[quote] There are many flavours of reality but I prefer the one called "common sense". [/quote] You've failed to consider the possibility that you can believe one thing and the devs can believe something different entirely. Even if you were always right, the devs may be wrong.
I appreciate the reply, Tamren, but allow me to clear up what I was trying to say in that post. In my example of horsemen and pikemen, I am making the case that different players subscribe to different realities . Naturally, you can resolve this single situation by saying pikemen win, but that fails to address the point of the example: that someone else may apply their own reasoning and knowledge to the situation and say the horsemen sho
Long term storyline games and short term storyless games both have their place for me. I really think there is no experience in gaming that comes as close to the sublime as the climactic moments of some of the more epic RPG's. Ocarina of time... how stoked were you when you first became an adult? How many of you didn't drool to at least one Final Fantasy cinematic? On the other hand, short term games like a standard Starcraft match has what the long term storyline games don't
Dwarf Fortress. Srs.
At the least, I think it would be fun to see options of turning off victory objectives as you see fit.
Well I think we're getting a little off-topic here. I'd love to hear more of what people think about how warfare and tactics should be implemented into this game in a way that's practical and enjoyable.
I don't really have a good opinion of the HoMM's as a whole, but having played all of them (>_>), I will say 5 is the best because it has very charming graphics and atmosphere and, for the most part, each of its units are unique and interesting. On the other hand, it is much much more expensive than the HoMM3 complete pack. Seeing as you've already bought 3, though, I'll commend you for not getting 4. :3
That would be pretty damned awesome. BTW, I don't know what you're talking about with battle for wesnoth, it has a huge element of randomness in it. Every time you attack someone, there's usually a 40-70% chance of missing.
I would say the original Age of Wonder provided the best experience. It was the best atmosphere and best story hands down, with such awesomeness as unit portraits and unit descriptions (admittedly, shadow magic had unit descriptions, but some of them were... stupid. Sorry, but it's true. Just look at High Man Legionaries) Gameplay-wise, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with me, but both were equally mediocre (sans mods, at least). Clear racial imbalances existed (halflings in S
Making a game unrealistic is not exactly the same as dumbing it down, only making it easier to learn. Take chess. All the rules of chess are basically arbitrary, transparent (every player is expected to know the rules before playing), and simple, yet we've been playing it for centuries. If you want to see other games with arbitrary, transparent, and simple rules that manage to pull off what I would consider deep strategy, try Battle for Wesnoth (it's free!). Just because a game has simple rul
While the discussion about realism and how to implement it is very fascinating and a fun read, I would really think it's better to look at combat systems that are abstract and, more importantly, arbitrary. An easy set of arbitrary rules is a much more learnable system for newbies than any hyper-realism because, first of all, if we went with realism, we would have to ask ourselves what we kind of realism we subscribe to. Let me explain. Let's say we take the situation of heavy