Printable View
Historically Accuracy doesn`t really count much for me, it dependes what games we`re talking about. I like the way it`s done in RTW, like having a unit of head hurlers or incendiary pigs is ok for me as long as heads actually has been thrown in battles, or pigs actually set on fire, if only in one battle. Hence I think the battle priests is a bit on the edge, while the head hurlers is just a fun addition to the game.
I play to relax, not to study history, and I don´t want to have to study history in order to be able to play a game, so I couldn´t care less. As long as there´s a logic behind it, it´s fine with me.
It's pretty clear that something else is taking precedent over both historical accuracy and gameplay. Both of these things have taken big hits in Rome Total War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I find historical accuracy to be somewhat necessary if games are to be entitled ROME Total War or MEDIAEVAL Total War, at least close to accurate. There seems to be a view taken by some people here, that accuracy equals boring, in that history is mapped out and therefore cannot be changed. The Total War series are ' what if ' games so this should not be the case. Some elements have been adjusted for gameplay reasons and this is both understandable and acceptable but some border on the ridiculous to some of us. Having said this, I am willing to appreciate the target age of this game and units like headhurlers, pigs and screeching women offer some entertainment for those who want it. Perhaps a simpler method of removing these units other than modding them out would be a nice user friendly feature, since once the game is modded in any way, MP issues arise. So on the whole, a game that resembles history in some way is probably what we all want to see. At the end of the day there is no way to please everyone all of the time but for me, CA and Total War come closer than anyone elseQuote:
Originally Posted by Ciaran
........Orda
All games require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I know a little about this historical period, but I'm far from a history buff. So maybe some elements like the screeching women don't bother me as much as they do others.
The things that do annoy me are more common-sense violations of reality, like the fact that it can take two years to sail across the Med, when I'm trying to move my armies from Egypt to the Italy. That's ridiculous. They could sail to the South Pacific in that amount of time. I think I remember reading somewhere here, that the dev's slowed down movement speeds on the strategic map to adjust the progress rate of the campaign, but it still doesn't feel right.
Other:
when a mod or game is suposed to be hist. accurate I want it as accurate as it can get. point
But if a game/mod is a fantasy I really don't mind.
Yes, and when the battlelines charge that's where my suspension of disbelief gets blown out the window. It's so damn jarring that it's physically upsetting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
MikeB posted about that over at totalwar.com, and he said they tried longer movement distances but it turned the gameplay into a blitzkrieg. Now what I find strange is that the battlefield gameplay is a blitzkrieg. Why is there an inconsistency between the strategic game design and the tactical game design?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
You see , you did not read my post , never said "Cannae"...
"Finally on the 15th day, after a journey of five months from Cartagena, with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and only a few of the original 38 elephants, Hannibal descended into Italy, having surmounted the difficulties of climate and terrain, the guerrilla tactics of inaccessible tribes, and the major difficulty of commanding a body of men diverse in race and language under conditions to which they were ill fitted. Hannibal was subsequently able to increase the size of his army to about 30,000 by recruiting Gauls"
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm
"Hannibal's successes convinced the dictator of the Roman Senate, Quintus Fabius, that he could not defeat Hannibal on the battlefield. He decided instead to conduct a campaign of delays and harassment. Hannibal enticed the Romans, but few accepted the challenge. Rome began to gather a large army of about 80,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry to attack Hannibal in one large onslaught."
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...dPunic.CP.html
Well ?
Well apparently I cannot vote 'cause I'm junior. However were I able; I would have voted for historical accuracy. I would even settle for plausible. It wouldnt have hurt anything to call the greeks running Egypt Ptolemaics. Skirmishers work beautifully against elephants, flaming pigs are almost insulting.
I voted "other", since it is perfectly possible to create great mods outside of historical accuracy. However, in a game pretending to simulate history (RTW) I desire the highest accuracy possible.
Ellesthyan I think hit it on the head. I really enjoy fantasy and sci fi games. However, in a game that's about history, I want it as historical as possible.
I think is a good added bonus. Especially being a history buff that I am...
I shall indeed hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I agree on that, sea travel takes ages, plus the fact that you have to do it in steps, as you can always order only two to three turns ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I voted 3, as many here.
However, although i do play games for fun, i do like how history inspired games tend to stimulate my curiosity and i always end up learning quite a bit about the period.
I doubt i would know exactly what was a Janissary had i not played MTW, and it turns out they were so much more than well trained troops, for instance.
Historical accuracy is important, but i will settle for historical believability.
Now gameplay is what kept me away from RTW. Since i play only single player, i found the campaigns bland and dull compared to the diversity i was used to in MTW. One would have more diversity, and more to look forward as time passes.
Making it somewhat similar in Rome might not be historically accurate, but i find it lacking in that regard.
As big a cheater that I am, I prefer realism over historical accuracy unless the game is specifically about historical stuff.
Rome Total War is, despite carrying the name 'Rome' in it and the (relative) complexity in the Roman faction, is not a historic game. If it was really a historic game, you'd never be allowed to invade Arabia, or Ireland, or the Germanic areas East of the Rhine, or the Scythian regions. The very fact that you have the ability to do this as Rome totally shatters whatever historic accuracy it can have.
Further more, the ability to play as other factions than Rome, many of which are totally impractical and historically impossible, are another bit that causes me to have less care for historical importance in Roma Total War. In reality, it would have been completely impossible to be able to command (for example) the German tribes as one, because they were all tribal! And they were all too busy arguing and fighting each other to really be united. In fact, Germany was never a united nation until the 1870's when Prussia unified them all after a series of wars.
