What exactly is the difference between a "fantasy" event and a "historical" event? Examples of each would be nice.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
historical events: they happened. habsburg inheritances, 100 years war, union of poland and lithuania...
fantasy events: they didn't happen, but they MIGHT have happened. in this forum this usually refers to byzantine events that might've occured if constantinople hadn't fallen to the ottoman.
fantasy events: they didn't happen, but they MIGHT have happened. in this forum this usually refers to byzantine events that might've occured if constantinople hadn't fallen to the ottoman.
But the "fantasy" events are still "historical" in the sense that there was a possibility that they might have happened, right? That would imply that there is quite a bit of fantasy in the rest of the historical events, because it is possible in the game that they *won't* happen. (Are we talking about events with choices, or without choices?)
Or is there a broader distinction?
Furthermore, I wonder if anyone has been able to shed any light on what historical events were very improbable based on their actual occurrences during game play. It would seem to me that artificially increasing the chances that a historical event will occur is making the game inaccurate. I would think it would be preferable to have a game that "plays like" history, not just blindly repeating historical events as they actually happened. (Not saying that's the case here - just stating an abstract opinion.)
Or is there a broader distinction?
Furthermore, I wonder if anyone has been able to shed any light on what historical events were very improbable based on their actual occurrences during game play. It would seem to me that artificially increasing the chances that a historical event will occur is making the game inaccurate. I would think it would be preferable to have a game that "plays like" history, not just blindly repeating historical events as they actually happened. (Not saying that's the case here - just stating an abstract opinion.)
I would consider using three terms instead....
1) Strict Historical = Logical Possible + Happened in RL
2) Alternate Historical = Logical Possible + Never Happened in RL
3) Fantasy = Not Logical Possible + Could Never Happen in RL
/Greven
1) Strict Historical = Logical Possible + Happened in RL
2) Alternate Historical = Logical Possible + Never Happened in RL
3) Fantasy = Not Logical Possible + Could Never Happen in RL
/Greven
I don't think 'fanatasy' ought to be constued as negative. To me it simply means something that didn't happen in real life. To Vlad's point - I don't see how anyone can objectively determine whether something that happened in real life was probable or not. The experiment has only been done once. I think the philospophical goal ought to be a game that plays like real history most of the time. Anything else is inevitably subjective, and someone is bound to disagree with the interpretation.
You see... We will all have different interpretations and views on this question. For me as a historian to call a thing that was Logical possible but did not happen for 'Fantasy' is quite a negative statement.
For me there is quite a difference between the statements;
1) Gustavus III was shot at the Opera and died.
2) Gustavus III was shot at the Opera but survived.
3) Gustavus III was shot at the Opera and became immortal.
The main difference between our view might lie in what cognitive value we lay in the different statements. For some only statements with empirical factuality have cognitive value. Yet for others like me logical consistency is more important.
cheers
/Greven
Originally posted by whymc
So who's scripting the Gustavus III immortality event???
Paradox