29-09-2001 07:53									#1
	Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there. Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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)

	29-09-2001 08:28									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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?'.

	29-09-2001 09:10									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	29-09-2001 09:17									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	29-09-2001 09:39									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	29-09-2001 10:27									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	29-09-2001 11:08									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	29-09-2001 11:41									#8
	my 2 cents Remove this text

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

	29-09-2001 12:29									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	29-09-2001 12:43									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	03-10-2001 06:03									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	03-10-2001 06:07									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	03-10-2001 06:15									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

monkspider:

Your signature is great. Long live The Onion!

by the way, the onion is updated already.

	03-10-2001 06:19									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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? ??? ???

	03-10-2001 06:27									#15
	Remove this text

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.

	03-10-2001 06:31									#16
	Remove this text

His signature was lifted from The Onion, America's Finest News Source. Click the link. You won't be disappointed.

	03-10-2001 06:37									#17
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?

Don't bring up heretical ideas or you'll be flamed back to the stone age seems to be the order of the day. Well, enough's enough then. I'd better respond.

Most of the witchunt against 'realism' is being carried out by people who are not only rude ('shut up!'), and belligerent, they have extremely poor reading skills.

My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant. My response? First, brush up on your deficient reading skills.

I used the example of the time it takes a battleship to transit the globe to demonstrate how slow modern naval units, specifically the battleship, are.

The response, of course, was an ignorant, blind rant against calls for realism by people who evidently did not read my post. In no part of it do I call for absolute realism. I also state that having a battleship transit a large world in 20 turns or so would be within reasonable gameplay limits. Some people here think that's realistic, evidently. Let me disabuse you of this idea. A modern battleship can circumnavigate the globe in under a year. I know this will shock many of you.

I do feel, however, that 45 turns or 60 turns for a submarine is way too slow for a game that has a time limit of, say, 2020-2050, when you dont get these new units until say 1920 (yeah, some people get battleships in 10 ad but not all of us are that good).

I find it astonishing how limited the anti-realism people are with the breadth of their reasoning. You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.

Furthermore, I would just like to point out that there are a lot of nonsense posts on this board that are nothing more than trivia. Someone finds them interesting. Not everyone has the same interests.

But simply because you do not share the same interests as others does not excuse intollerance of their ideas. I do not witlessly attack the posts of others on this forum, and I do not insult, belittle, or threaten Firaxis (i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) or its artists ('the art SUCKS!') as many have on these boards, over and over again, without censure.

If someone wants to post about what civ they are going to play first, go ahead. This, the civ experience, is about having FUN.

I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.

Different people have fun in different ways. They may discuss different aspects of the game that they find interesting.

If you are too limited in thought to understand this, Christantine the Great, then shut up.

Phutnote

	03-10-2001 06:46									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"Realists" and a famous game... anyone see the movie Existenz (forgot which letters are capitilized). Please, no killing over Civ 3. It is, after all a game. And the thing about the Jaguar skins is that everything in the game is going to be modifiable. So if you don't like it, make your own!

	03-10-2001 06:47									#19
	Remove this text

I don't have any argument to strike down your post other than that I disagree, so I plead you all to randomly insult phutnote, his mother, and his personal hygiene.

	03-10-2001 06:51									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Thanks Issac
I concur, Onion is great!

	03-10-2001 06:55									#21
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by isaac brock His signature was lifted from The Onion, America's Finest News Source. Click the link. You won't be disappointed.

ROFLMAO

Now that's funny.

	03-10-2001 06:56									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: As a realist, I want other people who hate realism

I never said I hated realism, I said it should come in second.

quote: Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it?

So is your post. Your point?

quote: ('shut up!')

Quote correctly. I said "shut up" (note no exclamation point) because I did not feel like typing out 'would please refrain from saying'. Anyone would do this.

quote: My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant.

What? Can't stand criticism? Poor boy...

quote: You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.

You gather all of this from one post I made to (not entirely seriously) challenge the argument of extreme realism?

quote: (i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) ('the art SUCKS!')

I really, really hope this is not aimed at me. Show me where I said that.

quote: I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.

Note the winking smile near the name of this thread on the main page? Guess not...

quote: Different people have fun in different ways.

Then you die on the first turn and I will happily enjoy my battleship taking 5 turns to cross the Atlantic.

I guess you were blinded by the fury you felt seeing your precious thread being poked at. For that, I forgive you. Sleep easy.

	03-10-2001 06:59									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Calm down people, no need to wind each other up. It's only a game after all.

	03-10-2001 07:09									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

Thanks Christantine. I appreciate your telling-off skills. And phutnote, thanks for the blind rant from someone who obviously hasn't read Christantine's post.

I myself would enjoy a playable game more than a slideshow of leaders with accurate moles and birthmarks.


OOh yeah!

Fun games: 1

Realism: NOTHING

	03-10-2001 07:09									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Phutnote Well, this is a touchy bunch, isn't it? Don't bring up heretical ideas or you'll be flamed back to the stone age seems to be the order of the day. Well, enough's enough then. I'd better respond. Most of the witchunt against 'realism' is being carried out by people who are not only rude ('shut up!'), and belligerent, they have extremely poor reading skills.

