Gameplay or Realism? Which do you prefer (and why?)

A lot of the debate on this forum stems from this argument. Much more 'detailed', complex systems (ranging from accurate cities to militaries, better terrain to real victories) tend to heavily favor realism. I.e, there would be more elevations and terrain types, a spearman could never defeat a tank, etc. However, some of these realistic systems would sacrifice gameplay for many (through micromanagement, 'unfun' systems such as corruption or waste, etc.).

Ultimately, when you see the Civ5 box on shelves in the store, before you open that little flap on top to see what's inside, do you think "I hope it plays well" or "I hope it's realistic" first?

Immersion. I want Palace View, City View and more realistic scaling!

Oh its definitely got to play well, being able to master a game that works is the attraction for me. Realism is interesting and if they can get it as close as possible without sacrificing game play then I'm all for it. Let's just not lose focus that as a game with any longevity to it, its got to play well.

If you lose realism, you lose credibility. But, if you lose gameplay, you lose the fun.

You should have a balance, try to stay as close as possible to reality, but don't overdo it.

I like the way in which the others have put the problem. You need to consider how playable a game is, how manageable and how cost-effective. The guys at Civ. won't make a game for a few fanatics alone. It has to reach the tens of thousands (maybe more) of players out there. Hence, I think the way of the future is more custom-flexibility. So far, Civ 4 allows for customization, but I have no idea of programming, so I can't add anything. Civ 5 should allow for simple customization of the game, including and removing features--the more the better. I and others will like a long, very long game on large maps with realistic depictions and realism throughout, economically, socially and culturally--I love reality and I could contemplate for hours a beautiful city, with picturesque surroundings, diverse buildings and unique layouts. Others want to jump into battle quickly and don't want to deal with pollution, revolts, architecture, the micromanagement stuff. I would say the evolution of the game so far has been toward more realism--what role would cultural borders, great people, religions, etc. have if not to imitate reality? But some want to move faster toward total realism, others more slowly and never at the price of immediate gratification. So we need more customization possibilities.

I don't really think that the two are antinomic. There can be good and realistic gameplay.

But I generally think that reality is a very good inspiration in order to set good gameplay mechanics.

Indeed, you start to think out "it would be cool if i could do that", and you start to elaborate an idea on how to integrate this in a Civ game, taking account in the move of Civ initial mechanics.

As to realism by itself, it can be good when it gives you a great experience.

My experience was with Civ2, when i started, after a while of playing, to say to myself: "it is just like i'm ruling an empire among other empires". It was to the point where the player's civ starts to be surrounded. That experience was directly linked to reality. That was not "i play a dumb video game" but: "i rule a country". In Civ3&4, culture borders didn't allowed myself to say that to myself, because it was written on the map since the start of the game (cultural borders) That's why I prefer when the simplistic mechanics of the game make a link to reality through the player.

So yes, realism is important, but the more important is to let the player to probe it.

After all, Civilization was not designed to add a strategic or brain game to the video games, but indeed to let the player to rule an empire since the start of the civilization, within the simpliest (and most fun) way possible.

So that it is the experience that counts the most. No need to play on Deity, Settler will make it, or Noble if you want no difference except your brain against AIs and your civ. You think you are winning to easilly and outpassed the AI by a too great advantage, making the experience less tasty and confined only to what you did in a particular game? (example: war) Move up some difficulty levels, and you might feel another taste of Civ.

And about the experience, it is to say to live with a civilization from its start, what can civilization V bring more than we already experienced? Hard to tell. And I defy anyone to tell it. But sure, some of the new ways to manage food, science and production that are exposed in this forum are interesting.

I don't like this poll, because it forces me to ignore realism. For the simple reason that gameplay comes above all else. There is no point in instituting something that is realistic if it will be detrimental to gameplay. Having said that, however, realism is very important. The ultimate aim of any game aspect should be to be as realistic as possible without damaging gameplay.

Realism, without making the gameplay overdetailed and with 100 options where 2 would do.

But isn't gameplay what a game is really about? If gameplay is enhanced by improved realism (which is it to a large degree), then sure, go with it, but if it isn't, then gameplay still needs to be preserved.

Well then, ability to choose from 3 game types: Simple, Advanced, Realistic. I know there would be great differences in gameplay and would be totally different, but people could try those game modes and play on their favorite setting instead of just having to play the version, wether it is too realistic and unfun or too unrealistic for the player's taste.

It would be hard for the game developers to develop what would essentially amount to three separate games. There has to be a choice between them, and whilst I would think that realistic would be the best one, this should not come at the cost of gameplay.

But Realistic should be...realistic, even if it sacrifices a bit of gameplay. People may enjoy, while people can hate it and move to Advanced. If it is still too unfun, they move to Simple, which should be, in any case, the best gameplay option.

But it's impossible to have all three options, or even two. For them to fit into the correct categories, they would virtually have to be different games entirely.

Right...What to do then?

What to do is just to institute realism in the game, where it doesn't come into conflict with hindered gameplay. This could come through the institution of such things as a more complex economic system, that can be automated effectively, allowing for enhanced gameplay and realism. That is one of the key things here- automation. Once that can be achieved successfully with every concept, the game can be made more realistic without hindering gameplay for those that don't want to spend half an hour on every turn.

I'm not sure why Gameplay and Realism are considered mutually exclusive?

This isn't Tetris or Halo, it's Civilization. Thus the goal of the gameplay is to reproduce the dynamics of a Civilization, whether it be Egypt or Tolkien's Gondor. But Civ is so much more. It allows for different approaches to the game play that allows the player to better customize their experience.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they often are. To take it to an extreme, there was a good example I read recently about the trade-off between the two. If you want realism, then planning an amphibious invasion would take months of playing time, and would involve the movement of thousands upon thousands of units. But that's detrimental for gameplay, so a balance must be struck. And it's best, IMO, if that balance favours gameplay. But of course, wherever the two can exist in combination, they should do so.

Gameplay, or should I say gaming experience, is much more important than realism. If a realistic feature can't be added in a fashion that it enhances the gaming experience, it's simply not worth adding. You all play Civ, so you'll know that perfection is achived when there is nothing left to take away!

A "simple, advanced, realistic" option seems hopeless. The game would suffer as a whole. Instead, leave the job to modders.

When it comes to automation, that's not the answer. If it's possible to manually control and gain an advantage, then it's really not a free choice. However, if the automation is done so good that it's next to impossible to improve by doing it manually, then the fun of manually control vanishes.

Camikaze said:

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they often are. To take it to an extreme, there was a good example I read recently about the trade-off between the two. If you want realism, then planning an amphibious invasion would take months of playing time, and would involve the movement of thousands upon thousands of units. But that's detrimental for gameplay, so a balance must be struck. And it's best, IMO, if that balance favours gameplay. But of course, wherever the two can exist in combination, they should do so.

Click to expand...

I agree that realism can be represented poorly. The trick is to find interesting gameplay dynamics that best reproduces the dynamic of a civilization.

Realism that serves gameplay is good; realism that hinders gameplay is bad.

Also, when I want some accurate reality, there are many aspects of my life other than playing Civ which I can turn to.