Ca should have done what Obsidian did with New Vegas Fallout 3...

[JaM]

The fact Rome 2 is the most popular and best selling Total War yet says otherwise. Unless you think Rome 2 is hardcore, which popular opinion on this forum, say it is not.

I've never seen Total War as very hardcore though. Unless you play on Legendary, but that's because that difficulty is specifically setup to be difficult. But on Normal? It's not a very hard game at all. The early game is a bit rough, but it's pretty easy going from the mid to end game.

question is, how many of those people would buy that game if they knew what they bought... don't forget all webs gave R2 quite high score, it was the player backslash on Metacritics that made others aware something is not right...

[krisslanza]

question is, how many of those people would buy that game if they knew what they bought... don't forget all webs gave R2 quite high score, it was the player backslash on Metacritics that made others aware something is not right...

Well I got a friend to buy it, and he's not had any issues with it at all. It was a bit buggy at first, and he had to upgrade his computer to run it smoothly. But otherwise he said it was a solid purchase -although in the future, he might wait a month or two, just so he doesn't have to wait for the patches first.

From what I remember of Metacritic "reviews" from players most of them aren't even proper reviews. They're just rants and raves, or saying how it didn't work for them so they graded it at 0 or 1 as a result. While not being able to have the game run is an issue, you can't very well review a game if you didn't even play it. If it doesn't work for you, wait for some patches and try later. If it doesn't work a few months later, then you'd be justified.

[JaM]

i did the same, recommended Rome 2 to my friend, who didnt played it since he tried it.. so right now, i'm keep telling him it will be fixed, but so far no luck for him.. (anyway his issues might be HW related). Personally i think making game more immerse is not a mistake. game needs to have certain depth, especially if it is based on history.. lots of people expect things they read, watched in TV, documents etc. Plus, if done right, realistic stuff would be on the inside for those who look for it, people who just want to play would not notice it anyway, if it was not hitting them in the face each time they start the game. for example - to this day i just cant get into Europa Universalis, even though everybody recommends it to me, and i bought both EU3 and EU4 - i think if somebody combined both CA and Paradox approach, it would be the best combination.

[Frost, colonel]

Well I got a friend to buy it, and he's not had any issues with it at all. It was a bit buggy at first, and he had to upgrade his computer to run it smoothly. But otherwise he said it was a solid purchase -although in the future, he might wait a month or two, just so he doesn't have to wait for the patches first.

Your friend states it is a solid purchase, great, but may I ask how well he knows this series? I ask because if I was new to the series, I would initially be daunted by it's scope, and wouldn't know what was wrong with because from where would I get a comparison. Despite the AI rushing the gate(and all dying against just one unit)I would think the game was good, because you have to have a certain knowledge both to see and understand the flaws within.

[Knight_of_Ni]

DISCLAIMER: I know that with such a limited set of data that these graphs aren't really accurate, but still.

EU4 stayed about the same, losing maybe 1k.
Civ5 gained roughly 2-3k.
Rome2 lost half of its users.

I would not say it is doing too well.

One could argue that this is just the normal slump after a release, but EU4 only came out about 2 weeks before Rome2 and hasn't lost as many, even proportionally.

[Humble Warrior]

DISCLAIMER: I know that with such a limited set of data that these graphs aren't really accurate, but still.

EU4 stayed about the same, losing maybe 1k.
Civ5 gained roughly 2-3k.
Rome2 lost half of its users.

I would not say it is doing too well.

One could argue that this is just the normal slump after a release, but EU4 only came out about 2 weeks before Rome2 and hasn't lost as many, even proportionally.

One reason why I do not respect graphs and charts and stats on forums is I learned a while ago that people (especially on the internet) use the stats that suits their ulterior purpose. Stats can be twisted, misrepresented and abused to turn out to be whatever the poster wants it to be.

The stats I will listen to are those that can give me a FULL background into how they are collated, who is collating them and what`s the benefit or disadvantage to certain parties in getting them, especially whoever put those charts together. If I can see the FULL info and not just what the statitician wants me to see then i`m willing to give the stats or charts credence. I need to know that those charts are INDEPENDENT of vested interests. There`s a saying from a forum I come from, `Charts prove whatever you want it to prove!`

[Zenky]

DISCLAIMER: I know that with such a limited set of data that these graphs aren't really accurate, but still.

EU4 stayed about the same, losing maybe 1k.
Civ5 gained roughly 2-3k.
Rome2 lost half of its users.

I would not say it is doing too well.

One could argue that this is just the normal slump after a release, but EU4 only came out about 2 weeks before Rome2 and hasn't lost as many, even proportionally.

