Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: Why all the complaining about realism?

  1. #1
    Eric's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,149

    Default Why all the complaining about realism?

    Really, why do you all ***** so much about 'historical accuracy' and 'realism'. Really, why? Will you still ***** if this game kicks ass and is the best in the Total War series, but it's a little inaccurate? This is a game, it's very purpose is the entertain people, not give people a history lesson. Who cares if a few factions aren't included that should be there. Very little people I know even know that Spain was three seperate kingdoms during the Medieval Period, or know the historical importance of Bohemia, Serbia, Croatia or any of those countries. Really, if the gameplay rocks and the graphics kick ass, who really cares about accuracy?

    Titled edited for obscenity...-eXc
    Last edited by John I Tzimisces; February 05, 2006 at 04:25 PM.
    Better to stand under the Crown than to kneel under a Flag

    Life is fleeting, but glory lives forever! Conquer new lands, rule over the seas, build an empire! World Alliances

  2. #2
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Hmm... let's think now... Why do I buy a game set in a period of history? What is it about that game that makes it more entertaining for me? Is it the fact that it's got elephants? Partly, perhaps. Is it the fact that it's set in Europe? That is appealing. But what's the real reason? It's because I want to immerse myself in the Medieval Period, that's why. If I see glaring inaccuracies, I'm not entertained. If I feel like I'm in the Middle Ages, and I feel like I'm experiencing an actual Medieval battle, then I'm entertained. Wll I still ***** about it if it 'kicks ass'? Well, if it 'kicks ass', then I assume that it will be historically accurate, so no, I won't.

    And before you say that I'm a minority of one, you only need to take a look at the vast popularity of historical realism mods such as Rome Total Realism and Europa Barbarorum to see how wrong you are. Historical accuracy MAKES THE GAME MORE ENJOYABLE. Stupid CA fantasies DON'T.

  3. #3

    Default

    It may not be as complex as E=mc^ ...but here we go... Realism=immersion=fun. Having something you positively know is inaccurate or a total fabrication in a supposedly historical setting detracts from my gameplay experience at least. That said, I'm not into all encompassing historical accuracy - but would like there to be some semblance at least.

  4. #4
    PROFESSORPAUL's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,186

    Default

    History entertains me.

    I learned more about history in the Age of Empires games than I did in a stupid book at school. Everything I read in the books I had already learned several years before... and I actually had fun with it.

    And historical accuracy wont give people a history lesson... it will just give you the chance to relive "correct" history. I'd rather invade France knowing I'm fighting with units that actually existed and really looked like that, instead of some fantasy units that were made up and slapped into the Medieval time era.

    ".........." -Gordon Freeman

  5. #5
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    People, dont talk in absolutes here. Everyone has different ideas and designs theyd like to see realised. Some people couldnt care less if everything isnt exactly accurate, while others would apaprently not buy the game for this reason - others just find it mildly annoying.

    Ultimatley it should surely be a case of how fun is the game that you buy? TW games can always be modified, theres no point in quibling over technicalities at this point. Also consider the position of a games developer - they need a product that will sell, dont try and deny that fact. Secondly, history is very very complicated, its not the kind of thing you can reproduce in an exact fashion while retaining the interest of the casual punter who really isnt bothered about things they didnt know about to begin with

    Further, this is a game. Player participation is required. The basic premise of the game is, 'start at this point in history, do what you want after that'. If you worry about creating fanastical situations, maybe youre playing the wrong game. Age of Empires? It was not realistic or historical, but still educational and fun
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  6. #6

    Default

    i agree with Zenith Darksea, for example most of us loved the AOK campaigns ,but all of us HATE the Age 3 campaign wich is stupid and instead of talking aobut the independence heroes talks aobut some bull**** of magick and it the end it's more like a warcraft campaign than a age of campaign

    ps: And i desliked to use yankees btw



    History is a set of lies agreed upon.
    - Nappy B.

    The only fact in history.

  7. #7
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    That's not the point though. It's all very well to say that you create history, but CA have made TW games where you start out in fantasy land already! Take RTW. The starting positions were wildly inaccurate, the starting unit rosters were amazingly fantastical, and some glaring errors resulted from mere sloppiness on the creators' part. Yes, you can mod it, and that is important to remember, though I'd prefer it if I didn't have to. You don't have to get everything perfect, but a reasonable standard of accuracy (ie. more than they managed in RTW) isn't too much to ask. And I do not in any way see how historical accuracy will put the 'casual punter' off. "Oh no, that's got history in! I want my screeching laser hounds! I'm not buying it now." Ok, exaggeration perhaps, but accuracy surely can't put people off. Maybe not everyone's interested, but a lot of people are, and you're not going to turn down a game because the makers made sure to make it correct?

