What do we want?

[Pedrun]

A more realistic civIII would become a more challenging the game pleasing the two kind of players. But it just cant get too complicated or it is going to scare a lot people away. Dirting the civ series name.

A complicated and super-realistic (really super) gameplay is a good idea for a new game though. Like Flight Simultor game did: scaring those who wanted a simple game but calling players who wanted reality(like me).

[Mathphysto]

Can we get a poll on this?

I'm with you, Pedrun. More reality = more fun (= more sales?)

[Pedrun]

For sure!!!

[Cyclotron]

As a game that is modeled after human interaction, I support realism in general. However, I find more and more extreme examples each day of historians who want a simulation, not a game. My reply:

Realism that stifles gameplay has no place in Civilization.

A silly poll... what would be your choices on the poll? This issue is so subjective and complicated any poll on the subject would not be representative of anything, or any particular issue.

You guys could be right... but when overdone, More Reality = Less choice = Less fun = one bankrupt game company

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Pedrun]

Less choices? Less choices!?! You completely miss understood us. More realism doesnt mean follow the history exacly the way it was. I'm talking about some (read lots) annoing things in the game that must be more ralistic.

-The time that takes to build a tile improvment: 100's of years with 10.000 men;
-the unrealistical kinds of government Republic x Democracy (how do you explain USA and many other countries - both?).
- The three levels to define a civ: Political, Economical and Social
-The importance of trade - has a small role in the game but it is everithing in real life today.
- The fall of empires when they get too big - it is a rule in real life but in civ "the bigger the better"
- Limited Diplomacy in civ2
- The colony system of europe is impossible to recreate in civ2
- Space doesnt play a thing in civ2, but in real life sattelites are the key to the future: giving tons of information and military uses.
- Militaries comes from nowhere when they are produced. They should come from the population.
- The religion role in society and in all history
- Barbarians played a big role in history - and formed important civilizations like the germans, the frenchs, the Mongols and others in civ2 they are really stupid and never form civs (they almost ask to die)
- Random events really were important
- Some armies made history winning because of their battlefield strategies really bigger armies like the Hebreus and the Germans defeating the Romans. Thhis is why i like the ceaserII combat style.
- Come on only 7 civs i dont think i have to talk about it

I could stay talking about many unrealities. Some changes on it could make a game a lot funnier and intead of giving less choices they were going to open the doors to really change history.

[Mathphysto]

Cyclo - I don't think the question is all that subjective. Do you prefer to see more detailed games, allowing greater realism? Or do you prefer playing a game for the game's sake?

And Pedrun is absolutely right - more realism can only mean more options. Because there are more variables to be managed, more factors to worry about. That can only mean that there are more strategies, more ways to play the game. If I wanted a perfect historical simulation, I'd read a history book. But we just want to develop alternate, realistic histories - independent of our true history.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Mathphysto on 05-12-2001 05:14 PM Cyclo - I don't think the question is all that subjective. Do you prefer to see more detailed games, allowing greater realism? Or do you prefer playing a game for the game's sake?

Realism takes different forms and has different meanings to different people, and that is subjective. So a poll of "how realistic should Civ3 be" is meaningless because it tells you absolutely nothing about what people do and do not want in Civ3.

I do prefer a more detailed game. However, I also play it because that's what it is: a game. And as a game, I should be able to make decisions that aren't neccessarily catalouged in human history.

quote: And Pedrun is absolutely right - more realism can only mean more options. Because there are more variables to be managed, more factors to worry about. That can only mean that there are more strategies, more ways to play the game. If I wanted a perfect historical simulation, I'd read a history book. But we just want to develop alternate, realistic histories - independent of our true history.

More factors to worry about, more details, etc. are a gameplay issue that I support. I am warning you about "bad realism", which is when a player becomes limited by the straightjacket of what has happened in the past in actual human history, and when a player becomes bogged down in irrelevant details like the fact that the passage of time is too "unrealistic." I agree with you for the most part; I also want to make alternate histories that are independent of our own. I'm just warning you, be careful of too much of a good thing...

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

Realism , sigh. For many people (including me) realism is a crucial part of the gameplay in a game like the civ series. I guess I do want it to act as a history simulator of sorts. Naturally, I don't want the player to be forced to replay Earth history as it has happened, what I like to see, though, is the inclusion of concepts that were important in our history.

Can there be such a thing as too much realism? Of course there can, but how much is too much? That is a very subjective question. Most people would say realism has reached too high a level when it starts detracting rather than adding to gameplay, but unfortunately this again is very subjective.

Although there can be too much realism in a game like civ, IMHO no game in the civ genre has even begun to approach this point yet (we have yet to see about Civ 3, of course, but I am quite confident it will not pass the point either).

That is not to say that some of the ideas on this forum are far too realistic and unimportant conceptually to be included in a civ style game. I once saw a busy thread talking about the plethora of ways in which floating glaciers would impact gameplay - need I say more. On the other hand, I do not like it when people position themselves as defenders of gameplay against "the onslaught of realism". I will say it again: The scale of realism that is good for gameplay is subjective for different players and many of us find increased realism (at the point it is now, anyway) as enhancing gameplay. For many people realism is part of the fun.

[Roman]

Oh, well, cyclotron7, you posted at the same time I did. I must say, I completely agree with your last post.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-12-2001 07:36 PM Can there be such a thing as too much realism? Of course there can, but how much is too much? That is a very subjective question. Most people would say realism has reached too high a level when it starts detracting rather than adding to gameplay, but unfortunately this again is very subjective.

Unfortunately, many of the points we take here are subjective.

quote: That is not to say that some of the ideas on this forum are far too realistic and unimportant conceptually to be included in a civ style game. I once saw a busy thread talking about the plethora of ways in which floating glaciers would impact gameplay - need I say more. On the other hand, I do not like it when people position themselves as defenders of gameplay against "the onslaught of realism". I will say it again: The scale of realism that is good for gameplay is subjective for different players and many of us find increased realism (at the point it is now, anyway) as enhancing gameplay. For many people realism is part of the fun.

Realism is not in itself bad; I hate it when people get me wrong, that I want Civ3 to be a game of chess with better graphics. "You don't like realism, huh? Then you obviously shouldn't play Civ!!!" That's what makes me sigh. I think that realism can go too far, and we all know that... and I think that realism is not itself an end. A great game can still be great without realism, simply by gameplay value, but a very realistic game with abominable gameplay won't come off the shelves. Realism itself should not be the goal. IMO, any meaningful and beneficial proposal:

1) increases gameplay and strategic depth
2) provides greater realism
3) should be more fun!

So there... realism is part of the fun. Just as long as you apply realism with better gameplay and make sure it is enjoyable.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

LOL, , now I seem to have posted my reply to your last post, while you were typing a response to mine. As I said, after you explained yourself in the thread which you posted while I was typing mine - I agree with you.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-12-2001 08:11 PM LOL, , now I seem to have posted my reply to your last post, while you were typing a response to mine. As I said, after you explained yourself in the thread which you posted while I was typing mine - I agree with you.

Heh, oops... my timing was off! Still a valid point by me, if I do say so myself...

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Mathphysto]

Cyclo- I agree with your list of what makes a good suggestion. About the subjective aspect of the question, though - the idea of "more realistic" is not at all subjective. It can be measured in the following way: if I were to choose a certain point in time, ascribe to the AI personalities befitting of the real leaders, and inputed the other statistics of the day (tech levels, military states, unemployment, whatever), would the short term behavior of my program match history better than another program? In other words, greater realism corresponds to more accurate modelling of society/politics/economics/conflict/etc.

The question of realism is simply putting forth the question, "can my program accurately model reality, or at least more accurately model reality than this other program?" Approaching this scientifically, there is absolutely no subjectivism. It is no more subjective than the question "does my theory of quantum mechanics accurately model reality, or at least model reality more accurately than classical mechanics?"

What is subjective is the notion of "too much." Being computer gamers, "too much" to us is when gameplay becomes incomprehensible and tedious. To sociologists, economists, and others, there is no notion of "too much" since realism is everything that they are interested in. I agree with your gamer stance on the degree of realism, but you can't tell me that realism is subjective, because I can objectively measure it.

[Mathphysto]

There are many good ideas out there which, if implemented, would radically change Civ and make it much more realistic. For some (many? most?) of us, we would welcome such realism. That is what we find appealing about the idea behind Civ - the idea of recreating history, of seeing how we would fare the trials of time. And the measure of our success would be determined by comparing our games to real history. That is why some of us feel satisfaction at having carriers and tanks in 1000 AD.

However, there are others (how many?) who do not play the game for such reasons. They may play it for the same reasons as many play chess - to test their skills at winning a game, to simply be the best.

So why do you play Civ? This is important, because it indicates what changes you would like to see. Should Civ become more realistic? Or should that be the role of a new and different game?