Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[Druout]

Having been playing RTW since my high school days, I think that for me, TW peaked in awesomeness sometime between NTW and FotS. Now at 27 years old, and always hoping that CA games will get better and better, I increasingly understand that CA is now stepping sideways and designing and marketing their games towards a younger generation. It's sad, but that's where the money is. Their games will probably continue to seem simplified and streamlined to the older audience as they seek to bring younger blood (with lower expectations) into the market. I actually feel that CA sorta designed Attila as an ode to the older generation that grew up with RTW/M2TW, but all the same - our time is passing.

Astutely stated.

[Druout]

Ok, imma have to enter into social sciences for a second here:

I think the evolution of the TW series and of games in general is a result of the current trends in our socio-economical system: capitalism.
I belive that TW games were niche games. Games in general after the 90's seemes to be more focused on gameplay and content rather than graphics due to the fact that a bubble, similar to that is happening today(obsession with graphics to the detriment of gameplay) had just burst. But then RTW comes along and CA draws attention, SEGA buys it. Now SEGA is a bussiness and is subject to the trends of the bussiness world. We can see that such world, starting from the 70's and 80's (in the West at least, date varies by county) is less and less about producing and investing and more and more about doing as much profit for as little as possible: corners are cut, short term-profit is favoures over the long term and so on. Now, this trend really accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis, and this could be seen in gaming as well, which now had become mainstream and intensly comodified: DLC's, platforms like Steam and Origin, now a veritable "Let's play" industry, paid reviews, increasingly cut content... It is quite telling that this started for TW in 2009/2008 with Empire Total War, the first game made solely under SEGA.
DLC-whoring started only 2-3 years later with Shogun 2 and then in 2013 Rome II happened.

This development is mostly seen with most so called "AAA" games, the ones that have large companies behind them but rarer in indie games or ones developed by smaller ones. Similar trends can be seen elsewhere as well: holywood is increasingly about explosions, remakes, reboots and "badass", mainstream "centre ground" politics is all abour PR and image and so on...

This IMO is the result of the current crisis of global capitalism as well as the fact that there is a huge power unbalance between the ones that made a profit and the ones that do not.
Even if I vote withmy wallet someone will always replace me. This can be overcome if people band together but to do this a free flow of information is necessary, a thing that CA/SEGA tries to halt by banning critics from their site, paying reviewers or simple make games that look good in the first hours(because most people and reviewers will write reviews before playing the game in depth).

In the end, the evolution of the TW series and its decline in quality is a result IMO of the mainstreamification of the genre, trends of global capitalism and because, like the latter, CA/SEGA have literally no threats: customers cannot oppose them and they have no competition. IMO, CA/SEGA will eventualy make a mistake, a really big one, bigger than Chaos and this will burst the bubble and give rise to either a movement from below or create a rival company that will force them to up the waulity of their games and reverse the current trends

A very interesting point, and in terms of terms of lack of competition I really find this a sad state for those who want more out of their TW games. The real tragedy is the limited freedom modders have with the warscape era games in terms of malleability. Because modders could then redress the mainstream aspects themselves.

[Dorkus_Malorkus]

I have always found total war relatively straightforward. I think here the legendary lords could be overpowered, hence you have this mosh at the centre some have discussed. I'd also say that I do not buy into the idea there was a halycon day of Total War. I've not played Warhammer as much as I'd like but there is certainly more scope for complex strategy than in previous versions that largely revolved around hammer and anvil tactics or using terrain to conduct effectively ambush or defences. I think the focus on lords rather than units might be a problem. We never had a simgle character who could take on four or five infantry units.

[Darios]

Ok, imma have to enter into social sciences for a second here:

I think the evolution of the TW series and of games in general is a result of the current trends in our socio-economical system: capitalism.
I belive that TW games were niche games. Games in general after the 90's seemes to be more focused on gameplay and content rather than graphics due to the fact that a bubble, similar to that is happening today(obsession with graphics to the detriment of gameplay) had just burst. But then RTW comes along and CA draws attention, SEGA buys it. Now SEGA is a bussiness and is subject to the trends of the bussiness world. We can see that such world, starting from the 70's and 80's (in the West at least, date varies by county) is less and less about producing and investing and more and more about doing as much profit for as little as possible: corners are cut, short term-profit is favoures over the long term and so on. Now, this trend really accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis, and this could be seen in gaming as well, which now had become mainstream and intensly comodified: DLC's, platforms like Steam and Origin, now a veritable "Let's play" industry, paid reviews, increasingly cut content... It is quite telling that this started for TW in 2009/2008 with Empire Total War, the first game made solely under SEGA.
DLC-whoring started only 2-3 years later with Shogun 2 and then in 2013 Rome II happened.

This development is mostly seen with most so called "AAA" games, the ones that have large companies behind them but rarer in indie games or ones developed by smaller ones. Similar trends can be seen elsewhere as well: holywood is increasingly about explosions, remakes, reboots and "badass", mainstream "centre ground" politics is all abour PR and image and so on...

This IMO is the result of the current crisis of global capitalism as well as the fact that there is a huge power unbalance between the ones that made a profit and the ones that do not.
Even if I vote withmy wallet someone will always replace me. This can be overcome if people band together but to do this a free flow of information is necessary, a thing that CA/SEGA tries to halt by banning critics from their site, paying reviewers or simple make games that look good in the first hours(because most people and reviewers will write reviews before playing the game in depth).

In the end, the evolution of the TW series and its decline in quality is a result IMO of the mainstreamification of the genre, trends of global capitalism and because, like the latter, CA/SEGA have literally no threats: customers cannot oppose them and they have no competition. IMO, CA/SEGA will eventualy make a mistake, a really big one, bigger than Chaos and this will burst the bubble and give rise to either a movement from below or create a rival company that will force them to up the waulity of their games and reverse the current trends

Yes, I totally agree. This goes in parallel with my theory that many of us are simply outgrowing (becoming bored with) Total War games as CA/SEGA is more interested in making a quick profit rather than creating a timeless game with excellent all around features and scenarios that would be enjoyable for years on end. It is actually a problem that many of us see in the world today - a general decline in quality in the hope of shamelessly squeezing out more money. While Rome 2 hid the DLC whoring fairly well (all culture groups were present at release), Attila blatantly left out entire cultural groups (Celts, Slavs, Semites, etc) leaving 70% of the map populated with copy/paste Germans for up till a year when the obvious DLC was finally released. I found it to be a very sick practice that alienated me along with much of the fanbase for months on end. People spent months arguing and fighting on the Attila threads over what scraps they hoped that CA would drop down from their secretive high table next.

In my opinion, it was all totally unnecessary. I generally do not have a problem with DLC; I in fact rather love it. However, for the money that we paid, CA could have easily given us a complete GC at launch with all the cultures included and could have used DLC to give us new campaign scenarios (Aurelian, Aetius/Majorian, Justinian, Heraclius, Charlemagne, something late 9th century, etc) that people would loved to have paid for. However, this would have required far more work than CA was interested in doing as they needed to build and hype Warhammer while pumping out Attila DLC at the same time. I love Attila and I am rather happy with the final result but I know for a fact that it could have been so much better.

[Huberto]

I actually feel that CA sorta designed Attila as an ode to the older generation that grew up with RTW/M2TW, but all the same - our time is passing.

Fear not. Every generation spawns military history nerds that want to lead the armies and recreate the empires.

CA/SEGA is more interested in making a quick profit rather than creating a timeless game with excellent all around features and scenarios that would be enjoyable for years on end.

This on the other hand is something to worry about.

[Dorkus_Malorkus]

A very interesting point, and in terms of terms of lack of competition I really find this a sad state for those who want more out of their TW games. The real tragedy is the limited freedom modders have with the warscape era games in terms of malleability. Because modders could then redress the mainstream aspects themselves.

I think modern warfare tends to be better served than historical warfare, which is confined to geeks like us than pouring over a map of any region in the world. The only other people that like TW is when it focuses closely in their own country.

[Holy.Death]

One thing Warhammer did really well - in my opinion - was introducing various factions with different mechanics and units/playstyles. It was gnawing at me since playing Napoleon. At some point I realized that besides France almost all factions shared the same units. I still had a lot of fun with Napoleon (a lot more than I thought I would. I think it was my second or third most played title of the series) but after that lack of variation between factions became even more apparent to me (especially in early Rome 2, where I kind of dropped playing the series). Warhammer is a welcome change in this regard and I hope they will continue this approach with their other games.

[A Barbarian]

I think modern warfare tends to be better served than historical warfare, which is confined to geeks like us than pouring over a map of any region in the world. The only other people that like TW is when it focuses closely in their own country.

The initial sales of Rome II shows that historical themes can have a large audience. Said that, Attila wasn't a very attractive theme and was also presented in a somewhat drab fashion down to the lack of diversity of everything (factions, units, city layouts, ...) and even the drab color palette.

After TW-Warhammer, I would actually like to have a new Empire with an emphasis on the diversity of factions (Europeans, native Americans, Africans, India, ...)

[M2TWRocks]

Having been playing RTW since my high school days, I think that for me, TW peaked in awesomeness sometime between NTW and FotS. Now at 27 years old, and always hoping that CA games will get better and better, I increasingly understand that CA is now stepping sideways and designing and marketing their games towards a younger generation. It's sad, but that's where the money is. Their games will probably continue to seem simplified and streamlined to the older audience as they seek to bring younger blood (with lower expectations) into the market. I actually feel that CA sorta designed Attila as an ode to the older generation that grew up with RTW/M2TW, but all the same - our time is passing.

I'm 41 and have a slightly different perspective than you. As such, I have continuously pulled out my hair over the years every time a discussion of "realism" or "difficulty" comes up because some people sincerely believe that convoluted, overly complex mechanics that require constant micromanagement equals difficulty. It does not. Moving towards simplicity isn't a devolution. Simplicity in certain elements is ideal. (Like removing all those unit abilities that required constant pausing and micromanagement, thus reducing a real time battle mechanic to a constantly paused clickfest. Or, simplifying the building system on the campaign map to be more intuitive.)

The AI was most capable when the campaign mechanics were simple and it led to a completely different experience. (STW and MTW were the best examples of this.) I think it wise for CA to simplify the mechanics in a way to make the AI most effective and thereby making the campaign and battles more difficult for the player. All those banal mechanics that the shrill "realism" crowd kept screaming for are what I believe created the two absolute worst releases of all time because they were trying to do too much with too little AI - Empire and Rome 2.

Warhammer isn't any "easier" or "dumbed down" than any of the previous titles. If you played the original Shogun, you'd be shocked at how simple, yet enjoyable and relatively challenging it was on higher difficulties. I think the absolute "easiest" release in regard to difficulty was probably the original Rome Total War tied with Rome 2 Total War. The original Rome was terribly designed. The AI was almost brain dead. And, that was coming from a release that touted all these new, more "advanced" features. Same goes for Rome 2. After conquering your first three or so settlements, no-one could challenge you. And that's in the height of the onslaught of added game mechanics that added little to nothing to the actual difficulty of the game. Trying to complete a campaign in Rome 2 was more an endurance challenge testing your patience with turn times and clicking the end turn button over and over and over again.

Warhammer, like it's predecessors, is not a perfect game. But, it is a damn good, entertaining game that can give you a decent challenge if you find the right difficulty. For me, the right mix of challenge and roleplay is normal difficulty. (Before anyone tries to paint as a "dumb" person, blah, blah, blah, I graduated Magna Cum Laude in Accounting and have a Master's in Tax Accounting.) If you like Warhammer, you'll probably love this game. If you've ever had any interest in a fantasy title in the total war series, ditto. And even if you're a historical nut who loves military strategy games, I think it likely you would enjoy this game. CA is much smarter than you think when it comes to planning these things. They're not moving away from their playerbase at all. They're just pulling more people in.

Just my two cents.

[Darios]

As such, I have continuously pulled out my hair over the years every time a discussion of "realism" or "difficulty" comes up because some people sincerely believe that convoluted, overly complex mechanics that require constant micromanagement equals difficulty. It does not. Moving towards simplicity isn't a devolution. Simplicity in certain elements is ideal. (Like removing all those unit abilities that required constant pausing and micromanagement, thus reducing a real time battle mechanic to a constantly paused clickfest. Or, simplifying the building system on the campaign map to be more intuitive.)

Oh, I feel that with Attila's last two cultural packs (Empires of Sand and Slavic Nations), CA was starting to turn the proverbial corner and found a way to make campaigns feel new and interesting again. I love that the factions' storylines and victory conditions have evolved. With the Slavs and Axum in particular, I like that their victory conditions mostly involve controlling certain resources or constructing certain buildings as opposed to "conquer 100 provinces between Scotland and India." It felt...might I use that magic word - "realistic?"

Now, i know nothing about Warhammer and don't ever plan on getting the game, but could you (or anyone else) please fill me in a bit on how the game's victory conditions work? I'm rather curious.

But, it is a damn good, entertaining game that can give you a decent challenge if you find the right difficulty. For me, the right mix of challenge and roleplay is normal difficulty. (Before anyone tries to paint as a "dumb" person, blah, blah, blah, I graduated Magna Cum Laude in Accounting and have a Master's in Tax Accounting.

No worries mate. I usually play on normal most of the time myself. It definitely has nothing to do with being dumb or whatever (I've won campaigns on VH before, but I found it to be super tedious with the CAI blatantly cheating) I have simply usually found normal to be the right balance between fun/relaxing/challenging for me.

[Yerevan]

We can see that such world, starting from the 70's and 80's (in the West at least, date varies by county) is less and less about producing and investing and more and more about doing as much profit for as little as possible: corners are cut, short term-profit is favoures over the long term and so on.

Value Criticism applied to the evolution of Total War titles, I'm all for it !

[Stangler]

Warhammer is a not really a simple evolution of the previous Total War concepts but a specialized type of Total War experience. I thought Attila was also a somewhat specialized experience even between the factions you chose. The western Roman empire for example is a far different experience than the Huns which is far different than the Franks.

Personally I really like both Attila and Warhammer but the biggest and most important improvement for me is that I like the battles again. After playing TW for awhile the battles had gotten stale. That is simply not the case anymore with Warhammer. The different races also feel unique in their strategic style both on the campaign map and on the battle map. For example the dwarves are defensive and deliberate on both while the orcs are aggressive and in your face for both.

The hero units are also a ton of fun. Doing a rear charge from your flying mount is just a special kind of fun that you don't get in the other games. The enemy will also do things to your battle lines that can surprise you so you have to be ready to respond.

The game still has some issues for sure but I am having a lot of fun. There is also still plenty of room for a TW game that is more realistic or has more micro managing of settlements.

[M2TWRocks]

I'm 41 and have a slightly different perspective than you. As such, I have continuously pulled out my hair over the years every time a discussion of "realism" or "difficulty" comes up because some people sincerely believe that convoluted, overly complex mechanics that require constant micromanagement equals difficulty. It does not. Moving towards simplicity isn't a devolution. Simplicity in certain elements is ideal. (Like removing all those unit abilities that required constant pausing and micromanagement, thus reducing a real time battle mechanic to a constantly paused clickfest. Or, simplifying the building system on the campaign map to be more intuitive.)

The AI was most capable when the campaign mechanics were simple and it led to a completely different experience. (STW and MTW were the best examples of this.) I think it wise for CA to simplify the mechanics in a way to make the AI most effective and thereby making the campaign and battles more difficult for the player. All those banal mechanics that the shrill "realism" crowd kept screaming for are what I believe created the two absolute worst releases of all time because they were trying to do too much with too little AI - Empire and Rome 2.

