"Where is the promised gameplay footage!!!!1!!!" Thread

[GatoVolador]

Due to tecnical issues... hmm, sounds like TW:W crashes even more so than rome 2 [emoji14]

[joedreck]

This is the same Action the total war AI will do.

[kelembribor21]

Here is the Demigryph video , cool animation and narrator says the gameplay video is this friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE2zVdapXIU

[Vardeus]

Here is the Demigryph video , cool animation and narrator says the gameplay video is this friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE2zVdapXIU

Friday can't come fast enough.

[scoicarius]

Love the animations. It would be nice for them to do such videos for all units, and release them once a week or something.

[scoicarius]

Oh, looks like it is going to be a series. Great! I really wish I could edit my posts.

[Jokern]

No matter how TW:W turns out in the end, I think the animators, modelers and texturers at CA deserve a lot of praise for their hard work. That Demipgryph Knight looked absolutely stunning, and I can't wait for the trailer on Friday. We'll of course have to take it with a big grain of salt since it's only an in-engine trailer instead of a gameplay one.

[joedreck]

Holly ing !

Awesome!

CA always know how to present something.

[von stoker]

In engine trailer on Total War youtube this Friday 17th July according to Demigryph video.

[PointOfViewGun]

First of all: I never saw those reviews so I couldnt' base it anyway on my decision. Second of all: The two reviews you quoted barely might/maybe/could've described my experience only in the loosest terms. I never would've expected the game to have been that bad from those specific statements you showed yourself:

"IGN:
For the sake of all that it gets right, I'm generally tolerant of some of the interface issues, but wonky pathfinding and poor strategic and tactical AI, particularly with smaller forces and sieges, are more annoying, even if they're less persistent. I've laughed as recently ousted armies batter themselves against my walls as individual units rather than wait for nearby reinforcements. I've cursed as my spearmen ignore a wide-open gate right in front of them and raced instead for a different gate on the other side of the enemy fort. These types of things don't happen every time, but they do happen, and can ruin an otherwise enjoyable turn.
PC Gamer:
I've had three major coastal siege battles in which I've had to sit back, fast-forward the battle and let the 60 minute timer tick down to gain an automatic siege-defence victory against a frozen AI opponent. The severity of the problem seems to vary greatly depending on the map you're fighting on."

Even from those two I never would've guess the AI would run through my lines to get to capture points, or that I'd get performance problems when using naval fleets in coastal walled cities, or Roman units would break lines to turn on a 90 degree axis ( http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...to-keep-a-line... ), or that there was even battlefield capture points (luckily they just simply removed those like they should've with torches). Or just dozens of other things that I've probably forgotten about since I stopped playing it for so long.

By about February I was only playing/testing Rome 2 for a few minutes to see if the AI got even slightly okay, and was just making snarky comments at that point: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co..._gates/cg1mkm5 Apparently people identified with me there, and siege AI among other wonkyness was a common discussion. People felt stuck with the game. CA did largely fix the siege AI and even I dare say completely fixed the "running through men" problem. When Emperor edition came out I finally bought all their DLC.

Unintentionally mislead. Is that better? Incomplete marketing maybe? I never saw any marketing even close to what I experienced with Rome 2 (it just felt so wonky). Attila didn't give me that same experience of disjointed game vs marketing. Mayhap that is because everything that wasn't mentioned pretty much worked in Attila when R2's didn't? That's what I feel this is about (also I didn't read every review of Attila, I just played it for the free weekend and felt it was worth it, I wouldn't have bought Rome 2 if I had a free weekend I don't think). Maybe I'm just too stupid Sektekh to see the issues shown to me in the marketing material you've discussed. Though you really haven't shown a clear case this was shown (those two reviews only hint at best issues I had that would've caused me not to buy the game), but you're calling people here pathetic and idiotic now, so maybe you're just too smart for us after all.

With the thought that I'm too stupid, I think it's wise that neanderthals like me shouldn't just throw money at things we clearly don't understand like you do and wait awhile after release. Even using your logic it's clear I should've waited for Rome 2 awhile.

These are quite pedantic and childish arguments. No promotional material will or can cover every single problem you might have with the game. As a customer, however, you are responsible for going over the promotional material. Merely focusing on the earliest promotional concept material to claim things the material doesn't claim is just whining for no real reason. I'm sorry. You had ample promotional material to realize that Rome II had bugs. Same goes for Attila. Same will be true for Warhammer.

Sigh.

Well, I tried. I hope you don't call everyone who tries to extend a hand to you "pathetic". Given the fact that I'm not impartial (I don't know where did you get the opposite impression when we have pages of discussions all over the place) maybe you should judge in a different light that even then I'm making the effort (your own words) to stay chilled and try and put out the fires so that maybe we can all have a nice, constructive debate for once. I really don't get the necessity to antagonize everyone.

I honestly think that there is not only no need at all to downtalk the people you refer to in your rebutals and label their stance with adjetives such as "pathetic" or "idiotic", but also that your posts would benefit quite a lot from not doing so, since you usually bring actual, researched arguments to the table and using them to be constructive rather than destructive would earn you (and the people you argue with) tons.

It is in this case, since it's most likely not a intentional or working as intended feature and a player who wants to avoid that from happening (even if he has the tools to do so, like heavy infantry) just can't. It's ridiculous that a light unit can go through an elite heavy spearmen shieldwall in seconds if they so desire.

Not so long ago you implied that not because everyone does something that makes it the right thing to do.

Again, I don't think that's working as intended. And you don't even lose a significant amount soldiers (if any) if the enemy unit is engaged by more units (as in my example).

Only that I've always used elite spearmen in my examples and not flimsy peasants. And in the best of cases, it's definatelly not something they'd achieve in mere seconds. In any case, I'll do some tests next week when I have time.

And why exactly are you so sure that that's what should happen? Are you really telling me that "what should happen" when light units charge frontally against tighly packed elite spearmen (aka, heavily armoured guys with shields and pointy stuff) defending a choke point is that the light units just go through if they so desired? I really wonder what the whole point of Thermopylae was then.

It's already hard enough with no armor or weapons or people trying to kill you (think of riot policemen walls).

Dictionaries are not the holy commandments. They change constantly and they don't always encompass all the possible meanings (clear example being the word "populism", which is by far more widely used today with its peyorative meaning than with the more "official" one, and which as a matter of fact, is not even registered in the main Spanish dictionary when it's a word you hear politicians use almost on a dayly basis here). Not to mention that dictionaries are actually books which try to regulate languages whose mere existence is mainly due to the lack of such rules.

Language regulations should be used for convenience (for instance, they allow me to keep being able to communicate with hispanic-american people), not as some kind of artificial elitist badge to rub on someone else's face.

Sigh indeed, as I never called you pathetic. Sigh again, as I already pointed out why your post is all a joke. Sigh once again, for trying to derail the issue by producing very pedantic arguments about it. Sigh, for one last time, for arguing against the definition of a word just to argue against me. Bravo!

On the issue of whether people felt deceived by CA's marketing of Rome 2, the important point is not the developer's intentions, but how accurately players felt the marketing reflected the game. And on that subject have a look at this:

When only 3% of people asked give an outright "yes" to this question, you have to seriously question how the marketing was carried out, regardless of any supposed "best intentions". This is way beyond the point where unawareness becomes gross negligence!

You're appealing to majority opinion, which is a fallacy.

[HigoChumbo]

Derail the issue? Please, take a moment to look up and read the title of the topic before accusing me of anything.

I never argued against the definition of any word (save for "populism" which I myself brought up as an unrelated example to make a point and which had really nothing to do with the discussion), I just argued against your "use of dictionaries" to discredit other people's arguments, so please, refrain from twisting my words.


I fail to see why exactly are my arguments pedantic. And I'm surprised to be called pedantic by someone who has just discredited other poster's opinion by invoking strict dictionary usage. For the record, I personally think that Scoicarius point of view about the ambiguity of definitions is not only a very valid argument but also quite an interesting one.

And no, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing with you (trust me that's something I've been actively trying to avoid since the day you told me you could tell me my own opinions). The fact that you called my previous trial to be conciliatory "pathetic" proves that I was precisely trying to be conciliatory in order to to avoid just that. So no, I'm actually arguing with you because I don't agree with you, and because I feel that you are taking things out of context to suit your needs.


Post #62 two pages ago is pretty explanatory of my initial position in this.

[Fredrin]

You're appealing to majority opinion, which is a fallacy.

I understand why you would think that the consensus fallacy is applicable in this case, but I'm afraid it's not. I'll give you an example of a valid instance:

"95% of people believe the world is flat, therefore it must be"

Obviously the world is not flat and we know that's true - not because a bunch of loopy denialists are massively outnumbered by everyone else - but because it is a mathematically provable fact.

