Tweet
Realism
I would first want to define realism a little more on a point: doing more micromanagement isn't more realistic. As same as doing every single detail. As long as they are englobed in a more general structure, we can say they are there realistically without ever bother about them.
Lou, you effectively got a strong point. Immersion is making a great part of the fun factor. There is also annother factor which is a reality for games that are somewhat based on the way reality works: its link to reality. Why? Because we like beeing able to connect things to reality in some cases. And it makes it even more immersive, beeing able to think that we ARE in reality. What is more immersive than the reality itself?
About Picasso with his way of thinking now. It is right that a picture can represent no less a woman than a painting from Picasso. But it thosen't intend to the same goal then. The difference is the degree of metaphor. Picasso's paintings were alot metaphoric, implicit, away from a clone of reality. But Picasso wasn't adding things to reality, he was amplifying some things, decreasing some other, making links with other things. And if he wasn't representing less reality, his world was lesser close to reality.
A world need some coherence to have the possibility of an existence, even in imagination. You can create a world where lines aren't lines, but you need for this to establish a rule that says it is the case, and preferably in many cases a reason for it. For Frank Herbert's Dune (science fiction), all the parts of his world are pretty adapted between themselves to make a good global world. No disemblance, no disfunctionality, the pieces are going perfectly within each other, within the coherent rules of his world. Like Myst-Riven where the world is also pretty coherent, all piece going with no contradiction on the ideas we have about the rules ruling this world. Why can they be fantastic worlds, a long way from reality? Because their building isn't based on the same reality. They instaured a new "rule" that is "We are in the future and it changed to this" or "We are in a world unknown from our world". In the case of Civ III, it kinda says "We are a civilisation on Earth, as all the civs that we heard about in history". We then have a new factor, which is that it is connected to our reality, which already has some basic rules. So, if we want to stay coherent within this model, we should say "All starting civs already have differences that changes from each other, whattever what should arrive in History". Up to you to see if it is or not coherent with the model.
Thus, if you put unrealistic things, it's that you're puting you out of your model. Like thinking in your head "I am in a game, playing with playors". Like in lots of other games that aren't based on immersion in annother world as much. Like some based where the fun may be competition against cpu or players.
I guess Sid's team got the great idea of puting customizable rules. Now, it's easier for everyone to get what he exactly wants
I would first want to define realism a little more on a point: doing more micromanagement isn't more realistic. As same as doing every single detail. As long as they are englobed in a more general structure, we can say they are there realistically without ever bother about them.
Lou, you effectively got a strong point. Immersion is making a great part of the fun factor. There is also annother factor which is a reality for games that are somewhat based on the way reality works: its link to reality. Why? Because we like beeing able to connect things to reality in some cases. And it makes it even more immersive, beeing able to think that we ARE in reality. What is more immersive than the reality itself?
About Picasso with his way of thinking now. It is right that a picture can represent no less a woman than a painting from Picasso. But it thosen't intend to the same goal then. The difference is the degree of metaphor. Picasso's paintings were alot metaphoric, implicit, away from a clone of reality. But Picasso wasn't adding things to reality, he was amplifying some things, decreasing some other, making links with other things. And if he wasn't representing less reality, his world was lesser close to reality.
A world need some coherence to have the possibility of an existence, even in imagination. You can create a world where lines aren't lines, but you need for this to establish a rule that says it is the case, and preferably in many cases a reason for it. For Frank Herbert's Dune (science fiction), all the parts of his world are pretty adapted between themselves to make a good global world. No disemblance, no disfunctionality, the pieces are going perfectly within each other, within the coherent rules of his world. Like Myst-Riven where the world is also pretty coherent, all piece going with no contradiction on the ideas we have about the rules ruling this world. Why can they be fantastic worlds, a long way from reality? Because their building isn't based on the same reality. They instaured a new "rule" that is "We are in the future and it changed to this" or "We are in a world unknown from our world". In the case of Civ III, it kinda says "We are a civilisation on Earth, as all the civs that we heard about in history". We then have a new factor, which is that it is connected to our reality, which already has some basic rules. So, if we want to stay coherent within this model, we should say "All starting civs already have differences that changes from each other, whattever what should arrive in History". Up to you to see if it is or not coherent with the model.
Thus, if you put unrealistic things, it's that you're puting you out of your model. Like thinking in your head "I am in a game, playing with playors". Like in lots of other games that aren't based on immersion in annother world as much. Like some based where the fun may be competition against cpu or players.
I guess Sid's team got the great idea of puting customizable rules. Now, it's easier for everyone to get what he exactly wants
Comment