Page 7 of 7
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:57 pm
by USSAmerica
I think there is another very important yardstick to use when judging if AE succeeds as a game. Is it fun? [&o]
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:31 pm
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: USS America
I think there is another very important yardstick to use when judging if AE succeeds as a game. Is it fun? [&o]
As it proclaims itself to be a game/simulation of the War in the Pacific, it has to succeed on that level first. Everyone has a different idea of what "fun" is, so it's hard to measure objectively. But facts and records about the war are abundant, so it's easier to validate it's performance by those standards.
AE succeeds on those grounds in very many ways, which only serves to highlight the few areas where it fails. And this is one of them.
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:44 pm
by Lecivius
AE is fun, no doubt [;)]
It has issues, though [:(]
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:54 pm
by Mynok
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
If events in the game can't duplicate events in reality, then the game is "borked" (as you put it).
By that definition every historical game ever made is totally borked.
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:21 pm
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
AE is fun, no doubt [;)]
It has issues, though [:(]
No...AE never has issues..only the player has! [:D]
RE: Low Level Naval Attacks
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:37 pm
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: Mynok
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
If events in the game can't duplicate events in reality, then the game is "borked" (as you put it).
By that definition every historical game ever made is totally borked.
True. Total accuracy is impossible. But being the "least borked" game available is a worthy goal nonetheless.