Historical accuracy or entertainment

[Gugg]

I want to know. Would you rather have a game that sacrifices a bit of entertaintment for historical accuracy, or that has more entertaintment sacrificing historical accuracy. I know this may sound a bit biased, but it's not meant to be.

[eLus1on]

I've wondered, with todays knowledge, how do we know that history we know is 100% accurate? I mean, theres 2000+ years since the roman empire, lots of things is probably manipulated over the time to make it look better, or it could be accurate, who knows really? I myself love a little bit of historical accuracy but in the end I'm here to play for entertainment and fun, not because I wanna learn history, I'd rather read a book then.

[Shamshir]

Historical accuracy is entertaining.

[Gugg]

Historical accuracy is entertaining.

That's not what the question was. If they HAD TO sacrifice a bit entertainment for historical accuracy in some areas, which one would you choose? That was my question.

[Anna_Gein]

That's not what the question was. If they HAD TO sacrifice a bit entertainment for historical accuracy in some areas, which one would you choose? That was my question.

Why should we sacrifice one for the other ? Will it ever allow us to fully complete one or the other this way ? I don't think so.

That is also true, but still I'd like them to work more on CAI, BAI, Diplomacy and Campaign map rather than making everything accurate to history and ending up with bad game design..

I don't see how accurate equipment could hurt the or reduce the resources allocated to AI. You will need to equip the unit anyway so why not equip them with the right piece ?
The same can be said of the map. Simplification will be needed for sure but why not choose the more legitimate from an historical point of view ?

[Gugg]

Why should we sacrifice one for the other ? Will it ever allow us to fully complete one or the other this way ? I don't think so.

Just play along. If just for the lulz

[Anna_Gein]

Just play along. If just for the lulz

Then historical accuracy.

I don't see the point in a WW2 strategy game if it plays like a medieval strategy game. What's supposed to be "good gameplay" if it does not represent properly what it is suppose to represent ? At this point we might definitely retrieve siege battle from TW as the AI meets so much difficulty in with it. It may improve the gameplay (better AI) but would the experience necessary improves ?

Because, sadly, if a company like CA were to make a game completely historically accurate, like a military simulator, only a select few would play it because of the difficulty level. It's the truth.

I voted for historical accuracy because I like realism mods but that does not mean I don't understand why CA would take the "entertainment" approach. Sure they would. Or they would at least try to strike a balance between the two. Why? Because they want to reach a larger audience.

But Gameplay and Accuracy will meets limits anyway. Why should one completely abandoned in a vain attempt to get the other completely right ? I don't see the point in a Hellenistic strategy game if there is no macedonian phalanx. Neither do I see the point in a future R2 if the AI don't manage to use properly its horse archer and let them charge my pikemen in melee.

[Dan113112]

Why should we sacrifice one for the other ?

Because, sadly, if a company like CA were to make a game completely historically accurate, like a military simulator, only a select few would play it because of the difficulty level. It's the truth.

I voted for historical accuracy because I like realism mods but that does not mean I don't understand why CA would take the "entertainment" approach. Sure they would. Or they would at least try to strike a balance between the two. Why? Because they want to reach a larger audience.

[ChairmanCrassus]

Historical accuracy in the campaign. Entertainment value in battles.

I get irked when people discuss the historical accuracy of helmet designs while forgetting historical accuracy where it really counts, in the campaign.

[eLus1on]

Historical accuracy is entertaining.

That is also true, but still I'd like them to work more on CAI, BAI, Diplomacy and Campaign map rather than making everything accurate to history and ending up with bad game design..

[Chih]

Historical accuracy is entertaining.

Completely agree

But yeah, in this poll definitely historical accuracy over what some consider entertainment.

[HigoChumbo]

I'm sure a paid professional knows how to get the perfect balance.

(In any case, I'm happy to sacrifice some accuracy in order to improve gameplay... but when they come with arguments such as "if we don't include hot spartans and mummy returns egyptians 14 year old Call of Duty players won't buy our game" then they can go ock themselves. Not saying this is the case, just giving my point of view, just in case).

[Queen Annes Revenge]

Historical accuracy against entertainment is not a zero sum game.

[Lord Tomyris]

I think that CA's approach of historical authenticity rather than necessarily historical accuracy is a good one to go for; it means the game can look historical, while still putting the gameplay first. To put it this way: I don't want New Kingdom Egyptians, or squadrons of ninja-Arcani, in Rome 2, because that's so fantastical that it ruins the immersion for me and drags me out of the time period - but little things like Varus being portrayed as more cowardly than he was in real life, or giving Arminius a silver face-mask? Doesn't make any difference either way, I reckon.

[BeastG33]

I think it's very possible to strike a balance where you don't have to give up much of either, but gun to my head, I'd sacrifice perfect accuracy for a bit more entertainment.

[Gugg]

I hope people didn't think that I meant like outragesly inaccurate. I didn't meant like...idk... Skeleton romans and such.

[neoptolemos]

Historical accuracy is just a great aspect of entertaining.
You can have a great game without it but since you name your game "Rome" and you call people to create the Roman empire-a historical entity then it is somehow an obligation to deliver historical accuracy.
Historical accuracy does not require software resources or game development.It is just there, availble by numerous specialists, hell even a descent google search and half a brain can provide great historical accuracy.

[Serkelet]

I find real History very entertaining by itself. Have you ever heard that reality always beats fiction?

But for gameplay reasons I am all for sacrificing a bit of accuracy. Gameplay should always come first. Also, the very same game engine has a lot of limitations when you try to reflect reality through gameplay mechanics; the later have to be always intuitive and smooth, rather than overly complex and uncomprehensible.

I am also not against some little licenses there and there, like making available for the Spartans outdated hoplites if they are a kind of elite unit very limited in its availability (like, you only can have one, two or three of this unit in total), or, as CA is already doing, making more available units that in real History were used rarely, like the war dogs or the flaming pigs.

[Garbarsardar]

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I find the question idiotic. There is no dichotomy here, and no "perfect balance" either. A game with maximum historical accuracy would be unplayable and a game with minimum historical accuracy would be daft. A good game engine+modding tools will give to anyone his desired balance.

[Gugg]

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I find the question idiotic. There is no dichotomy here, and no "perfect balance" either. A game with maximum historical accuracy would be unplayable and a game with minimum historical accuracy would be daft. A good game engine+modding tools will give to anyone his desired balance.

No offence taken. Didn't sound rude at all to me. Just stating your opinion

But to the point. You really didn't understand what I meant?