Warhammer Gameplay Impressions from the press

[Beregond]

The articles have started to come out
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...hammer-preview

And this Slayer is beautiful

[Totalheadache]

The articles have started to come out
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...hammer-preview

And this Slayer is beautiful

Beware the CA hype train and games reviews sites arent to be trusted...

Just saying...

p.s the vid does look nice though!

[Markas]

Wow they really took on board the Rome 2 unit card criticism...

[scoicarius]

Another article (the most informative of those I've read): http://www.pcgamer.com/killing-spide...war-warhammer/

From the article:

Thundering Falls introduces a totally new setting to Total War—underground battles. Sadly, that doesn't mean that they differ particularly from surface battles, save that they've got walls and a roof. There's no low ceiling to deter fliers, no battling like tunnel rats in The Deep Roads, no spelunking. It’s just a normal battle in a different locale, although it does mark the first time a Total War map has deviated from being square.

I still hope there will be a larger variety of underground areas (e.g. narrow tunnels, inaccessible to certain units), not just huge caverns. And hopefully we'll get to see the inside of Karaks, not just the outer walls.

[HigoChumbo]

Wow they really took on board the Rome 2 unit card criticism...

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea. One of the few innovative things they do in years, which fits the game perfectly and (despite what the critics say) is completelly functional and they get bashed for it...


Now we are getting a Warhammer game which is, in essence, a Rome 2/Attila clone and all those guys will be perfectly fine with it.

[DavidtheDuke]

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea. One of the few innovative things they do in years, which fits the game perfectly and (despite what the critics say) is completelly functional and they get bashed for it...

I hated it and it was hard to tell the difference between the different cards. You can make a mod to get it back I guess

The weirdest thing is unit abilities are actually backpedaled a bit and more passive from what I've heard. And everyone thought CA's eventual fantasy game would have abilities everywhere, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[ScipioGermanicus]

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea. One of the few innovative things they do in years, which fits the game perfectly and (despite what the critics say) is completelly functional and they get bashed for it...


Now we are getting a Warhammer game which is, in essence, a Rome 2/Attila clone and all those guys will be perfectly fine with it.

What exactly makes Warhammer "a Rome 2/Attilia" "clone" in your opinion?

[DavidtheDuke]

What exactly makes Warhammer "a Rome 2/Attilia" "clone" in your opinion?

Calling it a CoW enhanced edition might be more accurate, but with actual underground battles and customized faction UIs etc. Seems pretty unique to Rome 2 IMO, especially if every faction has massive differences in campaign and battlemap play.

[Aquila_Mars]

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea. One of the few innovative things they do in years, which fits the game perfectly and (despite what the critics say) is completelly functional and they get bashed for it...

I hated it as well. Example, I'd like my feudal knights to look like feudal knights, not egyptian hieroglyphs. When I look at Greatsword card I think it is more practical to see a greatsword model instead of a twig man with a large sword.

[Gryffon]

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea. One of the few innovative things they do in years, which fits the game perfectly and (despite what the critics say) is completelly functional and they get bashed for it...


Now we are getting a Warhammer game which is, in essence, a Rome 2/Attila clone and all those guys will be perfectly fine with it.

The units cards in Rome 2 looked absolutely stupid. It could have worked for greeks, but would have been lifeless anyway (not just because it's abstract, but also because it was done poorly/with almost no variation : antique vessels looked more varied). But for gauls romans and germans ? It was ugly, stupid, and with 0 variation in color be it on the unit or in the background it was terrible for gameplay purposes.

I know you are used to having "original" preferences but you are pretty much alone on this, and I'm so glad that CA made a U-turn. Attila had below average units cards too because they went in the absolute opposite direction and just put a picture of the unit (and many atilla units don't look very good btw, especially germanic/roman/celtic units).

They seem to have hit the nail on the head with WHTW, by taking a more "hearthstone-like" approche.

[HigoChumbo]

What exactly makes Warhammer "a Rome 2/Attilia" "clone" in your opinion?

Just look at the vid. It looks and feels exactly the same. Just like Age of Empires 2 and Star Wars Gallactic Battlegrounds.



The left image is set in the Star Wars universe and the right image is a game about the Middle Ages.

I know you are used to having "original" preferences but you are pretty much alone on this

Yupp. Apparently I was the only one who liked the idea.

[Aquila_Mars]

But mate, what exactly do you expect? In this essence the game is using the same engine. What you are saying now is like Medieval 2 is just a Rome 1 reskin. What do you want them to do, make rainbows out of dwarves and change the art style into some long headed cartoon characters? I think before you say things like Rome 2/Atilla clone you wait and see gameplay mechanics not graphics.
I don't think Atilla had a Grudge system, not that it matters apperanty this game is a total clone anyway.

Stop bashing the game before it is even out for Khorne's sake. If it comes out as crap like rome 2 did, we will all happily bash it into oblivion on these very forums anyway, so you don't have to hurry.

[Markas]

Total War games all look like Total War games. Having a Warhammer theme won't fundamentally change that. Also it's been in production for three years, and is not the 'revolution' game.

As for the banners, there's going to be (presumably) a large number of units compared to Dark Omen so I understand the desire to keep it simple and at-a-glance (and not taking up a lot of space).

[panzerschreck]

and this one http://www.pcgamer.com/killing-spide...war-warhammer/

[PointOfViewGun]

What exactly makes Warhammer "a Rome 2/Attilia" "clone" in your opinion?

The code uses 0s and 1s. Duh...

[HigoChumbo]

But mate, what exactly do you expect? In this essence the game is using the same engine.

I expected exactly that. And that's what disappointing about it. I initially had the hope that a complete revamp of the series as Warhammer is going to be (even if only in terms of settings and a few mechanics) was an actual revamp and not just a mod with a few tweaks here and there.

