Historical Realism vs Gameplay

[Tee Kay]

@ Gaius Octavious Octavius
When I say

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

this, I was not implying that there is a conflict between the two, nor was i implying that the two cannot coexist. I was simply surveying the good people of CivFanatics what they think.

Just to clear up the matter, yes I believe you can have both realism and gameplay. And yes realism can be included without compromising balance. The question here therefore is not "What would you choose, between realism and gameplay", but rather "Which of the two is more important to you personally".

 

[PieceOfMind]

Just to clear up the matter, yes I believe you can have both realism and gameplay. And yes realism can be included without compromising balance. The question here therefore is not "What would you choose, between realism and gameplay", but rather "Which of the two is more important to you personally".

I have to agree in part with Gaius Ocatavius' comments.

I would liken it to asking if oranges are more orrange than apples are green (no red/golden delicious apples please!), or if the brain is more important to human survival than the heart, or if Pavarotti was a better Italian Tenor than Michael Schumacher was a Formula 1 driver!

In other words it's a bit hard to answer. I might be tempted to say gameplay is more important to me but if realism were much worse than what it is in the game at the moment, I would be saying realism would be more important. Do you see what I'm saying?

I would say gameplay-wise the game is pretty good at the moment. So one could also say realism needs a bit of a boost.

 

[dragodon64]

In some cases, bending history is absolutely necessary for logical gameplay. For example, the Chariot beats Ax part of the ancient era triangle doesn't make any sense since chariots gradually disappeared as better infantry came about in the Mediterranean world.

But, mostly when it comes to choosing the leaders to represent a country, Firaxis could show a little bit more reason. I honestly don't buy that marketing with famous names part since it's hard to believe someone saying "OMG, this game has Shi Huangdi in it! Now I just have to get it!"

 

[Imperator1984]

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.

1. Being Jewish is not just a religion, it's also a bloodline. Not for one second at any moment in time was there a chance for non jews to be assimilated on a mass scale into Judaism, especially Turkic tribes(not including ninth century Khazaria).

2. Perhaps create a non censored version for the part of the world that doesn't live in the thought controlled EU(lalaland).

3."They", Zulus, sub saharan negroids are still alive today. You may be thinking of the "Hottentot" tribe that is now extinct, or the "bushmen" that were hunted for food by their bigger cousins, the Zulus. Their descendants have been destroying Rhodesia since 1980 and as we type, are also proudly working on the downfall and complete destruction of South Africa. You're either a moron or you've never had to live amongst a significant population of Negros. These "people", I use that term loosely, are not capable of creating let alone sustaining an advanced civilization(Rhodesia, case and point) . Therefore that's why it bothered me to build a massive civilization only to have it attacked by these magical, obviously fictional, "Super Negros".

Go back to sleep lil' lamb.

Moderator Action: Warned! - Racist Comments
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dante alighieri]

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.

Yeah, like me. Now i see why he spelled Canada with a "K".

 

[RedRalph]

Me too. Idiot

 

[kristopherb]

Yeah, like me. Now i see why he spelled Canada with a "K".

calm down no flaming please keep it clean

on topic i think its

15-85 divide 15% realism and 85% balanced its strategy history game but there's no-way you can represent everything in a game with out making it boring.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

calm down no flaming please keep it clean

on topic i think its

15-85 divide 15% realism and 85% balanced its strategy history game but there's no-way you can represent everything in a game with out making it boring.

I highly disagree. Though a game like Civ can never be 100% accurate, historical accuracy brings to the game a rich flavor as long as it remembers that it is a GAME. I am continually at a loss with people thinking historical accuracy=boring. There is no "rule" that say history and fun, balanced gameplay are mutually exclusive. One look at the RTW modding community would tell you just the opposite...

 

[tzarofrussia]

the point of this game is to see things that could have happened not that actually did.
for instance i just hate it when issabella founds buhdism
just not plausible at all

 

[boc4j]

...
i just hate it when issabella founds buhdism
just not plausible at all

If you check the option "choose religions" civs tend to found & convert to religions with more historical accuracy.
For example in my last 2 games, the first 2 religions founded were; Islam (Saladin both games), and Christianity (Justinian & Isabella).

 

[dante alighieri]

calm down no flaming please keep it clean

on topic i think its

15-85 divide 15% realism and 85% balanced its strategy history game but there's no-way you can represent everything in a game with out making it boring.

I didn't flame him, I made an observation, kind of like he did.

 

[Fugl]

Civ4 has little realism imo, its all gameplay for me, i dont care bout fancy graphics either, its all about having new worlds to explore on random conditions from start, and make the best of it, replayability is very long indeed

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

I love history, it's my favourite subject in school. But a game is a game, and the two can mix, but if I have to choose, I pick gameplay.

 

[dragodon64]

Since realism and gameplay aren't exclusive, instead of general arguement, it would be better if people actually gave examples of gameplay vs. realism and their opinions about it.

Ex. Civil Service allowing building of Macemen (WTH?). Ridiculous logically but no better tech from that time to give macemen

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

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.

As much as I love arguing this point, there are about 50 threads already on it, NO MORe!

 

[951]

1. Being Jewish is not just a religion, it's also a bloodline. Not for one second at any moment in time was there a chance for non jews to be assimilated on a mass scale into Judaism, especially Turkic tribes(not including ninth century Khazaria).

2. Perhaps create a non censored version for the part of the world that doesn't live in the thought controlled EU(lalaland).

3."They", Zulus, sub saharan negroids are still alive today. You may be thinking of the "Hottentot" tribe that is now extinct, or the "bushmen" that were hunted for food by their bigger cousins, the Zulus. Their descendants have been destroying Rhodesia since 1980 and as we type, are also proudly working on the downfall and complete destruction of South Africa. You're either a moron or you've never had to live amongst a significant population of Negros. These "people", I use that term loosely, are not capable of creating let alone sustaining an advanced civilization(Rhodesia, case and point) . Therefore that's why it bothered me to build a massive civilization only to have it attacked by these magical, obviously fictional, "Super Negros".

Go back to sleep lil' lamb.

Moderator Action: Warned! - Racist Comments
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Holy crap. These "people"? Are you serious? Are you really serious? That last paragraph is about the most bigoted statement this side of the 19th century. And, as a matter of fact, I have lived amongst a significant population of negroes. The vast majority of whom are more intelligent than your ignorant ass.

Back to the Klan rally Jeb.

 

[eric_]

When it comes to gameplay v history, I definitely choose gameplay. Its historical basis, however, plays in to the game beautifully, and has a lot to do with why I find it so engrossing.

That said, I don't think the game lacks realism, it's just not in terms of human history as it has played out in the geopolitical sense. The realism is more in terms of how societies interact, how technology and resources affect that interaction, and how all of these factors lead nations into peaceful cooperation or bitter wars. It is that aspect of the game that, imo, approximates reality quite nicely.

 

[dante alighieri]

Holy crap. These "people"? Are you serious? Are you really serious? That last paragraph is about the most bigoted statement this side of the 19th century. And, as a matter of fact, I have lived amongst a significant population of negroes. The vast majority of whom are more intelligent than your ignorant ass.

Back to the Klan rally Jeb.

He'll probably start a thread asking why his hero Adolf isn't in the game. I only wish racists could see how silly they look to everyone else. (everyone else meaning people with more than 4 brain cells.)

 

[dragodon64]

He'll probably start a thread asking why his hero Adolf isn't in the game. I only wish racists could see how silly they look to everyone else. (everyone else meaning people with more than 4 brain cells.)

What does this mean? As if you have no racist tendencies. Racism has nothing to do with stupidity or ignorance, though I am not denying many racist stereotypes are completely baseless.

 

[GenocideBringer]

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.

Balanced gameplay can be maintained in the face of historical accuracy. Of course we don't want to "recreate" history...that would be boring as piss. However, it's certainly possible that given a different geographic layout and some slightly different people/leaders that Mongols could have built a large wall to keep out invaders, or some guy in Spain could have entered a cave and come out, claiming to have spoken with God.

What happens in Civ is not necessarily historically accurate, but certainly historically feasible given a different earth.

Things that are not historically feasible that do not really contribute to gameplay should be cut.