You don't need more eye candy to improve sales

[ray243]

One thing I don't get it from the POV of CA is their assumption that more eye candy equates to higher sales.

Increasing the graphical details of the game can easily impact the games in a negative way for fans of the series, such seeing pointless scenarios like a 1 vs 1 duel in a mass melee, and limiting the scale of battles.

Fans would often defend CA's desire to improve the graphics by arguing how this would result in more amateurs gamers buying the game. However, if we look at some of the top selling games recently, namely Starcraft 2 and Diablo III, you will realise that both games have rather dated graphics.

Diablo III have graphics that is considered to be state of art 10 years ago! This does not result in people shying away from buying it. If anything, this encourages more non-hardcore gamers to buy it, because they think that their computer will support the game.

The same goes for World of Warcraft. Increasing eye candy is something that only appeal the hardcore gamers because they have powerful computers to run those games at the highest graphical levels. Non-hardcore gamers are more concerned about buying games that their run of the mill laptops can support.

The sales figures for those top end games that have the latest graphics like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed is still lower than any of Blizzard's recent titles.

Sims 3 sold 10 million copies while games like Call of Duty Black Ops only sold 3 million copies!

[Semper_Fidelis]

i think the graphics are close to that of shogun 2's just with more lighting and particle effects, although they did add more polygons which is to be expected for an upgraded engine. i see what you mean though. im going to have to buy a new graphics card just to assure myself that i can play it on high-ultra.

[a tw player]

Don't take this the wrong way OP, but what's your point?

Technology is constantly moving forward (Moor's Law ahem) so it makes sense to take advantage of it. If you're saying it doesn't affect sales, then surely we can say it's a good thing that CA are putting time, effort and money into improving something that won't directly improve sales, but will improve the gaming experience (if this is true).

[Holger Danske]

Don't take this the wrong way OP, but what's your point?

Technology is constantly moving forward (Moor's Law ahem) so it makes sense to take advantage of it.

Yet CA has lost focus on the single most defining feature of the Total War franchise: Scale...

They have done much to give Total War a Hollywood like apperance (or feel), but little to none in redefining the standards of scale. I'm very dissapointed that the amount of soldiers on screen has not really been dramatically increased ever since Medieval Total War as oppossed to the graphics which are eons apart. And since this game will be built over Shogun 2 I fear we will actually see a decrease in numbers since the developers needs to cater to the eye-candy hungry kids of the modern age...

[SuperTechmarine]

Don't take this the wrong way OP, but what's your point?

Technology is constantly moving forward (Moor's Law ahem) so it makes sense to take advantage of it.

The Imperium of Man begs to differ.

[Wowwars]

One thing I don't get it from the POV of CA is their assumption that more eye candy equates to higher sales.

Increasing the graphical details of the game can easily impact the games in a negative way for fans of the series, such seeing pointless scenarios like a 1 vs 1 duel in a mass melee, and limiting the scale of battles.

Fans would often defend CA's desire to improve the graphics by arguing how this would result in more amateurs gamers buying the game. However, if we look at some of the top selling games recently, namely Starcraft 2 and Diablo III, you will realise that both games have rather dated graphics.

Diablo III have graphics that is considered to be state of art 10 years ago! This does not result in people shying away from buying it. If anything, this encourages more non-hardcore gamers to buy it, because they think that their computer will support the game.

The same goes for World of Warcraft. Increasing eye candy is something that only appeal the hardcore gamers because they have powerful computers to run those games at the highest graphical levels. Non-hardcore gamers are more concerned about buying games that their run of the mill laptops can support.

The sales figures for those top end games that have the latest graphics like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed is still lower than any of Blizzard's recent titles.

Sims 3 sold 10 million copies while games like Call of Duty Black Ops only sold 3 million copies!

And? you talking about all these games no offence maybe only AC Series is acceptable,

Sc2 - Failed project - 29% of their community left to Warcraft 3 a even Much older game which still holds a bigger community.

Diablo 3 - Disapointment in gaming

CoD - Biggest in Gaming, but still this is a pc game fourm so dont talk about the Cods in here.

Shogun 2 - A Alrighty game defeinelty brought in new fans, no harm done to the franchise really.

[vinh834]

And? you talking about all these games no offence maybe only AC Series is acceptable,

Sc2 - Failed project - 29% of their community left to Warcraft 3 a even Much older game which still holds a bigger community.

Diablo 3 - Disapointment in gaming

CoD - Biggest in Gaming, but still this is a pc game fourm so dont talk about the Cods in here.

Shogun 2 - A Alrighty game defeinelty brought in new fans, no harm done to the franchise really.

Hmmm. I never got SC2 and am sticking to WC3. IS the community for SC2 really bad that the WC3 is currently even better modding wise?

[Stath's]

Yep, I agree 100% withe the no-supergreat-graphics-need. As i was reading in another thread, the numbers of the soldiers could be well-increased, if it was not the constant new graphics need.

New, better, more complicated strategies and tactics, both on campaign and battle map are needed, not soldiers who weep their dead companions.

[Symphony]

I'm a little confused too. OP, are you asking CA to not update the graphics because you're afraid they'll outpace players' hardware, or asking them to refocus those energies in another are, or...?

Not arguing with you (necessarily/yet ), just trying to figure out where you're headed here.

[ray243]

I'm a little confused too. OP, are you asking CA to not update the graphics because you're afraid they'll outpace players' hardware, or asking them to refocus those energies in another are, or...?

Not arguing with you (necessarily/yet ), just trying to figure out where you're headed here.

I was just hoping that CA don't spend too much of their budget and development time on graphics and visuals. Sure those are important aspect of the game, but if they are spending so much of their effort on graphics, this could limit what the Total war games could do.

Take for example, increasing the unit size of the total war games. If R2TW's graphics is only slightly better than M2TW, then you can easily have an army of 10,000 without causing massive lag issues.

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

I don't think CA or SEGA will listen to you anyway.And between,Cod MW3 sold 6.5 million copies on the first day,sooooo...

[TR00PER7]

I don't think CA or SEGA will listen to you anyway.And between,Cod MW3 sold 6.5 million copies on the first day,sooooo...

those graphics were considered good!?!?!

[magpie]

Graphic upgrades are a lot easier to do than software programming which takes a much higher skill level.
Also its not easy to get gifted software programmer,s and they cost a lot more.
So an old games engine like warcraft has a longer shelf life with eye candy, With luck the old warscape will be superseeded by a more sophisticated engine next time round.

[Zimmy]

I want large numbers of units and giant battles, but my pc can't handle that. So I'm fine with 120 per unit. I don't see why people think all PC's can handle 40,000 units.

[ray243]

I want large numbers of units and giant battles, but my pc can't handle that. So I'm fine with 120 per unit. I don't see why people think all PC's can handle 40,000 units.

You would if the graphical detail of the game is lower. That is the point I am trying to get across.

[HanSomPa]

You would if the graphical detail of the game is lower. That is the point I am trying to get across.

Really...? I would never sacrifice that much visual quality just to get a "feel" of a real battle. 10,000 units on my screen already looks real enough, besides the micromanagement needed for 70-80 cohorts would be simply insane... Sorry man, but I just can agree with you. Graphics are extremely important if you want to enjoy the game. I can understand that competitive gamers don't care... but the majority of TW players aren't competitive, they play it for fun.

[Zimmy]

No you wouldn't. I just loaded up Rome 1, set on low graphics, large units and put max units on 8 teams. Lag like crazy.

[The True Roman]

No one does battles better or bigger then Total war using 3d Models so I'm fine with them doing What they do. Have you ever played a Total war battle on a huge scale? Pretty unplayable even with the latest Hardware.

[HanSomPa]

No one does battles better or bigger then Total war using 3d Models so I'm fine with them doing What they do. Have you ever played a Total war battle on a huge scale? Pretty unplayable even with the latest Hardware.

Nope, I have a Mid tier PC and have no problems whatsoever running things on Huge. Just gotta turn down that vegetation and grass man. I gotta get a 6GB Vram card...

it is quite stupid to take starcraft and diablo as example .. these 2 games are legends that made the step stone for future games .. for example starcraft was so amazing at its time that after it other strategy games were created taking starcraft physics and gameplay as example.. even now starcraft is very popular .. next thing when it comes to starcraft 2 it was created as close as possible with starcraft I for this rason graphics are not that important ... When it comes to diablo 2 then again .. everyone knows diablo and its about gameplay and feeling of the game .. when it comes to rome .. well battles more or less are the most important aspect of the game and gameplay.. only now they try to make campaign game more interesting .. so for rome 2 graphics are going to be priority .. but lets hope that they wont be wrong saying that every aspect of the game is getting the same attention.. so lets just hope that the game is as good as it looks good

You kidding me? SCII graphics are top notch. They are no Crysis, but they are full of brilliant eye candy. That said this points EXACTLY to what I was talking about. Starcraft is BUILT on the concept of competition. It's all about the ladder to give the game shelf life. Diablo 3 is an RPG. And as far as I know, RPGs were not always at the forefront of graphics. They're more geared towards engaging and interactive storytelling. Of course many RPGs have great graphics as well, Dragon Age for example.

I get what you're saying about the game though, I'm hoping for that too. That the game will be as good as it looks.

[vinh834]

Of course many RPGs have great graphics as well, Dragon Age for example.

Dragon Age has good graphics? Games don't have to have good graphics to be good, but Dragon Age doesn't have that good graphics. However, the gameplay and story telling are great; Dragon Age 2 is another whole nother story.

That said, I hope that CA improves the graphics for Rome 2, but gameplay is very important since they are featuring many new mechanics that should make the campaign and battles much better.