The same can't be said of how accurately one person feels a game has been marketed - a question for which there is no right or wrong answer as everyone has different exposure to the advertising and a subjective opinion about whether or not the game lived up to it.

There is no absolute answer, but if only 3% of people actively agreed the marketing was accurate, that says to me that an overwhelming majority of people felt misled in some way or another and that should not be the objective of any marketing campaign

Thankfully, if Attila is anything to go by, CA have picked up on this and will have a highly transparent marketing drive in the month or two prior to release of Warhammer so this situation won't be repeated. The fact we're already seeing detailed unit models and in-game footage 6 to 12 months before release is a strong indication that this is the case, to which I say "Bravo CA"

[PointOfViewGun]

Derail the issue? Please, take a moment to look up and read the title of the topic before accusing me of anything.

I never argued against the definition of any word (save for "populism" which I myself brought up as an unrelated example and which had really nothing to do with the discussion), I just argued against your use of dictionaries to discredit other people's arguments, so please, refrain from twisting my words.


I fail to see why exactly are my arguments pedantic. And I'm surprised to be called pedantic by someone who has just discredited other poster's opinion by invoking strict dictionary usage. For the record, I personally think that Scoicarius point of view about the ambiguity of definitions is not only a very valid argument but also quite an interesting one.

And no, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing with you (trust me that's something I've been actively trying to avoid since the day you told me you could tell me my own opinions). The fact that you called my previous trial to be conciliatory "pathetic" proves that I was precisely trying to avoid that. So no, I'mactually arguing with you because I don't agree with you, and because I feel that you are taking things out of context to suit your needs.

I don't know what's the relevance of you arguing about the player ordering it's troops past an enemy unit. I see that as derailing the discussion.
You did argue against the value of a dictionary in support of someone arguing against the proper definition of a word.
For example, your argument on me using a definition for what it is is a pedantic argument. I hope that example clears it up.
It makes it obvious that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing as you're arguing that you're arguing with me because I take things out of context when that is the first time you mention it.
So, if you don't have some argument to tie it to promotional material from Total War, I'd drop these arguments of yours...

I understand why you would think that the consensus fallacy is applicable in this case, but I'm afraid it's not. I'll give you an example of a valid example of it in action:

"95% of people believe the world if flat, therefore it must be"

Obviously the world is not flat and we know that's true - not because a bunch of loopy denialists are massively outnumbered by everyone else - but because it is a mathematically provable fact.

The same can't be said of how accurately one person feels a game has been marketed - a question for which there is no right or wrong answer as everyone has different exposure to the advertising and a subjective opinion about whether or not the game lived up to it.

There is no absolute answer, but if only 3% of people actively agreed the marketing was accurate, that says to me that an overwhelming majority of people felt misled in some way or another and that should not be the objective of any marketing campaign

Thankfully, if Attila is anything to go by, CA have picked up on this and will have a highly transparent marketing drive in the month or two prior to release of Warhammer so this situation won't be repeated. The fact we're already seeing detailed unit models and in-game footage 6 to 12 months before release is a strong indication that this is the case, to which I say "Bravo CA"

Whether a marketing campaign is deceptive or not is not a subjective matter. It's an objectively measurable fact. Plus, we're dealing with a community that still claims many falsehoods about the game. Independent of that, you argue here that Attila marketing campaign was more transparent. How? They didn't do a thing different. You had similar kind of preview articles, closed beta play sessions, promotional videos, Twitch streams, etc. What was done differently?

[Fredrin]

Whether a marketing campaign is deceptive or not is not a subjective matter. It's an objectively measurable fact. Plus, we're dealing with a community that still claims many falsehoods about the game. Independent of that, you argue here that Attila marketing campaign was more transparent. How? They didn't do a thing different. You had similar kind of preview articles, closed beta play sessions, promotional videos, Twitch streams, etc. What was done differently?

I'll answer that question if you can explain to me how you can scientifically measure the deceptiveness of a marketing campaign

[PointOfViewGun]

I'll answer that question if you can explain to me how you can scientifically measure the deceptiveness of a marketing campaign

You can check the factual claims of the campaign. That should be fairly easy.

[HigoChumbo]

I don't know what's the relevance of you arguing about the player ordering it's troops past an enemy unit. I see that as derailing the discussion.

You said something in the lines of David exaggerating a bug that was definately not common and I felt the need to mention that the bug was actually common to the point of one being able to trigger it at will every time. That's hardly trying to derail anything.

You did argue against the value of a dictionary in support of someone arguing against the proper definition of a word.

Correcto, therefore I did NOT "argue against the definition of a word just to argue against you", as you claimed I did, and hence my request for you not to twist my words.

The only two clear things here is that I share Scoicarius opinion about the ambiguity of dictionaries and that I had no intention whatsoever of arguing against you for the sake of arguing against you. It's not so unthinkable that I would defend his stance on that when I share the opinion, is it? Specially if that opinion is being used to discredit other arguments that person makes.

For example, your argument on me using a definition for what it is is a pedantic argument. I hope that example clears it up.

Only that I never did that. Again, don't twist my words to suit your needs. I never critizised you for sticking to the strict meaning of a word as it's recorded in a dictionary, which is a stance as valid as any, I critizised you for using that personal strict stance to discredit Scoicarius' stance (put in other words, belittle others' opinions for being different to yours).

So if that was your issue, I insist that I really don't see at all why any of what I said is pedantic.

It makes it obvious that you're arguing with me for the sake of arguing

I have already given plenty of proof of that not being the case, so I'll just drop that here before we start to go in circles again. You are of course free to draw your own conclussions.

So, if you don't have some argument to tie it to promotional material from Total War, I'd drop these arguments of yours...

Honestly, it's not like critizising CA's marketing strategies was at all the original purpose of this thread.

Thankfully it will be rendered obsolete this Friday and there will be no need for anyone to advise us to get back on topic. The topic at hand not being what apparently you think it to be, so you should maybe follow your own advice if getting on topic is your actual intention.

[DavidtheDuke]

I'll answer that question if you can explain to me how you can scientifically measure the deceptiveness of a marketing campaign

Hehe, and like it matters anyway right? I'd say it really only matters whether the marketing reflected the game, wondering whether they tried to Nixon the game is like those people who seem to care whether or not it was CA or Sega's fault. Just don't believe only what is on the screen.

These are quite pedantic and childish arguments. No promotional material will or can cover every single problem you might have with the game. As a customer, however, you are responsible for going over the promotional material. Merely focusing on the earliest promotional concept material to claim things the material doesn't claim is just whining for no real reason. I'm sorry. You had ample promotional material to realize that Rome II had bugs. Same goes for Attila. Same will be true for Warhammer.

While I think it is a opinion how much responsibility lies on either side, I agree with you to a point: I never even knew they had a Twitch channel during Rome 2's marketing and I"m not sure I would've watched it anyway as I had other things to do at the time apparently than scour/delve-into the internet for Rome 2 promotional material from either articles or quick mentions on Rally Point (I did watch those). As such required responsibility is based on opinion I'd rather say to ameliorate the issue for both sides it is definitely up to the customer to not preorder things with potentially incomplete, non-community experienced products. This is extra true when I still haven't seen anything that would've closely or even moderately represented my experience from Rome 2 by you, anyway.

Also, if you want my opinion on Rome 2's marketing it was they basically puffed it to the heavens and then released a game which was Early Access until Emperor Edition. I watched all their pre-release gameplay footage of Rome 2 on Youtube (which was just weeks before release, unlike your impression that I only watched the Carthage footage) and never saw anything, again, reflecting my personal experience. Even if there was material elsewhere expecting all customers to treat Rome 2 marketing like an internet marketing scavenger hunt is IMO expecting too much of people who complain about DLC every 5 minutes.

I was being "childish" because your tone is very condescending to everyone here.

All this stuff is related because when the "in-engine" Warhammer footage drops Friday hopefully everyone here can be reticent to get on the hype train when the vast majority, by marketing's fault or the community's, found Rome 2 to be woefully under par.

[Chris P. Bacon]

I'm excited for Friday's trailer but still worried because "In-Engine footage" doesn't mean whats shown in the trailer will be in the game. Hopefully CA has learned how to market a game and the Demigryph video was a good example.

[joedreck]

I'm excited for Friday's trailer but still worried because "In-Engine footage" doesn't mean whats shown in the trailer will be in the game. Hopefully CA has learned how to market a game and the Demigryph video was a good example.

Same here. Im afraid this will be just for trailers or scenes between Any action. But also looking forward to See the units.