Gameplay vs. Reality All Against practicality.

[TyBoy]

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, one could pick something else instead, but something that would meaningfully improve gameplay)?

 

[bite]

Where possible you should be shooting for realism or practical realism as it adds to the immersion, however, Gameplay>Realism

 

[KeyCey1995]

It all depends ONLY on gameplay, however realism is often a great part of the gameplay...

It's like asking if I want a good game or a realistic game...
It doesn't make sense.

 

[Psyringe]

I don't think this is really a reasonable scenario, since you haven't described any kind of tradeoff.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite see your point in the context of my question. The reasoning I put forward is, imho, pretty reasonable. A number of people said they'd prefer "gameplay" over "realism", with gameplay being defined as "what kicks realism into the face", even when offered a middle option. So I described a scenario that kicks realism into the face. If realism is as insignificant as the respective voters think (which they must, since otherwise they would have chosen the middle option), then they must enjoy my scenario exactly as much as the actual Civ5 game, since the two only differ in a category that they deem as insignificant (realism) while being identical in the category that's important for them (gameplay). Since they probably would _not_ enjoy it in the same way, that's a hint that realism may be more important for them than they thought.

I don't really see the point in asking my question in the way you do. That would basically mean asking "Will people to whom gameplay is important prefer positive changes in gameplay over not making these changes?", to which the answer of course would be yes. What's the supposed gain of insight of asking that question in the context that I described for asking mine?

I think you're simply on different train of thought, though not a bad one. . For example, if your goal was to improve the original poll, then your approach of focusing on the tradeoffs would definitely be capable of doing that. But I didn't even reach that far in my example - my main purpose was just to show that the extreme positions (as depicted in the poll) can't be sensibly and truthfully chosen if a middle option is also present. For that purpose, my question is actually more suitable than yours. But if we ask how the poll could be improved by using non-extreme positions, then yes, your way of asking would be the way to go.

 

[TyBoy]

Well, the poll asks which is best. I don't think voting for one or the other implies that you place absolutely no value on the other, just that you think one is best. In the scenario you described, you sacrificed realism without gaining any advantage in gameplay. Therefore, completely independent of how much value you place on gameplay, if value realism at all then it would be a net loss. Even in the situation where you truly did not value realism at all you would merely be ambivalent about the change.

I think we're probably just interpreting the poll quite differently, which wasn't obvious to me from your first post but in the context of your second post I can see it in there. It sounds like you are interpreting the poll as a choice between:
1. I would take any small improvement in realism regardless of how catastrophic it was for gameplay.
2. I would take any small improvement in gameplay regardless of how catastrophic it was for realism.
3. Everything in between

In which case almost nobody should have picked anything but the compromise. The first option is just inconsistent with people who play computer games. The second means you see civ as nothing more than a complicated puzzle game with an odd interface, which is possible but it's unlikely half the people voting see it that way. The third is everything else. Under this interpretation the second option wouldn't care about the scenario you described (which is not to say that they would like it) while the other two would consider it a bad thing.
I may have gotten 1 wrong, but any other interpretation of 2 (gameplay) means that there is no vote in the poll represents a denial that the scenario you described would be a bad thing, which is what you suggest in your conclusion. I doubt anyone would realize that they value realism if the changes you described were made because I it's not my interpretation that anyone has suggested they place absolutely no value on it.

I think it's more likely that people who voted "gameplay" rather than the obvious have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too "practical realism" were trying to convey that they place much much less value on realism than gameplay and would consider a fairly large sacrifice in realism worthwhile if it improved gameplay.