Not saying it's going to be a bad game. Looks good so far. Just that I doubt it's going to be revolutionary in any sense. Or generation defining.


You use Medieval 2 and Rome as examples and I could use Medieval 1 and Rome, or Rome and Empire, or Empire and Shogun 2. There have been some quite big jumps in the franchise. I expected Warhammer to be one (specially knowing that CA needed a whitewash after Rome 2) and I think it would be safe to say that a lot of other people here also feel like a game set in an universe as different to Total War as Warhammer needed to be designed almost from scratch. Having a battle that, despite the different units, in essence feels the same in a game about Warhammer and a historical TW is, in my opinion quite bad (and/or cheap) game design.

I don't think Atilla had a Grudge system

Thats the kind of tiny details you add to expansions. I think we can agree that that's not preciselly the kind of key mechanic which will define the feel of the game.

I think before you say things like Rome 2/Atilla clone you wait and see gameplay mechanics not graphics.

That makes no sense at all. We have already seen plenty of (battle) gameplay.

Stop bashing the game before it is even out for Khorne's sake.

Don't need to wait to release to comment on stuff which is obvious already.

If it comes out as crap like rome 2 did, we will all happily bash it into oblivion on these very forums anyway, so you don't have to hurry.

I never said it's going to be a bad game. I said that it's, fundamentally, going to be the same old same old. (please, note the word "fundamentally", from "foundation").

[Aquila_Mars]

The code uses 0s and 1s. Duh...

Well played, good sir. Well played.

[DavidtheDuke]

I expected exactly that. And that's what disappointing about it. I initially had the hope that a complete revamp of the series as Warhammer is going to be (even if only in terms of settings and a few mechanics) was an actual revamp and not just a mod with a few tweaks here and there.

Not saying it's going to be a bad game. Looks good so far. Just that I doubt it's going to be revolutionary in any sense. Or generation defining.


You use Medieval 2 and Rome as examples and I could use Medieval 1 and Rome, or Rome and Empire, or Empire and Shogun 2. There have been some quite big jumps in the franchise. I expected Warhammer to be one (specially knowing that CA needed a whitewash after Rome 2) and I think it would be safe to say that a lot of other people here also feel like a game set in an universe as different to Total War as Warhammer needed to be designed almost from scratch. Having a battle that, despite the different units, in essence feels the same in a game about Warhammer and a historical TW is, in my opinion quite bad (and/or cheap) game design.




Thats the kind of tiny details you add to expansions. I think we can agree that that's not preciselly the kind of key mechanic which will define the feel of the game.




That makes no sense at all. We have already seen plenty of (battle) gameplay.




Don't need to wait to release to comment on stuff which is obvious already.




I never said it's going to be a bad game. I said that it's, fundamentally, going to be the same old same old. (please, note the word "fundamentally", from "foundation").

It looks like an evolution. There's so much new I don't want them to go to far from the main formula anyway. They have enough on their plate, even if you think it isn't that different (I see all sorts of challenges alone for what they have here, revolutionary new features notwithstanding)

[BanditKS]

with that standard couldn't you just say every total war game after shogun is just a clone dressed up a bit better each time? and isnt that why we are here? because we are supposed to like that sort of game, empire building, risk map, turned based, civ game, mashed up with a real time, army leading, thousands of soldiers killing each other, massive battlefield?

[HigoChumbo]

with that standard couldn't you just say every total war game after shogun is just a clone dressed up a bit better each time?

I don't know about you, but I've been playing Total War since Shogun 1 and I was fanatical about the series, and preciselly the monotony in which the franchise has fallen since Empire is one of the reasons why that magic has slowly faded away. So yes, answering your question, I could, I guess. And that's not a good thing. I would not like to see Total War become the Fifa or CoD of strategy games.


And no, to me, the battles in Empire felt more different from those of Shogun 2 than the battles of Warhammer feel from the battles of Rome 2 (and please, don't say "but there are giants and spiders and heroes now", I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the base game mechanics, how the units feel when they move, when they attack, etc).

and isnt that why we are here? because we are supposed to like that sort of game, empire building, risk map, turned based, civ game, mashed up with a real time, army leading, thousands of soldiers killing each other, massive battlefield?

I absolutelly loved old games like Ground Control or Warcraft 3 and I would hate it if they remade them with just improved graphics and a handful of new mechanics. Keeping the same core ideas does not mean you have to make a clone with each sequel. Do the battles or the campaign in Rome 1 and Rome 2 feel the same? No. And they all have all the key elements you mentioned. If you like soccer games, just tell me if Fifa and Pes (aka 2 games trying to represent exactly the same thing) feel the same.


Look at Massive Entertainment. They did Ground Control and it was a great game. Then they did World in Conflict with essentialy the same foundational ideas but a vastly different final product and the game was great as well (and a hell of a lot more successful).




Also, the fact that we enjoy those elements does not mean those are the only elements we enjoy, nor that that's the only possible combination of elements for the game to be enjoyable. I like real time battles yet I love Civilization. I love turn based strategy yet I adore Warcraft 3. I've always liked Empire Building yet I've spent countless hours playing skirmish strategy games such as Age of Empires. And in any case, I'm not asking for them to reinvent the wheel... but at least they could make the effort to make the gameplay (the battle mechanics) feel different in a game set in ancient Rome and a game set in the Warhammer universe...

TW remaining essentialy the same is not a good thing. It would if it was a perfect formula, but it isn't, and it needs to evolve to keep up. I'm sure that CA making the same game for years and insisting on keeping the same engine is not what they ideally want, they probably have resource limitations that hinder their creative freedom, so it's quite normal that the games end up being a bit disappointing in the end.