What is GAMEPLAY?

[hellenes]

After hearing countless times CA devlopers and CA fanboys stating that "gameplay" comes first to histprical accuracy I had some questions...:
1. Is "gameplay" FUNCTIONAL? I mean isnt it just what you do in the game and NOT what you see which is graphical?
If it is functional then how does the LOOK of the Ptolemaic units justified?
2. Is gameplay the lowest common denominator? Is it the darkness of ignorance? Is it the promotion and establishment (dont tell me that people dont take RTW seriously, the media can instill fantasy as FACT to the masses) of outrageously dumped down beliefs?

Hellenes

[Puzz3D]

Gameplay is the application by the player of the operations which are functionally important to winning the game.

[GFX707]

Well if they planned on sacrificing realism for gameplay they sure messed it up, because the "gameplay" in this game leaves a lot to be desired.

Sure, it's pretty, but it's dumb and shallow. The same as all other games in the last 2 years. It looks nicer than its predecessor but can't compare in terms of depth and replayability.

The sad truth is that graphics sell games.

"Great" games are 9/10 times produced by small companies who know their game won't sell so they just make the game they want to play.

This is the 3rd total war game, so I suppose you can't expect that original vision to have been preserved. The amount of time taken to create a game like this means that when the graphics are done, everything else is an afterthought.

Only problem is the TW series is the only game of this type.

There's a point there somewhere.

[hellenes]

Gameplay is the application by the player of the operations which are functionally important to winning the game.

Thus:
Would the Hellenistic LOOK of the Ptolemaic PHALANX thats is in the game harm gameplay?
Or the presence of any historically accurate unit?
As I understand (and correct me if im wrong) For the C.A. gameplay means also pure eye candy and ignorant fantasy toys...

Hellenes

[Kaldhore]

I dont think you can get too deep in this, theres no lines to read between -

Gameplay = the play of the Game

*how is the play of the game?*
*How is the Gameplay*

The way I see it - how smoothly the game plays, how *together* it is.

[Puzz3D]

Gameplay = the play of the Game

Using the same word to define a word is not a definition.

[Kaldhore]

Using the same word to define a word is not a definition.

People always try to over complicate things when just rearranging words makes things appear clearer.

We all know what play means, we all know what Game means.

Its simple

[Puzz3D]

Thus:
Would the Hellenistic LOOK of the Ptolemaic PHALANX thats is in the game harm gameplay?
Or the presence of any historically accurate unit?
As I understand (and correct me if im wrong) For the C.A. gameplay means also pure eye candy and ignorant fantasy toys...

The appearance of the units doesn't matter. It's their capabilities and the player's ability to utilize those capabilities that matter.

[hellenes]

The appearance of the units doesn't matter. It's their capabilities and the player's ability to utilize those capabilities that matter.

Is thats it so I see no reason behind the Mummy golden pharaoh look of the Ptolemaic phalanx in the game...which CA based on a "gameplay" reason being more important than historical accuracy...

Hellenes

[Puzz3D]

Is thats it so I see no reason behind the Mummy golden pharaoh look of the Ptolemaic phalanx in the game...which CA based on a "gameplay" reason being more important than historical accuracy...

I don't think that decision was based on a gameplay reason. It was a marketing decision based on wanting the game to have a certain visual apperance. It did affect gameplay because Egypt ended up with unit types that shouldn't be there such as chariots. There was a gameplay decision made about Egypt and that was it should be a very strong faction to balance out Rome in the later part of the campaign. This may actually be why chariots ended up being so powerful in the game.

[Captain Fishpants]

As I understand (and correct me if im wrong) For the C.A. gameplay means also pure eye candy and ignorant fantasy toys...

Sorry, old thing, but you're wrong. Consider yourself corrected. Gameplay is something that the vast majority of players recognise that the TW series has by the bucketload.

Gameplay in this context means that the games deliver value, entertainment, immersion and a fair sense of what it might have been like to command an army during the period. Gameplay can be added to by many small factors, from the look and feel of the interface to the underlying logic of play. For example, the intuitive understanding that players can develop of how the buildings and units hang together is part of gameplay, as is the knowledge that cavalry can be used to ride down archers. You don't need to see the numbers in the game to have a grasp of how tactics might work: that's gameplay. And what's even better, it's gameplay that a vast number of players have bought and enjoyed. So thanks to all of them!

It's fairly obvious from the tone of your posts in this thread (and elsewhere) that you have a problem with games being mass market. Your comments earlier on about 'dumbing down' seems to have missed the point that TW games are extremely complex and are selling rather well to the mass market you seem to dislike. I would argue that we're not dumbing down to meet the users, but smartening up the users to meet the game! RTW can be played in different ways by different people, it's as simple as that.

And yes, games do need eye candy, just as they need clear controls, good music, and a host of other presentational features. Games also need fun elements in them too - the stuff I think you might be referring to as 'ignorant fantasy toys' (thanks for the kind words, by the way). If you don't like that stuff, you're certainly an expert player and need not use it.

In the meantime, have a good Christmas break, put your feet up and enjoy life!

[Aesculapius]

Ah, the whimsical thaumaturge - ever bringing gentleness, common sense and gracious good humour to heated debates.

I guess gameplay means different things to different people, or in different contexts. The definition of 'Gameplay' in a FPS may be very different from 'gameplay' in a RPG. For me, as a lover of strategy games, 'gameplay' lies in how well balanced a game is - does it present you with decisions involving complex weighing of different factors, some of which may be unknown or unvalued? In my world, eye candy isn't important to good gameplay - chess, Santa Paravia or Civ 2 all have great gameplay.

Or I guess gameplay is like common sense: everyone knows it when they see it, even if no-one can define it.

[Mooks]

RTW's realism will satisfy the majority of the game buyers,meaning they arent going for complete realism but trying to make the most money they can possibly make.

Look at it from their perspective, I doubt they care about 5% of the historian-like players, they just want to milk the cow till they have to get another one.

[Grifman]

After hearing countless times CA devlopers and CA fanboys stating that "gameplay" comes first to histprical accuracy I had some questions...:
1. Is "gameplay" FUNCTIONAL? I mean isnt it just what you do in the game and NOT what you see which is graphical?

Yes, it's functional for the most part, not looks.

If it is functional then how does the LOOK of the Ptolemaic units justified?

By something other than gameplay, that's obvious.

Fact of the matter is, we already have three Hellenistic empires - the Macedonians, Greeks, and Seluecids. I assumed CA felt like that was enough. Hence they took the Ptolemies and made them classical Egyptian. Is it historical, no. Does it add variety? Yes.

2. Is gameplay the lowest common denominator?

No, what's makes you say that? Gameplay is how you play the game that makes it fun. And whether you have historically accurate Ptolemaic units has nothing to do with gameplay.

Is it the darkness of ignorance?

Not unless you're creating strawmen for yourself to knock down. And we know how easy that is :)

Is it the promotion and establishment (dont tell me that people dont take RTW seriously, the media can instill fantasy as FACT to the masses) of outrageously dumped down beliefs?

I believe the term is "dumbed down" not "dumped down". CA is making a "game" not a true "historical simulation". They've taken some liberties for the sake of gameplay, fun, variety, etc. You may not agree with them on everything - heck, I don't. But I'm not going to run them down either. The game is reasonably historical, and it's definitely fun. I'm not going to get all pedantic on them about their portrayal of a couple of factions. YMMV.

[hellenes]

Yes, it's functional for the most part, not looks.



By something other than gameplay, that's obvious.

Fact of the matter is, we already have three Hellenistic empires - the Macedonians, Greeks, and Seluecids. I assumed CA felt like that was enough. Hence they took the Ptolemies and made them classical Egyptian. Is it historical, no. Does it add variety? Yes.



No, what's makes you say that? Gameplay is how you play the game that makes it fun. And whether you have historically accurate Ptolemaic units has nothing to do with gameplay.



Not unless you're creating strawmen for yourself to knock down. And we know how easy that is :)



I believe the term is "dumbed down" not "dumped down". CA is making a "game" not a true "historical simulation". They've taken some liberties for the sake of gameplay, fun, variety, etc. You may not agree with them on everything - heck, I don't. But I'm not going to run them down either. The game is reasonably historical, and it's definitely fun. I'm not going to get all pedantic on them about their portrayal of a couple of factions. YMMV.

So I guess that the ignorant dominant fantasy is coming first after comes "gameplay" and historical accuracy last...

Hellenes

[Grifman]

So I guess that the ignorant dominant fantasy is coming first after comes "gameplay" and historical accuracy last...

Hellenes

How about dropping the pseudo superior intellectualism . . . fantasy is not dominant is this game by a long shot. You've got one faction you've complained about, but from your whining you'd think we had orcs and dwarves in this game. I hardly think one faction breaks the game. And fyi, there are some easy to install mods that make the Ptolemys all you want them to be - which, btw you can thank CA for (I'll know that will be hard for you :) ) since they made the game relatively easy to mod. How about d/ling and using that instead of complaining all the time?

[hellenes]

How about dropping the pseudo superior intellectualism . . . fantasy is not dominant is this game by a long shot. You've got one faction you've complained about, but from your whining you'd think we had orcs and dwarves in this game. I hardly think one faction breaks the game. And fyi, there are some easy to install mods that make the Ptolemys all you want them to be - which, btw you can thank CA for (I'll know that will be hard for you :) ) since they made the game relatively easy to mod. How about d/ling and using that instead of complaining all the time?

So the so called "fun" factor doesnt amount to massively istilled by the media false beliefs?
That anyone inhabiting Egypt in any game should be a Yul Brynner clone in all gold?
Would it be less "fun" to have the Scythian horse archers to be actually scythian rather than half naked gallic bowmen?
I posted this thread since many times the devs stated that the ONLY obstacle to historical accuracy was "gameplay", now you say that the depiction of the Ptolemies was done for reasons other than "gameplay"...What about the PIKEMEN like the "Pharaos Guard"? They ARE the "AGEMA" regiment and are another phalanx unit but are depicted in a very strange way...
Its very strange to see the devs allocating time and resources to make up, design, skin, model the entire Ptolemaic faction in a fantasy-Hollywood way instead of doing a more diverse unit allocation for the shallow "Barbarian" factions...
Also if the domination of fictional and twisted beliefs that are instilled as FACTS to the masses by the media is the reality it isnt my fault...

Hellenes

PS
Ill hope that you enjoy your shares in SEGA and be rewarded for you zeal...

[Mooks]

RTW units do need more depth, in MTW you got all the depth you wanted. Spanish ginettes, teutonic seargents and several variations of units. In RTW all you get is BASIC units.

Warband
swordsmen
chosen swordsmen.
Druids.

Thats all Gauls forces (Minus the extremely rare and extremely hard to get unique religious runits).