    Age of Empires was fun, and in a way, educational. However it also had much fantasy in it too. When you blur 'education' and 'fantasy' like that, you run the risk of 'educating' people in fantastical ways. Even so, I would definitely buy M2TW even if it did have inaccuracies, but I'd really rather that it didn't.

  8. #8
    Leon Trotsky's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    I move around a lot. But I am NOT going back to Canada.
    Posts
    51

    Default

    ... I ***** about it because it gives me something to do while i wait for the game to come out. I try not to avoid non-realism wish-list oriented topics because those get expectations too high for what's already going to be a great game. plus, in realism topics you actually learn quite a bit. it's fun!
    “You may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you.” - Leon Trotsky

  9. #9
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
    That's not the point though. It's all very well to say that you create history, but CA have made TW games where you start out in fantasy land already! Take RTW. The starting positions were wildly inaccurate, the starting unit rosters were amazingly fantastical, and some glaring errors resulted from mere sloppiness on the creators' part. Yes, you can mod it, and that is important to remember, though I'd prefer it if I didn't have to. You don't have to get everything perfect, but a reasonable standard of accuracy (ie. more than they managed in RTW) isn't too much to ask. And I do not in any way see how historical accuracy will put the 'casual punter' off. "Oh no, that's got history in! I want my screeching laser hounds! I'm not buying it now." Ok, exaggeration perhaps, but accuracy surely can't put people off. Maybe not everyone's interested, but a lot of people are, and you're not going to turn down a game because the makers made sure to make it correct?

    Age of Empires was fun, and in a way, educational. However it also had much fantasy in it too. When you blur 'education' and 'fantasy' like that, you run the risk of 'educating' people in fantastical ways. Even so, I would definitely buy M2TW even if it did have inaccuracies, but I'd really rather that it didn't.
    I think they handles it well. Firstly the have to create a balanced game for the factions while presenting their own challeneges, secondly they have to divide factions in more absolute terms. the Red, blue, green family system for example, the white coloured Carthaginians, it lacks subtlety yes, but it makes them distinct, recognisable, etc. And thats what they wanted to achieve, they want the game to be for everyone, not just people interested in history. For that it needs to be memorable in game terms, not historicaly.

    Why should they alienate people who dont want to wade through thick historical accuracy when they could take the middle ground - which i believe they have done.
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  10. #10
    Osceola's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Port Richey, Florida
    Posts
    4,660

    Default

    It's not about historical innaccuracy so much as it is complete :wub:.

    I dont care if they got the shape of a lancehead wrong or if they used the wrong flag or something. I care that thier at least portraying some history.

    RTW was terrible most of all becuase of the pathetic units and skins. The Arcani battlefiedl ninjas for example. The screaming women. It's not that it was a LITTLE innaccurate, its that they were nothing BUT innaccurate.

    The innaccuracy bred pathetic skins, pathetic models and a pathetic game. It looked like a cartoon, not an epic battle.

    MTW2 however is going for realism and some accruacy. i'm not complaining at all.
    Team Member <3

  11. #11
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Sword of Cao Cao
    RTW was terrible most of all becuase of the pathetic units and skins. The Arcani battlefiedl ninjas for example. The screaming women. It's not that it was a LITTLE innaccurate, its that they were nothing BUT innaccurate.

    The innaccuracy bred pathetic skins, pathetic models and a pathetic game. It looked like a cartoon, not an epic battle.
    Yes but the question is:

    1)What perentage of people who bought the game cared? Maybe 5%? Maybe you should read some reviews, from people with common sense, show me any that mention how terrible the game is because of this

    2)Why must you present your narrow minded opinion as fact? Hmm yes a cartoon.. pathetic.. you've clearly thought this through, congratulations.
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  12. #12

    Default

    Honestly, I think the whole thing is overblown.

    Yes, I've played (and love) RTR. However, that doesn't stop me from liking vanilla RTW/BI or anything else. If something's not accurate, it isn't accurate. It isn't like CA's sticking WWII-era machinegunners in or anything. The constant complaining about the team-color skins is what really bothers me, though. People act like it's this major world-shattering deal, when modders have come up with nicer looking ones a long time ago.

