Realism vs Playability

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Realism vs Playability

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Realism vs Playability

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 5:47:10 PM

Gary Childress

Posts: 4820
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

Some games seem to lean toward realism as the ultimate goal. But realism doesn't always translate into fun in my experience. Sometimes a good "game" is one which also has "playability" (for lack of a better term). "Playability" may include unrealistic features which are just inexplicably fun to play around with. For instance, having medics who can magically heal units on the spot is probably as unrealistic as it comes but it adds a kind of extra feature to a game which can be fun to utilize. Or something like resource gathering and buildings which produce units instantly ala Command and Conquer is definitely unreal but still can be fun.

It seems to me like there are two tendencies in gaming. On the one hand there is the tendency to try to produce games which mimic reality as closely as possible versus the tendency to produce games which have no other consideration than to be fun to play.

What do most people think is more important in a game: realism or playability? If you took stock of most of your games would you say that you tend to be more interested in realism or more interested in playability?

I guess, looking over my favorite games, I would have to say that I tend to lean a bit toward playability. I mean I like games like Close Combat or War in the Pacific which are very realistic but when I'm bored and looking for something to do I usually seem to fall back on games like Civilization or Code Name Panzers or Command and Conquer Generals or something along those lines. So I probably have to admit that playability is most important to me.

Post #: 1

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 5:59:50 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 3811
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

I'd like to think I have a broad spectrum of taste.

I play FPS, from zany stuff like rocket jumping Unreal Tournament all the way to ArmA.

I quite like RPGs too, I think NWN1 remains the best I've seen but I've yet to play Dragon Age.

And for strategy, all sorts again. I liked the Total War games, and most of Paradox's games. I also like WitP though, and right now AE is absorbing most of my gaming time.

About the only games I generally do not like are MMORPGs. Even there though I've given them a fair shake. Got up to a billion ISK as a trader in Eve. I generally dislike being forced into teams, though, so that rules out endgame stuff for me. Eve corporations and WoW guilds want to sign your life away to the game and are just too much work, and way too elitist, for me.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gary Childress)

Post #: 2

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 6:11:38 PM

sabre1

Posts: 1928
Joined: 8/15/2001
From: CA
Status: offline

Agreed, key word is play, not work when I choose a game. I love the notion of realism, but when time is tight, which is most of the time I choose ease of learning and fun.

That being said I am waiting for the BTR patch before purchase, and will pick up GG's War in the East. Will I play them much? Probably not, but I like the subject area.

There are really so few games that have that one more turn apsect for me. I suppose it is I who is just becoming jaded. I use to spend all night playing Empire Deluxe and Tornado DI simulation, plus many others. I rarely do that now. Is it old age or games are just not that innovative anymore. I don't know, but I do find I'm reading more.

I am starting to look at the old RPG games that I never played as a diversion to wargames. Sins and Galactic Civ 2 were very good, but just not as good as say "Lost Admiral", or Empire Deluxe. Empire of Steel is a more sophisticated version of ED, and I am keeping my eye on that one.

Panzer General I is another all time favorite, and it is funny that no one seems to be able to replicate the graphics or gameplay on that one. CEAW being the exception which I did and do enjoy on occasion, but still not the "I can't quit now" aspect.

Another issue for me with games is that usually the success of a game is if I can set the AI down low enough to win and complete the game. I then can up the AI in increments. I am not good at these games, and 9 times out of 10 the AI can kick my you know what. If a game AI always beats me, I get tired of that and never play the game again. I have A LOT of those games. I consider them a regrettable purchase, and generally don't recommend them when asked.

Sorry for rambling...

(in reply to Gary Childress)

Post #: 3

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 6:30:37 PM

Gary Childress

Posts: 4820
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline

I have to agree that the 1 more turn thing is almost a thing of the past for me as well. I remember skipping a day of work years ago so I could complete a scenario of Panzer General I.

Computer games were once very addicting to me but not so much anymore. I can't say that's a bad thing.

I mean I bought WITP AE but I can't say I play it a great deal. I honestly have to admit that AE kicks my butt in complexity. It's almost too complex for me. AE doesn't have the ability for me to pick it up, play a few hours and then put it down. To really play AE you have to commit to a long campaign. Like it or not, I just don't have that kind of attention span for games anymore. Don't get me wrong I think AE is a monumental work of gaming art. It's the Mona Lisa of computer games as far as I'm concerned but there are other "lesser" pieces of art out there which strike my fancy better than the Mona Lisa. I am a proud owner of AE and will always have a sentimental spot for the whole Uncommon Valor series. But I just don't have that much attention span for games much anymore. Jaded is indeed perhaps a good way of describing it.

(in reply to sabre1)

Post #: 4

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 6:54:22 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3981
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

Realism and reasonably simplicity/difficulty are not mutually exclusive. The big trick is for developers to hit the magic spot. As there are many different combinations of what various gamers like, this is not an easy task.

An example of a very good mix of playability and realism is CotA. Near the other extreme would be Calm and the Storm. Calm and the Storm is quite easy to learn and play, but regarding warfare, it can't hold my attention. Millions love Civilization, but I found it exceedingly repetitious-(which is really too bad as I bought a box version of #4 full price).

Sometimes a game goes a little too far in detail. It can be great in every respect-except for the time it takes to accomplish all the little required tasks. I don't like the idea of measuring my remaining life in 4 or 5 completed games. Again, this can vary quite a bit between gamers due to their lifestyle.

So, my criteria in order of importance would be; historical realism, ability to finish a game in a few months (a few days is better) at most (not including PBEM), difficulty/complexity, and UI plus bugs. I can put up with bugs for a while if the developer is earnestly trying to fix them-if the game is good in the other qualities.

The definition of "fun" is the big variable. To complicate this further, I think that the definition changes for an individual through the years-at least a little.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to sabre1)

Post #: 5

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 7:08:31 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3981
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I have to agree that the 1 more turn thing is almost a thing of the past for me as well. I remember skipping a day of work years ago so I could complete a scenario of Panzer General I. Computer games were once very addicting to me but not so much anymore. I can't say that's a bad thing.

You are certainly not alone in that sentiment Gary. I absolutely loved the whole TalonSoft lineup. Thousands of hours were poured into achieving Nirvana with TOAW, EF/WF, BTR, not to mention a few other titles. I had given up on board gaming for about 15 years or so before I bought my first PC game (TOAW) in '98. I had a lot of catching up to do.

I had many times forced myself to stay awake well past my required bedtime to finish PBEM turns. Those days are gone. If a turn comes in too late for me to do-oh well, it can wait.

PC gaming is like many other things-it looses its glimmer a little bit with heavy use. Sort of like the jelly bean in a jar regarding marriage thing

. So, it can still be a great hobby even if you are not willing to die for it.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Gary Childress)

Post #: 6

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 8:50:57 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 3157
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

... What do most people think is more important in a game: realism or playability? If you took stock of most of your games would you say that you tend to be more interested in realism or more interested in playability?

Playability, although I may feel guilty abt it later; all my games are usu. historical syms of some battle/campaign w/varying degrees of realism.

Although dated, CM semed to have a good balance between realism and playability.

