(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

Steeltrap · 09-13-06, 02:37 AM

"Realism" is always an interesting concept. I suppose the 'best' realism comes from attempting to recreate conditions as they were recorded by those actually there.

Some details I personally find I couldn't give a hoot about (such as walking about the interior - fact is you'd spend almost all your time as commander in the control room, tower or on the bridge).

Others I find vital, such as the fact that you should only need a 2-5 second exposure of scope per observation while stalking a ship. Having to keep it raised for unrealistically long times has an effect once you're confronting escorts with radar able to detect a raised scope (which late model Allied radar could do out to about 500m I think). That's where I draw the line - when I am forced to do things vastly different from how it really WAS done (which you can learn by reading any one of the many books written by actual sub commanders) AND being forced to do so has results which are poor (such as being detected).

Having said that, some other parts of 'realism' aren't too palatable for most players. Consider aircraft. There's a post complaining about the number of aircraft encountered, yet later in the war there were many. Peter Cremer recounts how, on one occasion crossing the Bay of Biscay, he was forced under after 3 minutes, a further 5 minutes, then 13 minutes etc...to the point where he HAD to stay on the surface to replenish compressed air. That was FACT. It might not be too much fun!!

So I think there's a point at which you need to consider (a) is it real? (b) if so, to what degree is it real? (c) if not, to what degree? (d) does the effect of the relative realism cause results which are unacceptable to those looking for a simulation?

If the answer to D is a resounding 'YES' then I think the situation needs to be changed. Of course, the concern about mass-appeal can also be managed through allowing changing of things via realism options, but I do think that the fundamentals need to be sound when playing at 100% realism, even IF the graphics aren't absolutely fabulous - although I agree that there need not BE a 'either/or' relationship between graphics and realism.

Interesting thread.

09-13-06, 02:37 AM	#31
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	"Realism" is always an interesting concept. I suppose the 'best' realism comes from attempting to recreate conditions as they were recorded by those actually there. Some details I personally find I couldn't give a hoot about (such as walking about the interior - fact is you'd spend almost all your time as commander in the control room, tower or on the bridge). Others I find vital, such as the fact that you should only need a 2-5 second exposure of scope per observation while stalking a ship. Having to keep it raised for unrealistically long times has an effect once you're confronting escorts with radar able to detect a raised scope (which late model Allied radar could do out to about 500m I think). That's where I draw the line - when I am forced to do things vastly different from how it really WAS done (which you can learn by reading any one of the many books written by actual sub commanders) AND being forced to do so has results which are poor (such as being detected). Having said that, some other parts of 'realism' aren't too palatable for most players. Consider aircraft. There's a post complaining about the number of aircraft encountered, yet later in the war there were many. Peter Cremer recounts how, on one occasion crossing the Bay of Biscay, he was forced under after 3 minutes, a further 5 minutes, then 13 minutes etc...to the point where he HAD to stay on the surface to replenish compressed air. That was FACT. It might not be too much fun!! So I think there's a point at which you need to consider (a) is it real? (b) if so, to what degree is it real? (c) if not, to what degree? (d) does the effect of the relative realism cause results which are unacceptable to those looking for a simulation? If the answer to D is a resounding 'YES' then I think the situation needs to be changed. Of course, the concern about mass-appeal can also be managed through allowing changing of things via realism options, but I do think that the fundamentals need to be sound when playing at 100% realism, even IF the graphics aren't absolutely fabulous - although I agree that there need not BE a 'either/or' relationship between graphics and realism. Interesting thread.