    Nothing is ever going to be as realistic as possible. It's a game.

  13. #13
    GambleFish's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiff
    Yes but the question is:

    1)What perentage of people who bought the game cared? Maybe 5%? Maybe you should read some reviews, from people with common sense, show me any that mention how terrible the game is because of this

    2)Why must you present your narrow minded opinion as fact? Hmm yes a cartoon.. pathetic.. you've clearly thought this through, congratulations.
    Exactly what the developers think... 95% of the people buy a game for gameplay. So why would you take away from gameplay for realism?

    That's what mods are for.
    The fail whale.

    ▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
    ██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
    ████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
    ▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀

  14. #14

    Default

    As the game is set in a historical period and brags with its accuracy, its only naturral that thats what we demand. It would be quite different if the game had a fantasy setting.
    (\__/)
    (O.o )
    (> < ) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

    "attack the argument, not the person saying it" -lee1026
    Sig by Manji

  15. #15
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordSaradain
    As the game is set in a historical period and brags with its accuracy, its only naturral that thats what we demand. It would be quite different if the game had a fantasy setting.
    Hmm no i dont remember CA ever bragging to this effect. Not for marketing purposes on the game box im looking at now anyway.. They made the game they wanted to make, not a historical simulation.
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  16. #16

    Default

    Looking back it was my lack of knowledge about the Classical Era that lead me to look over a lot of what people would call "fantasy units". I specialize more in Medieval History than I do in Roman history, so the innacuracies that peple would decry I simply didn't care about. I didn't know any better, and what did I have to trust? Their word? People claiming that a unit isn't accurate isn't always enough to go on, so I just let it slide.

    The real problem lies in designating units for the battlefield that had no place in being there. Shrieking women, priests, and druids were all sideline participators. Pigs were one-trick wonders...if the Romans have the option of building rams to take down city gates (this would be abstracting their supply lines) why in the hell can't it be assumed that for a battle with elephants the supply line would also have some pigs to use? Failing that, didn't the Romans use torches, tridents, and pikes against elephants? Why not give units secondary abilities to deal with those creatures? The wardogs are just silly too. A handful of pigs are "ok" but 48 dogs per unit? I'm sure people had wardogs, but I don't think that was a designated unit in the Roman Legion.

    But when you get down to it, the entire unit recruitment for the series could be revised in favor of something more realistic, but that just might be evading the point anyway. Why should rarely used "units" even be an option for recruitment when there wasn't even a standard way of raising them in the first place? (unlike infantry units, which the governments organized themselves as a standard way of defense/offense)

    Now in the case of the elephants perhaps they were used occasionally...but so what? Unlike raising horses or men for an army (which already take food), you're raising an elephant for the express purpose of putting a cannon on its rear. I...uh...don't see the point. Now if somebody could give a good reason as to why they would/should be in the game, cool. I'd love to see some evidence for their existence, so people wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon and scream "fantasy!"

    The cries would then become "UNLIKELY!"

    lol
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

  17. #17
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorOutlaw
    Now in the case of the elephants perhaps they were used occasionally...but so what? Unlike raising horses or men for an army (which already take food), you're raising an elephant for the express purpose of putting a cannon on its rear. I...uh...don't see the point. Now if somebody could give a good reason as to why they would/should be in the game, cool. I'd love to see some evidence for their existence, so people wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon and scream "fantasy!"

    The cries would then become "UNLIKELY!"

    lol
    My scientific evidence is the holywood film "anna and the king", in which im sure there was a parade featuring said elephants. So there.
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  18. #18

    Default

    I guess people would much rather play with [generic barbarian warrior....green] and [generic barbarian warrior....brown] than play with really interesting, immersive and diverse barbarian units which differ from the area they are recruited in.

    YEAH MAN ACCURACY IS NOT INTERESTING AT ALL!

  19. #19
    Spiff's Avatar That's Ffips backwards
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,436

    Default

    hmm youve missed the point completely. I said, basicaly:

    1)It bothers some more than others
    2)CA rightly think in terms of game dynamics over historical accuracy when there is a conflict of the two
    3)CA aim their game at the average person who really doesnt care either way
    Under the patronage of Tacticalwithdrawal | Patron of Agraes

  20. #20

    Default

    Who are you to complain ? You like your game as it is, well hey I like it with more realism. I respect your opinion. Restpect mine. I don't think there's anything else to say.

    Sure, you COULD play any other mod. But The Crusades has so much more to offer!

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •