History or Gameplay

[HopelessCelt]

When you buy a game or download a mod, what do you look for in the game?

Do you look for a game which makes you play through history?
Do you look for a game thats lets you re-write history?
How about games set in the future?

Please select from the choices

Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[John86]

It has to be somewhat historically accurate. If it isnt at all (Stronghold: Crusader) i cant bare to play it, its like watching the english version of a good Anime, it embarrass' you.

[Seven.the.Hun]

history is to be learned...and applied...
as to the games/mod...
boredom vs. UNboredom... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tepes]

I surely prefer games to be historically accurate as much as they can be. i don't think that respecting history can seriously affect the gameplay, but it makes the game more enjoyable.
Also sometimes it can be nice to re-write history (like helping the Byzantines survive or winning WW2 as Germany).

[Red Yak]

It really adds to game if it is grounded in history, but it shouldn't have an adverse affect on gameplay. Nothing worse than being 'hosepiped' so that your decisions have no effect on the overall outcome of a game.

[Knight_Yellow]

A game without history can be classic.

A game without gameplay is doomed to failure.



Why is it that in MTW you are given the chance to rule europe yet you are bound to specific dates and times for units when you technicaly should have been able to build them years ago.


Or why is it that some Factions can only train some specific units.

surely if in history the french or germans had conquered britian then they would have used longbows and highlanders and gallowglasses just like the english did.



Why is your nation that produces 95% soldiers only getting valour upgrades for horses or archers?

History is ok, but theres some examples of how even in MTW it impedes gameplay.

[Sociopsychoactive]

I love starting out historical but then not making the mistakes those ntions did. For example I start early.expert/english, fight the first half of the hundred years war as it went then kill Jean of Arc stile aggression as soon as it arises.

I play the byzantines and use their vast monetary resources to field an army and when the turks aggressivly attack they tend to get quite far in, but fall to a cunning ambush near constantinople.

As the holy roman empire I suffered decedance and defeat, only to side with the rebels in a civil war and charge on out, expanding wildly.

I temnd to look at the mistakles made in history and counter them, though saying that, I wouldn't be half as good without hindsight assisting me, when I get past the time of historical examples I tend to go a little crazy...

[Jeff]

I voted for Somewhere in between. I agree that a game, such as a strategic game base on Medieval Europe, has to be at least grounded in history. Obviously many games have nothing to do with History and those are excluded. But when talking about games based on Historical periods, events etc. I think that they have to be somewhat grounded but shapeable. The game has to have gameplay otherwise it will fail. But in some respect it has to have roots in reality to keep the gamer interested and intrigued. I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone but me but hey it's my 2 cents.

[nightcrawlerblue]

I like a bit of history in my games but not too much. If it does anything to hamper the gameplay then I don't like it. However, certain games are made to include history and it will work very well when some others don't have the right gameplay mechanics and can make it a miserable failure.

[Gregoshi]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Greetings HopelessCelt and nightcrawlerblue. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif Thanks for joining the ranks of the Org.

I'm somewhere inbetween. The ideal would be a fun, exciting game that is 100% historically accurate, but the ideal is only a fantasy. K_Y nailed it:


Quote[/b] ]A game without history can be classic.

A game without gameplay is doomed to failure.


A 100% accurate game on Custer's Last Stand is not going to be very much fun if you are playing Custer, unless you play with the historical facts/situation. Both sides need to have a chance to win - which is part of gameplay.

[kiwitt]

I like the opportunity to re-write history. MTW, allows that in every campaign. You start with historical starting points (and with Med Mod even more historical units and more historical limitations) and then make your own history, with other event, i.e. compass, gunpowder, Mongols, still occuring.

[Togakure]

I voted Somewhere in between.

As with most things, balance is key. One reason why Shogun appeals to me more than Medieval does is that it seems to do a more artful job of balancing historical accuracy and detail with gameplay. I very much enjoy Shogun's attention to relatively minute historical details--little things like famous leaders appearing in the clan and at the approximate time that they did historically. Features like this are transparent to the gamer who is gameplay-centric, but add considerable pleasure to the historically inclined.

I missed this kind of unobtrusive depth and detail in Medieval. Shogun did a better job of providing it, without introducing the extreme level of micromanagement present in MTW. Yes, there are governors, but part of the art and challenge of game design is to create depth and detail without the need for such gameplay crutches (incidentally, I'm one of those that never uses governors in a game--a significant part of my satisfaction is derived from being personally responsible for every action and result). I'm not against the incorporation of automation features like MTW governors in games--my position is that an optimally-designed game would not require them.

That being said, if a critical decision had to be made over an issue between historical accuracy and gameplay in the development of a game, I feel that gameplay should take precedence. There are a lot more people who play these games primarily to have fun and enjoy themselves than there are those who indulge in them to relive, virtually, the minute details of history.

[PseRamesses]

It´s the constant dilemma with strategic games based on history since the player mess up his own history by making choices that wasn´t made in real life. I voted somwhere in between since it´s near impossible to create a 100% accurate game based on history.
I love EUII since it´s the gamethat portraits history in the best way. I love Civilization, heavily modded, because you can create your own history based on human evolution, progress etc in a fairly realistic way.
I started PC-gaming with CivI and taken the evolvement of games into count for the last 15 years you can all imagine what super realistic games we´re going to be playing in yet another 15 years. I know that in the furture there is going to be a game that´s darn close to the real thing.
At present I´m just having wet dreams of crossbreeding EUII with the TW battle engine and with Civilization´s gamemap. I guess I have to drop Santa a note.