So because of this, in Rome Total War, I would care for realism most of all, but since I'm a cheater, I can't install the 1.2 patch to have the latest Rome Total War (I have the 5.1 version so far)... not until someome comes up with a way to unlock the cheats in that version, then I'd get it glady! ~D
If you're talking about games in general, then all I'm going to say is, it depends... greatly, I might add. On what intention the games hold (is it meant to be historical), and on what premises (is it in the real, contemporary world, fantasy, or in the future), and to whom the game actually caters to. As much as I like all sorts of stuff in games, many people of different age groups and walks of life have different wants in regards to games, and on many occasions, I have to suck up what's intended for them and not me. :duel:
Historical accuracy does not mean doing exactly what happened in history. That is what CA says it means, but it does not. It means trying to replicate the start of the game as close as possible as how it was, then letting the player go and create and change, or try and replicate history as they choose.
It also means having units that have proof, are researched, are logical, and were actually used on a regular basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Must say....INDEED !!!
Steppe, you're a man after my own heart. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Boy that is a lot of replies. I rather like Fantasy... when it is not MARKETED as accurate. But in the case of all the TW... I want my accuracy thanks (well.. except for warrior monks ~;) )
Azi
Again , about the combination between accuracy and gameplay - playing the game for a year and never ever saw a Punic invasion in to Italia ! Again I say - NEVER !
The Punics invaded Italia , just a history , but , a very big but , I want them to invade Italia not just for the sake of history but for the sake of gameplay !OK , I am playing as the Romans , I have killed the Barbarians , I have conquered Gaul , Germania , Hispania and so on , and the Punics are just seating there in near by Sicilia and doing nothing ! :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: for me it is a BUG , let them come to Italia and fight there way to Rome !
Yesterday I saw that RTR moders noticed this problem , they are intending to change it in v 6.1 by making some king of bridge between Sicilia and Italia , the bridge is not the issue but the possibility of an invasion by the sea , which , as I have said , is impossible in the game (you have conqured all of Europe and the Asian factions are just waiting for you to come , they never ever cross the Helaspontos in to Europe , why ? Because it is a bug ! [B]DAMN[/B])
Can't edit , so...
Even if you are invading Cisilia , the Puncis are just trying to defend the island , they never will send an army to Italia to open a second front for the sake of game play
I try. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
I bought the game because of the historical angle, but I enjoy the game because of the gameplay. Sacrificing a bit of history for the benefit of the game is OK by me. Especially if the game turns out to be pretty darn good.
You can be picky about a lot of things, but Im sure the developers thought it all through when they made it.
Like many, I went with 3.
Historical acuracy is as much about oppinion as fact. Much of the minutia that people argue about (stirups for example) have been documented both ways over the years. The important thing is to:
1 Make the game fun
2 Make the game challenging
3 Be historicly acurate
4 Replayable from all sides.
If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.
I like to be accurate in games, but, I like fantacy also. So i'm 50-50.
Opinon? What? It's not about opinon. There is proof about stirrups not being around until the Avars introduced them to the West, or at least not widespread.Quote:
Historical acuracy is as much about oppinion as fact. Much of the minutia that people argue about (stirups for example) have been documented both ways over the years. The important thing is to:
It's about fact, not opinon. Sometimes people disagree how to interpret facts, but it doesn't make it an opinon question.
You could say "I think that Romans were supermen who could beat every enemy and everyone else sucks", but even though that is your opinon, you're still wrong.
Historical accuracy improves the first two, not lessens them.Quote:
If you ignore the first 2 to be more "historicly acurrate" the only people who will play are the masochists who play Romanians in WW2 games.
Yes, historical accuracy is a definite plus to the overall game experience, provided that the modifications needed to make it accurate don't detract from the gameplay, then it isn't worth it. You can make the battles last two hours and have the names that they would use in that time, and redo the units, but if it detracts from the gameplay that made the game exciting and fun to play in the first place, then it just isn't worth it.
Another topic that has been brought up in this thread is minor details. And that is what they are, minor details. They do not have an impact on gameplay and have little or no impact on the realism portion of the game because they are so minor. Stirrups are a great example. Yes it is true that there were no stirrups for a good while after the game period. But does it really matter? I would say no. It is an asthetic detail that a game designer mistakenly put in. It is not the end of the world and the fact that it has been argued about for this long is almost embarassing. The fact that they are there doesn't really matter. They can be ignored or removed. I for one, never even noticed them until the subject was brought up.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutly love a game that was completly accurate and still be fun and challanging at the same time, however, I can't imagine that anything that good in the near future. So for now I can live with some inaccuracies and unrealistic units as long as the game is a fun, challenging game that keeps my intrest.
Hey, stirrups are important. If someone puts them in before they are used, it shows their foolishness and ignorance.
This begins sound pathetic now. Why are stirrups important but all men looking same like identical twins is ok? You don't like game yet you speak all this calling foolish and ignorant. This I think is foolish, if you want accurate game you can make accurate game. My guess is CA want to sell games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I am helping to make an accurate game, thank you very much.
Perhaps you don't think stirrups are important. I do. I find it extremely irrating when people assume stirrups are needed for cavalry warfare, or have stirrups before they were used. It is like having a 17th century musketteer equipped with a 19th century repeating rifle.
Oh, and how by not having stirrups would CA lose money? In fact, they loose money by having stirrups, do to people like me.