This chart don't say much , we would need the exact number of unit sales for each game first and see what % of player base retain , and also since none of them are subs game it is only unit sold that matter to the company since they don't make any money if player play or not the game.

I would be curious to see the chart from Civ V since the beginning.

[Knight_of_Ni]

While that may not be the number of sales, that is the number of people who actually use the game, which would be a better indicator of long term success than sales would be. It's from the steamgraph site. The guy who created it geta the numbera from Steam and I doubt Steam would have an interest in downplaying any of the games that they sell...

The only thing that would change the shape of the graph is the time that I included. I used the last month only because I figured including the first week or so would skew the graph because games are usually most popular right after their release (or expansion). So the graph shows from about a week and a half after Rome2's release, which admittedly might not be enough time to account for the drop after release.

The whole point of me posting those was to show that well yes, Rome2 might have the most sales out of any TW game, that doesn't mean anything over the long term in regards to it's popularity like kriss was saying.

[raest]

what CA should do is just give up on trying to design a game since they're pretty bad at it. just make the engine, pour a bit of resources into a basic campaign just so they can gear up their borderline fraudulent PR (hopefully one day we'll be able to sue developers with such behaviour. a pity the suit vs Colonial Marines didn't go through and set a precedent) to sell a few thousand copies, give ALL modding tools bundled with the "game" and just let the modders/amateurs come up with congruous, logical, sensible designs and solid campaigns. for gods sake, they can't even copy the more popular mods...

realistically, the only thing that can "save" CA is some healthy competition. then we'll see how many copies can their misleading marketing rack in...

[Takizama]

Well I got a friend to buy it, and he's not had any issues with it at all. It was a bit buggy at first, and he had to upgrade his computer to run it smoothly. But otherwise he said it was a solid purchase -although in the future, he might wait a month or two, just so he doesn't have to wait for the patches first.

From what I remember of Metacritic "reviews" from players most of them aren't even proper reviews. They're just rants and raves, or saying how it didn't work for them so they graded it at 0 or 1 as a result. While not being able to have the game run is an issue, you can't very well review a game if you didn't even play it. If it doesn't work for you, wait for some patches and try later. If it doesn't work a few months later, then you'd be justified.

your last sentence is a devils truth. A devils truth is a fact/ logic that has no wrong because it will be right in the future or thier is nothing to disagree with it, because it is truth with opinion. For example (This is infriging on religion a bit) God made the universe, We dont know that but people say it is a fact. Scientists say the big bang created the universe, we dont know that 100% but people say it is a fact. Thiests say that god made the big bang which created the universe. Get my point?

The Reviews are a corrupt industiry that has a misunderstood reality of being a critic. The arguement with that players give the game an unfair 0 because they are not getting paid and therefore isnt revilent. Thats a devils truth. Preech Facts please, From now on everything you say I will laugh at unless you show figues to back up your thesis.

P.S I'm not sure that what im explaing is the devils truth, it might be something else. I dont know the correct word for it.

[wangrin]

About steamgraph :
Steamgraph collects information about the top 100 most played games on steam and generates graphs.

If you can not see data for some games, it is most likely because there is not enough data for that game. valve only gives numbers for the top 100 games on steam, so i can not get numbers for not-so-popular games.

source : Steamgraph

To what I understand, Steamgraph collect player statistics from Steam for most popular games.
These stats could be eventually used as an indicator of the "interest" of player in a game.
They represent the number of player actually playing the game at a given time (through Steam).

For example, I've searched steamgraph for S2TW and R2TW, both for their, approximatively, 6 firsts weeks :

1. 2.

1. R2TW
2. S2TW

These stats are only "short terms" ones, but at least they focuse on a similar time frame.
Moreover, these stats are only about players actually playing the game at a given time, they are not representatives of the number of game sold.
An other factor to care about is the scale. S2TW was about 40k players at release date when initial number of player for R2TW is nearly 3 time this number, but global behaviour seems to be approximatively the same, even if players seem to "loose interest" faster with R2TW than with S2TW.


I think it would be really hard to try to compare games such as Total War, Europa Universalis and Civilizations, at least based only on stats. They are really different, from (an excellent ^^) EU IV with 20k players at release to a CIV5 (up to 90k) and R2TW (118k players at release).

[pajomife]

Medieval 2 didn't need a script extender in it like Rome 1 mods.
I don't think I ever tried Stainless Steel though, sounds kind of like a Mount & Blade mod...

And again though, that's what mods are for. To make unique gameplay experiences that may not sell well in the core game. The core game has to be able to appeal to EVERYONE - mods can be made to appeal to specific people, because they don't cost anything (but time) for modders to make them. CA has to risk losing money and their good name whenever they produce a product. It has to appeal to everyone, not just some.

Actually mods are to disguise, at least in Rome2, the game faults. I simple can't understand how can someone play any batlle with the original unit speed. I'm waiting for major mods who can bring some "reality" to this game, because rigth now, this game is a shame for those who made it, and to me, because I spend my money in this .

[TuranianGhazi]

Still, lots of us here would like more of that DEPTH... especially when we were spoiled by the richness that is Paradox Interactive Games like Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2.

Basically Paradox is only really missing the TW-style battles. On campign mode, EU4 beats R2 hands down in terms of depth and complexity and all manner of actions one can perpetuate.

It used to be that TW at least competed with Paradox Interactive in terms of campaign gameplay but with R2 release, they fell far behind.

[Anna_Gein]

Krisslanza is right in the aspect of Obsidian barley adding anything to the game in terms of gameplay. I mean they literally stole entire mods that I had used in FO3 but that is a discussion for another time.

I do wish there was a more realistic mode in Rome II though...

Yep. If only CA did the same for RII. Taking works and idea from all the great mods from TWC ...

Plus I don't see why it would be too low for dev's pride to take idea and whole mechanic from mods. after all if it works and fans like it.

[krisslanza]

Still, lots of us here would like more of that DEPTH... especially when we were spoiled by the richness that is Paradox Interactive Games like Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2.

Basically Paradox is only really missing the TW-style battles. On campign mode, EU4 beats R2 hands down in terms of depth and complexity and all manner of actions one can perpetuate.

It used to be that TW at least competed with Paradox Interactive in terms of campaign gameplay but with R2 release, they fell far behind.

I haven't played EUIV, but I can sum up my CK2 experiences as follows:

Unpause game. Max speed. Twiddle my thumbs until something happens. Deal with the event. Resume max speed until something happens. Repeat until I get bored and stop playing.

Paradox makes great simulators. It makes awful games. There's really nothing to DO in their games. You just wait. In honesty, they should have a turn-based setup like TW, the real time is pointless when 99% of your time is spent waiting for something to happen in the first place. About the only thing I can say CK2 did nicer, was the characters are very interesting. But that's all CK2 has - everything else about it is just a chore and boring. Even the characters feel a little bland after a while.

[Garensterz]

You guys are all wrong. CA should have done this. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-I-to-Rome-II

And that's not even the half of it.

[Ishan]

CA can naver be bethesda. They provide a creation kit and their modding community is very very hardcore & huge. TW modder base is quite small in comparison to what they have.

The only negativity about New Vegas was Steam, but New Vegas only cost me £5 , at that price I don`t mind, even if I don`t like Steam.

Welcome to the dark side my friend. Wait for christmas sales.

[raest]

CA can naver be bethesda. They provide a creation kit and their modding community is very very hardcore & huge. TW modder base is quite small in comparison to what they have.

let's face it, TW would've had a much bigger modding community (not bigger than beth, just bigger than the pitiful number of modders for warscape) if they released a complete modding kit like beth (and many other companies that don't just pretend to care about their communities) because, as is the case with all beth games (except for morrowind), the vanilla game is flat, uninteresting, boring and devoid of any challenge whatsoever

[krisslanza]

let's face it, TW would've had a much bigger modding community (not bigger than beth, just bigger than the pitiful number of modders for warscape) if they released a complete modding kit like beth (and many other companies that don't just pretend to care about their communities) because, as is the case with all beth games (except for morrowind), the vanilla game is flat, uninteresting, boring and devoid of any challenge whatsoever

Personally vanilla Total War is completely fine. I only try the mods that are interesting overhauls - such as Amazon Total War for Rome 1, or Third Age for Medieval 2. If the game HAS to be modded to be good, it's a garbage game.

[Rittsy]

But then we can look at what Bethesda did with Fallout 3. Fans of the Fallout series prior to Bethesda buying the license absolutely hated the direction they took the game in. Read a lot of the hate when the game initially came out, many were making similar arguments to some of the more hardcore players on this forum; it's not immersive, it was dumbed down, technical issues etc. By the time New Vegas came out many of the older fans of the series (who were more open to change) had come around on Bethesda/Obsidian's new take on the franchise, whilst the most hardline-hardcore remained upset.

My point is that, from a gameplay perspective, CA have obviously upset the 'hardcore' audience with this release. Now in the coming year we'll be able to see how much they listen to this and see what changes/improvements they make to what was their vision of the series. If it goes the same way as the New Vegas example they will make the basic changes/revisions/improvements people are asking for, however it is unlikely that the more hardline-hardcore within the community will ever be satisfied.