Failed Claims of CA Before the Release

[DavidtheDuke]

It's okay, I added the sources to my post, so don't worry about it.

He is like a genie in a bottle, you can't satisfy him without lawyer-specific language. Even then, it's obvious his agenda is biased and a way too specific way to judge a marketing campaign, especially when it makes many half claims which he doesn't want to acknowledge because they don't fit his CA-quote-demands.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Most of them are secondary sources and some of them don't even have sources on CA's claims. We can talk about claims from sites like IGN where they base theirs on their own gameplays but you have to be nice and do it properly.

"Claim Quote"
Source
Explanation

Or, I'll just ignore them.

It's okay, I felt like you would ignore articles. I'll just update my post whenever I feel like it, so there's some sense to this thread.

Also, added a few more to the list.

[Rasic]

Okay OP you clearly have some kind of agenda. I don't know why you would even open this thread unless your goal at the end was to say CA never made any false claims. Which you've already failed at but won't admit.

[karamazovmm]

Haha, no one cares what judge you think you are. Certainly not me anyway.

Anyway, the AI is not what I would call "soft science" when the "new siege AI" is almost completely broken on release. I think it's fairly obvious, to anyone with common sense about it. If it only glitched out 50% of the time I'd agree with you, but I have never seen the AI not torch my gates and attempt a run by. That's not AI at all pretty much, and a complete misrepresentation if that's what it was on release. It is pretty much empirically broken, and to say that is "soft" is incorrect IMO.

I know the AI isn't moddable right now, but that doesn't mean CA can't open up the AI algorithms to be modifiable by .pack files. It might not ever be though, sure. I think making it moddifiable would shut many people up however as the modders may be able to come up with something better than CA as they aren't held by "testing times" and other probably corporate reasons. Though the AI might be several orders of magnitude more complex than Medieval 2, and go above most modder's heads.

Im not a game developer so I can't say if that is indeed possible, but you are going to create an overhead, so you are either going to load that from ram or be slow as hell with the HDD

But the point is, how do you measure the BAI being good? one can say that its the ability to finish the battle, to finish the battle you either kill/route the defenders/attackers or capture the victory points, so its a soft science case.

disclaimer, Im being the lawyer here, I do believe that the siege BAI is atrocious and that the field BAI is just barely something. the CAI is really lacking bonuses and the auto resolve is killing the expansion of the AI, those are actually the things that I want patched the most.

He is like a genie in a bottle, you can't satisfy him without lawyer-specific language. Even then, it's obvious his agenda is biased and a way too specific way to judge a marketing campaign, especially when it makes many half claims which he doesn't want to acknowledge because they don't fit his CA-quote-demands.

I don't think the idea was to be biased, for you think of it as a exercise of whats going to fly or not in trial. most things here are based on perceptions and not actually found on the marketing material. I think this is for me is a trial of separating the marketing to what was delivered its a cathartic thing for me. Well I didn't got my hopes up when I saw the battle of the nile nor teutoberg videos, they actually got my hopes down, substantially, but I had already pre ordered

[Crymson]

Lusted probably meant all the units available for each faction counted as a "unit", even if the Hoplite unit was basically carried overmany different Hellenic factions, etc. It's lawyer speak at best, IMO.

Agreed on the lawyer speak. At best, that was a statement meant to mislead. More likely it was either a deliberate lie or a promise that simply wasn't fulfilled. I'm thinking it was the former. Either way, it was very immoral.

[DavidtheDuke]

Im not a game developer so I can't say if that is indeed possible, but you are going to create an overhead, so you are either going to load that from ram or be slow as hell with the HDD

But the point is, how do you measure the BAI being good? one can say that its the ability to finish the battle, to finish the battle you either kill/route the defenders/attackers or capture the victory points, so its a soft science case.

disclaimer, Im being the lawyer here, I do believe that the siege BAI is atrocious and that the field BAI is just barely something. the CAI is really lacking bonuses and the auto resolve is killing the expansion of the AI, those are actually the things that I want patched the most.


