Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 400

Thread: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    They did a lot of things right for the warhammer universe. The setting is not about population control and food production, its about endless war, simple as that.

    The next historical title? No scrap it all and start over. Next to nothing of the new features in the warhammer game have anything to do in a historical title.
    Although I agree for a historical title they should start over when it comes to the campaign, I very much doubt they will. All the campaign features "streamlined" and stripped beginning at Rome 2 fit very well into Warhammer with the Lords and such, but we should remember this process began with Rome 2, and I foresee it continuing with next historical title.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by PROMETHEUS ts View Post
    No , its a step back , much back , they got the right formula on Shogun II , since then they started dumbing down and make poor game design decisions .
    The game is entertaining couse of the col factor of units and fantasy setting , but in terms of gameplay is a huge stepback .

    There is probably no one more critical of CA then me--with those horrid games Rome 2 and it's slightly better add on Attila. But I have to disagree with you on this one. I thought I would absolutely hate this game, but I really like it. It runs smooth, they brought back most features, and have some new cool ones. Is it perfect----NO. But for a vanilla Total War game---well, it's one of the best since Shogun 2. Now, I didn't like Shogun 2 because of the time period, so I might ask you---is that what is bothering you? I am a historical guy, but this game is fun. If you don't believe me, I have several videos of me trashing CA, and some punks on here that defended R2. Anyways, curious to here your respounce.
    ITS ME "THE DUDE" AND I STILL HATE ELEPHANTS!!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/thegamersdude1

  3. #23

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I wasn't even going to get this one... but you know as an "old timer Shogun 1" player so far I'm having a blast playing it. Way much more fun than I thought I would... go figure! Probably partially because I had no expectations and no previous version to really base it on. And yes I play and enjoy Paradox games and other more in depth strategy/wargames but I'm still having fun.
    Gaming PC: I7-9700K@4.9GHz/Asus ROG Maximus XI Hero/EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC ULTRA/Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB)/Corsair Carbide Quiet 600Q/Corsair RM750i/LG 32GK850G 31.5"/BenQ G2400W 24"/Sound Blaster ZX/Samsung 850 Pro x2/950 Pro/970 EVO/Win10 Pro 64bit/Saitek X52/TrackIR5 - TrackClip Pro/

  4. #24

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I think they did a good job on this one.

    It is the first since Med 2 I have really liked.

    I have not played Shogun 2, since the era and location did not interest me that much.

    I think the result of this game will end up having a positive influence on the next historical title. It forced CA to think outside of the box they were in.

    One complaint I have is the battle pace. I would prefer the average battle to last around 15 minutes. Right now with most battles once the lines hit there is only about 2 minutes before the battle is over and just mopping up.

    The other is sieges. Pretty much all the same with very little options to be had.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    For Warhammer lore I would say a step to the side: they got a lot of things right but a lot of things wrong as well.
    For the TW series... a step diagonally to the back: it is fun, it runs a bit better but it has problems and the bussiness practices raise some red flags(Denuvo, massive streamlining, Chaos DLC....)

  6. #26

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus View Post
    For Warhammer lore I would say a step to the side: they got a lot of things right but a lot of things wrong as well.
    For the TW series... a step diagonally to the back: it is fun, it runs a bit better but it has problems and the bussiness practices raise some red flags(Denuvo, massive streamlining, Chaos DLC....)
    Unfortunately that is the new norm---from everyone. I think CA took it the extreme with Rome 2, but at this point not much can be done.
    ITS ME "THE DUDE" AND I STILL HATE ELEPHANTS!!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/thegamersdude1

  7. #27

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I figured this game would be somewhat negatively received here, that was expected. Personally I prefer to view it, and the mechanical changes as more of an offshoot on the Total War tree. A branch if you will. Rather then the trunk. So I really love it. Some of the things it removed im full for. Looking at Squalor and Sanitation "Which was terribly implemented".

    Do I agree with all the changes made? No of course not. Especially in regards to the tax system and the building system. That being said for me this is probably the best at launch Total War iv played in recent memory other then Shogun 2.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    For me, the new historical total wars will have to make factions more interesting. I don't think I want to go back to playing 60 factions of different flavored spearmen.

  9. #29
    King Xiao's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    England#
    Posts
    1,076

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I have to say, i have never played anything Warhammer and dismissed this game as trash the day it was announced.

    I was wrong. The game is very fun to play, almost similar to Shogun 2 is some ways. Whilst some features have been removed which is disappointing, im still very impressed by the game.

    For me, if the game runs well i immediately like it. Maybe its just me, but the performance is fantastic and a complete upgrade on anything ive seen since M2TW. Constant smooth gameplay on full ultra settings.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by King Xiao View Post
    I have to say, i have never played anything Warhammer and dismissed this game as trash the day it was announced.

    I was wrong. The game is very fun to play, almost similar to Shogun 2 is some ways. Whilst some features have been removed which is disappointing, im still very impressed by the game.

    For me, if the game runs well i immediately like it. Maybe its just me, but the performance is fantastic and a complete upgrade on anything ive seen since M2TW. Constant smooth gameplay on full ultra settings.
    Agreed. I was exactly the same. I just like the game runs well on very high settings.
    ITS ME "THE DUDE" AND I STILL HATE ELEPHANTS!!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/thegamersdude1

  11. #31
    Ciruelo's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    You won't guess
    Posts
    212

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Talking about performance and optimization, the game is a clear step forward. Now let's talk about other matters.

    The game focus much more on the role aspect of the heroes, learning spells, improving abilities and earning mounts and equipment that you can actually see in battle. The campaign is now only the board where you move your troops.

    Economic and politics management has been almost completely removed, which is a good thing for players that hated that part in other TW but a bad thing for those who enjoyed this aspect and auto-resolved battles. I don't think it's because of laziness as the amount of work put in this game is considerably bigger than in any previous TW game, and economics and politics is not the most difficult aspect to implement in the game.

    They added more things to the battle area than any previous TW. Factions are actually very different each other. It's not only that one rely on better cav, one other on better missile. Factions are actually different races, with different creatures, different magic spells. They added heroes, monsters, magic and flights units to the clasic cavalry, infantry, missile and artillery of all previous TW.

    There are some things that I don't like about the game, but I recognize it's a matter of personal taste (like speed of battles and simplistic economic management). Anyway, the game is just released, and no game has been this good at release since M2.

    For me there are no step backs and no step forwards in gameplay features, the game is different and you can perfectly like it more or like it less than other TW games. I think there are a lot of new things that most of people like (not people in this forum, but people in general). Sometimes I feel that what this forum demands is a remake of M2 and Rome with better textures and any different thing is a step back.
    Last edited by Ciruelo; May 26, 2016 at 05:13 PM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciruelo View Post
    The game focus much more on the role aspect of the heroes, learning spells, improving abilities and earning mounts and equipment that you can actually see in battle. The campaign is now only the board where you move your troops.

    Economic and politics management has been almost completely removed, which is a good thing for players that hated that part in other TW but a bad thing for those who enjoyed this aspect and auto-resolved battles. I don't think it's because of laziness as the amount of work put in this game is considerably bigger than in any previous TW game, and economics and politics is not the most difficult aspect to implement in the game.

    They added more things to the battle area than any previous TW. Factions are actually very different each other. It's not only that one rely on better cav, one other on better missile. Factions are actually different races, with different creatures, different magic spells. They added heroes, monsters, magic and flights units to the clasic cavalry, infantry, missile and artillery of all previous TW.

    There are some things that I don't like about the game, but I recognize it's a matter of personal taste (like speed of battles and simplistic economic management). Anyway, the game is just released, and no game has been this good at release since M2.

    For me there are no step backs and no step forwards in gameplay features, the game is different and you can perfectly like it more or like it less than other TW games. I think there are a lot of new things that most of people like (not people in this forum, but people in general). Sometimes I feel that what this forum demands is a remake of M2 and Rome with better textures and any different thing is a step back.
    You guys are fully aware that Warhammer is about endless battle right? It's not about civilization or economics it's outright warfare in everything. That's why there's so much details on the battlefield. I mean the Orcs are a race where you have to be constantly FIGHTING to stay alive and in the game.

    And plus isn't the Warhammer division a separate entity from the actual Total War series?

  13. #33

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Total Step Backwards. If people, in the majority, like dumbed down features in this then that 'could' (not saying definitively it will) influence CA's design for future games - which is a worrisome thought to me and just further makes me lose interest in this series; whether its these new Fantasy types or a Semi-Historical romp. They could have done so much more depth with the added Fantasy layer of Warhammer.

    Rome 2, with way way worse Sieges (and plenty of other things) than the first Rome game, for many reasons already discussed on TWC, was the first area of decline. Shogun 2, its predecessor somewhat hid it, but they left out lot's of possibilities for the type of equipment that was used for Sieges in Medieval Japan - I found it fun, but dumbed down. Now it's become terminal; units with magical ladders (less need for build phase in Siege) and 1 or 2 lanes to attack a wall with no other entrances or available strategy in favor of laning the combat, and very few if any variety of the Siege battlemap itself, Town attacks are field battles (rather than both), etc.

    Overall, Rome 1 and Med 2 are still the highlights of the series with them 'trying' for deeper strategy. Now its become more and more Arcade over time. I don't need to play Total Warhammer to find out of its dumbed down or not when I can see what the game is like with my own eyes in total with Youtube and Let's Plays these days.

    I'm sure people will totally find ways to spin it as a positive for any further dumbing down in these series for the next Total War, that's one thing that can be counted on.
    Last edited by Taskeen; May 26, 2016 at 06:08 PM.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taskeen View Post
    Total Step Backwards. If people, in the majority, like dumbed down features in this then that 'could' (not saying definitively it will) influence CA's design for future games - which is a worrisome thought to me and just further makes me lose interest in this series; whether its these new Fantasy types or a Semi-Historical romp. They could have done so much more depth with the added Fantasy layer of Warhammer.

    Rome 2, with way way worse Sieges (and plenty of other things) than the first Rome game, for many reasons already discussed on TWC, was the first area of decline. Shogun 2, its predecessor somewhat hid it, but they left out lot's of possibilities for the type of equipment that was used for Sieges in Medieval Japan - I found it fun, but dumbed down. Now it's become terminal; units with magical ladders (less need for build phase in Siege) and 1 or 2 lanes to attack a wall with no other entrances or available strategy in favor of laning the combat, and very few if any variety of the Siege battlemap itself, Town attacks are field battles (rather than both), etc.

    Overall, Rome 1 and Med 2 are still the highlights of the series with them 'trying' for deeper strategy. Now its become more and more Arcade over time. I don't need to play Total Warhammer to find out of its dumbed down or not when I can see what the game is like with my own eyes in total with Youtube and Let's Plays these days.

    I'm sure people will totally find ways to spin it as a positive for any further dumbing down in these series for the next Total War, that's one thing that can be counted on.
    Wow....I hated pretty much everything since Med 2...Rome 1 was my favorite and still play it like a mad man....but sorry man, this is a good game. If you believe I am some CA fan boy, you are barking up the wrong tree. I rip into CA for that game Rome 2 and its addon Atilla. Is this game perfect---NO. But it really is not meant to be historical...its fantasy. Now, if the next TW is crap historically with crap features then I will be right back on the CA hate train.
    Last edited by est Dudus; May 26, 2016 at 06:17 PM.
    ITS ME "THE DUDE" AND I STILL HATE ELEPHANTS!!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/thegamersdude1

  15. #35
    Humble Warrior's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Great Britain.
    Posts
    11,147

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taskeen View Post
    Total Step Backwards. If people, in the majority, like dumbed down features in this then that 'could' (not saying definitively it will) influence CA's design for future games - which is a worrisome thought to me and just further makes me lose interest in this series; whether its these new Fantasy types or a Semi-Historical romp. They could have done so much more depth with the added Fantasy layer of Warhammer.

    Rome 2, with way way worse Sieges (and plenty of other things) than the first Rome game, for many reasons already discussed on TWC, was the first area of decline. Shogun 2, its predecessor somewhat hid it, but they left out lot's of possibilities for the type of equipment that was used for Sieges in Medieval Japan - I found it fun, but dumbed down. Now it's become terminal; units with magical ladders (less need for build phase in Siege) and 1 or 2 lanes to attack a wall with no other entrances or available strategy in favor of laning the combat, and very few if any variety of the Siege battlemap itself, Town attacks are field battles (rather than both), etc.

    Overall, Rome 1 and Med 2 are still the highlights of the series with them 'trying' for deeper strategy. Now its become more and more Arcade over time. I don't need to play Total Warhammer to find out of its dumbed down or not when I can see what the game is like with my own eyes in total with Youtube and Let's Plays these days.

    I'm sure people will totally find ways to spin it as a positive for any further dumbing down in these series for the next Total War, that's one thing that can be counted on.
    Well, that`s done it for me. Sieges have always been important to me. Heck, I wouldn`t have minded watching a Griffin fly over the walls, or a spell shot at soldiers on the rampants, but CA`s refusal to depict men carrying ladders to siege walls is just amazing. Now they just pull them out their asses? I guess they`ll say a wizard did it? Magic spells that hide ladders up butt holes?

    I knew that we`d see what CA really thought of sieges with Warhammer, and now I know.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Not really a step forward (or back)... more like a step to the side with design decisions being made to dumb down the game. I have huge issues with this game and it has divided the group of folks I play with. Some loving it, some hating it...


    I think a lot of the long-time TW players like myself have issues with some of the more absurd decisions made in this game (like the aforementioned ladders) but I find that a lot of those choices kind of make sense considering the gimmicky nature of the Warhammer universe.

    This certainly isn't Warhammer:Total War Realism for example. I understand why a lot of people squirm in their boots when they play this game.

    Definitely a controversial title, always has been. The sieges for example are both great and awful depending on your point of view. It's a frustrating title...

    I think a LOT of our complaints would be meaningless had they given us full breadth of the warhammer universe. Instead the map is so obviously locked and blocked off it's annoying.

    That said, we do finally have factions with their own individual designs again (after nearly 10 years of total wars...) shame there is only five of them.

    The game developer in me understand the complexities of developing for today's world, but the gamer in me reels back at the obvious DLC/Expansions set aside for this...

    Elements of this game feel ripped from from Attila and you can tell that was the testing platform for a lot of their more 'story' based designs.



    Honestly, this game would be my favorite total war in ten years if only we had access to editing the campaign maps. Yet we don't... so I rate this a 6/10.
    Last edited by Renown; May 26, 2016 at 07:12 PM.
    Son of the Ancient Archaon, House of Siblesz

  17. #37

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    I wouldnt call it a step forward nor a step backwards. Its more like a step to the side. This is not like the other total war games and to me its a different experience, therefore you cannot compare it like that with the past total war games.

  18. #38
    craziii's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,247

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    5 completely unique races and dx12 are both huge steps forward.
    fear is helluva drug
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. "Fear," he used to say, "fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe." That blew me away. "Turn on the TV," he'd say. "What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products." freakin' A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.” WWZ

    Have you had your daily dose of fear yet? craziii
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  19. #39

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    OP........ you should know better,starting a topic about asking if people like or think its better..... the rule is hate and bash and makeup reason "this new game is bad and CA [evil deed mention here/hate us/satanic church and they want our blood]". Shogun 2 now is said to be great..... except people bashed and nitpicked to death (like now)..... same for every past TW........ somehow posting nonsense and whinning and making excuses to make game look bad makes you somewhat popular. It's sad to be gamer sometimes....
    Common sense removed due being Disruptive.

  20. #40

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    A baby step forward, at best. They seem to take the Shogun2 route of going safe. Which is fine, at least in places where they did it right.

    The thing though is that, besides Warhammer theme and the odd airborne units, there's really nothing very new about this game. From a gameplay perspective, it's kinda like a very expensive mod.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •