Years to turns....

[A.Saturnus]

Well telling someone their use of adverbs is sloppy is almost guaranteed to come across as an insult. Sorry to break it to you.

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.

Unfortunately while hurriedly typing out posts in my dinner breaks I often make glaring grammatical errors such as those that you have quoted above, and I often make quite a few errors anyway. I didn't come here claiming to be an literary expert, nor a an exemplary grammatist. Anyone that wasn't deliberately being pedantic could have easily worked out what I was trying to say.

I'm notoriously pedantic.

I'm at a loss as to how you can find that statement offensive. If you can recognise the target audience of the game, then you are not a CA apologist. And only the pedantic choose to deliberately rip apart the grammar of a post they don't agree with. It's as simple as that.

My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.


To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

[caravel]

Really? If someone would point out problems with the meaning of my wording I wouldn't find it insulting. I'm of the opinion that having errors pointed out is something one should be thankful for.

That depends on how the person "points it out". Let me give you some advice on your wording. Describing someone as "Sloppy" is not too diplomatic.

I'm notoriously pedantic.

"Notoriiously", as in, you go out of your way trying to be pedantic, to the point that many other patrons are well aware of it? That is often what we call "trolling".

My point is that if I can't recognise the target audience it would be arrogant and offensive to infere from that that I must be a CA apologist. In fact, what you said is a subform of the old "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid"-argument that has never enriched a conversation. And that's not pedantery.

Sounds like it to me:

I'm notoriously pedantic.

You're reading far too much into that statement, so much in fact it's hardly worth me trying to explain it to you again, but I will... The apologists I was referring to are those that fail to see the dumbing down of the game (check the interviews and press releases) for what it is, and go to great lengths to explain to the contrary, when it's glaringly obvious that it is plain and simple dumbing down in it's purest form. No matter how much CA change something for the worst, the apologists believe it's just a round about way of making the game even more challenging and strategic.

To summerize and come to an on-topic conclusion: our problems stem from a different use of language and the difficulty to transfere meaning online and we both aren't quite happy with CA's decision to drop years in favour of turns, we only differ in the amount we're prepared to look at the bright sight of it (if there's any). Agreed?

And now you're basically trying to force your own smug solution on me, to try and save face. In fact I'm not at all happy with the loss of years from M2TW, and their replacement with turns, but I actually got over it months ago. And our problems do not stem from any different use of language, but from your nitpicking overly pedantic style.

I'm now bowing out of this topic to avoid taking it any more offtopic that it is, due to your determination to save face and have the last word on the matter, this could go on forever. Basically you were insulting and your specific targetting of my post was unwarranted.

The statement I made about the "target audience" was perfectly true. CA themselves have made statements to the effect that M2TW will try to target a younger audience. They themselves named the age groups they will be aiming for. So this is why only the apologists I mentioned in that post are the only people refuting this. If you can see that CA have lowered the age barrier with the release of Rome Total War, and, from all of the news so far, intend to do so even more with M2TW, then you are not a CA apologist and shouldn't really feel offended, unless you're just being "pedantic"...

[econ21]

EDIT: I locked this thread temporarily as it seemed to have run its course, but I have been asked to re-open it in case anyone has anything new to contribute on the subject.