Does Carthage looks as it did in Alpha?

[The Noble Duke Of York]

I could just hope for their next game that the following sentence will appear below any marketing images CA produces (or some facsimile): "Image presented is for marketing purposes only and may not reflect the game at release or what the purchaser may be able to experience due the specifications of their computer."

Personally I recall them saying that the game would be made playable for those that could run Shogun II on max which implied to me at the time that CA were going to forgo graphical enhancements and improvements that would follow on from a game they had released two years previous and which newer video cards were capable of handling. I recall not being able to run Napoleon a few years back and having to completely upgrade in order to do so and I upgraded again before Rome II however I might have been ok not having done so. I also think they are downgrading to allow people on laptops and low end rigs to run the game on max. I think that is a pitiful state of affairs. They should not be listening to anyone who wants to run a big game on their notebook and who won't buy a proper pc to run games.

[Emperor Domitianus]

There are always differences between the promotional videos and the actual game.
For me it's fine and in some aspects it's better ingame.

[Architect of Doom]

Not only does the city feel small, the filters also do a great difference. The brightness in the Alpha makes the visuals excellent. Besides, you can notice that in Alpha, the city had a lot of trees, and they have been removed in the current version. I still wonder exactly why they removed all of these things, besides trying to improve FPS.

[Swamidude]

I know I was looking for a new PC to play these epic graphics after seeing this vid. I never bought a new PC for a specific game, but was seriously considering it to play this with full graphics. It's true, they said it would be better then this and it got much worse. I know a lot of people have actually bought the new PC, I decided to buy to game, play a little and look on for a little while. I'm glad I did, because with these graphics playing on low settings isn't as bad as playing on ultra for 800 euro extra...

It's not just 60 bucks for some people, people that bought a new PC for these graphics, for the effect of this trailer. They shouldn't have said that it was actual ingame footage and it was going to look better. Normally they say something like this: 'This is alpha footage and it may be different in the final release' or some warning like that, then I actually could have lived with it since I still think it's a beautifull city, if they had showed the actual city from the beginning I guess people would have found it epic still, there was no need for this extreme upgrade when they knew it wasn't going to be in there...

And yes you could say that it is an opinion what looks better, but I think that about this most people will agree. Also if this is possible but it wouldn't be possible to run on a normal PC, then you shouldn't put it in the vid and otherwise you should at least have the option for people that got insane and build some kind of super computer to run this

[zeroFreeze]

We're way way pre-alpha and what that means is there is loads of features not just in terms of the graphics but also in terms of the combat and animations that actually aren't in the game yet.So the final game is actually gonna look way way better than this!”

Refer to the bolded terms - but in this case the graphics they speak of can cover a vast array of things such as shield textures, to housing wall textures or some shaders here and there. I don't necessarily agree that this claim should have been said, however I also cannot wrap my head around people that fail to understand the nature of any alpha gameplay footage. No developer should have to outright say, 'this is alpha footage. That means the game may, and most likely will look different to what you are seeing because things change in the development cycle, and compromises need to be made.'

As taken from van Veenendaal, Erik 2013, the Alpha stage of development and/or testing is a simulated testing for potential stakeholders, and is best used as a form of off-the-shelf internal acceptance testing before going beta.

[Symphony]

I'm struggling mighty hard to see the point of this thread....

Your personal in-game experience doesn't match what you'd seen in a heavily edited (flashy mass-market cuts, where you don't see more than 2-3 seconds at a time, different music, dramatic flash screens and overdubs, etc) promotional video? Ok...welcome to every video game ever marketed.

[zeroFreeze]

I'm struggling mighty hard to see the point of this thread....

Tis nothing but a circle-jerk.

[baptistus]

I'm struggling mighty hard to see the point of this thread....

Your personal in-game experience doesn't match what you'd seen in a heavily edited (flashy mass-market cuts, where you don't see more than 2-3 seconds at a time, different music, dramatic flash screens and overdubs, etc) promotional video? Ok...welcome to every video game ever marketed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaDlihIqPws
Is it a "flashy mass-market cuts, where you don't see more than 2-3 seconds at a time" promotional video ?
I see a video of gameplay. GAMEPLAY

As taken from van Veenendaal, Erik 2013, the Alpha stage of development and/or testing is a simulated testing for potential stakeholders, and is best used as a form of off-the-shelf internal acceptance testing before going beta.

that is why they had sent the video to gamespot and all the game websites around the world you are really naive ....
Come on ! why you don't want to accept it is just a false advertising ? No gamer should accept this kind of , even if it is ubisoft, EA, activision ,CA or indie devs. But you endorse this when you try to find apologizes to this video Good job

[zeroFreeze]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaDlihIqPws
Is it a "flashy mass-market cuts, where you don't see more than 2-3 seconds at a time" promotional video ?
I see a video of gameplay. GAMEPLAY


that is why they had sent the video to gamespot and all the game websites around the world you are really naive ....
Come on ! why you don't want to accept it is just a false advertising ? No gamer should accept this kind of , even if it is ubisoft, EA, activision ,CA or indie devs. But you endorse this when you try to find apologizes to this video Good job

Because it's not false advertising - you missed the point of the quote I provided - potential stakeholders and internal acceptance are the keywords here. Stakeholders are the market and those that will be interested in the game. It can be consumers, game stores, etc. Internal acceptance testing is their way of monitoring the response and feedback - it's a testing of concept before going into full scale production. You've surely been to a car show where they show off a car that won't be set to hit the markets for a few more years right? That's like an alpha test.

As for the other end of the false advertising spectrum you try to argue, as I have stated many times before, unfortunately people keep forgetting that what you see at E3 is not what you will always get when the product is released. Do I condone this? Yes and no. Any form of marketing will always have a term known as 'sales puff' that is perfectly legal in just about every legal system, and there are terminologies that are used specifically to avoid liabilities. If the entire community had such an irk and a massive 'false advertising' case at hand, CA would have probably been held liable and sued already. Let's learn what false advertising is - saying, "You will receive a black 2014 version car, and instead you receive a red 2012 version of a car". What you have received is a total war game, with total war mechanics, some iterations and failed innovations that CA have attempted. You haven't received farming simulator 2012 instead of Rome 2. Most sales pitches and media talk about a product are simply sales puff and speculation. Until the official product description is announced, with a purchase button next to it, then the margin for liability is even less.

And no I am not apologising? I'm not an apologist for this game or CA. I've weighed up both sides of an argument and have made a rational decision. I think the vanilla game is quite horrendous and once again the modding community is saving the day. But, I also find it bizarre that people still do not understand the terminologies that gets used at any games expo.

[Barritus]

As for the other end of the false advertising spectrum you try to argue, as I have stated many times before, unfortunately people keep forgetting that what you see at E3 is not what you will always get when the product is released.

I never expect a game presented in promo videos or E3 to look exactly the same at release. I've been gaming for quite a while and know what to look for and where my expectations should be. However, in my opinion I feel that what they showed us and what we got were like night and day. With that being said I pushed through the discrepancies and I was impressed with the graphics themselves at release. Since they've been downgraded though in one or two of the patches I don't even have that to hold onto now.

[stackero]

Ahhh. Does it look as good as advertised? Thanks Dago Red for the memories that awakens in me of this forum in the early weeks and months of R2's release Got to Rep. As I recall, there was over a dozen more.

[Butan]

I finally answered no, after reading everything they said about this being "only alpha" and that it would look "way better" in the final product.
It doesnt, in some points its worse.