Then there's re-playability.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Gary Childress)

Post #: 7

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/27/2009 9:11:14 PM

105mm Howitzer

Posts: 443
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Montreal, Quebec
Status: offline

Then there's re-playability

Aye, and that one for me is a huge factior deciding where m,y gaming moolah goes. Let's face it, I work daytime hours, come home and do the family raising thing, them if I'm up to it, some gaming. Gone are my carefree days of "Marathon Madness Weekend Gaming" challenges, or even the gathering of 5-8 fellows for paper-based RPG. Nowadays, a game has to be all of the above, plus re-playable. ( at least, to my standards)
Does it mean bye-bye to epic monsters? Probably not. I might dust off Highway to the Reich, or re-load WITP once again, since I consider them highly re-playable. How often I do, well that's another matter.
Cheers
MC

_____________________________

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" - Publius Renatus, 390 A.D.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 8

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 12:44:43 AM

sabre1

Posts: 1928
Joined: 8/15/2001
From: CA
Status: offline

quote:

Then there's re-playability

Yep, but the problem with many of those games is that they won't play on modern systems. I lost many of those classic games in a move. The manuals were to die for compared to the junk we get today.

I played Flight of the Old Dog to death plus the addons. I still wish I had that game to boot up. Sneaking into enemy airspace was really fun. The manual was wonderful, and it wasn't even close to some of the Microprose manuals. I would pay more for a quality box and manual, but I guess those days are gone, and I personally really miss the "old" gaming days.

Oh well, wishing won't get them back, and wishing won't bring back the days of all nighters and the excitement of a really well done game.

BTW, I'm sure COTA is a great game, but I never could figure it out, and put it away. I also have difficulty visualizing terrain. I also preferred the 3 d type map that JTCS uses. Which also reminds me that East Front and the other campaign series games are one of those that I come back to. Easy to pickup even if I haven't played for a year or more.

There I go rambling, obviously old age is getting to me.

(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)

Post #: 9

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 1:00:26 AM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

JTCS for me is great balance of playability realism.WitP:AE.....oh my goodness....very very complex, I love the game but out of all the other games I have I only get 1 or 2 turns a day with the grand campaign vs the AI.This game is very daunting.Of course since I'm the only person in the neighborhood who plays wargames, after JTCS, WitP:AE, and Panzer Campaigns I of course have to play some Counter Strike:Source and Team Fortress 2 with friends on steam.Then I have some RTS fun with Medieval 2 Total War, Company of Heroes and Men of War.My gaming library is pretty big and still growing so I don't have really enough to dedicate all my time to AE.

For Me definitely playability over realism.I want realism as much the next guy, but I don't want it extremes like WitP:AE.

< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 11/28/2009 1:05:05 AM >

_____________________________

Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to sabre1)

Post #: 10

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 1:01:04 AM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8341
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

tbh there is a market for both and I am open to both.

What I would say, climbing down off the fence, is that I would probably take playability over realism. I don't mind a certain amount of abstraction.

Like I said though...it depends...Like Kharkov:Distaster on the Donets...it is specifically about a specific operation. I would like realisim for that...same for Normandy...but for grand strategic gaming, I want playability. I DO NOT want to follow the historical timeline and end up defeated as Germany or victor as Allies....I want to affect the outcome with proper research, diplomacy and development.

But playability MUST come before realism. I would NEVER want to play Battle of the Bulge, Normandy Landings, Operation Barbarossa just to suffer the same fate (win/lose)...I need to know that I have a chance of changing the event...NOT WINNING...just that my actions have an effect...otherwise you're simply replaying history...and that is not fun to me.

(in reply to sabre1)

Post #: 11

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 2:05:10 AM

Slick Wilhelm

Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline

Playability trumps realism for me. Playability to me means a good user interface, a comprehensive manual(a searchable .pdf e-manual is the best!) a competent AI and plausible combat results.

Playability does not have to mean unrealistic. Some of my fondest gaming memories involve extremely complex games that I had to invest a great deal of time in learning how to play: Gary Grigsby's Pacific War back in the early 1990's, Uncommon Valor in the early 2000's, and recently Forge of Freedom].

I don't pretend to be able to find the time to play every game I purchase to conclusion. In fact, the games I actually finish are few and far between(see above titles). But because computer wargaming is my only real hobby that I can enjoy on a daily basis, I continue to buy and support wargame developers.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 12

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 2:50:35 AM

Llyranor

Posts: 206
Joined: 4/29/2006
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

Will have to second HTTR/COTA. Truly excellent game systems.

They have no demo, but the upcoming Battles from the Bulge will have one.

There is an old demo of Red Devils over Arnhem (the first game in the series), but it is very primitive compared to the other games. The series has improved significant. Might still be worth a look, though; demo sold me on the series.

(in reply to Slick Wilhelm)

Post #: 13

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 9:12:58 AM

Pergite!

Posts: 307
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: The temperate climate zone
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

Will have to second HTTR/COTA. Truly excellent game systems.

They have no demo, but the upcoming Battles from the Bulge will have one.

There is an old demo of Red Devils over Arnhem (the first game in the series), but it is very primitive compared to the other games. The series has improved significant. Might still be worth a look, though; demo sold me on the series.

What IMO most distinguishes HTTR/COTA/BFTB in realism and playability from all other titles is how you actually command and control your units. I myself easily get bored moving around virual chits on a vitual hex-grid when it comes to larger scenarios.

"1st Infantry Divisions�s, 16th Infantry Regiments, 1st battalion, A company moves one hex to the north and then one hex to the west. 1st Infantry Divisions�s,16th Infantry Regiments ,1st battalion�s, B company moves two hexes to the north and then one hex to the west... (repeat 64 times just for this division, then again for the next 30 turns)

Then there usually is an attack phase where you have to go over the same procedure again. After that its time to wait for the opponent to make his moves and attack while my men all stand idly by like pieces on a chessboard awaiting our fate.

Don�t get me wrong, I play a lot of boardgames, from ASL to Combat Commander, and I enjoy it a lot. I however really don�t like doing the same in a computerized environment that could and should be able to offer so much more.

Panther Games gives me to option to focus on the tactics and on the battle at hand. If I need the 1st Infantry Division to advance east of Aachen through Hurtgen Forest, driving all the way to the Roer, then I just give them that order. I might give each regiment specific orders, or just trust the AI representing Maj Gen Huebner and make him formulate the plan to reach his objectives. Each battalion will use sound doctrine and form up for road march, using spacings, lead elements and flanking protection where necessary. It doesn't require thousands of mouse clicks and manual movement of units to make it happen.

My "chits" are thinking and acting on their own, saving me enormous amounts of time that I can focus on other matters, like really micro managing a recon probe of a certain village, or personally oversee the defence for the construction of a new bailey bridge.

I feel that these games offer a more complete sense of command, offering realism as well as playability on a whole different level. I would applaude of more computer wargames where constructed to actually utilize the fact that they are computerized. Most of the titles around are just computer-assisted boardgames brining nothing new that couldn't be done on you dining room table.

Better visualization, blue force doctrinal AI and WE-GO systems in resolving combat is what I see as the biggest gains that could be made, to offer both more realism and playability, to this genre of gaming.

(in reply to Llyranor)

Post #: 14

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 9:43:47 AM

Hartford688

Posts: 260
Joined: 3/23/2004
From: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Status: offline

Excellent post Pergite!

I agree entirely.

(in reply to Pergite!)

Post #: 15

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 2:05:28 PM

L�tzow

Posts: 1414
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Weak point of the HttR/CotA engine is, that it can only handle a limited amount of units over a small area and time frame. If Panther would take this to an operational level, where one can control 500+ counters, it indeed could become a dignified successor to hexbased wargames.

Having said that, I don't need to save time, but rather have to fill time. Hence I value games with a high occupation level and this again puts me on the side which takes micromanagement and depth over accessibility.

(in reply to Hartford688)

Post #: 16

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 5:35:21 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 3157
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

... Better visualization, blue force doctrinal AI and WE-GO systems in resolving combat is what I see as the biggest gains that could be made, to offer both more realism and playability, to this genre of gaming.

WEGO is definately the way to go; real time aside, everything else seems like checkers.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Pergite!)

