Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Rome II)

[LinusLinothorax]

Okey dokey, i cancel the "Units are not entirely moddable"-part then.

Edit: Nevermind, just saw that my first comment got deleted anyway (Of course it was not possible to edit my post or even let it untouched. No, it was necessary to delete it clompletly).

[Comrade Kane]

Okey dokey, i cancel the "Units are not entirely moddable"-part then.

Edit: Nevermind, just saw that my first comment got deleted anyway (Of course it was not possible to edit my post or even let it untouched. No, it was necessary to delete it clompletly).

I think that your comment is still there but because this thread has been merged with another thread your comment has been pushed back many pages.

[LinusLinothorax]

I think that your comment is still there but because this thread has been merged with another thread your comment has been pushed back many pages.

Jep, my fault. I dont thought that my comment was already 6 days old, so i dont looked that much back. To my defense i have to say, that similiar harmless posts of me already got deleted.

[VINC.XXIII]

Please CA, could you fix this model? Despite WoS...we just cannot enjoy the nice exomis you made. Actually, there is no mesh that fit to this apparel.(only african models does, but we need greeks!)
I explain it here.
[IMG][/IMG]
PS: typo on the screenshot, sorry, "We can't use that model(barb_base full) properly." I was meaning...
Also, consideres I'm asking it, because giving the exomis to other "barbarian" models results polygon-clashing. (these other models are too big, too much muscular for the exomis).


Don't pay attention to the pattern on the shield!
Just look what this spartan is wearing as clothes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

thanks for reading, and hope will be fixed...

[Knights of Templar]

CA business practice : releasing 2 games that should have been one ( 1st game is broken, 2nd game is the "proper" one), some features in Attila that should have been in ROME II in the first place but not implemented by perhaps "deliberate decision" so that we have to cash out more money. Thx SEGA for this great policy of appeasing loyal fans ! I hope this will not becoming trend.

[emperor77]

CA business practice : releasing 2 games that should have been one ( 1st game is broken, 2nd game is the "proper" one), some features in Attila that should have been in ROME II in the first place but not implemented by perhaps "deliberate decision" so that we have to cash out more money. Thx SEGA for this great policy of appeasing loyal fans ! I hope this will not becoming trend.

But it is already a trend, it started with Empire/Napoleon.

[halitosis]

CA business practice : releasing 2 games that should have been one ( 1st game is broken, 2nd game is the "proper" one), some features in Attila that should have been in ROME II in the first place but not implemented by perhaps "deliberate decision" so that we have to cash out more money. Thx SEGA for this great policy of appeasing loyal fans ! I hope this will not becoming trend.

please tell me more about how your headcanon version of game development works

[Knights of Templar]

please tell me more about how your headcanon version of game development works

They knew what fans want, Family Tree, Depth-ingame, and other features that had been in every Total War games previously. Features that makes TW game not just "build army and war, repeat until all the map is in your faction colour". But instead, they held these features to be added in Attila, Why not include this feature in ROME II ? It's like we have to pay the price of 2 games just to have one "proper" game that we really sought after ! But also, I am not blaming CA completely on this, SEGA also has a hand on all this decision. They made CA launched ROME II too early just to put the money on their hands earlier even if that will hurt the game's quality itself and of course CA's reputation. And now, instead they adding feature that rightly has to be in ROME II, they make it for another game which if we want that feature, we have to buy one more game ! This is something that only happened in SEGA's time, and never happened in old days when CA still under Activision banner.

please tell me more about how your headcanon version of game development works

Those new features that will be in Total War : ATTILA should have been implemented to Total War : ROME II in the first place ! There is no reason if CA don't have any idea about what loyal fans want, I do not know if CA or SEGA told them to deliberately hold those features so that they can cash out more money by releasing ATTILA.

Instead of giving those features to ROME II via patch or free LC to add more depth, they add it to ATTILA. I am and maybe also a lot of people willing to buy all the DLC of ROME II if CA will give those missing features to ROME II, but that won't happened. So in short, "If you want to play Total War game with proper features and depth just like what the old title had, open your pocket and "give" SEGA more money because the revenue from ROME II sales might be not enough to satisfy SEGA greediness.

One more thing, I hope this will not be trend for future Total War titles !

[Humble Warrior]

But it is already a trend, it started with Empire/Napoleon.

Unfortunately this is true. And it still carries over some of the horrendous bugs from Empire. Shameful that after Empire they still did not fix Nappy properly. I got it free very recently and am somewhat shocked by this. CA really does just splurges out a `no 2` and haven`t the decency to fix it right. I have no confidence in Atilla since the impression they gave with Napoleon was that everything was fixed (and this was even expecting sieges to be still crap, which they are).

Napoleon is better than Empire, but not what it should be.

[jackwei]

I think the worst thing they ever did is make you pay to unlock factions that are already in game that is terrible or if you want to play as Sparta that will be £5.99!! Or if you want to be Julius Caesar in Rome 2 not including historical battles then we have a campaign for you called CIG but that will be £9.99 or Hannibal's Wars against Rome in another campaign where you can be Hannibal that will be another £9.99 or We have some free factions you can have in the next total war but only if you pre-order the game and purchase it on release you can have this exclusive day one free DLC and if you don't buy it then tough you have to pay for it.

What happened to CA or I forgot Sega happened!!

[Jay the Byzantine]

SEGA corporate head clicks special unit ability. ''MOVE YOU DOGS!'' Only, the unit is a Hastati rather than a Pratorian considering how bad the game was at launch.

[Aenima]

Financially Rome 2 was a success, sure. That is only because they rode the backs of everything Rome 1 accomplished for them. It was a "Grenada". They couldn't lose with a game called Rome 2 Total War, the name alone sold copies for them.

The name, the franchise, the trailers etc. Basically the same with any game coming from a much-loved series.

I have been playing video games for two decades now out of my 26 years of existence. I don't think I have come across a game that was more unprofessionally marketed and poorly released than Rome 2. As a veteran of the series owning every TW game with the exceptions of the Shogun's (time period doesn't interest me) Attila TW is going to be the first game I skip that I actually do have interest towards.

To be honest I don't understand this claim that's made about how Rome 2 was falsely marketed. Every single game in existence has pictures/trailers etc made with stuff that's not really in the game. The Age of Empires 3 opening cinematic has stuff that's not in-game, ie soldiers looking through telescopes to survey the land, Native Americans running through forests to escape enemies - there's nothing similar to that in-game. FPS games have cinematics that everyone knows don't reflect the physics and mechanics that the game will actually use, so if you're complaining about how hoplites don't form a wall like was presented in one promotional pic, I think the fault's on your end. I knew the instant I saw that pic that it was just a promotional picture, not an in-game snapshot that represented what they could do.

The only major marketing flaw I can think of would be that guy who famously talked about how the game was "way pre-alpha, it'll be much better when released" in the Siege of Carthage release. That guy definitely up.

No one at CA should pat themselves on the back for Rome 2 because they can look at sales figures and think they made a hit game.

None of us want to see CA dissolve, I love this franchise, but I sure as hell don't want to see a tread with future titles if Rome 2 is now considered a benchmark for production value only because it sold well.

Like it or not that's how gaming is now. Hell, that's how it's always been. Companies exist to make money. Sure, in their early days they may place a higher emphasis on customer satisfaction, but in the end companies exist to make money, that's goal #1 - no company is your friend. If you think you presented any games studio (the much loved Paradox, for instance) with the choice to make a 10/10 game that made £200 million in profits (I have no idea what good/bad profits look like, just throwing it out there as a random number) or an 8/10 game that made £400 million then the latter would win out 9 times out of 10.

Games producers, car manufacturers, toothpaste companies, etc - they all exist to make money. Companies aren't your friends, the vast majority of them would sell you total crap if you'd be willing to pay for it. Rome 2 made CA money. It received a lot of initial backlash and they even admitted the release was rushed so it's not like they don't know they made mistakes, but in the end they were able to fix the majority of problems and a year later they've come out on top. They're patting themselves on the backs alright, believe it.

[Epic28]

The name, the franchise, the trailers etc. Basically the same with any game coming from a much-loved series.

To be honest I don't understand this claim that's made about how Rome 2 was falsely marketed. Every single game in existence has pictures/trailers etc made with stuff that's not really in the game. The Age of Empires 3 opening cinematic has stuff that's not in-game, ie soldiers looking through telescopes to survey the land, Native Americans running through forests to escape enemies - there's nothing similar to that in-game. FPS games have cinematics that everyone knows don't reflect the physics and mechanics that the game will actually use, so if you're complaining about how hoplites don't form a wall like was presented in one promotional pic, I think the fault's on your end. I knew the instant I saw that pic that it was just a promotional picture, not an in-game snapshot that represented what they could do.

The only major marketing flaw I can think of would be that guy who famously talked about how the game was "way pre-alpha, it'll be much better when released" in the Siege of Carthage release. That guy definitely up.



Like it or not that's how gaming is now. Hell, that's how it's always been. Companies exist to make money. Sure, in their early days they may place a higher emphasis on customer satisfaction, but in the end companies exist to make money, that's goal #1 - no company is your friend. If you think you presented any games studio (the much loved Paradox, for instance) with the choice to make a 10/10 game that made £200 million in profits (I have no idea what good/bad profits look like, just throwing it out there as a random number) or an 8/10 game that made £400 million then the latter would win out 9 times out of 10.

Games producers, car manufacturers, toothpaste companies, etc - they all exist to make money. Companies aren't your friends, the vast majority of them would sell you total crap if you'd be willing to pay for it. Rome 2 made CA money. It received a lot of initial backlash and they even admitted the release was rushed so it's not like they don't know they made mistakes, but in the end they were able to fix the majority of problems and a year later they've come out on top. They're patting themselves on the backs alright, believe it.

I am in agreement with you on nearly everything here.

But I think Creative Assembly at heart is still a consumer-first developer with heavy iron shackles bound upon by their publisher. There are a few TWC users that have gone on to CA and I know they can't be thrilled at the direction Rome 2 took, is taking (DLC, unit packs, preorder bonuses).Unfortunately generally this is the new age of gaming it seems. Although some big name developers out there are still against this mantra of nickle and diming their consumers (see Rockstar and CD Projekt Red for example)

Your first two points are basically answered in your own response, Remember Carthage. I understand the appeal to use fancy CGI effects and photoshop screens, etc to perfect an image or trailer. But what I really don't care for is being told false promises about AI advancements, graphical quality, how much bigger your budget is (but somehow resulted in their most lackluster and incomplete title created?)

I get that the name Rome 2 represents a big deal to deliver on the developers end. But with so much done right on Rome 1 albeit some common TW bugs I am at a loss for why so many changes were implemented and the game was severely streamlined to the point of barely being considered a strategy game. Overall the mechanics were simplified and a lot of the ideas seem abandoned or not properly tested to determine the long term results.

[Humble Warrior]

Games producers, car manufacturers, toothpaste companies, etc - they all exist to make money. Companies aren't your friends, the vast majority of them would sell you total crap if you'd be willing to pay for it. Rome 2 made CA money. It received a lot of initial backlash and they even admitted the release was rushed so it's not like they don't know they made mistakes, but in the end they were able to fix the majority of problems and a year later they've come out on top. They're patting themselves on the backs alright, believe it.

So what happened if every company made enough money to retire and closed shop? What if we couldn`t get our bread or tv or petrol because they were all rich enough to not bother any more?

Actually this is a rhetorical question and one of the first thoughts that came into my head as a kid when I first heard about Capitalism. To me it seems a constantly dangerous tight rope system that balances on a companies `goodwill` to function- How can such a system be sustained for a long period of time without somekind of collapse if people are as mercenary as you say?

I think it`s because not every company is ruled by completely self driven or even money-greedy people. NOT EVERYONE will do whatever it takes to make that extra cash. I believe some do, in fact, prefer to make less profit, due to their ethics so that all mankind can benefit. Tie that with concerned parties that call out the really bad companies that would sell their Humanity to make a buck.

[DeliCiousTZM]

So what happened if every company made enough money to retire and closed shop? What if we couldn`t get our bread or tv or petrol because they were all rich enough to not bother any more?

Actually this is a rhetorical question and one of the first thoughts that came into my head as a kid when I first heard about Capitalism. To me it seems a constantly dangerous tight rope system that balances on a companies `goodwill` to function- How can such a system be sustained for a long period of time without somekind of collapse if people are as mercenary as you say?

I think it`s because not every company is ruled by completely self driven or even money-greedy people. NOT EVERYONE will do whatever it takes to make that extra cash. I believe some do, in fact, prefer to make less profit, due to their ethics so that all mankind can benefit. Tie that with concerned parties that call out the really bad companies that would sell their Humanity to make a buck.

Capitalism isn't the end, resource based economy is next. And if we get there, we will see the standard of living rise to unfathomable heights.

Also CA is making Art, they are inventors and artists. Making money is a necessity to keep on growing but not what motivates them. In fact i don't believe anyone but the most twisted and miserable people live to make money, the vast majority of us want an occupation that we enjoy and grow from. That is especially true for game developers.

[Humble Warrior]

Capitalism isn't the end, resource based economy is next. And if we get there, we will see the standard of living rise to unfathomable heights.

Maybe.

Also CA is making Art, they are inventors and artists. Making money is a necessity to keep on growing but not what motivates them.

Once upon a time I believed exactly like you do about CA. That was in the days of STW, MTW1, RTW and MTW2. Today I don`t. They are different people, driven by money and making as much as possible.

In fact i don't believe anyone but the most twisted and miserable people live to make money, the vast majority of us want an occupation that we enjoy and grow from. That is especially true for game developers.

Well I like your belief and in truth is I believe it as well. However, there are many more that believe making money is the begin and end all, especially in today`s world. And as for games devs it only exists for the small Indies. Not the big AAA guys, like CA who have been taken by the shiny lure of ever more profit to the point that games have suffered detrimentally badly today.

[JaM]

In my view, what is missing in CA is one central figure with a vision how these games should looked like.. They have many team members and everybody has their own ideas, very often going against each other creating an unplayable mess we had when R2 was released.. a lot of game concepts are just plain wrong, and need to be reworked, but it looks like CA doesn't have that person... Somebody like Dave Braben (Elite: Dangerous) or Sid Meyer (Civilization games) etc is missing... maybe they should rehire whoever was leading the development of TW games originally... because right now, they just rehash the old things while real innovation is missing..

[VINC.XXIII]

In my view, what is missing in CA is one central figure

Michael Simpson. This man seems to have lost importance in the team. Its probably because I'm a fanatic of MTW1, but I considers this game was the best
according maturity of CA(mostly regarding civil war, RP things of Rome 2 compared with equivalent features of its ancestor MTW1...things were very better in 2002 than in 2014)

Not sure if its understable. But I feels Rome 2(let see Attila) is a regression regarding all little things that provided me the "one last turn and I will sleep"

[JaM]

yeah.. if you look at Rome 2, you see the same concept that was used previously in older games, and nothing was ever done to move game further... for example, in campaign map, same rule of second attack in the same turn on enemy army wipes it out completely is there since RTW.. there is practically no real change in campaign behavior regarding campaign strategy movement, on contrary, R2 is even worse, as former mechanics were replaced by stances with hardcoded effects...

I would expect Total War game to introduce some better way to simulate "pre-battle maneuvers" armies made back then, trying to occupy the best position before battle, instead of blind battle we have right now... Why cannot we have stacks/armies dividable into smaller units that could have some special abilities on campaign map as well? Like cavalry only unit would screen the movement of own army, or doing the recon, while other parts or army would move separately to let say forage for supplies? all these small options would give the game so much depth, but CA just doesnt care and instead just strictly do things they had in the past, or even remove anything that had some depth replacing it with arcade stuff (im talking about Zone of Control.. just look how great it worked in previous games, and what ridiculous nonsense it is now..)

[VINC.XXIII]

I would expect Total War game to introduce some better way to simulate "pre-battle maneuvers" armies made back then, trying to occupy the best position before battle, instead of blind battle we have right now...

One thing, we lost regarding battles, with warscape engine mapping, we could before enjoy an illimited amount of battle terrain configurations, since battle terrains were based on stratmap terrains in MTW2. Now, it is reduced to a few battle maps which are programmed and are always flat, flat, flat.

This is a substantial issue to represent all peoples who fought as light skirmishers in their homelands.
Below in the picture, a skirmisher army have some chances to defeat a heavier one, because relief of the battle map give advantage to skirmishers.
What a skirmisher army of hillmen and moutainers lightly armored can do against an army of heavy soldiers on a flat battlefield...? They will more likely be crushed by cavalry, and uber heavy infantry will finish them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: