Attila, the game the community asked for

[DeliCiousTZM]

With so many people being outspoken critics against Rome II i thought it was interesting to see how CA responds with the release of Attila. From my POV Attila was in my ways a step backwards, the UI was made less efficient but more user friendly.

In many ways Attila was a continuation on Shogun 2 a game loved by most. Me personally, have always been outspoken for innovation. I enjoyed the aspects of mastering Rome II, bit by bit. Having most of the games complexities hidden away.

When Attila launched, i saw the praise train chu-chu through but i knew from playing Attila, that this expansion wasn't going to be an hit, it was simply to boring, and many of its aspects was a downgrade from Rome II.

So how does the game hold up?

http://steamcharts.com/app/214950
RomeII
6,930 playing an hour ago 11,218 24-hour peak

http://steamcharts.com/app/325610
Attila
2,864 playing 43 min ago 4,476 24-hour peak



Rome II is older, and this "broken mess" is holding on as the 27th most played game on steam some two years later.

Now this bothers me. It bothers me that CA listen to the community this well and can clearly show that the community does not represent the majority. CA is changing, with Warhammer and Halo wars on the way the total war community has and have had the most sway on this company. They respect us, they care about our opinion and they want to please us, this much is clear. You can hear it in the assurances given by Bickham when he assures us that spells won't be too powerful and that the cavalry animations will be cleaned up.

In the future, we cannot afford to make a blunder like we did with Attila, we cannot expect things to stay "the same" and we need to stop living on Nostalgia.

The community betrayed CA on Attila... Attila was a game made for us and people said meh, I'm bored. Warhammer will be different, just as we should all hope that the next Total war is innovative and not a safecard. If we get a lackluster new Total war, you guys can say bye bye to the historical part of the franchise. Innovation or death is our only options now and we should pray that the next total war share a lot more with Rome II then it does with Attila.

Who could have thought that making a franchise towards older historically interested men could be so hard? xD

[Elianus]

.

When Attila launched, i saw the praise train chu-chu through but i knew from playing Attila, that this expansion wasn't going to be an hit, it was simply to boring, and many of its aspects was a downgrade from Rome II.


In the future, we cannot afford to make a blunder like we did with Attila, we cannot expect things to stay "the same" and we need to stop living on Nostalgia.

The community betrayed CA on Attila...

we should pray that the next total war share a lot more with Rome II then it does with Attila.

U wot m8

[Fanest]

Are u just trying to troll hard or are u just provocating, or both?

mastering Rome II, bit by bit.

lel, just lel, mastering what exactly? care to elaborate whats so complicated in that game that it needs mastering?

and many of its aspects was a downgrade from Rome II.

mhh ........... ok



comparing Attila stats to those of RTW2 is like comparing FOTS to STW2

but wait till Hollywood makes another Attila flick and masses will flock to this game


EDIT: wait a minute u are writing this cuz u cant win on legendary and ur angry now - thats it isnt it

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

What? So Attila is a fail because they listen to the community? Yeah right... Maybe its because most people don't like the era and after the fail of RTW II most didn't even buyed Attila "Me included" and will only buy it because of AE when its done.

Rome II is older, and this "broken mess" is holding on as the 27th most played game on steam some two years later.

And RTW II maybe stands on 27th place but thats only because of MP not because its a great game!. Oh just checked it and it's not 27th its 28st place, So you know

we need to stop living on Nostalgia.

NO WE DON'T

[Darios]

What? So Attila is a fail because they listen to the community? Yeah right... Maybe its because most people don't like the era and after the fail of RTW II most didn't even buyed Attila.

Exactly. In my point of view, Attila is a more enjoyable game and has better features. I love how the campaign map feels alive and factions actually have sensible campaign objectives. Rome 2 tells the Roxolani to go invade Libya with no reasoning behind it. It is a very sterile game...

The major difference is that the casual fan can easily identify with names like Rome, Carthage, Egypt, etc. while Attila is an acquired taste, especially if one's historical interest lies in other places. CA has not exactly made things easier- lazily force-feeding the fanbase endless Germanic factions to the point of vomiting.

As I see it - Rome 2 = (positives: more approachable period of history, more diverse factions/cultures, two years of serious patching. negatives: useless political system, the campaign is too sandbox and has no real direction, UI, half-baked features, 1 TPY, sterile campaign map)

Attila (positives: 4 TPY, faction leaders, campaign map feels more 'alive', improved UI, family tree, dynamic political system, difficulty, more cut scenes, and the campaign tells a story. negatives: Germans all over the damned place while other cultures are not developed at all, cheap work-a-rounds like homing missile UI, CA has no real interest in patching it, the period of history is not really appreciated, CA feeling as if they had to make the game 'badass' in places in order to make up for it)

That's the difference. Attila is a game where its most serious issues stem from CA devoting most of its attention to Warhammer/Arena and barely patching/improving it while Rome 2 is a turd that CA has spent more than two years polishing. Sure, it no longer smells but it does not change the fact that it is a turd.

[Humble Warrior]

Where CA listen to the community :

1. Family trees with depth- Success. Heavily wanted by Users since before R2.
2. More realistic sieges: Partial Sucess. CA`s insistence on including walls that magically fall down was never what the user asked for or wanted and was criticised even before game release.
3. Good siege AI- Success. despite its faults, the siege AI is very good. This Users asked for and got.
4. Indepth army mechanic with discipline and punishments and rewards- works. Player asked for this kind depth.


Ca failed on:
1. A CAI that focuses too much on the Player rather than the world around it. The User never asked for a Player-centric AI. At least it`s not supposed to feel like that.
2. The razing stupidity. This might have been good if CA did not make razing so one-sidedly unrealistic and stupid. No one expected whole swathes of countries to be left a wasteland, never to be rebuilt. Neither did we ask for that.
3. Instant armies to ships still screws up battle lines and leads to units living on the sea. It`s still crap. Users wanted this scrapped from R2. Only slight improvement in ship behaviour. Fail.
4. Females in units. Never asked for. CA popped it in because sjws and whiny feminism.
5. Too fast battles. Time and again CA ignores Users asking for slower battles.
6. The Winter thing might`ve been good if CA didn`t try so hard to be Game of Thrones with a never ending winter. Neither did we ask for it.

Where we asked for more realism, it worked. Where CA thought they`d do something gamey, stupid and `pc`, it failed. Just like with R2.


You are seeing only what you want to see.

[GRANTO]

With so many people being outspoken critics against Rome II i thought it was interesting to see how CA responds with the release of Attila. From my POV Attila was in my ways a step backwards, the UI was made less efficient but more user friendly.

In many ways Attila was a continuation on Shogun 2 a game loved by most. Me personally, have always been outspoken for innovation. I enjoyed the aspects of mastering Rome II, bit by bit. Having most of the games complexities hidden away.

When Attila launched, i saw the praise train chu-chu through but i knew from playing Attila, that this expansion wasn't going to be an hit, it was simply to boring, and many of its aspects was a downgrade from Rome II.

So how does the game hold up?

http://steamcharts.com/app/214950
RomeII
6,930 playing an hour ago 11,218 24-hour peak

http://steamcharts.com/app/325610
Attila
2,864 playing 43 min ago 4,476 24-hour peak



Rome II is older, and this "broken mess" is holding on as the 27th most played game on steam some two years later.

Now this bothers me. It bothers me that CA listen to the community this well and can clearly show that the community does not represent the majority. CA is changing, with Warhammer and Halo wars on the way the total war community has and have had the most sway on this company. They respect us, they care about our opinion and they want to please us, this much is clear. You can hear it in the assurances given by Bickham when he assures us that spells won't be too powerful and that the cavalry animations will be cleaned up.

In the future, we cannot afford to make a blunder like we did with Attila, we cannot expect things to stay "the same" and we need to stop living on Nostalgia.

The community betrayed CA on Attila... Attila was a game made for us and people said meh, I'm bored. Warhammer will be different, just as we should all hope that the next Total war is innovative and not a safecard. If we get a lackluster new Total war, you guys can say bye bye to the historical part of the franchise. Innovation or death is our only options now and we should pray that the next total war share a lot more with Rome II then it does with Attila.

Who could have thought that making a franchise towards older historically interested men could be so hard? xD

Blah de blah blah blah....No!

[andry18]

You are seeing only what you want to see.

This u.u

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

With so many people being outspoken critics against Rome II i thought it was interesting to see how CA responds with the release of Attila. From my POV Attila was in my ways a step backwards, the UI was made less efficient but more user friendly.

In many ways Attila was a continuation on Shogun 2 a game loved by most. Me personally, have always been outspoken for innovation. I enjoyed the aspects of mastering Rome II, bit by bit. Having most of the games complexities hidden away.

When Attila launched, i saw the praise train chu-chu through but i knew from playing Attila, that this expansion wasn't going to be an hit, it was simply to boring, and many of its aspects was a downgrade from Rome II.

So how does the game hold up?

http://steamcharts.com/app/214950
RomeII
6,930 playing an hour ago 11,218 24-hour peak

http://steamcharts.com/app/325610
Attila
2,864 playing 43 min ago 4,476 24-hour peak



Rome II is older, and this "broken mess" is holding on as the 27th most played game on steam some two years later.

Now this bothers me. It bothers me that CA listen to the community this well and can clearly show that the community does not represent the majority. CA is changing, with Warhammer and Halo wars on the way the total war community has and have had the most sway on this company. They respect us, they care about our opinion and they want to please us, this much is clear. You can hear it in the assurances given by Bickham when he assures us that spells won't be too powerful and that the cavalry animations will be cleaned up.

In the future, we cannot afford to make a blunder like we did with Attila, we cannot expect things to stay "the same" and we need to stop living on Nostalgia.

The community betrayed CA on Attila... Attila was a game made for us and people said meh, I'm bored. Warhammer will be different, just as we should all hope that the next Total war is innovative and not a safecard. If we get a lackluster new Total war, you guys can say bye bye to the historical part of the franchise. Innovation or death is our only options now and we should pray that the next total war share a lot more with Rome II then it does with Attila.

Who could have thought that making a franchise towards older historically interested men could be so hard? xD

When did the comunity ask for an AI that ignores building an empire, expanding and even surviving just to nagg the player?
When did the comunity ask for the most visible and unfair cheats that buff a retarded AI just so it can continue being an annoyance NOT a challenge?
When did we ask to have "badass" things trample over history or even good gameplay design? (Greek Eastern Roman Empire with Viking Guards, Vikings, Ice Ace, Raze=Nuclear bomb, Sassanids=Arabs, everyone else in the East=Sassanids, Magyars in these centuries that look like Huns,missing White Huns, Church Maintanence is only for Christians.....)
When did we ask for a game that repeats the SAME errors as Rome II? It is like almost no patching was ever done. (Embarked armies are as fast as fleets so hordes can escape for ever. Also Hordes can go and set sail?!)
When did the comunity ask for ultra-fast battles but ultra slow loading screens? What about performance, did we want a game that is so unpolished?
What about the other changes and streamlining that Rome II brought? I remember they were not very popular.
Also, didn't the comunity actualy like AOR or modding the sounds?

Let's face the truth: ATTILA is an unfinished unpolished game. It could have been good(as in WAY better than Rome II), it could have great (with Rome I, the Medievals, the Shoguns) but it isn't and it is all their fault. CA or SEGA just rushed it, didn't finish it and now they are seeling it piece by piece (culture DLC). I suspect that this is also the fault of other projects that are currently draining resources from the Attila team.

Attila is a frustrating game but fun. You see, we get angry, but angry is not bored, angry gets done. Rome II on the other hand is boring and its only advantages are the hype bubble that fooled people into buying it as it was released (thanks to marketing) and the fact that people love the era. If CA would give it some patching, polishing and love it could become as Shogun 2.

In conclusion, Attila is better, it is a tiny step forward. All TW games are loved not because they are "badass", strealined, action packed, fast or simple, they were loved because they were complex (compared to Rome II and the likes), required you to think not press buttons as fast as possible (spells, magic abilities....), had a decent AI and most of all they made you feel like you were MAKING HISTORY, like you were part of it. As someone once said, it was like being witness if Hannibal and Scipio fought on the icy planes of Northern Italy, not seeing Random African Tribe #2 conquering half of the world (inclusing Scandinavia) and then collapsing because the AI couldn't administer its provinces.

In the end, DeliCiousTZM I name thee a troll!

[Darios]

Let's face the truth: ATTILA is an unfinished unpolished game. It could have been good(as in WAY better than Rome II), it could have great (with Rome I, the Medievals, the Shoguns) but it isn't and it is all their fault. CA or SEGA just rushed it, didn't finish it and now they are seeling it piece by piece (culture DLC). I suspect that this is also the fault of other projects that are currently draining resources from the Attila team.

This is so true. When I first played Attila I noticed many of its issues but I also saw enough good to imagine that with a bit of spit, polish, and patching that it would one day take its place in Total War heaven with RTW, Napoleon, and Shogun 2. Unfortunately, it is clearly obvious that CA can rave on as much as they want about having "separate teams" that Attila has been put on the backburner au lieu of Warhammer and Arena.

[johnmck]

This is so true. When I first played Attila I noticed many of its issues but I also saw enough good to imagine that with a bit of spit, polish, and patching that it would one day take its place in Total War heaven with RTW, Napoleon, and Shogun 2. Unfortunately, it is clearly obvious that CA can rave on as much as they want about having "separate teams" that Attila has been put on the backburner au lieu of Warhammer and Arena.

Ya i refuse to believe that there are two separate teams, it would literally make no sense to not use someone's experience and talents in a subsequent game. At the very most there are a few new members of the team and everyone has different titles, then they can call it separate teams. It reminds me of the restaurant in the movie Waiting, they had desserts made by "gourmet chefs" ... the dessert company was called Gourmet Chefs.

[Aenima]

With mods I certainly got what I wanted, and it was certainly better than Rome 2!

[Sharpe]

Attila is sick (espesh with Steam Workshop support) it's just so damn hard lol.

Any tips for surviving till 400 AD with the Ostrogoths?

[Ataegina]

well few reasons that possibly could answer that....

- rome 2 release backlash still fresh on everyones mind (bad reputation takes alot to vanish)
- ancient rome/greece is way more popular on modern culture
- even if people don't want to admit, the casual players are the majority when it comes to sales and so rome 2 is a easy to play and faster to progress through the campaign
- rome 2 had massive marketing campaign (unlike attila)
- rome 2 has way bigger modding base

and so on.......

however Attila is a way better game but honestly feels unappealing for massive consumer base (casuals) and perhaps bad release timming since Warhammer total war is totally obscuring Attila spotlight....

[nosuchname]

if attila didnt run like gargabe on my pc, i would defiantly be enjoying it more than rome 2

[Garensterz]

No... Rome 2 was made for a wider audience, hence the huge boom on the player base statistics. Don't you remember how CA promote Rome 2 way back? They invested so much in promoting Rome 2 compared to Attila. Rome 2 was all over the internet at the time, and don't forget how many people continuously hyping and giving positive feedbacks when Rome 2 was about to launch. All these things are connected on why Rome 2 became "too much" of a financial success, that's how easy money works. Other reasons could be, the timeframe of the game (come on, it's obvious.. It's Rome), the way that every feature/system/UI was over simplified to easily attract the gamer kids and the casuals, etc. Edit, almost forgot... (this is a huge plus for gamers) The game can run on low end PC's.

And are you basically defining the game's quality based on player statistics? I think you need to re-analyze that mate.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Yeah, I don't think you are taking nearly enough variables into account. Attila was never going to be as popular as Rome II, simply because of the setting. The game mechanics, in most ways, are improved. In minor ways, mostly, but still, minor improvement is better than none.

Coupled with the backlash from Rome II, it's no surprise the game isn't incredibly popular.

[Humble Warrior]

He`s been dying to say `I told you so!` for ages obviously, but since he`s been wrong, he`s going to do it anyway! Y`know, to get it out of his system.

[Joshua the Bear]

I think another important facet to remember is that a significant amount of users buy CA's games not for the base game, but rather to use it's engine for the mods developed for it. The R2 mod scene is far better developed then the Atilla mod scene at the moment, for obvious reasons. I expect the player counts to shift into Atilla's direction once a few big name mods for it come out.

4. Females in units. Never asked for. CA popped it in because sjws and whiny feminism.

Ignoring that CA has had women units since the first Rome (and don't forget Joan of Arc or This particular psycho) I'd say the inclusion of women in several unit tiers is not because of some sort of obscure political reason but rather to show that a lot of the factions in the game can not afford any luxury, up to and including gender discrimination for their (unorganized) armies.

[Sharpe]

4. Females in units. Never asked for. CA popped it in because sjws and whiny feminism.

Haha, people's bums are way too sore about this.