Will it be delayed?

[Lamias]

Hello guys!!

I have heard that the release date of Attila is around February 20th. The thing is, i just found out 4 days ago that there is going to be a new Total War game. Up until 4 days ago i hadn't seen stuff about Attila anywhere on the web and I didn't have a clue that Attila was almost ready.


The question is, do we know if the release will be delayed, or if CA will be true to that date?

I hope it's true, it's just that i find weird the fact that i haven't seen an internet hype from fans, like when Rome 2 was about to be released.

Thanks!!

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, it's basically an expansion following the game with the lowest Metacritic score in the history of TW franchise. So, it's expected that with all the disappointment about Rome2, there's much less enthusiasm than before. IMO CA also has a more conservative marketing policy (damage control), presenting Attila a bit more modestly, so yeah much less forum traffic is reasonable. IIRC the same thing happened with NTW after the disastrous release of Empire. On the other hand, a delay doesn't seem probable, it's a big risk for CA, even if the game isn't ready yet, because the majority of the pre-orders will be cancelled. So, no, I don't think that the absence of hype means that Attila'll be delayed.

[Symphony]

Metacritic score

lawl

[Abdülmecid I]

lawl

Yes, I know that Metacritic isn't very reliable, but why can't we compare the scores of the TW games? It's the same sample category, so I find it a trustworthy indication of how well-received a game was. Also, don't forget that CA has stated that they base their games' development on the feedback they reveive from Metacritic.

[Symphony]

Yes, I know that Metacritic isn't very reliable, but why can't we compare the scores of the TW games? It's the same sample category, so I find it a trustworthy indication of how well-received a game was. Also, don't forget that CA has stated that they base their games' development on the feedback they reveive from Metacritic.

Dealing with the second statement first, I know they do; most developers do, and it still makes me giggle.

Back to the first...we can compare them, and we can't.

We can't because the biggest critique against Metacritic (a meta Metacritique?) is that it's synergistic, and doesn't have a cutoff date. A game gets a couple of dodgy review and generates some bad publicity, and the next set of reviewers are influenced by those reviews....the next set of reviewers goes into their review looking for the flaws pointed out during the first set, and with their perception already colored by those reviews. You see a cycle of reviews getting worse and worse over time, building on themselves, and a game's score bombs. This is especially noticeable among the "independent" reviewers (the ones not affiliated with a magazine or standard critical outlet), who're less likely to risk giving a game with a negative critical reception a good review (these "independents" are in fact VERY dependent on volume of site traffic and views, and aren't often willing to go against what they see as public perception regarding a game).

There are also more of those independent reviewers than there used to be; it's no accident that the 10 highest scoring games on Metacritic are all from 2010 or earlier; all but two are from before 2007, and the top 2 are from the late 90s. You can't claim that nostalgia and the increase of independent reviewers hasn't had an impact. In that sense, comparing a TW game from 2013 with one from 2003 isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I think it's unlikely we'll ever see any game, from any developer, ever crack that top-10 list again with the current state of the game review landscape.

At the same time, it's also fair to say that the negative perception wouldn't exist in the first place if the game didn't have some serious flaws to begin with, so in that sense, the Metacritic score as compared against a comparable, contemporary game still has some value to it.

So, I'd say the Metacritic score is still somewhat indicative, but it's not nearly as relevant how R2 compared against its predecessors.

Edit: I was looking at an outdated top 10 list, from January of 2014. Since then, GTAV has crept into the top 10. Then again, GTAV was released in September of 2013, and took all of 2014 to climb into the top 10, as over time, the rating increased. If anything, this is further suggestion that R2's current rating as compared to other TW titles isn't a wholly relevant comparison.

[Abdülmecid I]

I see your point Symphony, although I doubt that Rome II would ever reach Empire's score, which is the next lower score for a TW game. It's true that that Rome2 had gone from 3.8 to 4.2, but some days ago it fell again to 4.1, so there are signs of stabilization.

Dealing with the second statement first, I know they do; most developers do, and it still makes me giggle.

My explanation is they estimate that most of the consumers will decide what game to buy, based on the Metacritic score, and they're probably right. Personally, although I know Metacritic is far from reliable, I just quickly checked the metacritic page, before I buy Max Payne 3, so I guess it must be a pretty common phenomenon.

[Linke]

Since there is already a solid Rome II game to build on Attila doesnt require as much time. Also they must have loads of money from Rome II to here new people so its no surprise its released this soon.

[emperor77]

Since there is already a solid Rome II game to build on...

That gave me a good chuckle, thank you.

[Doe3000]

If they delay Attila in order to fix glitches and bugs and overall improve the game, then I'd be perfectly happy with that. Then again, the last time CA delayed a game in order to 'improve' it was Empire: Total War, which was delayed from a September 2008 release for a February 2009 one instead, and we all know how that turned out (hint - it was the most disastrous Total War release in history up to that point).

[Lord Baal]

Delayed? If CA and SEGA are to be "trusted" it will be rushed and out months before it's ready, so don't you worry, it will be here before you notice (or is even done).

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

They delayed Trepasser 2 years, just look how much that helped it :/

[Anna_Gein]

No way CA delays a game. The last one, Rome II was released at least a whole semester too soon. And the two last games were released without AA even if graphic are the selling part of TW as CA sees it.

[Humble Warrior]

No way CA delays a game. The last one, Rome II was released at least a whole semester too soon. And the two last games were released without AA even if graphic are the selling part of TW as CA sees it.

Indeed. CA don`t delay, they push it out hell or high water then maybe fix it over the next year. Of course, they won`t tell you it needs a year`s worth of fixing.

As for Napoleon, it is slightly better than Empire, but no way is it fixed. It still has bugginess and issues that have not been fixed to this day. Certainly not as polished as STW2.

[priam11]

No way CA delays a game. The last one, Rome II was released at least a whole semester too soon. And the two last games were released without AA even if graphic are the selling part of TW as CA sees it.

Actually CA delayed Empire back in 2008 and that certainly was not without problems.

[Lionheart11]

why delay when they know alphas sell well. I expect no different from CA with there secretive agendas.

[Lord Baal]

Could be, but then it would be a Rome Total War without the Republic, Punic Wars, Invasion of Greece, Spain, Africa, Middle East and so many many things...
Just like Napoleon was a Empire without the global map.

[Architect of Doom]

Could be, but then it would be a Rome Total War without the Republic, Punic Wars, Invasion of Greece, Spain, Africa, Middle East and so many many things...
Just like Napoleon was a Empire without the global map.

Same here. I like the new mechanics introduced in Attila, but the time period doesn't interest me too much. There are no Greeks, and the Roman Empire (WRE) is way too wrecked for it to interest me... I could save it and bring paganism back, but we all know this was impossible at the time and even if I did it, the Empire would never be the same.

[Mithiras]

I love how people think CA has a secretive agenda. It's not like they want to produce garbage like Electronic Arts and force it on you. Sometimes it's the publisher's issue with the DLC, rushed deadlines, etc. I blame Sega for the issues CA has. They should have come out with Caesar in Gaul and the other short campaigns before worrying about the Grand Campaign. It was just way too much for them to handle in such a short time. Too many cultures, too large a map, and too many units to balance for the AI. If they just focused in Gaul all they'd have to worry about would be the Gauls, Roman and Germanic factions.

[KingofBattle66]

They Better not delay it. I would like to play it before I leave for the Mojave .

[Zizzurry]

Take it easy, guys!... Attila will be awsome! ;-)