your preference: Realism, gameplay, or a little of both?

Ducimus · 01-21-06, 04:45 PM

Ive always thought this a source of contention.

In one corner you have the ultra realist grognard. Plays to experience the pages of history in the utmost detail. If it were possible to expereince the smells of a uboat, the motion of the sea while sitting in their chair playing, or the some how simulate the long boring weeks puncutated by sheer moments of terror, i think they' do it.

In the other corner you have your joe average gamer. Plays for fun. Enjoys blowing stuff up emensly, doesnt really bother with all the minor details. Sometimes does things that make the realist grognard wince in pain.

In the middle, you probably have some people who try find a balance between the two. May play for realism in one game, then turn around and do something incredibly unrealistic because its fun in another game, or tries to meld the two togther to form some sort of compromise between whats realistic, and what is fun. Personnaly i fall into this camp.

So which is your preference?

CWorth · 01-21-06, 04:53 PM

I always played die hard realism no matter what.

That has become quite boring to do patrol after patrol,career after career.

Now I play with a mix of both realism and non realism just to change things up a bit to keep me interested in the game.

Camaero · 01-21-06, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In one corner you have the ultra realist grognard. Plays to experience the pages of history in the utmost detail. If it were possible to expereince the smells of a uboat, the motion of the sea while sitting in their chair playing, or the some how simulate the long boring weeks puncutated by sheer moments of terror, i think they' do it.

That is me perfectly ^^^ Realism realism realism!

CCIP · 01-21-06, 04:59 PM

I think you have to distinguish "realism" from "reality", that's something that a lot of people miss. I'm of the Beery-type school of thought where "realism" == "gameplay", but "realism" =/= "reality".

Ultimately, I want my game to reflect what I know of history and reality. Getting less than that is a minus to gameplay for me first, realism later. :hmm:

finchOU · 01-21-06, 06:59 PM

Good Poll

For me the more realistic...the better. I think that in the long run the sim will have a better gameplay experience and make people come back.....more work for the kill...the more that kill means something...not just point, click, Kill. Compromise is something that should be refleted in an Options or Realism options menu...not on sim developement itself......i think a sim/game can and should be both Realistic as possible...but Gamey as possible but that should be up to the player and their preference..not the limit of the sim itself.

I see it more as...if you going to make something (talking simulators) based off of history.....get it as acurate as possilbe to simulate as close to life (insomuch that realism can be brought to a computer screen) as possilbe...first...then worry about making it gamey to appeal to the masses....with the first comes the masses in my mind....and it teaches our youth a more valuable lesson on history (which is why I am so for a full manual with the History that the sim is based off of...like the AOD manual)....I learned so much History from the AOD manual..it made the sim even more immersive!

Also another reason to make a game as realistic as possilbe (with preference to make it more gamey) is that a player who first starts out on gamey and or less realistic settings always has the option to increase realims and voila...it is a whole new game......this was like the first time I played AOD without being able to spot contacts via the moving map.

JScones · 01-21-06, 08:03 PM

finchOU and CCIP sum it up nicely for me.

If I want a mindless "shoot 'em up" I'll play COD or some other WWII FPS (nothing better for stress relief!).

I purchased SH3 as a *simulation*, and by golly that's what I want! For me, I'd *lose* enjoyment if I was tutting about in an XXI in 1939 or sinking ships with my super-dupa high-powered deck gun (hehe, although it is fun when testing things). Why? Not because I'm playing with 100% realism settings (I don't mind you), but because I *know* it's not realistic and it didn't really happen - and that's what matters to me.

Hence why I'm looking forward to fully trying the NYGM suite of mods which should improve some of the other little niggles that I have left with the game.

Anyway, click...bang...sink...click...bang...sink. Sorry, not for me!

01-21-06, 08:09 PM

I think its important to have the chance to choose it.

So the same game can suit different player profiles / mood !!!

TreverSlyFox · 01-21-06, 08:11 PM

I guess you'ed call me a "Hardcore" Gamer. I LOVE realism, I expect my boat to respond exactly as they actually did. I expect the details of my boat to be correct and there's enough detailed documentation out there for it to be modeled correctly. I expect my enemy to do what they actually did during the time frame I'm playing.

But there is also a point I don't cross. I don't understand the math involved to manually set up a torpedo shot and I have no intention of doing so. As Captain, I take the sights and my XO does the calculations and lays out the shot. Pretty much just as it was done on Subs. I'm the Captain, I make the decisions, give the orders and others carry them out.

I don't deal with Crew Management, that's not my job, that's why I have CPOs and an XO for. I shouldn't have to deal with crew rotations and I don't, I've edited it out. No, it's not right and it really POs me that it was scripted this way and I have to edit the game to avoide it.

All of the faults in SHIII could have been taken care of in game development and testing. There should have been a lot more options built into the game in the first place. SHIII is a "Good" simulation, but it's not a "Great" simulation and it could have been.

Our Modders have made SHIII what it is, the developers just gave us the base to work from. If they had released the SDK when they dumped the last to be produced patch on us, SHIII could have been a "Fantastic" simulation. As it is I doubt SHIV will be any better and I 'm not sure at this point that I'll buy it, we'll see.

I do know, if they release SHIV with Starforce on it, I WILL NOT BUY IT, PERIOD!!

VonHelsching · 01-21-06, 08:25 PM

For me both gameplay and realism are related to the "enjoyability" of the game, which is subjective for each player. Key factor of the enjoyability is giving choices for the player:

- Choices about historic missions and the actual technologies
- Choices for the tonnage king firing Falke in nub escorts in 1940 blowing one after the other, plus deck gun duels with Armed Trawles, or playing "chicken" with V&W's :/\x:
- Choices about changing history with your sub
- Choices to play Dead is Dead by (x1) connecting SH3 with a home-made electric chair
- Choices to wait for 10 days as a Milk Cow in the middle of the Atlantic or lay some mines that you will never see exploding

The developer gave a lot of choices, and the modding community added 300% more choices. Every SH3 installation has become almost unique once you start messing with mods. Offering a lot of choices would probably be a good message for the devs of SHIV...

Personally, I'm all in for gameplay. I wouldn't even twich by throwing
a salvo to the batleships that sunk the Bismarck, or by commanding the Surcouf (or even a XI U-cruiser, which was never boult) and nailing the escorts with my 203 mm deck gun). But...

When I changed the "dud torpedos" in realism settings, the game was not the same anymore, I couldn't alert the dumb destroyers (with some activity -in flank speed-) and then play head-to-head, cause I was not sure that the torpedo would detonate. It is true that realism sometime adds gameplay

Ducimus · 01-22-06, 03:24 AM

Well when i said ill find a compromise between gameplay and realism, heres where i tend to make the distinction a bit fuzzy.

For instance, depth. Could an IX really go 275 meters? I highly doubt that. But for many reasons i find it fun to get depth charged at that depth.

Or say contacts. Ive ramped my contact.cfg up *slighly* Not so where im inudated with contract reports, but just enough to where i can see a bit more then i normally could. Frankly puttering around waiting for a convoy is damn boring (alibet realistic), and if i can give myself a hint on where to postion myself i will for the sake of fun.

Then theres radar and RWR. Are the stock values accurate? I dunno, my assumption is they would be, but are some of them really all that useable? I find the answer is, "not really". So ive ramped mine up *some*, but not to where theyre overpowering. If im seeing planes too early, then wheres the thrill of having to crash dive at the last minute? So i balance it out, improve the range, but dont make it where im giving too much info.

Then theres things ilke the free cam. I love and hate this thing. I love looking at my sub, i like watching the deptcharges land (its like watching a movie) but the damn "next unit" and "previous" unit keys are addicting. WIth those you can warp the view around and see things that give you information that you just shouldnt have if you were behidn a periscope. My solution, remark out the hotkeys for the unit cam. That way i can still see my sub, and if i want any extra info i have to "work" for it, cause moving the freecam out XX,XXX number of meters is damn boring so i wont do it. Only problem is i can still see above me when being DC'ed and i wish i could fix it so i can't.

Back to the subject of those long boring cruises looking for a convoy, planes in this game are weak. They should be alot more dangerous then they are. THere is the option of the Airpower mod to fix that, but i choose not to for the simple reason that i see planes, in the context of SH3 the game, as a way to break up the monotony and get some excitement. Watching a burning sunderer missing my conning tower by 20 feet is a thrill, and the stressed voices from the crew make it an engaging experience. But is shooting down planes realistic? No. But it breaks the boredom.

VonHelsching · 01-22-06, 04:44 AM

Ducimus,

That's exactly the point. By using Airpower mod, the game would become less interesting at this moment FOR ME. Later on, though, when I'm bored of the weak planes, I'll use it. It's all a matter of choices.

You see players going from the hardcore realism to the gameplay side and vice versa. Choices Is about making a game last longer and more enjoyable. And I think both the developers and the modding community gave us that opportunity.

The Avon Lady · 01-22-06, 04:58 AM

I like it as realistic as possible, with the exception of having automatic targetting enabled.

I just put up recently with a real-time 10 hour evasion of 2 escorts that were hounding me. So help me, I could feel the oxygen levels dropping.

Wilko · 01-22-06, 06:14 AM

I'm alot along the same lines as TreverSlyFox,

I don't do crew management as I see it as my Exec's job to carry that out and I just don't have the patience at the moment to learn the manual targeting thing, I am happy to assign targets and order the firing of torps and live and die as the escorts hunt me... :|\

Aqualung · 01-22-06, 06:19 AM

Realism for me

Not with every game admittedly (also playing BF2 a lot these days as a 'medic' and runnign around with difibrilator panals reviving 'dead' repeatedly killed members of my squad is hardly realistic but fun none the less

) , but for a sim like SHIII, then yup I want to be able to play at settings as real as possible. That doesn't mean I play the *entire* patrol in 1x speed of course so am happy to bend reality a bit there, but for me the game would lose something if it just became another 'shoot-em-up' with UBoats instead of a UBoat sim.

Horses for courses. Some games I want realism, others I want 'fantasy', both are fun

Ducimus · 01-22-06, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonHelsching

Ducimus,

That's exactly the point. By using Airpower mod, the game would become less interesting at this moment FOR ME. Later on, though, when I'm bored of the weak planes, I'll use it. It's all a matter of choices.

You see players going from the hardcore realism to the gameplay side and vice versa. Choices Is about making a game last longer and more enjoyable. And I think both the developers and the modding community gave us that opportunity.

Yeah thats pretty much where i sit.

Ill do a patrol or two, as realistic as i can.

Then i get bored, and do something incredibly stupid. I think the worst monstrosity ive ever commited was making a type IID do 35 knots on the surface , boost its hit points to the equivlant of an IXD, and tried to run through gibralter on the surface. No i didnt make it. :rotfl:

View Poll Results: Realism, gameplay, or a little of both?
I like it as realistic as it can possibly be.	31	28.18%
I just play to have fun, and dont really care for the minute details.	12	10.91%
I do both depending on my mood, or try to strike a compromise between the two.	67	60.91%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

01-21-06, 04:45 PM	#1
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	your preference: Realism, gameplay, or a little of both? Ive always thought this a source of contention. In one corner you have the ultra realist grognard. Plays to experience the pages of history in the utmost detail. If it were possible to expereince the smells of a uboat, the motion of the sea while sitting in their chair playing, or the some how simulate the long boring weeks puncutated by sheer moments of terror, i think they' do it. In the other corner you have your joe average gamer. Plays for fun. Enjoys blowing stuff up emensly, doesnt really bother with all the minor details. Sometimes does things that make the realist grognard wince in pain. In the middle, you probably have some people who try find a balance between the two. May play for realism in one game, then turn around and do something incredibly unrealistic because its fun in another game, or tries to meld the two togther to form some sort of compromise between whats realistic, and what is fun. Personnaly i fall into this camp. So which is your preference?

01-21-06, 04:59 PM	#4
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	I think you have to distinguish "realism" from "reality", that's something that a lot of people miss. I'm of the Beery-type school of thought where "realism" == "gameplay", but "realism" =/= "reality". Ultimately, I want my game to reflect what I know of history and reality. Getting less than that is a minus to gameplay for me first, realism later. :hmm: __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

01-21-06, 08:11 PM	#8
TreverSlyFox Bosun Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 65 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I guess you'ed call me a "Hardcore" Gamer. I LOVE realism, I expect my boat to respond exactly as they actually did. I expect the details of my boat to be correct and there's enough detailed documentation out there for it to be modeled correctly. I expect my enemy to do what they actually did during the time frame I'm playing. But there is also a point I don't cross. I don't understand the math involved to manually set up a torpedo shot and I have no intention of doing so. As Captain, I take the sights and my XO does the calculations and lays out the shot. Pretty much just as it was done on Subs. I'm the Captain, I make the decisions, give the orders and others carry them out. I don't deal with Crew Management, that's not my job, that's why I have CPOs and an XO for. I shouldn't have to deal with crew rotations and I don't, I've edited it out. No, it's not right and it really POs me that it was scripted this way and I have to edit the game to avoide it. All of the faults in SHIII could have been taken care of in game development and testing. There should have been a lot more options built into the game in the first place. SHIII is a "Good" simulation, but it's not a "Great" simulation and it could have been. Our Modders have made SHIII what it is, the developers just gave us the base to work from. If they had released the SDK when they dumped the last to be produced patch on us, SHIII could have been a "Fantastic" simulation. As it is I doubt SHIV will be any better and I 'm not sure at this point that I'll buy it, we'll see. I do know, if they release SHIV with Starforce on it, I WILL NOT BUY IT, PERIOD!! __________________ Be polite, be courtious, be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

01-22-06, 04:58 AM	#12
The Avon Lady Über Mom Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jerusalem, Israel Posts: 6,147 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I like it as realistic as possible, with the exception of having automatic targetting enabled. I just put up recently with a real-time 10 hour evasion of 2 escorts that were hounding me. So help me, I could feel the oxygen levels dropping. __________________ "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." - Houari Boumedienne, President of Algeria, Speech before the UN, 1974

01-21-06, 04:53 PM	#2
CWorth Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gettysburg PA Posts: 845 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	I always played die hard realism no matter what. That has become quite boring to do patrol after patrol,career after career. Now I play with a mix of both realism and non realism just to change things up a bit to keep me interested in the game.

01-21-06, 06:59 PM	#5
finchOU Samurai Navy Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 571 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 0	Good Poll For me the more realistic...the better. I think that in the long run the sim will have a better gameplay experience and make people come back.....more work for the kill...the more that kill means something...not just point, click, Kill. Compromise is something that should be refleted in an Options or Realism options menu...not on sim developement itself......i think a sim/game can and should be both Realistic as possible...but Gamey as possible but that should be up to the player and their preference..not the limit of the sim itself. I see it more as...if you going to make something (talking simulators) based off of history.....get it as acurate as possilbe to simulate as close to life (insomuch that realism can be brought to a computer screen) as possilbe...first...then worry about making it gamey to appeal to the masses....with the first comes the masses in my mind....and it teaches our youth a more valuable lesson on history (which is why I am so for a full manual with the History that the sim is based off of...like the AOD manual)....I learned so much History from the AOD manual..it made the sim even more immersive! Also another reason to make a game as realistic as possilbe (with preference to make it more gamey) is that a player who first starts out on gamey and or less realistic settings always has the option to increase realims and voila...it is a whole new game......this was like the first time I played AOD without being able to spot contacts via the moving map.

01-21-06, 08:03 PM	#6
JScones Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,501 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	finchOU and CCIP sum it up nicely for me. If I want a mindless "shoot 'em up" I'll play COD or some other WWII FPS (nothing better for stress relief!). I purchased SH3 as a simulation, and by golly that's what I want! For me, I'd lose enjoyment if I was tutting about in an XXI in 1939 or sinking ships with my super-dupa high-powered deck gun (hehe, although it is fun when testing things). Why? Not because I'm playing with 100% realism settings (I don't mind you), but because I know it's not realistic and it didn't really happen - and that's what matters to me. Hence why I'm looking forward to fully trying the NYGM suite of mods which should improve some of the other little niggles that I have left with the game. Anyway, click...bang...sink...click...bang...sink. Sorry, not for me!

01-21-06, 08:09 PM	#7
canimo Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I think its important to have the chance to choose it. So the same game can suit different player profiles / mood !!!

01-21-06, 08:25 PM	#9
VonHelsching Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,025 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	For me both gameplay and realism are related to the "enjoyability" of the game, which is subjective for each player. Key factor of the enjoyability is giving choices for the player: - Choices about historic missions and the actual technologies - Choices for the tonnage king firing Falke in nub escorts in 1940 blowing one after the other, plus deck gun duels with Armed Trawles, or playing "chicken" with V&W's :/\x: - Choices about changing history with your sub - Choices to play Dead is Dead by (x1) connecting SH3 with a home-made electric chair - Choices to wait for 10 days as a Milk Cow in the middle of the Atlantic or lay some mines that you will never see exploding The developer gave a lot of choices, and the modding community added 300% more choices. Every SH3 installation has become almost unique once you start messing with mods. Offering a lot of choices would probably be a good message for the devs of SHIV... Personally, I'm all in for gameplay. I wouldn't even twich by throwing a salvo to the batleships that sunk the Bismarck, or by commanding the Surcouf (or even a XI U-cruiser, which was never boult) and nailing the escorts with my 203 mm deck gun). But... When I changed the "dud torpedos" in realism settings, the game was not the same anymore, I couldn't alert the dumb destroyers (with some activity -in flank speed-) and then play head-to-head, cause I was not sure that the torpedo would detonate. It is true that realism sometime adds gameplay

01-22-06, 03:24 AM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Well when i said ill find a compromise between gameplay and realism, heres where i tend to make the distinction a bit fuzzy. For instance, depth. Could an IX really go 275 meters? I highly doubt that. But for many reasons i find it fun to get depth charged at that depth. Or say contacts. Ive ramped my contact.cfg up slighly Not so where im inudated with contract reports, but just enough to where i can see a bit more then i normally could. Frankly puttering around waiting for a convoy is damn boring (alibet realistic), and if i can give myself a hint on where to postion myself i will for the sake of fun. Then theres radar and RWR. Are the stock values accurate? I dunno, my assumption is they would be, but are some of them really all that useable? I find the answer is, "not really". So ive ramped mine up some, but not to where theyre overpowering. If im seeing planes too early, then wheres the thrill of having to crash dive at the last minute? So i balance it out, improve the range, but dont make it where im giving too much info. Then theres things ilke the free cam. I love and hate this thing. I love looking at my sub, i like watching the deptcharges land (its like watching a movie) but the damn "next unit" and "previous" unit keys are addicting. WIth those you can warp the view around and see things that give you information that you just shouldnt have if you were behidn a periscope. My solution, remark out the hotkeys for the unit cam. That way i can still see my sub, and if i want any extra info i have to "work" for it, cause moving the freecam out XX,XXX number of meters is damn boring so i wont do it. Only problem is i can still see above me when being DC'ed and i wish i could fix it so i can't. Back to the subject of those long boring cruises looking for a convoy, planes in this game are weak. They should be alot more dangerous then they are. THere is the option of the Airpower mod to fix that, but i choose not to for the simple reason that i see planes, in the context of SH3 the game, as a way to break up the monotony and get some excitement. Watching a burning sunderer missing my conning tower by 20 feet is a thrill, and the stressed voices from the crew make it an engaging experience. But is shooting down planes realistic? No. But it breaks the boredom.

01-22-06, 04:44 AM	#11
VonHelsching Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,025 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Ducimus, That's exactly the point. By using Airpower mod, the game would become less interesting at this moment FOR ME. Later on, though, when I'm bored of the weak planes, I'll use it. It's all a matter of choices. You see players going from the hardcore realism to the gameplay side and vice versa. Choices Is about making a game last longer and more enjoyable. And I think both the developers and the modding community gave us that opportunity.

01-22-06, 06:14 AM	#13
Wilko Officer Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Aussie Posts: 249 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	I'm alot along the same lines as TreverSlyFox, I don't do crew management as I see it as my Exec's job to carry that out and I just don't have the patience at the moment to learn the manual targeting thing, I am happy to assign targets and order the firing of torps and live and die as the escorts hunt me... :\|\ __________________ You take it easy... and have a nice day

01-22-06, 06:19 AM	#14
Aqualung Watch Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: British Isles Posts: 22 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	Realism for me Not with every game admittedly (also playing BF2 a lot these days as a 'medic' and runnign around with difibrilator panals reviving 'dead' repeatedly killed members of my squad is hardly realistic but fun none the less ) , but for a sim like SHIII, then yup I want to be able to play at settings as real as possible. That doesn't mean I play the entire patrol in 1x speed of course so am happy to bend reality a bit there, but for me the game would lose something if it just became another 'shoot-em-up' with UBoats instead of a UBoat sim. Horses for courses. Some games I want realism, others I want 'fantasy', both are fun