Quote:
Originally Posted by StyxNCa
Once again, OOTP is not for real historical play, period, and should quit using that term when describing the game. It is totally for fictional play. Even when using real players and teams, if the results are fictional, it can't be called historical.
|
This, to me, seems imperious. The meaning of the term "historical play" is up for debate and is contestable. I don't think it has one 'obvious' definition that OOTP can either live up to or fail to realise.
Quote:
|
Mentioning the Washington example below reminded me that 2 times the 1969 Expos went to the World Series, winning once. Not plausible. Definitely not. When has any expansion team ever gone to the playoffs their first year? Anyone who sees something like that or the Washington example as plausible has one heck of a suspension of disbelief and really don't understand what historical players are saying.
|
I wish I'd never mentioned the 2009 Nationals. But isn't it very difficult to judge what sort of job OOTP is doing whilst confining oneself to the question of only whether or not [x] team as World Champion is "plausible"? Doesn't the plausibility depend partially upon
how these teams are achieving these feats?