Historical Accuracy vs. Fun Gameplay

[Al]

What is most important between historical accuracy and fun gameplay in historically-themed RTS games? Consider the different between the Hearts of Iron series which aims to be accurate and the more 'fun' gameplay of something like Red Alert? Which is most important to you?

 

[Battlemind]

I think looking for historical accuracy in games, TV shows, or even movies is a foolish act. That's because creator of these media always exercise creative freedom. Therefore, when I play RTS games fun gameplay is more important than the strict historical accuracy. Even though historical accuracy in games like Hearts of Iron can give you a good experience, I still enjoy the creative freedom in the games like Red Alert.

 

[Vortex]

Fun needs to be first and foremost when designing games. You could have the most incredibly accurate game but if it plays like dogcrap its going to fail.

 

[Blitz]

For me, fun gameplay is way more important to me than historical accuracy. I said this based on my preference and what I wanted in a game. If a game is boring or too realistic, I'll easily get tired of it. But if it's fun and also very engaging, I'll play it for hours.

 

[spongebob]

Can both of them not be combined and give us a good RTS game which is historically accurate and also a load of fun to play? This can very well be done which is why that's what I look forward to when playing any RTS games.

 

[Vortex]

Both can be combined, sure, but its a fine balancing act to make something very realistic and super fun at tha same time.

 

[spongebob]

Both can be combined, sure, but its a fine balancing act to make something very realistic and super fun at tha same time.

It's exactly the reason why I want and always prefer to play RTS games built or designed that way because it offers more when it comes to an exciting gameplay with a better story.