Funny. Sort of a comical twist on the old British orders "sink her, burn her, or take as prize."
Seriously, I would be more concerned about what happens BEFORE you board one. If the option of sinking the captured enemy ship were replaced with the burning scene, that would be fine too. However, what happens during the battle is game critical. What happens afterward is sideshow.
And the problem with realism is getting the right feel. I think everyone would agree a real conflict would be exciting. (Along with puke-your-lunch, sit-down-in-a-corner-and-cry, curdle-your-blood terrifying, but that's another story.) (I've seen my share of real bloodshed, and "exciting" is not even the tip of the iceberg.) The key is getting that feel into a game. If you don't get the feel, then details of realism are pointless either way. In movies, it's called "suspension of disbelief". If you forget it's only a game/movie/novel/whatever, and start getting excited like it's real, then you have suspension of disbelief. Being somewhat realistic, at least in certain elements, is usually the quickest way to get this effect. Realistic elements make it easier to accept the unrealistic ones - to "get into" the game, as it were.
That's why some of us keep saying that gameplay suffers when you move away from maximum effective realism. Unless you're marketing the game to children (who think cartoons are real), it's the most obvious way out. To a bunch of mostly university-educated adults, holes in things like physics detract from the immersion level.
Seriously, I would be more concerned about what happens BEFORE you board one. If the option of sinking the captured enemy ship were replaced with the burning scene, that would be fine too. However, what happens during the battle is game critical. What happens afterward is sideshow.
And the problem with realism is getting the right feel. I think everyone would agree a real conflict would be exciting. (Along with puke-your-lunch, sit-down-in-a-corner-and-cry, curdle-your-blood terrifying, but that's another story.) (I've seen my share of real bloodshed, and "exciting" is not even the tip of the iceberg.) The key is getting that feel into a game. If you don't get the feel, then details of realism are pointless either way. In movies, it's called "suspension of disbelief". If you forget it's only a game/movie/novel/whatever, and start getting excited like it's real, then you have suspension of disbelief. Being somewhat realistic, at least in certain elements, is usually the quickest way to get this effect. Realistic elements make it easier to accept the unrealistic ones - to "get into" the game, as it were.
That's why some of us keep saying that gameplay suffers when you move away from maximum effective realism. Unless you're marketing the game to children (who think cartoons are real), it's the most obvious way out. To a bunch of mostly university-educated adults, holes in things like physics detract from the immersion level.