Gameplay VS Realism factor

[Athanasios]

Ok, in reference to "36 rockets to take out an ATST???" thread, i thought that the best way to solve our differences is democratically .

 

So, the question derived from the whole thread is:

 

"Should gameplay be overestimated against realism as far as health/armor/penetration etc etc sector is concerned?"

 

In other words, should a unit be destroyed accordingly to the real physic laws (realism) or not, just for fun (gameplay) shake?

[matthujun]

i go for both, balancing the two.

[darthfergie]

Since we're Star Wars nuts we will likely put out the realism factor. I know I was tempted to. But quite honestly the gameplay matters a ton and a half and right now it may seem like realism is most important, but when you get your hands on the game, you won't end up thinking as much about it. Honestly I don't think it's the biggest deal. I may seem vehement about the AT-ST being a scout vehicle and anti-infantry. I may seem vehement about Dagobah being a crazy planet to put into the game. When push comes to shove though, after I've bought the game I'll likely support the same features I've crowed against here and now. Why? Because I think my opinion might make a difference, however small at tweaking a unit or a dynamic in some way. I seem to recall being involved in a Q&A chat with GB devs and we ended up mentioning the TIE Defender and wanting it in the game. As it turned out we ended up being an stimulus to add the fighter.

However, once I get the game I won't end up focusing on the points of contentionsion mainly because they are admittedly small points and I believe in the overall dynamic of the game. Who knows, they may end up integrating the heavily armored AT-STs in a way that is really appealing and flows, the same with the Dagobah issue.

In the end, I think gameplay holds more weight.

[Perfect Soldier]

Im more for gameplay but only up to a point. I mean if I see an AT-AT fire at a group of infantry for 5min and only kill like 1 soldier then that is going too far. So I think gameplay should be the biggest factor but realism should not be completely excluded.

[Admiral Sith]

Realistic for me

[Athanasios]

Well, i think we confused some things here. Realism doesn not remove gameplay, nor gameplay means no realism. Actually, in my opinion, realism enhances gameplay in every way, simple because you have to take in mind many "real" factors. If, as soldier said, an ATAT is firing at my troops for 5min, then this is not realism, i simple forget to take the troops from there and the whole strategy changes; i let the troops there to gain some time advantage and do other things. Well, this is not realism and it draws back gameplay. If in a turn of a mountain your 100 troops face 2 ATATs and some ATSTs nearby, they're simple dead within seconds. But, including the physic laws, i just say "they're dead" and drop back, loosing -ofourse- time to draw back, reconsidering the attack etc etc.

 

Also, when a troop laser does no harm to an Armored vehicle, and a missle open a hole in it with few hits, then strategy changes again. 100 plex troops against 2 ATAT is like 100 ants against a big bug

 

Anyway, the point is that realism and gameplay are not different or contrary things. Check Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps RTS if you want to see some nice realism within a good gameplay.

[aggie_john]

Yeah I lean towards gameplay, it is a game based on a movie, so how real can it be? What do you mean by real, do you mean real like in real world? Well come on Star Wars is not always real in that way, thats why we love it. Now if you mean real as in true to the movies, yeah I can see that, but not to much games are games. It needs to be playable.

[Jan Gaarni]

When he says realism, he means Star Wars realism.

[Athanasios]

realism = physic laws

[Dagobahn Eagle]

As Athanasios said, the question is a completely wrong one.

 

What you ask is "do you want a realistic game - yes or no?" But when you use "gameplay" as a word for "arcade" or "simplicity", it makes it sound like "do you want a realistic game or a good game?". If I went "gameplay>arcade", wouldn't you cock an eyebrow?

 

For us who like realism, realism, detail, and complexity is gameplay. Good gameplay to me is the X-Wing series where I control power settings, shield calibration, laser convergence, and so on in my fighter. Gameplay to others is the point-and-shoot simplicity of the Rogue Squadron series.

 

Also, realism isn't necessarily complexity, learning curves, and difficulty. For example, let's compare the aiming reticules of Rogue Squadron and TIE Fighter. The TIE Fighter reticule lights up green when you've lined up a good shot, letting you know when you should fire to hit your target. More realistic as of course the fighters in Star Wars had instruments that told the pilot when to fire. But also a lot more "simple" and "fun" (the latter term being another one the arcade fans have monopolized:rolleyes: ). The reticule in Rogue Squadron is less realistic, and adds to complexity and challenge.

 

On the other hand, while in Rogue Squadron your lasers are self-recharging, in TIE Fighter you need to allocate power to the laser cannons from the engines or shields (if your fighter has them!) in order to recharge lasers. More realistic and more complicated.

 

The term "good gameplay" seems to me to be monopolized nowadays by those who want a simple game. Not to mention that they have an annoying tendency to just smack down a "Gameplay>Realism" note instead of actually arguing for their points. Not to mention how some people obviously don't think about whether or not an idea is a good one, just whether or not it's realistic. Sprinting in Battlefront 2? Heck no, it's realistic, flame the guy until the thread gets closed (really happened:rolleyes:)!

 

In other words, should a unit be destroyed accordingly to the real physic laws (realism) or not, just for fun (gameplay) shake?

According to physics and realism. I hate seeing an AT-AT take damage from E-11 blaster carbines. Thick armour, like that of tanks, should be impervious to blaster fire and require rockets or torpedoes to take down, akin to how fighters can only be downed by anti-air fire in some cases.

 

Rome: Total War did a fantastic job at being realistic damage-wise while still keeping everything balanced so that you couldn't just mass one super-unit and that's that. Galactic Conquest also did a great job at making every infantry class very specialized and dependant on the other classes, so that you couldn't just mass a bunch of scouts and win the whole map that way.

 

it is a game based on a movie, so how real can it be?

Very. Try Galactic Conquest.

The "oh, it's a sci-fi universe, so why apply physics and realism" argument is void, if you ask me.

[Jan Gaarni]

realism = physic laws

Ah, then you formed the question incorrectly.

 

Cause when you deal with Star Wars, the word "realism" means "Star Wars realism", not "real life realism".

 

You compare the game to the Star Wars Universe after all, not real life. That universe has alot of the same laws as in real life, but also many that we don't, or in many cases it overrides real life laws.

[Athanasios]

Well, if we'd like to analyse how realism and gameplay can be incoporated in a game, then we should write a whole essay, that's why i started from the simple topic of "penetration", something that is both real life and -should be- in Eaw, since those scifi-unreal mechanical units seen in movies conist of steel and other materials from real life.

 

Maybe the point which may confuse some people is this one, as Jan pointed, that the realism with the "tight" meaning from real life cannot be applied 1-1 on SW universe. So, we speak about those realistic features/physic laws that can be applied in SW universe (and so in EaW).

 

Yet, realism in a game sometimes comes bound with complexity (flight sims especially from WWII era is a characteristic example of this). In RTS games though the complexity applies not in the controls but in the whole strategy that must be layed down to succeed.

 

I think Petro has already taken this in mind, judging from the elements for example; they're not made for visual purposes, but they affect the whole gameplay/strategy. In the same category are: penetration of guns, movement on different terrains, critical hit points and others to mention a few.

[Juggernaut1985]

Another factor of realism I would like to see, but would boost the gameplay(at least for me) is if the galactic map did not stop when you are in tactical combat. I know whtat sound pretty stupid for some people, but those who can handle that sort of multi-tasking it brings them more fun from the game.

 

Complexity is an important issue and I doubt I'm the only one who sees this game as less than what I had originally hoped it to have gameplay wise(not unit or planet wise).

[-=Nuke=-]

One more Thing in EAW that is against Realism:

 

In the newest Gamespot.com Preview is written that Stardestroyer can use the special ability of "Launching unlimted number of Tie-Fighters".

 

I think thats not the best chioce of a Special ability, stardestroyers are even powerfull enough, arent they?

[Athanasios]

Well, this non-stop interactivity when battling in space and land should be really impressive; imagine struggling your way in conquest for a planet'a surface with a great fleet in its orbit, and in the same time receiving a message that your "home" planet (the most important for you) is surrounded by another significant enemy fleet.............unfortuantely, this feature is officially confirmed that won't exist in EaW.

 

Anyway, regarding the realism at the point of physic laws, i always found it "rediculous" for a simple troop (with a blast weapon) to take out a heavily damaged ATAT.........this "everything can destroy everything" feature was also seen in C&C series and, in my opinion, through back A LOT the whole gameplay-strategy.

 

One more realism factor seen in Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps is the different shielded-parts of a vehicle; in simple words, a tank didn't simply has "5 points armor", but it had "5 armor from the front, 3 from the back, 4 and 4 on the sides" and so on..........obviously, attacking a heavy rebel attack tank or an ATAT from the back or the sides shouldn't be the same as attacking it from the front. This applies on spaceships even more, since the shield generators are configured to protect the place where is -in a battle- most likely to be attacked, and this is the front (well, i assume you don't move your fleets backwards around the galaxy ).

 

[edit about the SD feature] -You kidding us? Maybe they base this on "an SD can construct TIE in his interior"......

[Juggernaut1985]

The SD ability, thats just wrong, it would belong better on oh lets say.....a World Devestator, not an SD.

[Athanasios]

Well, maybe they should be able to build a specific number of small fighters (not only ties), in the basis you cannot get them always from a space station or a ground base......for example, an SD could build a max of 20 Ties, then, it must reload "resources" from a space station or something; yet, this feature should be disabled during combat (who would fix screws while getting bombared after all...)

 

Well, the battle continues 50-50 i see, so, Petro should add an option "Extreme realism on-off"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

A Star Destroyer has 72 TIE Fighters (and of course other things like Bombers, Gunboats, shuttles, walkers, etc.). 72, period. Where on Earth are those infinite amounts supposed to come from? Do they dismantle the other vehicles and turn them into parts for eyeballs? Like...

TIE Fighter

Cost: Darth Vader's life support system, 1 R2 droid, 1 AT-PT

?

 

Well, maybe they should be able to build a specific number of small fighters

Maybe they "should be", but problem here is that they don't.

 

One more realism factor seen in Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps is the different shielded-parts of a vehicle; in simple words, a tank didn't simply has "5 points armor", but it had "5 armor from the front, 3 from the back, 4 and 4 on the sides" and so on.

A very, very good feature, that. It's in Code Name: Panzers, too, and in Ground Control.

 

i always found it "rediculous" for a simple troop (with a blast weapon) to take out a heavily damaged ATAT.........this "everything can destroy everything" feature was also seen in C&C series and, in my opinion, through back A LOT the whole gameplay-strategy.

Agreed.

[Athanasios]

i always found it "rediculous" for a simple troop (with a blast weapon) to take out a heavily damaged ATAT.........this "everything can destroy everything" feature was also seen in C&C series and, in my opinion, through back A LOT the whole gameplay-strategy.

 

Well, judging from the the units - ATST, i think that the lasers shot on ATST do not harm them, yet, this is just a suspicion since we don't see their health bar. But juding from the fact that when a troop unit is hit then it suspends its attack (by crouching a bit, showing its hit) and that the ATST doesn't seem to care about the lasers (either those fired at it by the front or the back), then lasers might not penetrate armored vehicles......

 

Well, we just need some clues from Petro, we can't talk with possibilities.