|
NaKATPase -> (10/18/2003 1:57:47 AM)
|
I disagree entirely with the unstated premise of this poll, which seems to be that accuracy and playability are two ends of the same spectrum. This is not true.
Elaborate and arcane game mechanics can end up being unplayable AND not accurate, while sometimes relatively simple mechanics can help give a more accurate picture of what a particular command was like for those involved. Likewise, a game with simple mechanics can end up not being a very accurate simulation of history (ex. Chess), while a well designed game with complex rules can end up giving a fairly realistic feeling of command (ex. ASL). The point is, accuracy and playability are two independent variables.
My own personal view on this issue though is that game designers should pick what aspect(s) of the historical command and/or battlefield experience that they want to reflect accurately, and then design with those limits in mind a very playable system for accurately depicting those aspects. I think problems come in when a designer wants to depict [I]everything[/I] as accurately as possible, without taking into account that no real person had to deal with everything taking place on the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
