Historical Accuracy: How Important Is It to You?

[Kor Khan]

How important do you find historical accuracy in games? Or more particularly: How important is it for you that Total War games, expansion packs and mods be accurate? Do you think you'll only play a Total War game that's been modded to make it accurate, or do you even like a bit of a artistic license to make the game more interesting?

Me: Historical accuracy and realism are nice, but as long as the gameplay's good, I can cope with some fantasy units. I think there are bigger problems in Rome: TW than historical inaccuracy, such as ultra-fast movement and fighting (admittedly also a realism issue), bad AI and a small amount of units that don't have much variety.

(I voted 3)

[edyzmedieval]

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

[Mount Suribachi]

I prefer accuracy to fantasy, but I'm more worried about gameplay

This is not quite strong enough for me, but option 2 is a little too strong. So somewhere between 2 and 3.

I certainly want my games to be accurate, but I'm not anal about it.

I accept that in any strategy game there will be compromises and simplifications, there has to be otherwise the game would take forever to make and might well be unplayable and/or tedious.

So for the sake of gameplay, I accept that 100% realism is impossible. I think STW and MTW had the balance just about right. But like many, I think RTW took a big step back in this regard.

[caesar44]

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

[Bartix]

I don't see how accuracy can damage the gameplay
It is Rome total war , that is , rome , so , make it as historical as you can

Agree!!

But question was "games", not Rome total war

I say 3.
Prefer realism.
(this is truth from guy who suggest Fantasy Total War!! )

[bubbanator]

I chose three. I like games to be accurate to the historical period that they were in, but not if it sacrifieces gameplay. This is the main reason why I do not like realism mods. Sure they have fancy names that you can't pronounce without googleing it, but IMO they detract from the gameplay that got me into RTW in the first place. Yes, realism mods do have some features that make the game more entertaining and somewhat more realistic, but overall, they just take away from what made RTW so great. Minor tweaking is all you need. You don't need a total reconstruction of the game to achive favorable results. In fact, when you do completely remake the game you are more than likely taking away something that made the game such a fun and entertaining game. Maybe it's just me but I don't want my battles to last 2 and a half hours. The speed right now is fine. Sure maybe it is a bit faster than I would put it if I made the game, but it makes you think on your feet (if you don't pause) and keeps your adreniline pumping (again, if you don't pause).

I have said it before and I will say it again, Starcraft is the best game of all time because it is so balanced (along with other great features). Sure it is unlikely that super advanced aliens will have melee infantry as their first line infantry. Or that we will still be using machine guns when we have intergalactic empires. But all of that dosen't matter because the gameplay is so incredible. The diverse roster of units on all sides are still perfectly balanced. It's gameplay, not super-realism that makes a game into a great game.

[Lord Adherbal]

true but the theme in starcraft IS fantasy, science fiction. RTW claims to be historically (quite) accurate, but the battles don't give me a realistic feeling at all. So much for gameplay over realism.

I remember about a year ago there was a flamewar going on at a gamespy forum: RTW fans VS BFME fans. I myself thought "how can those BFMErs diss RTW when CA has released both MTW and STW while no one has a clue how BFME will play". How wrong was I to think that CA would continue to build on their experience of the previous TW games (which I loved). It's such a shame that so much potential has gone to waste, especiallly considering the ancient world was my favorite theme.

[Colovion]

It's quite important for me.

For me it's between 2 and 3. But I chose 3.

took the words right from my mouth

[Viking]

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.

[Ciaran]

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.

[Orda Khan]

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.

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 else

........Orda

[Lord_Tamerial]

I like to be accurate in games, but, I like fantacy also. So i'm 50-50.

[Steppe Merc]

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:

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.
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.

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.

Historical accuracy improves the first two, not lessens them.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think is a good added bonus. Especially being a history buff that I am...

[Cheater]

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!

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[caesar44]

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.

Must say....INDEED !!!

[Colovion]

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.

Steppe, you're a man after my own heart.

[Garvanko]

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.

[dulsin]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

That would be me. I play Romania in HoI2, but on the easy level; even so, I still don't tangle with the big fish. I just whip Bulgaria and Turkey's asses. It's fun.

See? Historical realism can be fun.

[King Mon]

to me its very important bcuz i prefer to have the most authentic feel to the game.

[Maedhros]

accuracy is important to any historical game, but I think we should not focus too much on the little things. The best educated historians will always disagree on something.

When you ask for a great deal of accuracy you may not like what you see. The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.

Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within.

None of us want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together.

The stirrups can go, and some of the fantasy units should be an option if they are included at all. Complete accuracy wouldn't be a great deal.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Maedhros]
The cities stink, people die daily of common ailments and bad water. Armies are made up largely of ill equipped ill trained men.
Most of your casualties will come not from battlefields, but from the invisible enemies that kill from within ...want to spend money recruiting because of losses brought on by whores, bad water, bad food, and the sicknesses that are so easily transmitted when people live so close together...

Yes , me want this me want this

[PseRamesses]

I can cope with small inaccuracies that the game itself doesn´t let me change otherwise I like realism and accuracy.

[Azi Tohak]

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

[caesar44]

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 ! 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])

[caesar44]

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

[King of Atlantis]

voted number two...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A unit of 82 clones in legionary gear is only slightly bothersome to me. I would prefer something more individuated, but would also prefer a computer that can play the game at something resembling 24+ FPS.

Stirrups are not annoying on an aesthetic level -- though I would prefer their absence for accuracy -- but could be a concern for implied game values. If CA didn't check for this one, they may have assumed stirrups were in use. This would explain why RTW Vanilla cavalry is so overly effective, especially when charging. The kind of shock charge possible with stirrups was virtually non-existent before that time -- or Rome would have been known for its cavalry instead. I hope it was a mistake on the part of the graphic artist, and not the values/historical team.

Seamus