[hirr]Leto
Varmint Croonie
I have been extremely turned off by the petty drivel and ad hominem attacks that have emerged as the standard of discussion on these boards as of late. While appalled by this behavior yet still interested in the game itself, without any other forum that suitable for discussions that interest me, I return to GS, as a tentative and potentially short visit. I make a heartfelt plea to keep emotions, petty squabbles and general bad behaviour shelved in this thread if you have any interest in responding to it.
The topic of discussion is philosophical: what do we really have in the new CMx2 engine and what are we to look forwad to come the WW2 release? Now, the general contentions of the CMx2 engines are many, but I think I have perhaps found three broad perspectives of which all debate and argument falls into:
1) that CMx2 is a mutational fail. Like many other strategy games of the past, it forsakes success in the past in many areas for a newness that allows it to be a sequal, but also changes the nature of the game to fit the evolving market, and seeks to enter new markets, effectively trying to keep the games feet in two worlds. Like many examples in the past: X-Com UFO defence nd Master of Orion comes to mind, a new genre, new engines and new settings are developed to renew the best of the old to keep as much of the old market a possible, and also appeal to new ones. With the key point of analysis being that the objective of the development process in the new engine was to keep both customers happy, it could not. Thus it is regarded as a mutation and massive fail by most of the old market and a passable new entry by new markets.
2) that CMx2 is a misunderstood chrysalis: This perspective views the development of the new engine as a similar species of the old CMx1, but understands that it involves a transformation that makes it near unrecognizable from its old iteration. Function, appearance, and purpose are now distinctly different in the new engine. What was plain, simple and easily understood, now is more artful, perhaps more beautiful, less understood yet enjoyable nonetheless. It cannot be viewed as a fail of any kind, but a caterpillar to butterfly transformation. The problem then becomes the narrative metaphor best outlined and explained by The Coil in his epic philosophical analysis of the CMx1 CMx2 debate (and thus the butterfly metaphor is extremely apt and appropriate for usage in this perspective). Both old and new markets play it, and enjoy it, but they sometimes also play the old. The real debate is over what CMx2 really is and the intellectual honesty of providing the proper taxonomy of dichotomous species: yes, it was a caterpillar, now it is a butterfly.... and more to the point, that reproduction includes a return to the caterpillar and the cycle repeats itself.
3) Last, the CMx2 engine has evolved into a new species. No longer Ape: now Homo Economicus. It is self aware and superior in every way to its primordial beginnings. The new species views its ancestors sometimes with curiousity while others will have no part in even noting that evolution exists, dogmatically and fundamentally sticking to their guns that divine creation explains all and that what only matters is the future. Thus Darwininists and Fundamentalists clash and battle atop completely polar philosophical and epistemological dias. The CMx2 is a creation of God, and CMx1 is a dirty lie that betrays the graciousness and goodness of the brand new market (religion) that now populates the userdom of CMx2. While there are religious converts from the old CMx1 beliefs, there is a (game) societal schism that breeds contempt and scorn. Some play it and love it, others don't play it and hate it. There are then the aethiests who play it but can't be arsed on the theology science debate.
So if you see it from a mutational perspective, it is a massive fail, but this is a point of logical fallacy because the examples of Xcom and MOO3 suggest that the line ends. CMx2 has not ended. It continues.
If you see if trom a chrysalis perspective, all you really are interested in is the debate over the honesty of the chrysalis process, and that you either can or cannot have both feet in two worlds: you are either a caterpillar or butterfly. Does the name then change? Is it dishonest to continue to advertise that you have a caterpillar when you actually have a butterfly? And when will it return through the cycle of life to the caterpillar once again?
If you see it from an evolutionary perspective, then it gets more complex. It beomes a matter of philosophical debate as to how the world may be studied: the world (CMx2) was made by God, the bible says so, and those who believe that CMx2 actually came from CMx1 should be burned at the stake for heracy. The evolutionary theorists mock the fundamentalists for their faith and call it stupidity. The world is torn into two polar camps that roll around in the gutter.
Those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.
Cheers!
Leto
The topic of discussion is philosophical: what do we really have in the new CMx2 engine and what are we to look forwad to come the WW2 release? Now, the general contentions of the CMx2 engines are many, but I think I have perhaps found three broad perspectives of which all debate and argument falls into:
1) that CMx2 is a mutational fail. Like many other strategy games of the past, it forsakes success in the past in many areas for a newness that allows it to be a sequal, but also changes the nature of the game to fit the evolving market, and seeks to enter new markets, effectively trying to keep the games feet in two worlds. Like many examples in the past: X-Com UFO defence nd Master of Orion comes to mind, a new genre, new engines and new settings are developed to renew the best of the old to keep as much of the old market a possible, and also appeal to new ones. With the key point of analysis being that the objective of the development process in the new engine was to keep both customers happy, it could not. Thus it is regarded as a mutation and massive fail by most of the old market and a passable new entry by new markets.
2) that CMx2 is a misunderstood chrysalis: This perspective views the development of the new engine as a similar species of the old CMx1, but understands that it involves a transformation that makes it near unrecognizable from its old iteration. Function, appearance, and purpose are now distinctly different in the new engine. What was plain, simple and easily understood, now is more artful, perhaps more beautiful, less understood yet enjoyable nonetheless. It cannot be viewed as a fail of any kind, but a caterpillar to butterfly transformation. The problem then becomes the narrative metaphor best outlined and explained by The Coil in his epic philosophical analysis of the CMx1 CMx2 debate (and thus the butterfly metaphor is extremely apt and appropriate for usage in this perspective). Both old and new markets play it, and enjoy it, but they sometimes also play the old. The real debate is over what CMx2 really is and the intellectual honesty of providing the proper taxonomy of dichotomous species: yes, it was a caterpillar, now it is a butterfly.... and more to the point, that reproduction includes a return to the caterpillar and the cycle repeats itself.
3) Last, the CMx2 engine has evolved into a new species. No longer Ape: now Homo Economicus. It is self aware and superior in every way to its primordial beginnings. The new species views its ancestors sometimes with curiousity while others will have no part in even noting that evolution exists, dogmatically and fundamentally sticking to their guns that divine creation explains all and that what only matters is the future. Thus Darwininists and Fundamentalists clash and battle atop completely polar philosophical and epistemological dias. The CMx2 is a creation of God, and CMx1 is a dirty lie that betrays the graciousness and goodness of the brand new market (religion) that now populates the userdom of CMx2. While there are religious converts from the old CMx1 beliefs, there is a (game) societal schism that breeds contempt and scorn. Some play it and love it, others don't play it and hate it. There are then the aethiests who play it but can't be arsed on the theology science debate.
So if you see it from a mutational perspective, it is a massive fail, but this is a point of logical fallacy because the examples of Xcom and MOO3 suggest that the line ends. CMx2 has not ended. It continues.
If you see if trom a chrysalis perspective, all you really are interested in is the debate over the honesty of the chrysalis process, and that you either can or cannot have both feet in two worlds: you are either a caterpillar or butterfly. Does the name then change? Is it dishonest to continue to advertise that you have a caterpillar when you actually have a butterfly? And when will it return through the cycle of life to the caterpillar once again?
If you see it from an evolutionary perspective, then it gets more complex. It beomes a matter of philosophical debate as to how the world may be studied: the world (CMx2) was made by God, the bible says so, and those who believe that CMx2 actually came from CMx1 should be burned at the stake for heracy. The evolutionary theorists mock the fundamentalists for their faith and call it stupidity. The world is torn into two polar camps that roll around in the gutter.
Those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.
Cheers!
Leto
Last edited:
