The day the forum died

[GussieFinkNottle]

^come on Wangrin, you really going to argue that the games are more superficial post-Attila? Sure Rome 2 was extremely low on features (as I well know, and myself have argued), but in Attila CA really made an effort to lay on depth where it was lacking in Rome 2. It was a very solid game and shows a positive direction: not addressing a new 'audience target', but reminding the old fans why they buy TW.

If only they'd got it right like that for the period everyone likes best, classical Rome.

[Sherm]

What the hell is going on with total war?, this is the first time I have felt like total war has died. The forum is quiet the game is getting old, the DLC even older. I know CA have always had the hidden agenda thing but I feel this is getting ridiculous, they must have known not everyone would be into that total Warcraft game or whatever it is. Am I too spoilt to expect a new total war pc game announcement ?.

Actually Warhammer fit perfectly

Total War: The End Times

[D@gget]

The game is more and more "shiny", "superficial", "Hollywoodish".

You described Rome I perfectly.

[wangrin]

^come on Wangrin, you really going to argue that the games are more superficial post-Attila? Sure Rome 2 was extremely low on features (as I well know, and myself have argued), but in Attila CA really made an effort to lay on depth where it was lacking in Rome 2. It was a very solid game and shows a positive direction: not addressing a new 'audience target', but reminding the old fans why they buy TW.

If only they'd got it right like that for the period everyone likes best, classical Rome.

Compare to Rome 2, CA heard players and added some features like the family tree.
CA heard because users speak loud enough, but certainly also because the company expect it was possible to add these features (not needing too much work compare to positive image and incomes...).
But I maintain that, about base features, the game is still superficial.
This is likely the consequence of TW design, focusing on war and conquest.

Would you compare the deepness of the diplomacy of TW game to Europa Universalis ?


This is the same for battle mechanisms.
CA focus on impressive Hollywoodish battles, but not historical and human mechanisms.
Look at the work done by JaM about Battle Mechanisms.
His main issue is CA design for weapons, armour, etc., the issue is the game design itself.
Moreover, TW isn't build to represent full battles, but duels. If it look "great", "Hooliwoodish" and "shiny", it is not accurate as combat system.

So, what is the problem, you might ask? It is relatively simple. Basic combat design of Rome 2, is flawed. CA didn't developed combat design as a system for large battles of opposing armies. They developed a duel game, where main focus is on single unit battling the another single unit, while focus was on player to zoom in and watch how single entities fight in pre-scripted animations. Yes, for many console playing gamers, this is the best experience ever. they can watch how two men are fighting each other, zoom in, and completely forget what's going on around them, as it is completely insignificant. yet, to players who actually played good old Total War games, they usually will miss the old way where battle formation and actual tactics decided the battles, instead of cinematic mode that adds bonuses to own unit, so you wont lose the battle while you are watching...

sources : CA lack of any kind of tactical insight

I'm not here to bash CA, but to point what I consider flaws in game design.
Of course CA did a better job with Attila than with R2TW, but I consider it is really far away from what could be really achieve, and far from my expectations.

The fact CA spend so much resources on impressive "graphical" performance instead of seriously working on battle, economic, diplomatic mechanisms make me write that CA focus on superficial features.

[Rorarii]

CA should be very worried about TW when you examine the players on Steam. Rome2, their most played game, is no where near CIV5, a similar game (yes it is, no BS excuses please). Even though TW has fantastic tactical battles, far better than the competition, TW games still lag badly. TW designers have lost the ability to design addictive games, they've reduced depth, added flash, added marketing etc .. and users are leaving, and won't trust CA again.

CIV5 has gained players even though they added depth - Religions - ideologies - UN voting - trading etc .. all easy to understand and use, CA try to add depth in Attila and gave us complexity, wasn't family trees alot easier than this in med2? superfical yes, because players didn't have a choice of partners for marriage, Ca should have added a few choices for marriage and their parents, so players could pick the best traits ! And what about ETW eleection, mostly well done but not finished, was their any penalty if the Wigs won the election ????????

it takes great arrogance to watch your franchise go south while ignoring competitors who are moving ahead .

[Lionheart11]

Rome 2 superficial? I think it was more than that! a blatant rip off by a company or very very poor work?. I like to think it was a try for the first one, trying to sell much less for the same price while we had lie after lie thrown at us, this is pre alpha, 40% more budget..etc

Yes they did come back with Atilla, they had no other choice because the flaming pitchforks were aimed at them, it would have been suicidal not to listen to fans but they basically lost 5 years from the franchise going backwards like that, no business can afford stupidity like that.

