against the narrrative of the left controlled publishing organizations (and believe it or not, i found a few, since sometimes they get published if they tweek their opinions on their results to fit an agenda): it's just plain too controversial. But we have other separations that keep us from fundementally being able to communicate with each other:
have a gander at this.
The fundamental misunderstanding I see here is treating CIV games as simulations of real world. They are reality-themed strategy games, and they are great as a games. As simulation of human history they are completely off :-).
And blues are right, using dropping global warming mechanics from CIV 6 as excuse to discuss climate change in real life will result in closing the thread. For that case, I offer different spin: what about discussing representation of long term changes of enviroment and depleting of resources in videogames as game element/mechanic rather than commentary about real life?
There's where the problem lies: politics by nature is about controlling others' lives. There is no haven that is safe from politics, not even sexual relations between two consenting adults: there are even people who want to either force mixed relationships and there are people who want to force the opposite. No safe haven, especially in things of art, like video games, which are much more public than the bedroom. The mechanics in question are wonderful, just like how revival from death (respawning) is a wonderful game mechanic. Honestly, games would do good (but are not obligated) not to add or remove mechanics based on politics. How many people honestly took the evolution mechanic in pokemon as a serious threat to Christianity? No one: 'cause the real threat to christianity was assuming subversion in something that isn't taken seriously, just like how people understand that Red Dead Redemption 2's allowance of killing a sufferagist doesn't actually make people go out and kill feminists. There's a reason why a shitposter like Dankula got alot of support: regular people seem to know themselves better than people who accuse various media of making them do things they normally wouldn't do, and going after a guy for making a silly joke about a dog even knowing what Nazism is, let alone actually being a Nazi is so ridiculous that anyone going after him for such a thing is clearly the same kind of person who would arrest someone for jay-walking in the middle of the night on an empty street, then claim they had to do it to keep them from ever risking their lives in such a way again.
Frankly, when i play games that have a pollution mechanic, i'm just like "ugh, really, after all the time i spent raising the population of my roman city so i could get enough money and people to raise an army to move in on the gauls, no one told me i'd have to dedicate some of that money to developing toilets. It would've been really nice to know that before i went all in population building strategy just so I could use Russian tactics as Rome." I don't sit there and say, "ugh, really? They implemented this for political reasons, surely! I need a refund!" Now, if the game just randomly docked me points for "evil fascist, you probably hate the planet, don't you?" but otherwise doesn't even address it in gameplay, otherwise, that's not a mechanic, that's just being politically preachy and you deserve the hate you get. If the mechanic is something that only shows up end game, i could imagine people being a bit jaded, then, too, but you'll find those people are jaded even if they believe in global warming. But this goes back to the conflation thing: waste products (which have environmental effects) is a separat issue for global warming, and even then, if it wasn't, a game using mechanics doesn't mean worldview support of those things (yea, how many RPG makers who tell you to go to a church or monestary to learn healing spells are religious?). This immediate outrage shit needs to end, i don't care who you are, politically.