I don't think the idea was to be biased, for you think of it as a exercise of whats going to fly or not in trial. most things here are based on perceptions and not actually found on the marketing material. I think this is for me is a trial of separating the marketing to what was delivered its a cathartic thing for me. Well I didn't got my hopes up when I saw the battle of the nile nor teutoberg videos, they actually got my hopes down, substantially, but I had already pre ordered

The BAI is probably much smaller than the textures, by far, so I don't think HDD overhead would be a big deal.

A "witness" in a ridiculous trial like this would clearly be able to point out how bad the BAI is. I don't think a separation is necessary in this instance, as I'm sure some in CA had to be aware of horrible siege AI (BAI could be improved, but siege AI is where it was clearly broken/undeveloped). Using this simple logic the degree of truth to which CA was aware of the issue is irrelevant, as it had to of been at least to a fair degree there. A trial either way unneccessary anyway. For all the petulant, dramatic chronic whiners it is a simple judgement: Don't buy their next game unless things actually work.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here you go.
My claim: The Creative Assembly's representatives promised us an admirable variety of elephant armour, which is however totally inexistent in the actual game.
The quote:

The link: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...iants-on-offer
I had already provided them in my first post, so I suppose you misread.

I will test this soon using different armor levels. Thank you. I did read your post properly but next time just quote the specific claim and source it. Don't just give a link to it or quote the entire post.

[karamazovmm]

The BAI is probably much smaller than the textures, by far, so I don't think HDD overhead would be a big deal.

A "witness" in a ridiculous trial like this would clearly be able to point out how bad the BAI is. I don't think a separation is necessary in this instance, as I'm sure some in CA had to be aware of horrible siege AI (BAI could be improved, but siege AI is where it was clearly broken/undeveloped). Using this simple logic the degree of truth to which CA was aware of the issue is irrelevant, as it had to of been at least to a fair degree there. A trial either way unneccessary anyway. For all the petulant, dramatic chronic whiners it is a simple judgement: Don't buy their next game unless things actually work.

the textures are suspended on ram and the BAI is being constantly pooled, but I don't know, as I said Im not a game developer

indeed, and in the entirety of the AI video, its mentioned how superior the new BAI is going to be to the previous titles

[alhoon]

DSL, about the elephants please unlock all factions. Bactria has armored elephants. I haven't played with them to see if they're different, but I've seen many different elephants in the units although I don't know about their graphics.

[DavidtheDuke]

the textures are suspended on ram and the BAI is being constantly pooled, but I don't know, as I said Im not a game developer

indeed, and in the entirety of the AI video, its mentioned how superior the new BAI is going to be to the previous titles

I highly doubt hte actual BAI and CAI combined are more than 10 megs worth of actual code. Could be wrong, but I highly doubt it.

[karamazovmm]

I highly doubt hte actual BAI and CAI combined are more than 10 megs worth of actual code. Could be wrong, but I highly doubt it.

thats why I said one way or the other, but Im fairly sure it will create an overhead since you are going to pool a basic file that will redirect to another file that is user moddable, and if you screw up (coding AI behaviour is very very far from simple or so my friends tell me, but I looked at some codes and its not pretty, though may be because they are usually sloppy in their coding) you are going to screw up very fast and very badly

[LiquitHQ]

Is that all? Just one claim that turned out not to be a false one?

First of all Thesutekh, I start to get the feeling that you made this post with the sole purpose to derail all those that make complaints about how CA engaged their commercials towards the community. When you make such a thread like this be well aware to approach it with a neutral view, which from what Ive been reading from you is not the case thus far.

I will try to approach this whole concept within the most civilized way to say that CA did lied many times over trough marketing videos, comments interviews and game play showoffs. It is to Creative assambly to prove they did not, not to us to prove they did.

