I would love to see some discussion over where the line should be drawn for Gameplay vs realism while factoring in practicality. For an example of realism please go here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=419103 For an example of a bit more practical realism go Here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=420550 or Gameplay look at the real game. Quick breakdown, Realism is close to real life as possible. Practical Realism is Realism that won't totally screw up balance and Gameplay. Gameplay is having the ability to kick realism in the face.
Gameplay vs. Reality All Against practicality.
- Thread starter Scios
- Start date
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
As a history lover, I prefer practical realism. CiV improves that in multiple ways, i.e. 1UPT and CSs.
I think practical realism is the very obvious answer. It is the essence of the game. Gameplay is more important than realism, but you want as much realism as you can get without negatively impacting on gameplay.
Psyringe
Scout
What Camikaze said.
The poll doesn't make much sense since there is an obvious answer. Very few people prefer realism that makes the game unplayable, or gameplay that (as the OP said) kicks reality in the face. Apart from a few extremists, most people will agree that a balance between realism and gameplay has to be struck somewhere. They just disagree in where exactly the lines should be drawn. Or, in terms of the poll - what's "practical" for one player, will be impractical or "too far off" for another. Hence, the poll not only has one obvious answer, it also has this obvious answer so vaguely specified that there's no way to tell what the people who chose it would think about any specific design decision.
The poll doesn't make much sense since there is an obvious answer. Very few people prefer realism that makes the game unplayable, or gameplay that (as the OP said) kicks reality in the face. Apart from a few extremists, most people will agree that a balance between realism and gameplay has to be struck somewhere. They just disagree in where exactly the lines should be drawn. Or, in terms of the poll - what's "practical" for one player, will be impractical or "too far off" for another. Hence, the poll not only has one obvious answer, it also has this obvious answer so vaguely specified that there's no way to tell what the people who chose it would think about any specific design decision.
lordsurya08
class-A procrastinator
In many cases, realism is the most practical option.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Prefer gameplay, but it has to be grounded in history. If you just make something up because it's good for gameplay, the game loses its appeal as leading a Civilization through history. The best thing is to plan good gameplay and then try and rework it so it makes sense historically.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Since civ is a game I want to have fun playing it. There is very little realistic about civ, people telling you otherwise are kidding themselves imo. The way civ works is just too simplified in order to defend the stance that civ is even somewhat realistic.
Gameplay all the way.
Gameplay all the way.
TM Moot
King
gameplay > realism everytime..
but the more historically accurate it is the better
but the more historically accurate it is the better
SpearMan153
Prince
I'm with Sid on this gameplay wins every time
I would also add that for a historical themed game like civ part that a certain level of realism is required for good gameplay
I would also add that for a historical themed game like civ part that a certain level of realism is required for good gameplay
If "gameplay" where defined a bit more constructive rather than "how fun is the game" then the debate between gameplay and realism would be meaningful.
Gameplay should imo NOT include immersion, story and so on. If you change the skin of an archer to make it look like an alien, change the name to Alien and replace the bow and arrow with a magical power(but keep strength, build cost and so on), have you then changed gameplay?
Gameplay should imo NOT include immersion, story and so on. If you change the skin of an archer to make it look like an alien, change the name to Alien and replace the bow and arrow with a magical power(but keep strength, build cost and so on), have you then changed gameplay?
spider1
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 569
Since civ is a game I want to have fun playing it. There is very little realistic about civ, people telling you otherwise are kidding themselves imo. The way civ works is just too simplified in order to defend the stance that civ is even somewhat realistic.
Gameplay all the way.
I agree with this. Simply because of what it is (Civilization) it will always have a tad bit of realism thrown in with the UU and UA and some of the mechanics of the various units. But if the game isn't fun to play, then it isn't worth using any of your time on.
Randall Turner
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 679
They're not opposites, so they're not mutually exclusive. With the possible exception of "flavor" items like Mechs, which who's to say aren't realistic? They're an extrapolation of current technology. It's possible to have "realistic" and "unrealistic" sci-fi games, in other words.
Generally, realistic gameplay is good gameplay. If a system's "broken" or unbalanced, it's often because it's unrealistic, ie, doesn't simulate the real-world elements that give you diminishing returns for that system.
The opposite of "realism" is probably "abstraction" - the more abstract a game is, the less it has to do with the real-world events being simulated. But, you can have good or bad abstractions, giving good and bad gameplay.
I want good gameplay that's reasonably realistic. So I guess I can't vote.
Edit: "Abstraction" probably isn't the opposite of "Realism" either, now I think about it. "Abstract" and "Detailed" are opposite-ish, but detailed doesn't necessarily mean realistic. <shrug>
Generally, realistic gameplay is good gameplay. If a system's "broken" or unbalanced, it's often because it's unrealistic, ie, doesn't simulate the real-world elements that give you diminishing returns for that system.
The opposite of "realism" is probably "abstraction" - the more abstract a game is, the less it has to do with the real-world events being simulated. But, you can have good or bad abstractions, giving good and bad gameplay.
I want good gameplay that's reasonably realistic. So I guess I can't vote.
Edit: "Abstraction" probably isn't the opposite of "Realism" either, now I think about it. "Abstract" and "Detailed" are opposite-ish, but detailed doesn't necessarily mean realistic. <shrug>
Kerosene31
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2001
- Messages
- 402
Gameplay should easily be key in a game.
I don't get what history really has to do with any Civ game (other than a basic level with the leaders).
I don't get what history really has to do with any Civ game (other than a basic level with the leaders).
Fabiano1979
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 75
I really like the complexity of Paradox games, for example, but ciV is more fun than Europa Universalis (my opinion).
I think theres a perfect point of equilibrium between realism and gameplay that the games should try to achiev. At least try...
I think theres a perfect point of equilibrium between realism and gameplay that the games should try to achiev. At least try...
Psyringe
Scout
I am very surprised by the number of people who have voted for an option that has been described as "Gameplay is what kicks realism in the face".
Imagine Civ5 had been released with panzers and warriors switched around, all ship graphics substituted by horsemen galloping over the sea, while the ship graphics are used for mountaineering units on land. Theatres are now called supermarkets, Forges are called jabberwockys and require the bubblegum resource (which replaces iron) as well as the finger knitting tech, and Napoleon looks like Groucho Marx in a catsuit.
Would you really enjoy that game exactly like you enjoy Civ5? Remember, the gameplay stays _exactly_ the same. All I did was changing labels to reduce the "realism" part that you deem insignificant, so there shouldn't be a difference.
I suspect that most of the people who voted "gameplay" appreciate having at least a _bit_ of realism more than they know (or want to admit).
Imagine Civ5 had been released with panzers and warriors switched around, all ship graphics substituted by horsemen galloping over the sea, while the ship graphics are used for mountaineering units on land. Theatres are now called supermarkets, Forges are called jabberwockys and require the bubblegum resource (which replaces iron) as well as the finger knitting tech, and Napoleon looks like Groucho Marx in a catsuit.
Would you really enjoy that game exactly like you enjoy Civ5? Remember, the gameplay stays _exactly_ the same. All I did was changing labels to reduce the "realism" part that you deem insignificant, so there shouldn't be a difference.
I suspect that most of the people who voted "gameplay" appreciate having at least a _bit_ of realism more than they know (or want to admit).
I am very surprised by the number of people who have voted for an option that has been described as "Gameplay is what kicks realism in the face".
Imagine Civ5 had been released with panzers and warriors switched around, all ship graphics substituted by horsemen galloping over the sea, while the ship graphics are used for mountaineering units on land. Theatres are now called supermarkets, Forges are called jabberwockys and require the bubblegum resource (which replaces iron) as well as the finger knitting tech, and Napoleon looks like Groucho Marx in a catsuit.
Would you really enjoy that game exactly like you enjoy Civ5? Remember, the gameplay stays _exactly_ the same. All I did was changing labels to reduce the "realism" part that you deem insignificant, so there shouldn't be a difference.
I suspect that most of the people who voted "gameplay" appreciate having at least a _bit_ of realism more than they know (or want to admit).
agreed
Imagine Civ5 had been released with panzers and warriors switched around, all ship graphics substituted by horsemen galloping over the sea, while the ship graphics are used for mountaineering units on land. Theatres are now called supermarkets, Forges are called jabberwockys and require the bubblegum resource (which replaces iron) as well as the finger knitting tech, and Napoleon looks like Groucho Marx in a catsuit.
Would you really enjoy that game exactly like you enjoy Civ5? Remember, the gameplay stays _exactly_ the same. All I did was changing labels to reduce the "realism" part that you deem insignificant, so there shouldn't be a difference.
I don't think this is really a reasonable scenario, since you haven't described any kind of tradeoff. I think it's implied that when you say one thing is more important than another you'd be willing to give up some of that latter thing to gain some of the first. Let's say you did everything you describe, but in addition the AI now knows how to use ranged units as dynamically as a human player. Which game would you enjoy more (that may be an extreme example)?
Similar threads
