Less realism!

Is realism what we really want in a game?

The rising expectations of realism killed the wargames and military flight sim markets. It was costing more to make a realistic flight sim that would make the customers (and maybe more importantly the reviewers) happy with their rising expectations than they would ever hope to get back. These once thriving genres are now essentially gone (and I miss them).

The further you go down the path of demanding more and more realism the sooner Civ becomes a small niche title (at which point the big publishers won't touch it).

I would much rather have fun and excitement than realism.

If you want less realism, get Sim City.
Civ has gotten more popular as it became more realistic. This is the main attraction to the game.

I want realism!

I don't want realism. I want a game designed to be fun primarily, with realism thrown in as a secondary option.

Otherwise you get boring, way too detailed game that either give you entirely too much control (and thus entirely too many details to keep track off) or entirely too little control (and thus no fun because you have no idea what you are doing in the game).

I agree, playability over realism.

If you want realism, read a history book.

Originally posted by Denarr
If you want less realism, get Sim City.
Civ has gotten more popular as it became more realistic. This is the main attraction to the game.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, IMHO, SimCity was what came to mind as a franchise where adding more realism and details took away fun. The first was the most fun of that series to me.

It's a good thing that Soren has said that for each new feature and detail he adds one old one will be removed. He doesn't want to make a more complicated game. I thank you Soren.

I suppose that is a consideration I have overlooked.
I like the realism, but I don't like the sacrifice to simplicity that adding more realism usually requires. I only use about half the options in the game, and the only thing I let the city governors do is maintain city happiness.
So I guess that I should rephrase my original statement to: more realism without more commands.

My former boss once told me that if there was a problem with something, it was better to "fix the process, not the problem." If the game is not realistic enough, then add realism. NOT complexity.

I mentioned this in another thread (Evolving Traits), but it still applies. There are many tools in the game that haven't been put to full use. The tech tree, the trade system, etc. Each of these (relatively) simple systems has yet to be milked for what they're worth. Add to these systems. That should keep things simple.

The only "problem" that Civ3 has is its programming bugs, but that's off-topic. Civ3 was among the final eight in that popularity contest at Gamespy.com, Title Fight. Likewise, I hope that Civ4 can win awards and great reviews.

Almost every PC game we play has at least a dash of realism. For example, Half-Life has its arsenal of realistic weapons, but when "resonance cascades" bring aliens into the lab, the realism ends. Do you think you would have more fun without the fantasy in Half-Life? I think not. Bashing those weird creatures and surviving defines the fun in that game.

I don't think realism is the key to making a great game. It may be so in the sim genre, but not so for Civ. (I agree that simulation gaming has slowly become less popular.) I have fun aiming to conquer the world, though that's never been done for real. I have fun building the spaceship to Alpha Centauri, though that's fiction.

I will have my Civ4 made with extra fun, but with reality on the side.

I think that realism is truly needed only when it makes the game easier to handle. If something works too unrealisticly, then it is hard for people to understand the consequences of their actions, whereas simple realism can help in this. So if there are two equally simple systems and the other is more realistic, I'd tend to go with the more realistic one. Otherwise, realism has no value in itself. Games can never be, nor should they be realistic. They are always "simulations" and "approximations" of reality, and that is good. Adding realism has no purpose if done simply for the sake of realism.

Less realism does present a problem though, as I wouldn't either advocate the lessening of realism - except in some situations where the realism makes the game less fun, of course. As Myzenium here pointed out, we play games because they are NOT realistic, not because of the realism involved. The only reason human mind wants realism is that it can understand the game: if things work chaoticly, it is not fun. That's the exact reason why people are hating it when spearmen lose to tanks: it's not realistic! It isn't something that was supposed to happen. These are the situations where I would go for more realism - but only if it was not at the expense of playability or simplicity. That's my two cents.

As Myzenium here pointed out, we play games because they are NOT realistic, not because of the realism involved.

Click to expand...

Actually, Shyrramar, I was thinking that we play games to have fun. Seriously, I agree that realism is a necessary element in gaming because reality is easily understood. Example? Take a token from your favorite board game. Hold it. You can set it on the board, walk out of the room, and still know that it will be where you put it when you return (unless, of course, someone or something moves it while you're gone.) You understand easily that a set of tokens represent your position and your opponents' on the board.

Tokens are easily understood, as are units in Civilization. Add too much complexity to Civ, and you'll have each soldier represented in a unit, with respective weapons, armor, survival gear, fuel, food, etc. If Civ ever becomes so complicated, I might quit playing the new versions and play the old instead.

Reality is a necessary part of a gamer's diet (did you notice that I love culinary metaphors?), and I hope that like its predecessors, Civ4 will have a basis in reality, yet be more entertaining than any of them.

Actually, Shyrramar, I was thinking that we play games to have fun.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with you people!?

I think this game is awesome for it's realisem.
it alows one to emulate scenario's from real earth peramiter's, and do battle sequences that could actualy happen in real life.
so to me this is one of the best game concept's ever for its real life emulations, and this is what has made this game sell world wide and made it the #1 stratigy game of all time.

If you want fantasy and such, go play Might And Magic, civ is a reality based game concept and is going to stay that way.

I know. The realism of my 6000 year king astounds me. I really like how building a Pyramid allows my people to eat for millenia.

(And I won't even mention speatmen vs. tanks)

Realism isn't why I play Civ.

Hay civ's cool there's alot of fantasy mod's out there that are not realalitic at all, but I think that the realisim they incorperate, even in there fantasy setting's, along with sratagy is the reason people play the game.
I just think that the base game (civ4) should be as realistic as possible then editors (like Myself) can then change it into a fantastic fantasy, based off of realistic concept's. GOD I LOVE THIS GAME!!!!!!

The point about not wanting more realism isn't about wanting fantasy, it's about not wanting ultra-detailed economic models (that's you I'm talking to Aussie_Lurker and Tradeperor), or supply and ressource system, which woudl require too much focus on THAT area of the game at the expanse of the others.

In other words : the old KISS principle - Keep it simple, stupid.

A system with amounts of ressource and the necessity to spend them to supply units is not simple. A complex economic system like AL and TP suggested is definitely NOT simple. They are very realistic, almost life-like, but they require far too much of the player's focus on *that* area of the game, at the expanse of others, which an enormous epic game like Civilization cannot afford short of becoming a way too bloated game.

Definitely keep things simple otherwise it becomes too difficult for new people to pick up, start to play, and most of all appreciate the game...

Add as much realism without increasing difficulty...The economic and resource models are good enough if you ask me...There only some minor tweaking...particularly with the AI that need improvement as far as I am concerned...

When I think realism I think the Infantry and Spearman lines making a dash of sense, I think of Longbows belonging to England, I think of the Archer line being defensive as it was in history. I don't think of having supply lines and stuff... The game makes sense with its vague generalizations that are open for interpretation, putting in too much detail would not do any good.

Don't agree with you about longbow to england - I mean, yes, historically they were the one who built them, but Civ is not about duplicating history - it's about alternate history. If historically the aztecs had wanted to train a force of longbowmen, why couldn't they?

UUs which represent the fact that at a time in history, certain units of a certain type deployed by that nation enjoyed better training or equipment than their rival, or formed elite forces for that nation, I have no problem with (Samurai - though they should either be made a horse-based unit, or be altered to replace medieval infantry), Musketeers, Immortal, Legion, etc)

On the other hand, units which represent an entirely different kind of weapon being available only to one nation to replace another unit, I mind (War elephant ; the proposed longbowman idea, etc ; the war elephant especially as they were used by many others in history (although NO, Hannibal didn't get much mileage out of his) very much.

In my opinion hte game should better simulate the rise (and fall) of civs. That could be all background code