However to aid you with your search (unless you totally neglect the facts) and add the false claims trey maid prior to release, then I have to say "along with others who strongly believe they did lie" that you are derailing your own threat by falsely claiming that you seek out those claims to sum them up in your OP ...

I will read and watch every article look to each picture thorow I will post here with constructive comments to prove they actually did lie trough false marketing towards the public ...

I will start with this video where you claim you can't find any promises:



Failed Claim: by Russell

We want to achieve a saving privet rian feel a grim realistic feel to the battle field ..

busted: I nor others have a grim realistic feel on the battle field, if you do you are playing a totally other Rome II ... people are disappointed by the mere fact that CAI and BAI is lacking the ability to battle in a decent way.

Failed Claim: by Russell

Facial animations and Emotional animations between men to bring out the sense of warfare.

busted: I have yet to see this animations all the faces look linear the same way as the other.

Failed Claim: by Russell

Various capture point throughout the city which will give you a better sense of a cat and mouse you will have a reason to have more breaches and the defender will be able to defend these points.

busted: I still need to witness the first battle were the AI is focusing in a strategic way to hold these capture points in a decent way, when I engage the enemy I can just win this battle by sending a single unit towards one of these capture points and the AI will not budge to defend it at all ...

I can make several video's about it even post screens but if you are aware of the state of the game at this point and look on youtube where after the short release of ROME II many video's popped up with dismisses the above statements from Russell in this video.

The discussion whether they are bugs or not are for me not up to discussion, when you release a game where you make claims that the game will provide these features in game prior at release then I expect they will show up during my and other game-play experiences after release.

If they do not then CA failed to provide the promised features shown in the marketing videos.

I am not a CA hater nor am I a Rome II hater, actually I am deeply loving the series but the state of the game at release does not hold all the features which were shown in the marketing video's by CA at all, and the game clearly performs weaker on CAI and BAI even on LEGENDARY settings wile they claimed loudly to have been improving it this matter to a much higher degree lets say 40% then their previous tittles.

Now eater you will add these above claims and other claims shown by others in the OP as busted false claims at release which are clearly not working in the game right now or close this thread.

If you claim to make a thread as stated I and others expect you follow up on it ...

best of regards

[PointOfViewGun]

On the elephant variety issue, I checked user submitted screenshots on Steam as I didn't have the time to go through a whole campaign.

Blue silk covered elephants with wooden deck:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Red silk covered elephants:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Orange silk covered elephants with different nose tattoos tripping out:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hard to find but lastly full armored elephants:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One possible explanation is that you need particular buildings to get armor on elephants.

[LiquitHQ]

and then this one ...
Rally Point - Episode 14: Battlefield AI Special

Rally Point's back with another information-packed episode, this time driven by the questions you've been asking on the battlefield AI in Total War: ROME II.

Our very own AI maestro Julian McKinlay talks through the new innovations and enhancements that have been made to the AI in Rome II, including details on how the AI handles settlements, emergent conditions and even wholly unexpected units.

He also answers your questions, such as "Will generals suicide charge?" and "Will enemies hill camp?".

Please hit us up in the comments below and let us know what you'd like the next episode to be. We'll put your questions to the devs and bring you the scoop from behind the scenes.

Until next time!

This is a episode in respond on the community concerns about how the BAI will perform, although I do not doubt the best intent that McKinley had prior to release, but at release the BAI and even CAI is in a far more weaker state similar to Empire total war if not even more worse.

In stead of improving they went 2 to 3 steps backwards in fact falsely claimed they made the improvements at release ...

best of regards

[alhoon]

I think the Bactrians have only armored elephants. Not sure.