Well, some poeple can be rude. But I wouldn't call this a witch hunt or anything else except people voicing their opinions just as you are.

quote: My post about the battleships is being sited as the high water mark of the realist rant. My response? First, brush up on your deficient reading skills. I used the example of the time it takes a battleship to transit the globe to demonstrate how slow modern naval units, specifically the battleship, are. The response, of course, was an ignorant, blind rant against calls for realism by people who evidently did not read my post. In no part of it do I call for absolute realism. I also state that having a battleship transit a large world in 20 turns or so would be within reasonable gameplay limits. Some people here think that's realistic, evidently. Let me disabuse you of this idea. A modern battleship can circumnavigate the globe in under a year. I know this will shock many of you.

Actually, it didn't shock me. I keep in mind that this is a game, and the amount of turns should depend on the best rate for gameplay, not the best rate for chronological realism. I think that's what most people were "ranting" about.

quote: I do feel, however, that 45 turns or 60 turns for a submarine is way too slow for a game that has a time limit of, say, 2020-2050, when you dont get these new units until say 1920 (yeah, some people get battleships in 10 ad but not all of us are that good).

Okay. A good argument for why this affects gameplay. This would be alright, except that increased movement would basically null things like blockades and unbalance the game strategically. For example, a battleship could move up quickly and destroy an entire group of destroyers, simply because it gets a lot of moves. Furthermore, for faster sea units to still have value in their speed, they need to have proportionally more moves than the slower unit. That means that if you gave a battleship 10 moves, a destroyer would probably have to have an amazing 15-20 moves to still be worth building. That's a lot of moves!

I recommend a slowing down of elapsed time per turn. Civ2 already does this by slowing down the progress of time as time goes on, but if you still think there aren't enough turns at the end of the game it would be logical to make every turn only 6 months or so at the end.

quote: I find it astonishing how limited the anti-realism people are with the breadth of their reasoning. You are entirely incapable of acknowledging how a change in the game that results in greater 'realism' could actually benefit gameplay.

My mantra is this, and I hope you will find it reasonable:

Adding realism such that it detracts from gameplay is generally a bad idea, while realism that does not affect gameplay is perfectly fine.

I don't agree with giving a battleship a lot more moves, because for the reasons mentioned above I believe a 10 move battleship would detract from gameplay. Changing Cleopatra's skin color, however, is harmless and should be included if possible or reasonsble.

quote: Furthermore, I would just like to point out that there are a lot of nonsense posts on this board that are nothing more than trivia. Someone finds them interesting. Not everyone has the same interests. But simply because you do not share the same interests as others does not excuse intollerance of their ideas. I do not witlessly attack the posts of others on this forum, and I do not insult, belittle, or threaten Firaxis (i'm not buyin this game unless! . . .) or its artists ('the art SUCKS!') as many have on these boards, over and over again, without censure.

Everybody can say (pretty much) whatever they want, that is the essence of a forum. You should learn to be patient with your detractors and in doing so understand that you are morally superior if you stay above their attacks and ignore their personal insults. As for their opinions (that idea SUCKS!) I think you will find a lot of that everywhere you go, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Expect it to come from somewhere.

quote: If someone wants to post about what civ they are going to play first, go ahead. This, the civ experience, is about having FUN.

And, since people's ideas on fun differ, you can't qualify posts for other people.

quote: I'll be polite and courteous to those who show politeness and courtesy to others. Christantine is not among them.

Refer to above paragraph on personal insults. Christiantine has every right to post what he did, and so did you.

quote: Different people have fun in different ways. They may discuss different aspects of the game that they find interesting. If you are too limited in thought to understand this, Christantine the Great, then shut up.

Your post here hints that you too "are too limited in thought to understand this." Let him say what he wants. It's good you made your counterpoint, but you should learn to debate your ideas without telling people to shut up.

Isaac, you're not helping

	03-10-2001 07:13									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hey Christiantine, is that really necessary? If you want anyone to take you even a bit seriously, stop being such a troll and let people speak. What, can't stand some heat from the opposition?

	03-10-2001 07:18									#27
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 Isaac, you're not helping

Well, I've never been so uninsulted in my life! I don't need to help. I do what I can to fan the big red flames of hatred. I'm only saying, if you want realism buy Encarta 2002, if you want a game play Civ 3.

	03-10-2001 07:24									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hey, Christantine is NOT being a "troll." When someone exposes the flaws in your argument, you expose the flaws in their argument until they are shamed out of the thread. Is this the first time you've used the forum?

Even if irony really is dead, it doesn't mean all forms of argument are.

	03-10-2001 07:26									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Christantine, you again have been unable to properly understand the point that Phutnote was trying to get through.
Critising the minor shortcomings and the trivial inaccuracies

quote: Quote correctly. I said "shut up" (note no exclamation point) because I did not feel like typing out 'would please refrain from saying'. Anyone would do this.

in his post does not in anyway undermine his agument or what he is trying to defend. Maybe if you actually posted a worthwhile argument to counter his, we would be more willing to take into account your opinion.

Posts like

quote: I don't have any argument to strike down your post other than that I disagree, so I plead you all to randomly insult phutnote, his mother, and his personal hygiene.

really say it all dont they. (this is not directed at u christy)

	03-10-2001 07:29									#30
	Re: Realism should always be second to Fun, and I can prove it. So there. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great

I'm not even going to bother reading beyond the 1st post, because I can just sense the heat coming up.
I would just like to say that I mostly agree with the topic "Realism should always be second to Fun", but I'd replace the word "Fun" with gameplay/balance.