Senator
Realistic or historically accurate?
I was wondering how many people out there wants the game to be Realistic or Historicaly Accurite. Some people might say its the same thing but its not, I realy dont care if its historicaly accurite like the Majority of TOtal war fans. But I do want Realisum in the game no fantasy crap. I would of made this a poll but i dont no how.
Last edited by Proximus; February 26, 2006 at 05:48 AM.
"There's Brave Men knocking at our gate, lets go kill them"
Realistic and historically accurate are the same. If you think they are different, please give an explanation on how so.
And as for me, I don't worry too much about either of those synonymous terms. Warhounds all the way!
The New Conquests Mod for RTW:BI
Conquer a whole new world.
Development - Discussion
PM me if you are interested.
Historical means that there is only historical units, only historical factions which start historically.
Realistik means that the units in the game doesn`t have to have to existed in the real world, but it can`t be units like dragons and the soldiers act realistically and doesn`t carry 100kg warhammers and such.
the factions doesn`t need to start historically nor do they need to be historical at all.
But if the game is historical accurate then it is realistic as history is the most realistic thing there is.
A FPS game may be very realistic, but isn`t historical at all, the same goes for strategy games
Member of S.I.N.
I want it to be just like Rome (in terms of realism and historical accuracy). It took me a while but i found out that the way they do originally is the most fun. I tried RTR and lots of other realism mods but they just didnt cut it. The way CA do it is great, i want them to keep it that way. If the game was made by the community it would be rather boring i bet.
Senator
IDK why people love those Realisum mods so much. The only reason I ever DL any of those mods is to get the new skins they add to the game. Every thing els the mod boys can keep but keep up the good work with the skinsOriginally Posted by westy159
"There's Brave Men knocking at our gate, lets go kill them"
Semisalis
and improve the game maybe?IDK why people love those Realisum mods so much. The only reason I ever DL any of those mods is to get the new skins they add to the game. Every thing els the mod boys can keep but keep up the good work with the skins
Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time
Miles
I have to disagree. Realism means realism: everything has to be like it is in the real world. Let me use your dragon as an example. Everyone knows that there are no dragons. He/she who believes there are, has to prove me I'm wrong. Btw, same goes with UFOs... Anyway, you just might be able prove through biology and/or genetics, for example, that dragons just might exist (or might've existed). Even you could prove it, you'd miss my point: they aren't real so it wouldn't be realistic to put them in a Total War game for example.
I'm sorry but I'll have to make this statement: I believe realism and historical accuracy are pretty much the same thing.
Nope. Dragons aren't real. Read upper writings of mine (same post) for more details.
Last edited by iKossu; March 02, 2006 at 03:23 AM.
Lauded by his conquests
Oh, but you and me are in agreement. Historical accuracy = Realism (see my posts above). I was responding to a post by Zarekk, you know.
The Colonel
Not in this context we're talking here. Realism is not necessarily bound on what exists or has existed in the real world, but rather how things behave, as in physically correct, anatomically possible a.s.o.I'm sorry but I'll have to make this statement: I believe realism and historical accuracy are pretty much the same thing.
I could make a game where romans fight samurai. This is completely historically inaccurate, but I'm gonna use absolute realism on weapons, armor, tactics a.s.o.
Is the difference becoming clear?
That's not really true, as something can be realistic even if it does not exist in the real world. Take the movie "minority report". These things shown there don't exist, but they are presented in a realistic fashion, showing how such things could work if they did exist. Same with MTW2, it will let you do things that are historically inaccurate but in a (hopefully) realistic manner.Realism means realism: everything has to be like it is in the real world.
Senator
I couldn't say it better myself. Thx mate
"There's Brave Men knocking at our gate, lets go kill them"
Lauded by his conquests
So apart from matchups, all else should be historically accurate? The romans would wear their correct historical gear, the samurai their correct historical gear? The only data we have on realistic properties and use of medieval arms and armour, for example, are the historically correct gear and the sources we have on their use. Realistic tactics would have to be based on the real tactics used during medieval times - we have no comparative examples from modern times, as few people have bothered to pull together 3,000 men, train some of them from birth, recreate weapons and armour with medieval methods and medieval-available materials, and pit them against opponents trained and equipped in a similar fashion, in a life-and-death conflict. So where does the realism as opposed to historically accurate come into conflict here?
