Historical Realism vs Gameplay

[Tee Kay]

What is more important to you, historical realism/representation/accuracy or balanced/fun gameplay?

It seemed that, in the running up to BtS release, people here are more concerned with what leaders/civilizations/religions will be in the game rather than the actual gameplay which I think is missing the point of the game entirely. I mean, this is a game where Egyptians start next to the Aztecs and Spain found Islam and Mongols build the Great Wall. The point of the game imho is not recreating history but rather changing history. Sid admitted himself (in an interview somewhere, I'll post the link here if I can find it) that the game was never meant to accurately represent human history. Now I believe there needs to be a balance between historical accuracy and gameplay, but overall I believe gameplay is more important.

Vote and discuss.

 

[Ethric]

In any game, Civ certainly included, gameplay should come first. Realism should be a low priority. Logic ought to be present though, and there are a few issues I think needs rethinking. Logic and realism do overlap, but I stick to logic (as in it should make sense) as opposed to realism, because the latter often winds up with "But that's not how it is in real life", which isn't all that important in a game. Albeit more important in Civ than in "Radioactive Monkey Bonanza III: The Revenge" and similar titles

 

[RedRalph]

I think the gameplay is already pretty well balanced, I like the histroical realism aspect of it a lot, I usually play on the Earth or Europe (with accurate starting positions, religions etc) maps, I just think its kind of cool to be taking cities in their real locations, to have real life tensions because of close borders between, say France and Germany, etc. I wouldnt want too much more realism at a big cost to gameplay, but I really do prefer real life maps, situation etc.

 

[peter450]

historical realism is important, but more in the way things work rather than how history unfolds, historical plausablity i'd term it.

So spaceships in 4000BC would have zero, historical plasaubility aswell as realism.

While the zulu's running around with tanks & nukes, also has zero historical realism, but is historicaly plausable, had the climate & geography in africa been differant then perhaps it would be african nations who developed the fastest into industrial societies rather than european nations.

 

[Imperator1984]

Lack of historical accuracy has always bothered me. I usually play as Spain or Germany in Rhyes and Fall 600 A.D and certain things get to me as time goes on.

For instance, Turkey, in the time period where the Byzantine Empire is declining, always converts to Judaism! which is absolutely ridiculous. I know there are historians that claim Kemal Ataturk was part Jewish but he wasn't around back in the 15th century. The Turks were and still are Muslims. This part of the timeline in the game bothers me so much I feel compelled to always burn down the Jewish holy city of Urshalim.

Another thing, how in the bloody hell is Adolf Hitler not one of the options for leader of Germany, especially in the ww2 mod!, ridiculous. Is it a feeble attempt by the creators to try and pretend as if the man never existed? and don't give that "he was a monster" bs because Hitler was a puppy dog compared to some of the other leaders in the game.

One thing I am very glad of about CIV 4 is there is no ridiculous Zulu "civilization"(well at least in Rhyes and Fall). I used to play alot of Civ DOS and the Zulus would build a massive army of planes and ships all the while in reality they were never even capable of discovering the wheel or even the most basic animal domestication. Savages aren't capable of creating let alone sustaining a civilization. This is why I think the spear chucking "Impi" unit is much more fitting for Sub saharan Africas barbarians.

I'd like to see a Crusades mod, Napolean scenario and maybe a good "Americas" scenario, one in which the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and natives could really fight it out.

 

[Colee]

I like to think of civ as a "historical simulator". Which for me means that I am perfectly okay when Spain, being the neighbor of the Chinese, founds Buddhism - the important thing for me is that the game models history-as-it-could-have-happened, and that it uses the "real" historical principles that shaped human history. E.g. balance-of-power, how communism was successful in gaining military power swiftly but was economically unsustainable in the long run etc.

Every rule or game feature that erodes that 'model' is a painful compromise for me for the sake of gameplay. In particular, I think that the modeling of communism was much better in Civ3 than in Civ4, unfortunately.

 

[LemonJello]

I never thought about the historical accuracy...I just liked trying to take over the world in various and sundry ways. If you could simply choose 1)a color for your flag/territory, 2)leadership traits/characteristics that fit your style of gameplay, 3)era/type of unique building or unit, and there was no "historical" factors? I think I'd still play the hell out of this game. The history is just there to flavor things.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Historical realism is all well and good and always a welcome aspect, but gameplay is more important.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

One thing I am very glad of about CIV 4 is there is no ridiculous Zulu "civilization"(well at least in Rhyes and Fall). I used to play alot of Civ DOS and the Zulus would build a massive army of planes and ships all the while in reality they were never even capable of discovering the wheel or even the most basic animal domestication. Savages aren't capable of creating let alone sustaining a civilization. This is why I think the spear chucking "Impi" unit is much more fitting for Sub saharan Africas barbarians.

I'd be careful about sayig stuff like that on a public forum. Personally it doesnt offend me, but there are poeple here who probably will.

 

[Ringan]

I definitely want gameplay to be good, but historical realism matters a lot to me. The biggest example of this is the caravel.

I hate that the caravel can't transport settlers or soldiers. In history, the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were all caravels. Seriously, what keeps large ships from bringing a colonizing force? Not to mention that in Civ 2 caravels could carry anyone. So this was the first thing I changed when I learned how to mod.

Historical accuracy is hard to define in a game where you are rewriting history. But for me I would at least like military units and technologies to be fairly consistent with their historical roles (like not bringing trebuchets around with riflemen). And the spearman defeats tank thing has always been something I kind of tolerated, but wish didn't happen.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

To hell with accuracy, if you want accuracy, domination victory would never be possible. There is no such thing as a diplomatic master of the universe, either, so UN diplo victory is gone. And I'm pretty sure that members of rival religions would rise up and revolt against a Religious leader voted to head of the planet by the AP formed of mostly people of that religion.

 

[Colee]

To hell with accuracy, if you want accuracy, domination victory would never be possible. There is no such thing as a diplomatic master of the universe, either, so UN diplo victory is gone. And I'm pretty sure that members of rival religions would rise up and revolt against a Religious leader voted to head of the planet by the AP formed of mostly people of that religion.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? In Real Life, nobody has won the game... YET.

 

[Perfxion]

Lack of historical accuracy has always bothered me. I usually play as Spain or Germany in Rhyes and Fall 600 A.D and certain things get to me as time goes on.

1: For instance, Turkey, in the time period where the Byzantine Empire is declining, always converts to Judaism! which is absolutely ridiculous. I know there are historians that claim Kemal Ataturk was part Jewish but he wasn't around back in the 15th century. The Turks were and still are Muslims. This part of the timeline in the game bothers me so much I feel compelled to always burn down the Jewish holy city of Urshalim.

2: Another thing, how in the bloody hell is Adolf Hitler not one of the options for leader of Germany, especially in the ww2 mod!, ridiculous. Is it a feeble attempt by the creators to try and pretend as if the man never existed? and don't give that "he was a monster" bs because Hitler was a puppy dog compared to some of the other leaders in the game.

3: One thing I am very glad of about CIV 4 is there is no ridiculous Zulu "civilization"(well at least in Rhyes and Fall). I used to play alot of Civ DOS and the Zulus would build a massive army of planes and ships all the while in reality they were never even capable of discovering the wheel or even the most basic animal domestication. Savages aren't capable of creating let alone sustaining a civilization. This is why I think the spear chucking "Impi" unit is much more fitting for Sub saharan Africas barbarians.

4: I'd like to see a Crusades mod, Napolean scenario and maybe a good "Americas" scenario, one in which the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and natives could really fight it out.

1: Jewish people moved from the middle east into mainland Europe. The problem was that it was being repressed all over those lands around the 15th Century. All three religions were all over those lands but Islam became the dominant religion eventually. So it isn't so highly inaccurate in terms of realism.

2: There might be somewhere around 500 threads on this board alone spanning something on the line of 50000 pages on this subject. The gist of the subject is that it is ILLEGAL to sell the game in Germany with Nazism or Hitler being shown. The game uses the closest person that can be shown of any power. And it would make NO sense to make multi versions of the game just so a few people can get all "hail Hitler". It is not being PC its just comes down to the money. Why get your product banned in a hot market just because of a little code and a picture showing a person who is banned.

3: Ignoring the racial overtones in your post, which are pretty petty and ******** showing your complete ignorance; There were no planes at all durring the height of their power. However, if they were to survive to the modern times I am willing to bet that they would have planes. Its no different than saying in the 14th century that any European nations with guns is so wrong because they are two backwards to even know which way to point them. BTW, they did win a battle against the "mighty civilized" British.

4: I agree but I would like a Knights Tempular unit in the regular game.

 

[MasrTheEgyptian]

as a matter of fact the more the game gets deviated from history the more I like it
Saladin adopting Jaudism or Roma and Britain adopting Islam is kinda of fun
or Shaka dominating the world and vassilising America is so funny to see

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? In Real Life, nobody has won the game... YET.

VERY deep . No one civilization can ever "win". The human race together as one can be the only clear "winner". That's a far cry from the current status of our species.

Think about that... lol.

 

[Colee]

VERY deep . No one civilization can ever "win". The human race together as one can be the only clear "winner". That's a far cry from the current status of our species.

Think about that... lol.

Right, try explaining that to Monty.

 

[onedreamer]

Obviously gameplay. When I want historical accuracy I read books, and even then I am aware that they aren't as accurate as one would think.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

What is more important to you, historical realism/representation/accuracy or balanced/fun gameplay?

WHOO-WEEE! If that isn't the most unbiased statement I've ever seen!

Okay, now seriously... you're framing the question in terms of fun vs. realism... hmm, which do think most people will pick? Honestly! It irritates me to no end when people do stuff like this. Obviously, the answer is both! Realism can be adequately captured without compromising balance. To me, a lot of the "little" things, which have no bearing on balance, add up to realism: things like unique great people names instead of one broad list for everybody, or actually getting the unit names and pedia entries correct. (It's the legion, not the praetorian, you idiots!!! Where did Firaxis learn its history--from Gladiator? )

There always has to be some sacrifice for the sake of the game, but in the end, I prefer "fun realism." There is no dichotomy here. You may have both. We need to stop perpetuating a false conflict and thinking in purely one-dimensional terms.

To use a more Buddhist line of reasoning, which you will no doubt prefer, Tails , to end the suffering, we must end the conflict; a good way to do that is through a deeper understanding of what it means to have "realism." It is not a case of "either/or" so much as it is one of "both/and."

 

[Spiceweasel]

Another thing, how in the bloody hell is Adolf Hitler not one of the options for leader of Germany, especially in the ww2 mod!, ridiculous. Is it a feeble attempt by the creators to try and pretend as if the man never existed?

2: There might be somewhere around 500 threads on this board alone spanning something on the line of 50000 pages on this subject. The gist of the subject is that it is ILLEGAL to sell the game in Germany with Nazism or Hitler being shown.

So I guess you were close: It's not the creators of the game, but rather the country of Germany who are trying to pretend he never existed.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Okay, now seriously... you're framing the question in terms of fun vs. realism... hmm, which do think most people will pick? Honestly! It irritates me to no end when people do stuff like this. Obviously, the answer is both! Realism can be adequately captured without compromising balance.

There always has to be some sacrifice for the sake of the game, but in the end, I prefer "fun realism." There is no dichotomy here. You may have both. We need to stop perpetuating a false conflict and thinking in purely one-dimensional terms.

It is not a case of "either/or" so much as it is one of "both/and."

What he said.