Post #: 17

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 6:26:06 PM

killroyishere

Posts: 639
Joined: 4/23/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Then there's re-playability

Aye, and that one for me is a huge factior deciding where m,y gaming moolah goes. Let's face it, I work daytime hours, come home and do the family raising thing, them if I'm up to it, some gaming. Gone are my carefree days of "Marathon Madness Weekend Gaming" challenges, or even the gathering of 5-8 fellows for paper-based RPG. Nowadays, a game has to be all of the above, plus re-playable. ( at least, to my standards)
Does it mean bye-bye to epic monsters? Probably not. I might dust off Highway to the Reich, or re-load WITP once again, since I consider them highly re-playable. How often I do, well that's another matter.
Cheers
MC

I'd have to agree with re-playability over anything else as well. I much prefer a fantasy based game with random elements every game and different starting positions and even different victory goals if I can get them. If it's historical then some realism must be there, but, re-playability would still come first then playability then realism. I don't want tanks in the ancient era or things like that. But, it doesn't have to be so real every faction has to have perfect matching equipment on in the correct color or every tank has to be identical to it's actual real life version. I don't even pay attention to that stuff when I'm playing games like Combat Mission or Panzer Command or Steel Panthers.

(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)

Post #: 18

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 6:54:23 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3981
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

I agree that re-playability is an important consideration, but I would put it near the bottom of the list.

What if you have, what appears to be, the greatest game ever, but there are only 3 dozen scenarios. Those existing scenarios can give you a thousand hours of playing time. So, for the cost of 40 or 50 bucks you decline an excellent game because you might only get a thousand hours of use from it? Should you not get that game because there are others that have so many scenario's that you could not play them all in 3 lifetimes? Even if those games fail in nearly every comparison to the one with only 3 dozen scenario's? Seems silly to me.

I must admit that I did pass on one new release that appeared to be a very good game, but had only one scenario; Kharkov DotD. I have read the forums and am convinced it is a very good game-and I might get it at the reduced price. If I don't buy it, the lack of scenario's will not have anything to do with the decision at this point. With the options, and playing on different sides it would offer hundreds of hours of good military gaming. At 20 bucks, that is a good deal-one scenario or not.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to killroyishere)

Post #: 19

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 7:15:29 PM

killroyishere

Posts: 639
Joined: 4/23/2008
Status: offline

I guess it's like the question which would you rather have $100,000 all at once or a penny a day doubled for the rest of your life? I'll take the penny a day doubled for the rest of my life. Making everything equal other than repetitive setup/play scenarios or random ones I'd go for replayability with the random ones.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 20

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 7:22:02 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3981
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
Panther Games gives me to option to focus on the tactics and on the battle at hand. If I need the 1st Infantry Division to advance east of Aachen through Hurtgen Forest, driving all the way to the Roer, then I just give them that order. I might give each regiment specific orders, or just trust the AI representing Maj Gen Huebner and make him formulate the plan to reach his objectives. Each battalion will use sound doctrine and form up for road march, using spacings, lead elements and flanking protection where necessary. It doesn't require thousands of mouse clicks and manual movement of units to make it happen.

A functioning and flexible chain of command coupled with an intelligent friendly and opposing ai truly sets Panther Games products apart from the rest.

The number of clicks is also much less than comparable games. I was dissuaded from buying HTTR upon its release because of some bogus comments about it being a "click fest". These were apparently made by some know it all that couldn't be bothered with actually having trying the game. I missed out on 2 years of excellent gaming because I believed that rubbish.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Pergite!)

Post #: 21

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 7:51:42 PM

Alan Sharif

Posts: 356
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline

I look for that sweet spot between playability and historical accuracy. When I have purchased games that lean to far in either direction I tire of them, either for their simplicity or complexity. For a game to hold my interest in the long term it has to feature both.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 22

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 8:04:02 PM

GShock

Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

All games have to reach a compromise between realism and playability. Most of the smartass dev houses know that these 2 factors can be custom-taylored to the end user's requirements with modding so they leave that window open wiith settings and leaving data files editable as text files.

Now Gary, it all depends on what kind of game scenario and type you're looking for. You want Civil War? Rpg? Space? Flight Sim? That's the main question and on that I am sure each of us can tell you his impressions on one side and the other.

_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Alan Sharif)

Post #: 23

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 8:41:14 PM

ezz

Posts: 538
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Gary Grigsby's dreams .

ZZZZZZ . Model each side arm.....ZZZZZ .. P38 9mm vs Webley .455. Add a point for the extra magazine of the P38 but allow the Webley an extra 2ft of accuracy ZZZZZZZZ ... What about the Mab D french semi auto ?? ZZZZZZZ This is importannt in a global scale game you know ..ZZZZZZ.
I'd love to be able to have actual foodstuffs instead of "supplies"...ZZZZZ....German black bread gives how many calories compared to Russian Borscht?...ZZZZZZZ... Should I allow players to modify agricultural land to produce grain or potatoes or leave that to the AI?... If I don't allow it I'll be murdered in the forums for being unrealistic..ZZZZZ.. Maybe...ZZZZZ... whats the difference between a cabbage and a lettuce anyway.....ZZZZZZZZZ

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 24

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 9:41:04 PM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Gary Grigsby's� dreams .

ZZZZZZ . Model each side arm.....ZZZZZ .. P38 9mm vs Webley .455. Add a point for the extra magazine of the P38 but allow the Webley an extra 2ft of accuracy ZZZZZZZZ ... What about the Mab D french semi auto ?? ZZZZZZZ This is importannt in a global scale game you know ..ZZZZZZ.
I'd love to be able to have actual foodstuffs instead of "supplies"...ZZZZZ....German black bread gives how many calories compared to Russian Borscht?...ZZZZZZZ... Should I allow players to modify agricultural land to produce grain or potatoes or leave that to the AI?... If I don't allow it I'll be murdered in the forums for being unrealistic..ZZZZZ.. Maybe...ZZZZZ... whats the difference between a cabbage and a lettuce anyway.....ZZZZZZZZZ

< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 11/28/2009 9:42:11 PM >

_____________________________

Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to ezz)

Post #: 25

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 9:52:19 PM

killroyishere

Posts: 639
Joined: 4/23/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Gary Grigsby's� dreams .

ZZZZZZ . Model each side arm.....ZZZZZ .. P38 9mm vs Webley .455. Add a point for the extra magazine of the P38 but allow the Webley an extra 2ft of accuracy ZZZZZZZZ ... What about the Mab D french semi auto ?? ZZZZZZZ This is importannt in a global scale game you know ..ZZZZZZ.
I'd love to be able to have actual foodstuffs instead of "supplies"...ZZZZZ....German black bread gives how many calories compared to Russian Borscht?...ZZZZZZZ... Should I allow players to modify agricultural land to produce grain or potatoes or leave that to the AI?... If I don't allow it I'll be murdered in the forums for being unrealistic..ZZZZZ.. Maybe...ZZZZZ... whats the difference between a cabbage and a lettuce anyway.....ZZZZZZZZZ

Lol ezz that was 'priceless'!

(in reply to ezz)

Post #: 26

RE: Realism vs Playability - 11/28/2009 10:15:03 PM

Slick Wilhelm

Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Should you not get that game because there are others that have so many scenario's that you could not play them all in 3 lifetimes? Even if those games fail in nearly every comparison to the one with only 3 dozen scenario's? Seems silly to me.

I couldn't agree more, Maestro. I don't need re-playability if a good game gives me my money's worth the first time around. I appreciate a game that has re-playability, of course, but it's not essential to me. I, too, am thinking of picking up "Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets" during this sale.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 27