View Poll Results: Do you feel the TW series has gone downhill since Medieval II?

Voters
218. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! All the newer Total War games suck!

    43 19.72%
  • Yes. I like some of the newer games but the older games were better

    109 50.00%
  • No. The new games are just fine.

    58 26.61%
  • I love Failhammer. I'll buy whatever CA does regardless

    8 3.67%
Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 324

Thread: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

  1. #1
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    I don't find any of the recent total war games interesting or engaging. TW Attila is alright, but really it's no comparison to Medieval II in terms of immersion and replayability. I don't like the fact that I can't have garrisons in my towns. I don't like not being able to build walls. I don't like the simplified town building options. I don't like the lack of meaningful family members with their chivalry, dread, piety and other characteristics. I don't like armies auto-replenishing. I don't like the bland music. Campaign map somehow feels less interesting. There's less to do and less fun to be had.

    I won't even get into the Warhammer games, which are not my thing and I don't even consider part of the series. I haven't bought any of them and I'm not interested. I attempted to play Napoleon but could never get into it. I have Shogun 2 but same problem. I can't play Rome II as I don't like the dreadful building options and screwed up economy, nor the way factions like Carthage are broken.

    Medieval II and Rome (2004) are the only games I can really enjoy. I suspect the TW series is dead and its glory days are not coming back. Anyone else feel the same?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  2. #2

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    They're all different, in a way. I make a distinction between four groups of total war games.

    You have the originals, Shogun and Medieval. I was never a big fan of Shogun, but Medieval latched me on the series. I still think Medieval has a place, design wise, in the newer games, though I do prefer the gameplay of the two later offerings. That said, I think Medieval takes it on the atmosphere.
    Rome and Medieval 2, "classics" that still live fairly well into 2017. You like those two and I like them as well. I do consider Medieval 2 the most iconic of the series (though I consider Rome and Medieval to come close, in that order). They're flawed, though. Certainly flawed. Still, we've got mods to compensate for the shortcomings, hotseat, and multiplayer for people willing to get a group together. Medieval 2 holds a special place that no other total war game has ever been able to hit for me.

    Empire is where the series changed, design wise. A lot more arcade, new philosophies, new design in the form of guns and such. I suspect that, when they made that game, they wanted to go even further beyond Napoleon in term of gunpowder - yet they never were powerhouses of the series, so that lead onto the next two games. I think Empire and Napoleon (napoleon being a form of expansion to try and "fix" the design philosophies of Empire) were mediocre entries at best. Still, you can find people in favor of them.

    Shogun II was where many consider it to have shaped up. I never was interested in Shogun, so Shogun 2 held little more interest. Still, you'll find people who swear by that game. Rome 2 tried to be a grand improvement across the board; it succeeded in... kinda doing this and that, and ultimately being unfinished. It doesn't hold a special place for me, but I must admit, of the new generation total wars, it was the one to catch my interest. I can derive some degree of enjoyment from the game, but Medieval 2 takes it, certainly. Yet you'll still find a few people, on TWC, who enjoy it.

    Warhammer and Warhammer II, another deviation similar to the above, this time in the core premise - taking out the historical flavor and replacing it with fantasy. You'll also find fans of that, though I personally hold no interest in those games. I firstly am not impressed with them as entries into the series; and as a double whammy, I'm not even remotely interested in Warhammer fantasy. Out of all the fantasy games they reproduced, it was Warhammer. At least with TES or the like I would have been a little more inclined to give it a fair trial.

    I believe the old core has a stronger spirit than the newer games, but people still enjoy newer entries. I can even get something out of Rome 2 once in a while. I wouldn't consider the series dead; I think new entries will come out, and they'll still sell. The market is changing and evolving, and CA are trying to establish a base that's different from you and likely me by appealing to the fantasy audience.

    We're the TW equivalent of old farts who don't let go, and even if we want it to die for the change it has endured, I think Total War will carry on for a few games yet. One way or another.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    I am a TW Player since the days of Shogun (1). And while I like the old games still, I actually think the later ones are as good. Rome 1 was mindblowing in 2004, but I still Play Empire today (from time to time). Medieval 2 was great, but so was Shogun 2. The latter coming even more polished, but without the faction variety of M2.

    I think it is just a matter of taste.

  4. #4

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    The entire series after Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 is a mixture of one step forward two steps back.

    Love Europa Barbarorum, Rome Total Realism amongst others as those are high lights for me.

    Empire brought a mixture of new and old ideas to the table but is essentially an unfinished game even if you ignore the bugs. 18th century game of colinization in a partially contructed world anyone? What an abortion CA and Napoleon sucks in comparison...

    Abit early to say the series is dead though as the new historical title hasn't been annouced let alone relesed yet so I reserve judgement then. Rome 2 is the last last TW title I've purchased and i've really enjoyed that one but I wouldn't want a game streamlined further than that. So for me it's the campaign mechanics that are the deciding factor. For me just slapping a family tree on top of everything as a meta game in Attilla isn't the answer either.

    The problem with this series is that the battles take priority over campaign mechanics. Where as it should be a 50:50 split

    So yes it's a matter of taste

  5. #5
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Medieval II has 2,300,000 posts on the TW centre forums. Warhammer has just 40,000 posts. And thats for both Warhammer releases combined.

    I don't play Attila anymore. The combat animations are too fast, the battles kind of suck because of it and the campaign map lacks depth and interest compared to Medieval II. I also find the inability to garrison cities, forcing you to lose every time a town is unexpectedly attacked, very annoying.

    For me, Total War means Medieval II mods and a bit of Rome Total War (2004). Everything else is a fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  6. #6
    ♔atthias♔'s Avatar Modding Staff
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    the netherlands
    Posts
    3,922

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    Medieval II has 2,300,000 posts on the TW centre forums. Warhammer has just 40,000 posts. And thats for both Warhammer releases combined.
    now you are being unfair
    MTW2 is out since 2006 warhammer since 2013 and 17 so that is like 11 year of time for MTW2 to generate that amount

    as for the newer games suck yeah they do for me because
    1 most important limited building slot [in fact the main reason I like warhammer is that the game is so dumbed down that building slots are no longer an issue so I don't have to put up with ATW crappy you need building X Z Y but due the fact that rome has limited space you can only build X and Z or Y and X ect ect]

    2 generals only armies you lost one unit to bad either recruit a new general or spend a few turns slowing the whole army down while in MTW2 the amy could continue while your most scare elite unit could retrain

    3 the stupid auto replenishment system due this front lines are non existent just encamp 2 turns later you armies iuis back
    if you crush an AI army 3 turns later the amy is back to full heath while in MTW2 they had to hire mercenaries or go back to their own city to retrain
    Last edited by ♔atthias♔; October 24, 2017 at 02:13 PM.
    Rise of Mordor 3D Modelers Wanted
    Total War - Rise of Mordor
    Are you a 3D Environment and Character artist, or a Character Animator?

    If yes, then the Rise of Mordor team linked above is looking for you!
    Massive Overhaul Submod Units!
    D you want some units back in MOS 1.7? Install this mod http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...n-1-1-RELEASED
    It adds back units who were deleted from the campaign in MOS 1.7, namely the Winged Swordsmen, the Citadel Guard Archers and the Gondor Dismounted Bodyguard.

    Under the proud patronage of
    Frunk of the house of Siblesz

  7. #7

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    Medieval II has 2,300,000 posts on the TW centre forums. Warhammer has just 40,000 posts. And thats for both Warhammer releases combined.
    Biased and inaccurate, similar to the poll you open up with. The questions are worded in such away to ward off any opinion other than your own, and your numbers are entirely pointless. Medieval 2 has existed about 9 years longer, and Warhammer is barely a fledgling in the gaming world. The second Warhammer release just barely came out.

    Medieval 2 has been around much longer. Warhammer is new, and has other communities built that are relevant to the game - TWC doesn't offer much in comparison, and so, there's less reason to bother with Warhammer forums here.

    If you want to even remotely present a solid point, you'd take posting activity in Warhammer forums and compare them to posting activity in Medieval 2 forums. Even then, TWC is not the singular representation of the Total War world, and if Medieval 2 activity does indeed beat Warhammer, you would still fail to consider Warhammer related communities.

    If we go by steam stats (which is about as good as what you used for comparing the games, which is to say, not very good), Warhammer II has 18,324 current players as of this post, the first Warhammer around 7000 (as is Rome 2), and Attila has just shy of 4000.

    Medieval 2 sits at 3800, barely beating Empire, and the original Rome doesn't even make the list.

    Warhammer II is high on the list of top 100 steam games, and boasts over 4 times as many players on steam as Medieval 2. I would hardly call that dead.
    Last edited by CommodusIV; October 24, 2017 at 02:52 PM.

  8. #8
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    That's unfair. Most people don't play Medieval II on steam because they pre-ordered the hard copy disc in a box like i did. I have no idea how many hours ive put into Medieval II but I'd guess if i'm at 900 hours on CoH2 then i must be at least 3600 hours plus on M2 or higher. Perhaps 5000 hours. Maybe more.

    The newer games have no depth. No cities or castles choice. No movable population, eg in Rome you could recruit 5 units of peasants, thats 1000 men, and ship them across to some small village and disband them, and they'd increase the population in that region, allowing you to level up. Thats strategy. The newer games? No building up your cities. No walls. No picked garrisons. It sucks. I agree with atthias' 3 points.

    There is nothing that can come close to the glory of this:

    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; October 24, 2017 at 04:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  9. #9

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    That's unfair.
    So is using TWC posts that have obviously lopsided factors to push the agenda that the TW series is dead.

    While I'll take Medieval 2 content any day over the new games, the new games are far from dead. I think they lack components of what I liked in the early 2000's of Total War. Other players, as indicated by the fact quite a few people still play the games, would be inclined to disagree.

  10. #10
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,708

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    Medieval II has 2,300,000 posts on the TW centre forums. Warhammer has just 40,000 posts. And thats for both Warhammer releases combined.
    In my opinion (and from what I've seen), people don't like TWCenter because of posts like these that just call all Total Wars apart from Medieval 2 terrible. TWCenter just seems like a place to and moan about how good the series was before CA ruined it. Because of this, the only reason someone would come to TWCenter is for the mods, but due to the more complicated engine (and admittedly bad modding tools) the mods created are nowhere near as good as Rome 1's or Medieval 2's where modders can seemingly change everything.

    So basically, the inactivity of the recent games is due to
    - TWC's bad reputation
    - Increasing popularity of Reddit
    - TWC's loss of relevance, the only advantage it has over Reddit is you can talk about big Hosted Mods here but those are migrating to Discord and similar things as well




  11. #11
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    I originally joined TWC in 2007 because I had just downloaded a mod for Rome Total War and I wanted to ask a question. The other reason was that before that I used to post on the official CA total war forum. But I and many others quit posting there or got banned because of the draconian and extreme arbitrary behaviour of moderators, constantly shutting down discussions and clamping down on freedom of expression to the point it became unbearable. I haven't been back in ten years.

    The appeal of TWC was that you could actually talk freely without being shut down constantly. And also there were many experienced players here and many amazing mods. I'd say a lot of the community migrated around the same time as me. We all knew each other, and it was brilliant.

    Now though it's been over 10 years and I don't post about any current games. I've contributed on discussions about Medieval 2 mods and occasionally post on the history or politics part of the forum. But i hold little hope for future games from CA. I think the days of 2002 to 2006 are long behind us, sadly. It was a golden age.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  12. #12

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    That is you. And really, that's largely me too. But we do not stand for CA's current offerings, nor are we representatives of its modern community.

    TWC is what's dying, not CA. CA is making solid profits and going strong. TWC is struggling with potential death and inactivity of its "old core" that is becoming invalidated, bit by bit. It's no secret that CA occasionally pops into Reddit (which is holding up just fine) while TWC has gotten shafted...

