 |
|
Kautilya
|
|
St Louis, MO
Feb 2000 time: 23:19
|
|
Has anyone noticed the incredibly large number of grand strategy games based on history which will be released in the next couple of years?
There are three from Paradox (makers of Europa Universalis) a Crusades game, a Rome game and, most exciting of all, a WW2 grand strategy game.
Then there are four games from antik games, www.antikgames.com, Rome,Middle Ages,Napoleon and 19th century
and then two more games from Matrix games (www.matrixgames.com) :a Napoleon game and a WW2 Pacific theatre game.
Altogether 9 games spanning huge range of history. If even half of them turn out be decent we are in for a treat.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by da_jaymz
realism is what we need... |
I disagree. Games should be fun. If realism helps to make the game fun, then I am all for it. But if realism bogs the game down into a boring game with tons of micromanagement then it is not what it should be. It should be fun first!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:19
|
|
A WW2 grand strategy game??? LINK LINK LINK!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999 time: 13:19
|
|
Well its not exactly historical but with some luck it will be going down in history ... *cough*Candle'Bre*cough*
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
Heard anything lately about the World in Flames production? The Australian Wargames Group were supposedly producing a multiplayer game first with the capacity for computer AI nations following in a second version. |
Lancer has posted about this on at least a couple of occasions - the last a few weeks ago. I think this was in the OT though...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chronocrator
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Osweld
Why do you compare Realism and 'fun'? I don't see how they are related at all. |
Just needed to bring that up again:
Actually fun and realism are quite closely connected, if you go overboard with realism fun will usually suffer. Let's take Colonization as an example (for those who don't know Col, it is a Civ-like game set in the time of the Colonization of America, your goal is to settle the new world, grow and prosper and finally achieve independence from your home country):
Col is certainly a game based on history, but it is not very historically realistic since all four nations (England, France, Spain, Holland) start their colonization exactly at same time, they start out with the same possibilities (well almost), it takes the same amount of time to go from the new world to any of the four countries and so on...
The reason for this is obvious, if the game was more realistic concerning the points mentioned above, it would be unballanced and therefore less fun.
BTW does anyone know anything about harpoon4? The website looks interesting but there were no updates recently...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001 time: 05:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chronocrator
Well let me use an extreme example, what if you played Holland and had no chance to begin your revolution because it never happend in history. What if you played the Babylonians in Civ and your empire gets destroyed every time you play, no matter what you do because it is obviously historically correct?
I wouldn't call that fun. |
Why do you think a game has to follow history to the letter, in order to be realistic? You must be using a different deffinition of realism then me, if you can confuse it with so many other concepts.
Most historic games offer you the ability to play alternate histories and what-if scenarios, while still keeping things realistic and in check to make sure it stays believable, and doesn't get too fantastic. Europa Universalis, for instance.
quote: I never said that, I merely mentioned that too much realism can seriously affect the fun in games. |
Yes, but going by the same logic, doesn't that mean that abstractism/surrealism makes a game more fun?
Realism has nothing to do with how fun a game is - gameplay is what decides that, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:19
|
|
OK, I saw Hearts of Iron and almot came in my ****ing pants! If that game lives up to it's promise - OH MY GOD!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chronocrator
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Osweld
Yes, but going by the same logic, doesn't that mean that abstractism/surrealism makes a game more fun? |
No, IMO too much of either will make a game bad, it depends mainly on the szenario.
quote: Realism has nothing to do with how fun a game is - gameplay is what decides that, and the two are not mutually exclusive. |
Maybe we are indeed talking about different things, but I cannot agree, realism can limit gameplay seriously. In many games realism is reduced to a certain level so that there is less micromanagement and therefore more fun. Of course not every bit of realism results in a boring game but too much can do this.
David Floyd, what is that game you are talking about?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|