My question is, Where is your next title for the long term fans?, there is a huge hole in the program for those who don't like your new fantasy direction.

[Cpt. Cortes]

The next TW after Warhammer will be a new medieval, we can be sure about that. We have a lot of new mechanics in Attila that can be use in a medieval game, plus this "official-unnofficial" Charlemagne DLC, and this DLC will be just a beta for mechanics/some models from medieval. CA didnt make a "III" part games, ok, is CA, they never lie to us right? Rome 2 was a very big lie to us, in fact, today is far from what CA promised and showed to us in previews. So we can expect a Medieval game with a Robin Hood campaign!

"We ruined historical games with Rome 2, what we can do? Easy, make a remake of our best game, Medieval 2" - Mr. X, Director of CA planification team.

Im afraid this will be a "Rome 2 again" if they finally make a new Medieval Total War. Im afraid about how Warhammer TW is going to be, Im Warhammer fan since years, but seeing how CA make the things these days...

[EternalSilence]

The disaster of Rome 2 that continued through Attila + this new fantasy title (regardless of how good or bad it might be) = Explains your question !

This.

I was very exited for Rome 2.
Turned out be a fiasco on release day.
I burned out, cause i had to restart a new campaign every single time a patch was released.
They release many patches, always coming up with new bugs.

Than patch 13 came out, new 'expantion' aka how rome 2 should have been on release.
Totally burned. Atilla is great, but the disapointment of rome 2 was to big.

I am a Warhammer fan. Dont know if i'll buy this game. It looks great, but Rome 2 was a COMPLETE JOKE on release day.

Imo
Rome 1 > Shogun 2 > M2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>>>>> Rome 2 (release day).

[Candy_Licker]

Yes they did come back with Atilla, they had no other choice because the flaming pitchforks were aimed at them, it would have been suicidal not to listen to fans but they basically lost 5 years from the franchise going backwards like that, no business can afford stupidity like that.

My question is, Where is your next title for the long term fans?, there is a huge hole in the program for those who don't like your new fantasy direction.

Yeah, I consider RomeII a blatant fraud and nothing more.

I'm not even sure there's a future for classical TW games. SEGA/CA aimed high for RomeII, but if they realize it's damaged the reputation and sales in the long run... They also would have to spend resources on a new engine aswell, no way around that. SEGA might as well dump the TW series and restructure CA, focus on other games (Alien Isolation was a success in terms of reception atleast and for sure far less hassle than the TW games) or use the brand to release cheap mobile games etc...

The next TW after Warhammer will be a new medieval, we can be sure about that. We have a lot of new mechanics in Attila that can be use in a medieval game, plus this "official-unnofficial" Charlemagne DLC, and this DLC will be just a beta for mechanics/some models from medieval. CA didnt make a "III" part games, ok, is CA, they never lie to us right? Rome 2 was a very big lie to us, in fact, today is far from what CA promised and showed to us in previews. So we can expect a Medieval game with a Robin Hood campaign!

I disagree. A new gunpowder era game would atleast make as much sense, especially since the engine was originally built around it.

Who knows, they also spoke about a WWI game, and although I can't see it working out with the existing formula/ requiring too much work/risk, maybe they will feel encouraged if they can integrate flying units in Warhammer.

We really can't be sure.

[FrozenmenSS]

Yeah, I consider RomeII a blatant fraud and nothing more.

I'm not even sure there's a future for classical TW games. SEGA/CA aimed high for RomeII, but if they realize it's damaged the reputation and sales in the long run... They also would have to spend resources on a new engine aswell, no way around that. SEGA might as well dump the TW series and restructure CA, focus on other games (Alien Isolation was a success in terms of reception atleast and for sure far less hassle than the TW games) or use the brand to release cheap mobile games etc...



I disagree. A new gunpowder era game would atleast make as much sense, especially since the engine was originally built around it.

Who knows, they also spoke about a WWI game, and although I can't see it working out with the existing formula/ requiring too much work/risk, maybe they will feel encouraged if they can integrate flying units in Warhammer.

We really can't be sure.

