Realism, or tactics?

[Sup]

Which matters more to you?

If you only got one, would you prefer a great deal of tactical information/options?

Or a more realistic but less tactically complex game?

(Could someone add a poll?)

[Clum-Z-Boy]

Tactics and realism generally mix. You won't go on for long running into the middle of a group of enemies, hoping to gun 'em all down while dodging bullets. Then again, flanking, working stealthily as opposed to come crashing in guns blazing, is already something people on GR2 MP had trouble getting acquainted with, so let's go with Realistic. Maybe even a tad arcadey. I had to say it... let the [GR]/GR2 war begin!

Edited October 11, 2005 by Clum-Z-Boy

[Snake@War]

Realism and tactics go hand in hand. You can't really have the first w/out the second.

You can have tactics w/out realism, though.

[Sup]

Realism and tactics go hand in hand. You can't really have the first w/out the second.

You can have tactics w/out realism, though.

←

You could make a game where the tactical choices aren't left at all to the player, but is very realistic. (The early sections of OFP are an example of this.)

Then, of course, many strategy games are wholly unrealistic but consist of nothing but tactics.

[the.ronin]

Hands down, tactics.

And I would further argue that that is what set GR1 apart ... the multitudes of scenario permutations for any given mission or map.

[FA sear]

IMO they are equally important.