Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there.

[Christantine The Great]

I'm not going to make a long and thoughtful post about why realists should shut up and not want every jaguar warrior to have extremely obvious jaguar skin, to say how Cleopatra isn't even Egyptian, and to complain how the elephant shouldn't be a strong as a knight. I am simply going to give you realists one argument that you, in principle, should support but your intelligence will refuse to (Well, in theory). Here it goes:

"The game should only last one turn because a turn represents more than the normal lifespan at the time."

I am not trolling for "I agree " responces. I am not looking for someone to actually argue on the side of that pathetic argument. I am just showing how realism always is second to fun. Thank you.

(Disclaimer: The examples I used of realist arguments are not aimed directly at anyone, just realists in general)

[Sarxis]

The only thing I will say (though I agree that FUN should always come first) is that the 'realists' feel that 'realism' is fun.

I agree with that myself, but it's a matter of 'where to draw the line?'.

[Christantine The Great]

This is mostly directed at the extreme realists who argue about the examples that I gave in my first post. Some of them just go crazy over everything that contradicts ( ) history.

I just wanted to point their flaw.

[korn469]

well blasting aliens with nuclear power supermajook infinity beam rifles is fun!

so i guess what you are trying to say is that if realism and fun come into direct conflict that realism should always give way to fun, but civ should try to stay as realistic as fun allows right?

if not too bad!

that's what i think

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by korn469
so i guess what you are trying to say is that if realism and fun come into direct conflict that realism should always give way to fun, but civ should try to stay as realistic as fun allows right?

Yup. I'm also attacking complaints about minor details, like jaguar skin.

[El hidalgo]

If realism and fun come into conflict, then yes, let's go for fun. But when realism is sacrificed for no good reason and doesn't affect fun at all... why be in favor of that? I'm specifically thinking about Cleopatra here. Is it really any more fun to have a historically inaccurate Cleopatra? I've said it before, if you really don't care about realism, then how would you feel if all the leaders were stick figures, or Sid in various costumes? How about Sid dressed as Cleopatra? Are you in favor of that? Or an Asian Cleopatra? Why not? How about a Klingon Cleopatra? Or why not Jane Doe, ruler of the Egyptians? Or Hillary Clinton?

Realism isn't always secondary to fun, and often it contributes to fun. Otherwise we'd be just as happy playing as "Civilization #1," instead of the Aztecs; "Civilization #2" instead of the Greeks; etc. Triremes would be "level one nautical units." Instead of temples we'd have "discontent inhibitors." And so on.

All I'm saying is, often there is no real conflict between realism and fun, and a lot of times realism contributes to fun, and lack of realism detracts from fun.

[monkspider]

Christantine

I actually do agree with you wholeheartedly that some people tend to go comically overboard in their demands for realism. However, I also feel that you oversimplify things with your one turn/one lifetime example, but I'm sure you know this.
I think that the thread that brought this topic up IS very relevant and by no means trivial. Although having higher movement rates are probably closer to reality, I also feel that they would help out the fun-factor a lot too, which is actually the only reason I am in the pro-faster movement rate camp. I am for historical accuarcy, assuming that it doesn't impede gameplay. But the thread which spawned your statements in THIS thread I feel to be VERY relevant to proper gameplay and not just overly-historical hogwash. I love history (It's one of my majors!) but gameplay does come first and foremost.

[noops_27]

my 2 cents

i think people take complaining in the wrong light. if i were to complain about the jaguar pelts(which i'm not) i would be doing just as my opinion on what would have been better. in a game like civilization where the game works in a world based on real events it only helps to have it more accurate. Sometimes tho it helps to take some liberties. civilzation in order to make the game interesting takes some liberties. the wonders are a perfect example of this. with the new look for alexander the great they chopped his hair off. I like the lions mane that is depicted in some art. i guess the new one is more accurate so that takes some of the fun out of playing him but no big deal. cleopatra in order to really work as a game for a westernized cujlture must look like what we perceive cleopatra to be, even if untrue. in areas not as popularized it makes sense to make them accurate so as not to perpetuate any erroneus myths

[Simpleton]

Granted, there are some kooks out there who whine and ***** about every little thing I feel that sometimes they are not far off. If in reality an African warrior wears a jaguar pelt then why is it so hard to make the African warrior wear one in the game? Why not put it in? You have to make the unit wear something after all (except in CIVNUDE). Cleopatra black...I see the reason people complained about this one. It was just silly. Sure the gameplay wouldn't suffer if they left her black. Heck they could have left it blue but it just looks silly. All these little things add up to a shoddy feel to the game. If I may coin a word it makes the game look CTPish (CTP = Call to Power 1 or 2). hey if your going to do it do it right! Right? ....

Don't get me wrong I think much of the complaining is wasted energy but some of it has validity.

[Bleyn]

I do agree that some of the so-called realists do tend to go a bit overboard in some of their complaining. Which is why I currently tend to ignore the Civ3-Civs forum. A few too many of the most vocal participants in that forum strike me as less interested in historical accuracy or realism than expressing their own deep-seated predjudices on the subject at hand.

Personally, I am all for putting realism second-place to fun, but I do believe that in a game like Civ, realism can be a useful tool in adjusting gameplay balance. Movement rates for modern units should be much faster than those of the ancients. But the rates should be balanced so that they are not so much faster that fun disappears.

And if I were going to complain about the look of Cleopatra, I'd complain more about the lack of the false beard that reigning queens of Egypt were supposed to sport in ancient times than in anything of skin tone.

[Cre8engr]

Actually, I'm having an amazingly good laugh just listening to all the realist moan about this or that. I'm still chuckling about the trip that took 45 years to circumnavigate the globe. In the early portions of CIV 1 and 2, with the time lapse between turns, it something like a 20 years just to move a unit from one city to the next. Those were some slow warriors. Not only did they stop to smell the roses, they also picked a few of them along the way to battle the enemy. In any game, and especially CIV, fun should take priority over realism.

[Roman]

Hmm, graphical details I don't care about, but features that add to realism most often add to the fun too, at least as far as I am concerned.

[isaac brock]

monkspider:

Your signature is great. Long live The Onion!

by the way, the onion is updated already.

[Roman]

Originally posted by isaac brock
monkspider:

Your signature is great. Long live The Onion!

by the way, the onion is updated already.

What the heck? ??? ???

[Sava]

The problem with people like you, Catherine, is that you are too short-sided when people speak of realism. I'm going to create another thread and I'm going to post an idea about the whole "battleship around the world in 45 years" problem.

As a realist, I want other people who hate realism to understand what I think about when I say, "I want the game realistic." Please don't take this as a personal attack, I just want to try and help you understand what we realists think.