Warhammer isn't any "easier" or "dumbed down" than any of the previous titles. If you played the original Shogun, you'd be shocked at how simple, yet enjoyable and relatively challenging it was on higher difficulties. I think the absolute "easiest" release in regard to difficulty was probably the original Rome Total War tied with Rome 2 Total War. The original Rome was terribly designed. The AI was almost brain dead. And, that was coming from a release that touted all these new, more "advanced" features. Same goes for Rome 2. After conquering your first three or so settlements, no-one could challenge you. And that's in the height of the onslaught of added game mechanics that added little to nothing to the actual difficulty of the game. Trying to complete a campaign in Rome 2 was more an endurance challenge testing your patience with turn times and clicking the end turn button over and over and over again.

Warhammer, like it's predecessors, is not a perfect game. But, it is a damn good, entertaining game that can give you a decent challenge if you find the right difficulty. For me, the right mix of challenge and roleplay is normal difficulty. (Before anyone tries to paint as a "dumb" person, blah, blah, blah, I graduated Magna Cum Laude in Accounting and have a Master's in Tax Accounting.) If you like Warhammer, you'll probably love this game. If you've ever had any interest in a fantasy title in the total war series, ditto. And even if you're a historical nut who loves military strategy games, I think it likely you would enjoy this game. CA is much smarter than you think when it comes to planning these things. They're not moving away from their playerbase at all. They're just pulling more people in.

Just my two cents.

The victory conditions are integrated with quests. It's more seamless than previous titles. If you're on the fence about buying it, just wait a good six months or so until the sales start. It's a really fun game. Unlike in the past, I rarely notice the mechanics or even worry about the campaign objectives. My first and most pressing objective was survival, followed by money management, followed by strategic decision making. The settlements are placed in a way similar to shogun 2, but on a much broader scale. There are narrow passages and significance distance between settlements. You really have to spend some time trying to decide which direction and how far you wish to conquer.

I initially had no interest in Warhammer and have grown to love the lore. This is probably the most fun I've ever had with total war. And that's saying a lot. It feels the closest to Shogun 2 in gameplay, except there's tons of diversity.

Cheers!

[Marcóu Di Gambön]

No, I do not believe that TW: Warhammer was a step in the right direction at all, instead it was a giant step in the wrong direction. I do not have any intention on spitting on any genuine efforts made by the team that developed this game, but I do not think that it was the same team that developed Rome 2.

Rome 2 did thinks properly, there was still unit 'dueling', however there was also 'open air' attacks, so you received the best of both worlds. I despised the dueling mechanics when they were introduced to Empire, they made no sense to me, having 10+ men watching one kill his comrades. But, I found that later titles got it right, a unit may be dueling another but a quick stab in the back with a gladius could still take him down suddenly.

I find that the graphics in this latest title are a step down as well. I do not like the textures or the lighting in this game.

I find that the game lacks 'culture' as well, I do not know how to describe it, but the game just feels relatively bare.

Although some may enjoy the game, I personally do not. I have been playing Total War games since Medieval 2 Total War.

If you want a full experience with Warhammer and strategy, look into the Crusader Kings 2 mod.

(Also, that they intend on charging for a faction that was completed prior to release is disgusting and should receive the enmity of customers).

[M2TWRocks]

No, I do not believe that TW: Warhammer was a step in the right direction at all, instead it was a giant step in the wrong direction. I do not have any intention on spitting on any genuine efforts made by the team that developed this game, but I do not think that it was the same team that developed Rome 2.

Rome 2 did thinks properly, there was still unit 'dueling', however there was also 'open air' attacks, so you received the best of both worlds. I despised the dueling mechanics when they were introduced to Empire, they made no sense to me, having 10+ men watching one kill his comrades. But, I found that later titles got it right, a unit may be dueling another but a quick stab in the back with a gladius could still take him down suddenly.

I find that the graphics in this latest title are a step down as well. I do not like the textures or the lighting in this game.

I find that the game lacks 'culture' as well, I do not know how to describe it, but the game just feels relatively bare.

Although some may enjoy the game, I personally do not. I have been playing Total War games since Medieval 2 Total War.

If you want a full experience with Warhammer and strategy, look into the Crusader Kings 2 mod.

(Also, that they intend on charging for a faction that was completed prior to release is disgusting and should receive the enmity of customers).

Suffice it to say, though you imply otherwise, you haven't actually played the game, have you?

[Marcóu Di Gambön]

Suffice it to say, though you imply otherwise, you haven't actually played the game, have you?

I own the game, and have played it. Don't think that I'm so petty to post a negative review of it if I have never played it. I have played it, and I am unsatisfied with it.

[Humble Warrior]

One thing Warhammer did really well - in my opinion - was introducing various factions with different mechanics and units/playstyles. It was gnawing at me since playing Napoleon. At some point I realized that besides France almost all factions shared the same units. I still had a lot of fun with Napoleon (a lot more than I thought I would. I think it was my second or third most played title of the series) but after that lack of variation between factions became even more apparent to me (especially in early Rome 2, where I kind of dropped playing the series). Warhammer is a welcome change in this regard and I hope they will continue this approach with their other games.

This again. It`s much easier to have different playstyles and mechanics because the units involved are starkly different, ie, Goblins, Orcs, Vampires, mythical beasts, magic, etc.

Real history has only Humans. They can`t be much different.

Now I don`t mind my fantasy games every now and then; I play AOW3 (which I think is better), but it`s made up nonsense- Fantasy.

Historical games are real. That`s the hook for people like me. We want to know how it really was. Real men had to strategise and fight tactical battles risking death for real and we want to simulate what they had to go through. This is why historical warfare will always be better than fantasy.

But I don`t think Ca ever really cared. I read an article that CA made Shogun just to make as much cash as possible and it had nothing to do with a love of history or the Art of War.

[M2TWRocks]

I own the game, and have played it. Don't think that I'm so petty to post a negative review of it if I have never played it. I have played it, and I am unsatisfied with it.

Ok. I'll take your word for it. I just think it interesting that you are literally the only person I've ever heard say nothing but negative things about Warhammer, while simultaneously seem to be holding up ROME TWO as the standard from which CA should be making games. Why on Earth did you buy Warhammer? (If you even have at all.) Sounds like you had no interest in it and had your mind made up before you even played.

[Marcóu Di Gambön]

Ok. I'll take your word for it. I just think it interesting that you are literally the only person I've ever heard say nothing but negative things about Warhammer, while simultaneously seem to be holding up ROME TWO as the standard from which CA should be making games. Why on Earth did you buy Warhammer? (If you even have at all.) Sounds like you had no interest in it and had your mind made up before you even played.

I did have an interest in it, I liked the trailer they had of 'Battle of Blackfire pass' etc. on their youtube channel. I do have an interest in Warhammer as well, I have played the Warhammer mod for CKII while originally waiting for the game because of the hype.

I did not buy Rome II upon release, I bought it maybe a year after the original release supposed debacle. The Rome 2 I played I always enjoyed, was very mod-able and had a lot of replay value.

I never bought Atilla because I thought the time period and units were too similar to Rome 2 to justify purchasing it, so I used Rome 2 as a reference.


I never said Rome 2 should be held as a standard, I simply commented on the fighting animations (mechanics) in Rome 2 in comparison to Warhammer. I like to see improvement and innovation, but this did neither in my mind. But overall Rome 2 had better graphics, animations and a better feel for me entirely.

[M2TWRocks]

I did have an interest in it, I liked the trailer they had of 'Battle of Blackfire pass' etc. on their youtube channel. I do have an interest in Warhammer as well, I have played the Warhammer mod for CKII while originally waiting for the game because of the hype.

I did not buy Rome II upon release, I bought it maybe a year after the original release supposed debacle. The Rome 2 I played I always enjoyed, was very mod-able and had a lot of replay value.

I never bought Atilla because I thought the time period and units were too similar to Rome 2 to justify purchasing it, so I used Rome 2 as a reference.


I never said Rome 2 should be held as a standard, I simply commented on the fighting animations (mechanics) in Rome 2 in comparison to Warhammer. I like to see improvement and innovation, but this did neither in my mind. But overall Rome 2 had better graphics, animations and a better feel for me entirely.

Rome 2 has better graphics than Warhammer? You must have an out of date computer. It's not even close on mine. Warhammer is gorgeous. Rome 2 looks like something from a different technical era now. And your other biggest problem is the animations? There's clearly more to this.