An end to the realism vs gameplay debate?

[Willem]

Here's a qoute from Soren Johnson in a recent interview:

Our use of history was largely as setting - the game is not intended to be an accurate historical simulation. However, it's not quite that simple as much of the joy of playing the game is recognizing aspects of real history. Civs along rivers and coast experience better trade. Controlling strategic resources (iron, oil, uranium) is very important. Balances of power shift when new military and economic technologies become available. Further, players have fun faster when they understand the game quicker - and this is more likely to happen if people recognize parts of history they already know in the game.

[xxFlukexx]

It's never been a debate, really. Civilization has always been gameplay over realism.

People say something is not realistic as an excuse for a feature they don't like. But really, adding in more realism over gameplay usually drags down the game.

[MarkG]

it's follows Sid's saying that when fun and realism collide in game design, you must always choose fun...

[Willem]

Originally posted by xxFlukexx
It's never been a debate, really. Civilization has always been gameplay over realism.

You could have fooled me! How many times haven't threads become bogged down by that type of discussion. I'm going to have to save that line to bring up next time the issue raises it's head. At least I'll no longer have to state:

It's a strategy game, not a simulation.