Ok....so the psychic powers of Minority Report are presented in a realistic fashion (I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but for the sake of the argument....). This means that my earlier question: Would a dragon be acceptable for inclusion in your argument about realism, as long as it was presented in a "realistic" fashion, be acceptable? Would machineguns be? They exist now, but the methods of their production did not exist in medieval times - but they are certainly "realistic" (and would have a gruesome effect upon units using linear tactics as practiced in the TW series). Where would the base of such realism in a medieval game come from, if not from medieval sources?
I still see no real conflict, or difference, between realism and historical accuracy, as long as we are still talking about a medieval game. If we are talking about some odd fantasy hybrid with dragons and machine guns, "realism" as described by you above could be implemented, but frankly, I'd not want to play that game.
Exactly... you hit on the nail on the head.
Realism is not atached to the past or to any timetable.but to logic. historically accuracy is atached to the past. Games cant be historically 100% accurate because you have control in them ,is not a cutscene or a documentary carefully planned to represent historical accuracy . What gamers wants is realism.. not historical accuracy.. they dont want a movie ,but to play a game to recreate the past again but in a diferent way.
Many "realistic Mods" fail to underestand this... that realism not necessarily bound to what happened but intead of *WHY* things happens in that way. WHy some factions were more powerfull than others .Iberians never invaded Africa ,GAuls never invaded China ,not because it was impossible or unrealistic ,but because the conditions neccessary for those things to happen never happened. Not the right training ,the ideal generals ,not right conditions ,the right technology. for example it was said that NApoleon failed to conquer russia because of the bad weather. if he chosed intead another time for the invasion it could be a diferent story. and perhaps French will be he official language in most of Asia. Is realistic that games start with the same condition of those times for every faction ,but is unrealistic to think that once you start to play the game and choosing diferent tactics that when you finish it needs to be similar to what really happened if you take a diferent strategy this time. Some say "only ROmans can build epic stone walls", or highways ,just because that was what happened. but they ignore that progress is not relative to a race ,but to the experiences instead. As soon as a barbarian faction is very wealth with enough supply and military power they expand ,thanks to what they got from the plunder in other cities and what they learned from their enemies .they will become more "civilized". People forget that The origins of every civilization on earth is barbaric. the ages of cavemans. Its only when they learn to conquer other territories and increase their community size , increase their awareness of their enviroments and dominate their neighbors that they get new knowdledge ,new culture ,new military power and become more educated.
WHat gamers want is Realism.. that the events happen in the way they should happen if you were given the oportunity to travel to the past and command a faction with the today knowlege we have.the logical steps in the story of the gameplay. Aztecs could very well invade Europe if they wanted.. but before a extraordinary event like that to happen , they need first to conquer their own continents and secure their own lands first. North and south america ,a fight againts MAyas first .later the Incas or at least have solid alliances with them ,to secure their lands .continue conquering lands (or at least exploring them) until there is no land more to explore or to discover. Of course even if they manage to travel the ocean ,they will face problems of attitude from the people in the lands they visit.
in summary realism and historical accuracy arent the same thing. Im all for historical accuracy whenever it doesnt kill logic or common sense. for example Gauls never used elephants this is a fact.. but thats is because they never had access to them in the regions they invaded. if they ever managed to invade africa ,things will be very diferent..Realism not only means to recreate the physical appearance of factions but also their way of thinking. their way of living ,how open or closed they were to learn and use technology from others cultures.
Last edited by Vann7; March 04, 2006 at 08:51 PM.
I dont care if some "Mel Gibson" liberties are taken with historical fact, as long as the game is fun and challenging to play.
Interesting. It seems we still can't quite agree on realism and historical. I'd like to point out a few things...
No, I don't quite think so. Realism is not attached to logic, but to reality. Note the root of both the words: "Real" I would like to draw your attention to some definitions:
Real:
Therefore, Realism:
I would propose that Historical-ness is a subset of realism. If realism includes "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence", then it would also include everything that occured in history, simply because history had occured in actuality. History happened, therefore it is real.
I also think, that the major difference between realism and historical is their reference to time/the word's stigma.
Realism would be used to refer to the accuracy of depiction of a subject. As we hear so often in advertisements, "Realistic strategy game!" "Realistic FPS! Bodies bounce! There is physics!" "Realistic depiction of WWII at its height of bloody combat!". In these cases, the word 'real' is used to give recepients the idea that the game is accurately depicting reality.
Historic would then also refer to being real, in the sense of being real in the past; depicting things as they were in the past. "Historic WWII strategy game!" "Historic Napoleon strategy game!"
Now then, we move on to:
Yes, I think they won't be accurate after we've started playing and changing things to deviate from history (not to mention the AI dosen't act historically). But what I think would be good is a historic start. i.e. The game is as close to depicting history at one point in time only: The start date. So at the start date, everything was as it was... until you came along and messed it up.
Therefore, my proposal is: Make the game as accurate historically at the start, then let us change history along realistic lines. i.e. Constrained by realism.
This would mean that I would be able to have the Gauls build 'civilised' structures such as big walls and major road networks, but only after their constraints (lack of know how, perhaps) were addressed.
PS: I'm only dealing with the first paragraph of Vann's post. Could you use shorter paragraphs in the future, Vann? I find it a little hard to read everything. The presence of a summary is good.
BLASPHEMY! YOU ARE TO BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!
I don't understand you people.
Why can't the game be historical and fun at the same time?
Why is there the two options of either compromising history for gameplay, or gameplay for history?
Hrm... I think I'll create a thread for that.
Last edited by Tritio; March 04, 2006 at 11:37 PM.
Eh, splitting hairs I say.
Anyways, under thsoe terms, I still don't care jack for historical accuracy, as textbooks can take care of that (What's the difference between EB and a history textbook? History textbooks don't have load times!), nor does realism matter to me too much in that I felt RTW was fine, though too much further might be bad. If they were able to implement realist combat, rather than the arcade sort which is present even in mods, simply due to the game engine, then I'd be happy.
So, hooray for war dogs, hounds of culann, etc. etc.
The New Conquests Mod for RTW:BI
Conquer a whole new world.
Development - Discussion
PM me if you are interested.
here is a simpler way to say the difference:
history is what has happened
Realistic is what could and/or can happen
Member of S.I.N.
Some info to make things clearer:
Realistic:
Formatted for clarity
Historic:
Formatted for clarity
As far as I can tell, and in my opinion, there seems to be little difference between the two where our subject (the game) is concerned. Realism is concerned with "things as they really are" at the present, whereas Historical-ness is concerned with "taken place in the real world", or as I read it: things as they really were in the past.
As to the topic, yes, I prefer to be both historical and realistic as far as possible. In my opinion, one should not allow what is unrealistic to be present in a game based to a large extent on history. Such a game should give us as accurate a portrayal of the times as they were at the start of the game, then allow us to change history by making decisions different from history, whilst limiting us as much as possible on the grounds of realism.
i.e. I should not be able to wage a continuous series of wars one after another from 200+ bc to 100+ ad without diplomatic and economic repercussions, for example. This would be impossible in the real world, for there would be consequences like war exhaustion, dislike and fear on the diplomatic level, etc.
Granted, this is not in the scope of the game. However, this is what I would like to see, if possible. I've just started playing Europa Universalis II recently, and I'd like to use that as a good example. Great game...
Lauded by his conquests
It is going to be interesting to see what they go for (And I agree realism = historicity). If Sega's takeover means they will be attempting to cater to kids and console jockies, well, that means more stable customers for Paradox and the Europa Universalis/Crusader Kings games, which means more and better games from those wacky swedes. Good riddance, if loyal customers are unwanted to CA.
Non scholae sed vitae
Both? *duh* :wink:
"Tempus edax rerum." Ovid, Metamorphoses
Under the patronage of Virgil.
Child of Nihil.
If i'm playing MTW2 as the Scots do I stay in Scotland for 500 years and fight the English alot? Isn't that historically accurate? I'm still not sure I understand the differance. As as for fantasy units in RTW I guess they where their as so much less is known about units from that time. The Dark Ages took care of that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