Medieval 3 will be reskined Rome 2 and Attila.,but totaly new product will be World War 1-2 in the 20th century. With the Warhammer we got Tanks,Flying units and other Stuff that can be ported into World war 1 and 2.We got the code from shogun 2 Fall of the samurai with the naval combat like torpedoes ,laying naval mines with ships and so on.This Time The Campaign DLCs can be - the Pacific War between japan and USA and so on. Just imagine the Combined battles where naval units makes the landings at Normandy in 1944 or the Galipoli landings in 1915.Or the Battles At Stalingrad and Kursk.

[Darios]

Medieval 3 will be reskined Rome 2 and Attila.,but totaly new product will be World War 1-2 in the 20th century. With the Warhammer we got Tanks,Flying units and other Stuff that can be ported into World war 1 and 2.We got the code from shogun 2 Fall of the samurai with the naval combat like torpedoes ,laying naval mines with ships and so on.This Time The Campaign DLCs can be - the Pacific War between japan and USA and so on. Just imagine the Combined battles where naval units makes the landings at Normandy in 1944 or the Galipoli landings in 1915.Or the Battles At Stalingrad and Kursk.

I think that the scale of both world wars are simply too big/complicated for CA to really get into. I'm also terrified to imagine how laggy a Total War game with tanks and airplanes would be since they tend to put high graphics over game/code quality. No thanks...

Something from the Victorian period might work beautifully though, especially as you would still have the "rock paper scissors" cavalry > artillery > infantry thing going. Shogun 2 remains the most impressive Total War game to date...

[LinusLinothorax]

Something from the Victorian period might work beautifully though, especially as you would still have the "rock paper scissors" cavalry > artillery > infantry thing going. Shogun 2 remains the most impressive Total War game to date...

FotS only worked because it combined Medieval warfare with Napoleonic one, tho. After around 1850/60 the Napoleonic line infatry warfare was succeded by proto-trench warfare, and i think that type of warfare will be hard to portray plus it wouldnt be entirely fun to play. So a Victorian TW might sound great on paper, but in reality the battles wont be too great, atleast in the second half of the campaign.

[radsix]

I feel like I am the only person on this forum who enjoyed every second of Rome 2. The reason being is because up until that time, halo wars had been the biggest RTS I had ever played, so when I saw the Total War series, it blew my mind. It destroyed the boundaries between the scale of politics, diplomacy, and warfare and what truly happened. Surely CA has made mistakes (I am looking at you day 1 DLC). But in the end, what they have accomplished has topped all strategy games before it. And no one can forget that first moment when they launch their first TW game and see the impossible happening before their eyes. So, forum members communitymen, listen to what I have to say. We must forgive CA for a few major or minor mistakes because in the end they have given us a game that succeeded in bringing past dream to reality. To those new to the community," where you are, I was. Where I am, you will be."

[Imperator Artorius]

I feel like I am the only person on this forum who enjoyed every second of Rome 2. The reason being is because up until that time, halo wars had been the biggest RTS I had ever played, so when I saw the Total War series, it blew my mind. It destroyed the boundaries between the scale of politics, diplomacy, and warfare and what truly happened. Surely CA has made mistakes (I am looking at you day 1 DLC). But in the end, what they have accomplished has topped all strategy games before it. And no one can forget that first moment when they launch their first TW game and see the impossible happening before their eyes. So, forum members communitymen, listen to what I have to say. We must forgive CA for a few major or minor mistakes because in the end they have given us a game that succeeded in bringing past dream to reality. To those new to the community," where you are, I was. Where I am, you will be."

I can totally appreciate what one's first experience of TW is like. My first real taste was the Battle of Agincourt demo for Medieval 2 (Id played the demo for Rome I, and I'd dabbled in MTW but I'd been far too young to even begin to understand it). As someone who's first major cinema experience were the LotR films (For context, I'm 20), what I wanted most was a game where I could recreate that same sense of scale, and Medieval 2 did that for me and it blew me away.

However, you must also surely appreciate the increasing agitation of the TW vets, who have had to put up with the fiasco of Empire (that was never fixed, and we got Napoleon instead), and have had to watch the decline of CA over several years, albeit with Shogun 2 as a high point. If Rome II had released in the state it is in now, I'd be slightly disappointed coming off the back of Shogun 2 and FotS, which imo are incredible games,but I wouldnt feel betrayed by shoddy marketing to cover up a broken game. A game that remained broken for almost a year after its release. Not to mention the new era of culture pack DLCs and cut pre order content. So why should we forgive CA for making the same mistakes they've made in the past, when at times they've got it so right?

[wangrin]

I feel like I am the only person on this forum who enjoyed every second of Rome 2. The reason being is because up until that time, halo wars had been the biggest RTS I had ever played, so when I saw the Total War series, it blew my mind. It destroyed the boundaries between the scale of politics, diplomacy, and warfare and what truly happened. Surely CA has made mistakes (I am looking at you day 1 DLC). But in the end, what they have accomplished has topped all strategy games before it. And no one can forget that first moment when they launch their first TW game and see the impossible happening before their eyes. So, forum members communitymen, listen to what I have to say. We must forgive CA for a few major or minor mistakes because in the end they have given us a game that succeeded in bringing past dream to reality. To those new to the community," where you are, I was. Where I am, you will be."

Maybe forgive, but never forget.
CA didn't decide to create "Assembly Kit" ot "Modding Summit" for pleasure, but because community yelled loud enough, to a point tha CA can't ignore because hurting its image.
Of course, CA now hears modders as well as community.
They try to be more reactive, but it still not immune CA to create awfully unfinished game such as R2TW. How many patches were needed to be playable ?


About game design, I consider that CA focus too much on "hollywoodish effects" rather than strategic and tactical aspects of the game.
About diplomacy, you can simply compare Europa Universalis with CA, TW diplomacy is really poor.
About battle, you can compare Histwar battle system with CA one, TW is simply oversimplified.




Moreover, TW game engine still use a 32 bit architecture that limit the use of memory.
CA already recognize the problem (2013 Modding Summit).
So, even if porting game engine or, even worst, creating a new game engine need time (an money), this is really necessary now.


But maybe am I an old schmuck because I hate superficiality, hollywoodish effects and because I prefer deepness of gameplay, historical accurate mechanism, etc.

[Cope]

#delete.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Well, people are growing + CA screws up + not much interest here + might as well move on = TWC is silent.

[Tankbustaz]

CA should be very worried about TW when you examine the players on Steam. Rome2, their most played game, is no where near CIV5, a similar game (yes it is, no BS excuses please). Even though TW has fantastic tactical battles, far better than the competition, TW games still lag badly. TW designers have lost the ability to design addictive games, they've reduced depth, added flash, added marketing etc .. and users are leaving, and won't trust CA again.

CIV5 has gained players even though they added depth - Religions - ideologies - UN voting - trading etc .. all easy to understand and use, CA try to add depth in Attila and gave us complexity, wasn't family trees alot easier than this in med2? superfical yes, because players didn't have a choice of partners for marriage, Ca should have added a few choices for marriage and their parents, so players could pick the best traits ! And what about ETW eleection, mostly well done but not finished, was their any penalty if the Wigs won the election ????????

it takes great arrogance to watch your franchise go south while ignoring competitors who are moving ahead .

You are comparing civ 5 to rome 2
You are comparing a very well known franchise to a a relatively niche one
You are comparing a 4x game to a grand strategy/RTT game

yes, the comparison is BS.

[prithupaul]

Total War has not improved with time.

I loved early Total War games because they were so much more realistic compared to other strategy games of that time - more realistic army sizes broken up into regiments, commanded by generals that can improve dynamically, no moronic production in the middle of tactical battles, formations, flanking etc.

But they have failed to stick with that strength over the years in order to pander to multiplayer clickfest crowd. Total War games feel a lot more "gamey" now, over-reliant on simplistic rock-paper-scissors mechanisms, unhistorical balancing for the sake of multiplayer, exaggerated artillery fireworks, contrived game mechanics like the Rome 2 civil war, and worst of all moba-like unit movement and fast paced action and so on.

I have enjoyed wargames (Scourge of War, Command Ops etc), or strategy games from Paradox or Koei far more than any Total War games released during the past few years.

[tat501]

Agree very strongly with Prithupaul above. A big problem is that Total War is a victim of its own success. It's gone from niche to mainstream and so must of course now cater for the mainstream above that of the niche. In effect, they sold out. I think they started selling out in this way around Medieval 2. But, they got the balance just so perfectly right that it was appealing to all. If you ask me the best two games were the original Medieval Total War, probably the most atmospheric, beautiful, detailed and tactically in depth game I've ever played and then Shogun 2 and Shogun 1. Warscape, working OK for Empire, is just awful at representing large scale melees unless you're looking for Hollywood style finishing moves, and the pace of battles is so fast because otherwise the multiplayer crowd and twitch generation would get bored.

i remember playing Shlgun 1 online in a clan and it was never boring. It was incredibly tactical because it was so difficult to take your opponent by surprise by bum rushing him faster than he could click...