LiquitHQ:
- "Saving private Ryan feel" Good luck proving they didn't try. They didn't promise to deliver, they said they wanted to do it.
- "Facial animations". From the quote you mentioned, it's clear they did promise facial and emotional animations. I have the game in low graphics so obviously I can't comment on whether it's in or not. However, if indeed there are no facial and emotional animations, yes, that's a false claim. IMPORTANT NOTE: If there are facial animations that you don't like, that doesn't count as false claim. If there are no emotional animations like those we were promised elsewhere, of soldiers reacting to someone dying next to them, or screaming in fear or something and sit like they had a mask on their face, yes, that's indeed a false promise and it should be added to the list.
- "Siege capture points" When I defended a settlement, I made the mistake to concentrate on the gate and then I lost 2 of the capture points. I had to go claim them which led to the last capture point being taken. It was cat and mousy.


Again:
False promise is something like "NTW will have a unit editor out of the box" and that never being implemented. False promise is "R2TW game will support X languages" and the game supporing X-2 languages.
It's NOT a false promise to say "You'll have an awesome game! Stunning graphics, deep diplomacy, important political dilemas and face challenging AI" and instead get... R2TW as we did.

[Totalheadache]

I think the Bactrians have only armored elephants. Not sure. LiquitHQ: - "Saving private Ryan feel" Good luck proving they didn't try. They didn't promise to deliver, they said they wanted to do it. - "Facial animations". From the quote you mentioned, it's clear they did promise facial and emotional animations. I have the game in low graphics so obviously I can't comment on whether it's in or not. However, if indeed there are no facial and emotional animations, yes, that's a false claim. IMPORTANT NOTE: If there are facial animations that you don't like, that doesn't count as false claim. If there are no emotional animations like those we were promised elsewhere, of soldiers reacting to someone dying next to them, or screaming in fear or something and sit like they had a mask on their face, yes, that's indeed a false promise and it should be added to the list. - "Siege capture points" When I defended a settlement, I made the mistake to concentrate on the gate and then I lost 2 of the capture points. I had to go claim them which led to the last capture point being taken. It was cat and mousy. Again: False promise is something like "NTW will have a unit editor out of the box" and that never being implemented. False promise is "R2TW game will support X languages" and the game supporing X-2 languages. It's NOT a false promise to say "You'll have an awesome game! Stunning graphics, deep diplomacy, important political dilemas and face challenging AI" and instead get... R2TW as we did.

stop talking nonsense. you dont fool me.... and people on this forum will remember as will customers. if you do discount it being lies then it can be under the very "deceiving" category. either it leaves a nasty stink that neither you nor people from CA will be able to clear up for some time. yes patches and what happens in the next month or so might alleviate the situation.

[ElvenKind]

Simple. If you don't want to source your claims explicitly and have the willingness to provide a decent explanation than don't post in this thread. I set up the OP quite clearly what I wanted. I am indeed the judge as I am the only one who can decide what goes into the OP. I made this thread after all and there are plenty of threads out there for people to rant and not be specific. If people are unwilling to comply with the guidelines in the OP they can surely ignore this thread.

I think people should ignore this thread and let it sink in the wastelands of all the FORGOTTEN THREADS which are beyond page 1.

How mighty your OP would then be ?

[PointOfViewGun]

Interesting how people behave when they're unable to follow simple instructions of an opening post.

As said before:
"Claim Quote"
Source
Explanation

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

The Italian and Spanish customers already get their money back as it had said they would have their language in the game and it was not?So if something is meant to be there and it is not https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...53217764,d.ZGU

Oh power full Judge and moderator and owner of this timeless thread please Judge me with your stern master full power and prey tell me if this is a worthy post for you to put in a file somewhere>?

[LiquitHQ]

- "Saving private Ryan feel" Good luck proving they didn't try. They didn't promise to deliver, they said they wanted to do it.

lol it is not hard to prove ;-) when the graphics are not really up to par with what they have been showing, the video was richly reworked with a video editor to begin with, in fact all their video's are reworked and on top of that they claimed that they were actual in-game captures and it was early alpha phase "again a lie" and he said not that they will try he said that it was their goal. Like I said it is to them to prove they did not said those things not the other way around.

If you tell me you are going to make a motor engine that will not make a single sound and you say that this will be your goal, then I expect from the moment when you release that engine I will not be able to hear it. Unless you make it really clear prior to release that you are planning this feature but can not make any promises. If I do hear and no constructive evidence is given that you were not able to make that engine and warned the costumors then it is false advertisement and thus a lie towards your costumers, in general because because of the mere fact that the costumer will buy that engine with the id that they will not hear it ...

it is easy to say prove it that they dint try hard to achieve that goal lol in what world do you live in in this country they will get a court order to explain them selves "what a joke"

- "Facial animations". From the quote you mentioned, it's clear they did promise facial and emotional animations. I have the game in low graphics so obviously I can't comment on whether it's in or not. However, if indeed there are no facial and emotional animations, yes, that's a false claim. IMPORTANT NOTE: If there are facial animations that you don't like, that doesn't count as false claim. If there are no emotional animations like those we were promised elsewhere, of soldiers reacting to someone dying next to them, or screaming in fear or something and sit like they had a mask on their face, yes, that's indeed a false promise and it should be added to the list.

I play the game perfectly on extreme without any problems on the graphical side although I had to put something off, not exactly sure what it was again as it gave some conflicts with the high settings. But so far I had a close look towards these facial animations and I can not really say they have implemented them, maybe cut like the wonders which were clearly claimed to be in the game. The faces are one sided and look very much all the same no animations what so ever which are giving me the impression that they call up emotion when in battle ...

- "Siege capture points" When I defended a settlement, I made the mistake to concentrate on the gate and then I lost 2 of the capture points. I had to go claim them which led to the last capture point being taken. It was cat and mousy.

Read again I clearly stated that they will not defend these capturing points strategically as they need to do, from the moment I breach the walls then what I get is one massive blobbed battle as the AI seems not to be able to maintain hes formations at all, on the other side I have a single unit burning down the gate, all the enemy AI actually will form up on my first breach while I penetrate it and my single unit can almost capture those points unharmed "except of the defensive towers" the enemy will not budge to recapture them as they are to busy trying to beat me on at the first breach I made. It goes even faster if you make multiple breaches after you made the first breach and enter the city with lets say 3 separate units and keep them busy on the first breach.

On the attacking side when the AI attacks the only they can think of are the capturing points, they even walk trough your lines to get there NO TACTICS WHAT SO EVER.

Again:
False promise is something like "NTW will have a unit editor out of the box" and that never being implemented. False promise is "R2TW game will support X languages" and the game supporing X-2 languages.
It's NOT a false promise to say "You'll have an awesome game! Stunning graphics, deep diplomacy, important political dilemas and face challenging AI" and instead get... R2TW as we did.

better CAI and BAI then our former installments -> clearly stated by them, CAI and bay are utterly broken - false promise
better and more optimized game play at game release -> clearly stated by them, although I have to give them they implemented good ID's those ID are not panning out as it needs to be so in this case not optimized for game play - false promise

and I can go on with a whole list about these things, the 2 above are clearly better stated features game mechanics that are not working correctly and claimed by them to work better then their former installments the thread reads Failed claims of CA beofre release btw not failed features of CA Before release...

Interesting how people behave when they're unable to follow simple instructions of an opening post.

As said before:
"Claim Quote"
Source
Explanation

Interesting that you neglect the fact that I did just that as well as some others did and not follow up on it? So its not constructive enough to announce those points that the commentator from CA claimed which are not really functional in the game? It is kinda strange and on top of how ROME II works out of the box it makes it only worse tbh. Anyway but whatever floats your boot, I am seriously in doubt of the intend and integrity of your OP.

I think people should ignore this thread and let it sink in the wastelands of all the FORGOTTEN THREADS

I am going to do just that ...

And I even dare to ask a moderator to close this because this one is just not up to par with what the OP was asking us so far, people give constructive info and prove it gets neglected anyway. Although some claims are not true eg. the panlax do work, out of all the formations I think it is the only one that works correctly so far if i am not mistaken I can not speak about the elephants doh ...