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

[HigoChumbo]

So... seeing that I'm going to be up late studying... any idea if there is a livestream or something?

[DavidtheDuke]

So... seeing that I'm going to be up late studying... any idea if there is a livestream or something?

I can't seem to find anything with google myself.

[scoicarius]

So I guess we didn't get after all.

[DavidtheDuke]

So I guess we didn't get after all.

Really? NOthing? I can't seem to find any information about it in either direction myself.

[Vardeus]

I think the current IGN stream session on twitch could have an interview, but gotta wait for it to finish and be available to re-watch.

[scoicarius]

I'm sick and tired of interviews. I want to see what them gents at CA have concocted so far. If you think of it, why didn't they show the gameplay trailer at E3? My guess is in order to generate hype, so to build up anticipation.

[nosuchname]

I'm sick and tired of interviews. I want to see what them gents at CA have concocted so far. If you think of it, why didn't they show the gameplay trailer at E3? My guess is in order to generate hype, so to build up anticipation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

[PointOfViewGun]

Ok, thank you for your honest answer.

About your last lines, I personally believe that the problem is not so much with the content of the arguments, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and TWC is not precisely a place in which everyone has the same one, so I think the problem is in the way things are said, in the tone (I'm not necessarily speaking of you specifically). An aggresive attitude is almost always going to provoke a defensive stance, no matter how actually reasonable and well-founded the arguments at hand might be.

Every opinion should be respected as far as it's expressed in an civil, mature way.

To me, it's not about why would one do it, but that the simple fact that you CAN do it proves that the game is not working as ideally intended (and kind of an argument in favour of those claiming that units lack mass and/or volume and that the game should rely a bit more in actual basic physics rather than in gimmicky workarounds).

And that said, there are relevant scenarios, for instance, imagine that you have a single unit of elite spearmen guarding a chokepoint which is the only access a key capture point. If I had 6 units of light cavalry, normally (if I just clicked on the spearmen to "kill" them) they would all get slaughthered, but with the poorly working mass mechanics, I could just send one through to capture the point even if it sustained a few casualties. Even with no capture points, it would be advantageous, because in a real scenario all the 6 cavalry units would be forced to charge the spearmen frontally, which would be a quite favourable scenario for the spearmen, but if you sent a couple of units through and then charged back, you would get a much bigger combat and morale impact because of attacking the rear and surrounding the spearmen regiment.

You might also want to send an elite cavalry regiment through the line to engage in a melee against some ranged or artillery unit, killing them or at least preventing them from firing.

You should really go talk to someone else about people expressing their opinion. Your efforts to appear as if you're impartial when you're not is just pathetic.

It's also very idiotic to talk about what you can do in this context. Just because you can order a unit to march past an enemy unit doesn't make it a bad thing. All Total War games had that, with the exception of going through pikes. When you do it you'll lose a lot of men. The issue is whether the AI uses it without a reason or whether it doesn't inflict enough casualties. Your case is so bad that you're giving examples of what should happen as if it would be a bug. An elite cavalry unit should be able to go through an enemy unit and still have enough men to deal considerable damage to the ranged units of the enemy army.

Can you show me where they talked about the pathfinding issues? Because all the reviewers seemed to praise the game while most actual TW veterans thought the opposite. How odd. Angry Joe is a top reviewer, but he's just a top random guy with 2 million subscribers and not part your tower, so.

Saying I retreated because I said what I've always said: CA showed some things and some things weren't shown AFAICT, aka the problems I've had. You haven't even demonstrated the pathfinding or AI run-through-line problems said in the reviews? Your criticism of my links is that one of them is smoke or that it's not confirmed? Well, uh, so is your "well it didn't happen to me!" stories. Even Heir of Carthage had it happen to him several times, as well as several other LPs. Can you even show me where my complaints were shown in the presentation? I googled them and found people agreeing with me in 2 minutes, it doesn't take long to find this stuff. You simply saying "well they never ran through my men" meanwhile I could probably find dozens of LPs and forum posts demonstrating agreement with me. I stopped playing the game in any sort of meaningful way beyond patch testing in about a week, which is pretty bad for a total war game.

Even if I was the only guy that experienced this, my logic still stands: What CA showed was not even close to what I experienced in Rome 2. I'm not going to spend hours researching when I find many agreeing with me pretty quickly and the reasons behind said agreement. You saying "well they didn't do it for me". Great buddy. I experienced it and I can find many posts and even youtube videos where they did.

What CA showed for Attila more matched my experience with it. That's my point once again: Attila was represented better in my opinion, whether you think that's by my (and the rest of the community's I guess) incompetence or not.

CA didn't intentionally deceive, but I do think before release they knew they couldn't get certain things working correctly so they had to keep mum to keep their jobs.

I already quoted IGN and PC Gamer talking about AI and pathfinding issues. If you simply ignore what I post then this discussion with you is just futile.

Now, you're arguing that you don't care about facts (a.k.a. what CA provided as promotional material) but rely on ignorant arguments from others that suit you. Lovely.

You also keep using the word "deceive" wrong. "Not intentionally deceiving" is an oxymoron.

[scoicarius]

"Not intentionally deceiving" is an oxymoron.

No, it's not. It is possible to use deceptive tools or methods without realizing it, or rationalizing it as not deceptive.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, it's not. It is possible to use deceptive tools or methods without realizing it, or rationalizing it as not deceptive.

By definition, it is an oxymoron. Do I need to post the definition for the word "deceive"? I guess I do: deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especially for personal gain.

[scoicarius]

I regard the dictionary definition as a mere starting point. This is a longer discussion that I don't feel like having right now.

[PointOfViewGun]

I regard the dictionary definition as a mere starting point. This is a longer discussion that I don't feel like having right now.

Wow. That pretty much sums up the quality of criticism we have on this forum though...

[scoicarius]

It is possible for a dictionary definition to be ambiguous, just as it is possible for a concept to be ambiguous. However I dislike your attitude, so I have no desire to discuss the matter with you further. Have a good day.

[DavidtheDuke]

I already quoted IGN and PC Gamer talking about AI and pathfinding issues. If you simply ignore what I post then this discussion with you is just futile.

Now, you're arguing that you don't care about facts (a.k.a. what CA provided as promotional material) but rely on ignorant arguments from others that suit you. Lovely.

You also keep using the word "deceive" wrong. "Not intentionally deceiving" is an oxymoron.

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.

[swdgame]

I couldn't find anything about Total War Warhammer. Am I imagining the panel at SDCC?

[HigoChumbo]

Your efforts to appear as if you're impartial when you're not is just pathetic.

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.

Just because you can order a unit to march past an enemy unit doesn't make it a bad thing.

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.

All Total War games had that

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

When you do it you'll lose a lot of men.

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).

An elite cavalry unit should be able to go through an enemy unit

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.

Your case is so bad that you're giving examples of what should happen

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).

Wow. That pretty much sums up the quality of criticism we have on this forum though...

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.

[DavidtheDuke]

I couldn't find anything about Total War Warhammer. Am I imagining the panel at SDCC?

According to this post maybe they couldnt' show anything? https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comm...mmer_comiccon/

I can't seem to find much information on what happened other than that.

[Fredrin]

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!


In terms of gameplay at Comic Con, here is post from the official forums I saw earlier (NB - unconfirmed rumour incoming)

Here is what happened at ComicCon - CA was there - they promised to show a gameplay of Warhammer TW there - but they cancelled that because of "technical difficulties"

I also heard rumors that in compensation CA took personal data of disappointed fans that attended the panel and promised them the free copy of the game at lunch - but this can just be a rumor.

[Markas]

In terms of gameplay at Comic Con, here is post from the official forums I saw earlier (NB - unconfirmed rumour incoming)

Here is what happened at ComicCon - CA was there - they promised to show a gameplay of Warhammer TW there - but they cancelled that because of "technical difficulties"

'Guys, we forgot to bring the computers!'

[DavidtheDuke]

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:

I'm probably in the 24%, I never felt CA was actually lying to us, I don't think many of them had a clue siege AI and otehr things were pretty wonky. I think a few in the team did, but they weren't in marketing, but marketing is marketing, so whatever.

I'd say you could say 13% felt "okay" with the game, basically. That's still pretty bad, but a certain someone would just say that's just the audience's fault etc. My point all along is that whether it's my fault or CA's, your average TW fan should take a grain of salt from anything pre-release and just have fun with it, with no real expectations because there's a good chance it's not what you're expecting. Probably the biggest thing was when they heavily implied their AI was going to be better than ever, but it really wasn't any better in field battles and the siege AI was even worse than MTW2's etc at release (let alone Empire but sieges were fairly rare there for me anyway)

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!


In terms of gameplay at Comic Con, here is post from the official forums I saw earlier (NB - unconfirmed rumour incoming)

'Guys, we forgot to bring the computers!'

I get the feeling CA tests on a few select computers in their hardcore testing, so maybe it was actually true they couldn't get it working on a computer they happened to bring this time :-D