Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Steam: nonsense review-bombing strikes WH1 & WH2 ~ honest reaction

12345679»

Comments

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,666Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Folks, this conversation seems to have got on a merry-go-round. Same several folks have been making the same points for some time now, with only minor wording variations. That all are very controlled and within the T&C is the only reason why the conversation has been allowed to continue.

    We need to move on. Come up with something that adds to the conversation, and doesn't continue sounding like the same drumbeat. Agreeing to disagree is an honorable way to end a conversation.

    Thanks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users
    It was not fake. Moderator sure can reprimand forum user by telling them to keep discussion civil, by issuing warning, ban or locking thread. It was not a sensible advice, neither was 'if having female units upsets you that much', not to mention 'People saying they won't buy the game because there are too many women in it is fine with us - if that's their reason, we'd rather they didn't anyway.'

    I see, whenever I say anything that disagrees you just state bad faith like that means something. 'Politically charged' is in your head not Ella's or anyone else's, just take it for what it is, an employee mildly bored with the same childish comments and made a throwaway suggestion that she probably didn't give any thought to as probably did the other staff at CA.

    In that statement Ella was talking to some angry user who was calling her sexist and probably being a pain in the..

    10-15% is not rarely. If you avoid fielding female generals they will stack and occupy spots. Not to mention issue of technology is not the same as issue of biology.

    I've answered this. If you look there's a 65/35 birth rate in favour of male characters. there is a 1 in 10 chance but it's up to the player to make this choice. Someone has already said on this thread could people show a save game of vast amounts of women appearing it's just not happened. Whether women did appear 1 in 10 or not it doesn't matter as any less would mean they don't appear full stop and that would make it pointless. It's a sandbox game. Now you've never dealt with these points you've just repeated yourself or used the 'bad faith' line which is pretty meaningless.

    Unfortunately, I do. It is a fact that this comment is politically charged. Stating otherwise is arguing in bad faith, or worse, being unable to understand. Yes, it is vile and I loathe it.

    Yet here we are, CA doesn't agree with you so I have to wonder, who should I take advice from, CA and their management team, or an angry man on the internet? I don't think it's vile when a company backs their employee. So this very dubious position of claiming to be in the know is a clear delusion.

    Given examples prove women were at the head of armies. Prove they were commanders, strategists and tacticians. It was you who used word 'cute' few responses earlier. I have merely borrowed your word.

    But in your case you use the word to counter an argument and not to finish one. Your argument being well maybe women did have important roles but I'll bet it was a man who advised them. Yet you say this without evidence which seems to run through most of your arguments - don't let evidence get in the way of an entrenched view, eh?
  • KronusXKronusX Posts: 1,361Registered Users

    Do you see the future?If so, do tell us what is the upcoming DLC, since you seem to know already that 3K will sell well.

    It's called deductive reasoning. The chances of a major TW game flopping is unlikely as the evidence shows major lines sell better than previous, especially when 3K is going to open the Chinese market.

    Deductive reasoning works when we are discussing something that follows a continuous line. Deductive reasoning also did not take into account the fact they just announced a DLC 6 months in advance which might or might not work on the Chinese market. You are right, the game was pre-ordered but pre-orders can be canceled as well. That is the beauty of adding that option half a year in advance.

    I pre-ordered monster hunter world and one week before release I decided to cancel it because I had enough games and the game did not warranted my money due to potential bugs despite the fact that I pre-ordered it two months in advance.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users
    Premise 1: Warhammer 1 had release DLC
    Premise 2: Warhammer 1 sold well
    Conclusion: Release DLC is not a reason for a game selling badly

    Premise 1: All CA's major TW lines have all topped the PC charts
    Premise 2: 3 Kingdoms is a major TW release
    Conclusion: 3 Kingdoms will top the PC charts
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Posts: 2,591Registered Users
    I miss the early 2000s, back when the internet was new and fun and every corner of it was permeated by political tribalism.
    ò_ó
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Posts: 5,300Registered Users
    edited October 2018
    I see, whenever I say anything that disagrees you just state bad faith like that means something. 'Politically charged' is in your head not Ella's or anyone else's, just take it for what it is, an employee mildly bored with the same childish comments and made a throwaway suggestion that she probably didn't give any thought to as probably did the other staff at CA.

    In that statement Ella was talking to some angry user who was calling her sexist and probably being a pain in the..

    It means precisely what it says, you are arguing in bad faith. It is a fact, it was a passive aggressive and politically charged jab. Then you agree it was toughtless. Good. We are getting somewhere. Just our directions at different.

    Again, like a person of truly positive outlook you misinterpet quote chain in favour of CA_Ella. What-a-surprise-!

    Also ella will lock this thread when she sees for being 'sexist' #3

    User THEDOSSBOSS clearly suggests censorship of threads under pretense of sexism, not that CA_Ella is sexist.

    Not that it would excuse this comment under any circumstances.

    People saying they won't buy the game because there are too many women in it is fine with us - if that's their reason, we'd rather they didn't anyway.



    I've answered this. If you look there's a 65/35 birth rate in favour of male characters. there is a 1 in 10 chance but it's up to the player to make this choice. Someone has already said on this thread could people show a save game of vast amounts of women appearing it's just not happened. Whether women did appear 1 in 10 or not it doesn't matter as any less would mean they don't appear full stop and that would make it pointless. It's a sandbox game. Now you've never dealt with these points you've just repeated yourself or used the 'bad faith' line which is pretty meaningless.


    Notpicking female generals might end up with general pool bloated with female generals. Any less would mean that female generals would be truly rare, as they were. They would still have a chance to pop out. Bad faith continues.


    Yet here we are, CA doesn't agree with you so I have to wonder, who should I take advice from, CA and their management team, or an angry man on the internet? I don't think it's vile when a company backs their employee. So this very dubious position of claiming to be in the know is a clear delusion.


    I'm sure you will figure it out. When company backs employees in the wrong then yes, it is vile. Delusion? Oh, the irony.

    But in your case you use the word to counter an argument and not to finish one. Your argument being well maybe women did have important roles but I'll bet it was a man who advised them. Yet you say this without evidence which seems to run through most of your arguments - don't let evidence get in the way of an entrenched view, eh?

    It wasn't a counter but reaction. Not maybe, women did have important roles. Being a ruler is important. That is basic history. Councilors/advisors were in 99% cases males. Women did not receive management and military education. That is all there is to it. Yep, I'm all fine in me cozy trenches. I hear no whistle I see no reason.

    Post edited by Maedrethnir on
    Drowned in stars, bloated we shine.
    ... .... .... --··-- -. --- - . .- .-. ... ·-·-·- --- -. .-.. -.-- -.. .-. . .- -- ... -. --- .-- ·-·-·-

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users
    It means precisely what it says, you are arguing in bad faith. It is a fact, it was a passive aggressive and politically charged jab. Then you agree it was toughtless. Good. We are getting somewhere. Just our directions at different.

    Most people don't consider in some detail everything they say. You make it sound like it's some how a planned political strategy when it's just a way of saying. Calm down mod or don't play. That offends you? An example of 'arguing in bad faith' is believing what you say is obviously right without evidence. That's a perfect description of your argument.

    Again, like a person of truly positive outlook you misinterpet quote chain in favour of CA_Ella. What-a-surprise-!

    User THEDOSSBOSS clearly suggests censorship of threads under pretense of sexism, not that CA_Ella is sexist.

    Not that it would excuse this comment under any circumstances


    That's the only thing that was said? That one thing was said and that's why Ella shut it? I think not.

    I'm sure you will figure it out. When company backs employees in the wrong then yes, it is vile. Delusion? Oh, the irony.

    You don't run a business, you're not a community manager, you are unaware of the rules that govern the community manager position in CA.. yet you believe you know more than a successful company that's about 30 years old? Yes - everyone else is wrong...

    Notpicking female generals might end up with general pool bloated with female generals. Any less would mean that female generals would be truly rare, as they were. They would still have a chance to pop out. Bad faith continues.

    Puckle Guns were truly rare.. your point? Again your making a statement without evidence a if it's true - bad faith.


    "But the person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives ... and who directed the conduct of the entire war, was Boudica, a Briton woman of the Royal family and possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women".
    Cassius Dio - Roman Historian. Unknown



    It wasn't a counter but reaction. Not maybe, women did have important roles. Being a ruler is important. That is basic history. Councilors/advisors were in 99% cases males. Women did not receive management and military education. That is all there is to it. Yep, I'm all fine in me cozy trenches. I hear no whistle I see no reason.

    Women in the tribes that CA gave this option did have females who fought and led. Yep, no evidence is enough for a dose of good old dogmatism.



  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,666Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited October 2018
    Well I did post a warning. Apparently it was overlooked in pursuit of individual agenda, or possibly just ignored. Be that as it may, the thread is closed for any further discussion.

    Send me a PM if there are any questions or comments.

    Thanks.

    dge1
    Post edited by dge1 on
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
This discussion has been closed.