  13. #13
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,265

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    TWC is what's dying, not CA. CA is making solid profits and going strong. TWC is struggling with potential death and inactivity of its "old core" that is becoming invalidated, bit by bit. It's no secret that CA occasionally pops into Reddit (which is holding up just fine) while TWC has gotten shafted...
    Total War is far from dead, but CA faces the risks any AAA studio faces these days. We'll have to see what sort of TW historical content gets released in the next several years, but I am growing skeptical that CA can make historical games on big budgets and turn an adequate enough profit for Mr. Satomi. Perhaps if they do a China TW they can tap the Asian market for the first time and succeed that way? I really don't know.

    It's more likely that CA will continue to emphasize fantasy games and perhaps branch out into Sci-Fi to lure in more customers. Warhammer seems especially well-suited to the games-as-a-service model of profitability that Total War has adopted. Warhammer appeals to collectors, and can be supported for years to come with more DLC content, new games etc. CA already refers to their forthcoming historical title as a "tentpole," so it appears they will attempt the games-as-a service approach here as well.

    However the historical crowd is a a harder sell, and we won't be as easy to slip missing content by and we are unlikely to be as tempted by DLC as the Warhammer groupies. I'm as hardcore as they get in terms of hours in the historical games, but I've skipped most of its DLC. Skipped all the DLC for Empire and Napoleon, only purchased RotS, and Hannibal at the Gates (which I was very disappointed in btw), and AoC (which was brilliant. So yeah, no unit or faction DLC for me.

    The publishers are getting greedier and their AAA productions are becoming ever-more lavish in general, and this is sure to impact CA in some way. Will we see loot boxes in Total War? Maybe.

    In terms of TWC, yes it appears to be on life support. Obviously Steamworks is a major reason as folks can easily get their mods there. Warhammer is not very mod friendly and has divided the community here to a great extent (and I would argue for good reason).

    While I get that Totalwareddit is far more popular than TWC how do you find quality information there? It comes across as a jumble of upvoted posts and there is just way too much crap there to weed through in the search for a topic of interest. It's also dominated by Warhammer fanboys and CA white knights posting mash notes to the company, and in general feels like a place to get lost in rather have a good discussion.

    Also, let's not underestimate the twin blows of Rome 2 and Warhammer on the TW community as a whole. Both proved to be very divisive.* And finally, where the is the SAGA game reveal already?


    *This divisiveness was NOT a divide between fans of the original TW Rome and the newer fans happy to fight arcadey battles, etc.. but a divide between those who recognized TWR2 as a scandalously bad product in its first year and those who defended it as good/acceptable.
    Last edited by Huberto; October 25, 2017 at 11:19 AM.

  14. #14
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,759

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    I don't find any of the recent total war games interesting or engaging.
    I really enjoyed Rome: Total War; taking a Roman army into action for the first time was magical. The range and scope of mods for older games is amazing and it's unfortunate that modding of newer games is more limited. While I am not going to defend the condition of either game at release, I enjoy Empire and Rome II and other newer games (Napoleon and Shogun II).

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    TW Attila is alright, but really it's no comparison to Medieval II in terms of immersion and replayability. I don't like the fact that I can't have garrisons in my towns. I don't like not being able to build walls. I don't like the simplified town building options. I don't like the lack of meaningful family members with their chivalry, dread, piety and other characteristics. I don't like armies auto-replenishing. I don't like the bland music. Campaign map somehow feels less interesting. There's less to do and less fun to be had.
    No doubt, many people will agree with you. Of course, different people prefer different things. For example:-

    - In Rome II, we can have garrisons in towns by selecting buildings which include garrison units. One of the strategic challenges in Rome II is choosing whether to make a region peaceful and prosperous (choosing buildings for maximum income, without garrisons) or defended but less wealthy (including some buildings with garrison units.) The limited number of armies means that we cannot protect every important border with a small army in a fort. For me, this makes the game more strategic. (It should also avoid the problem in Empire Total War, of the game slowing down because an AI faction has recruited a huge number of tiny armies). Diplomacy matters more when we cannot secure every border - so do spies (because AI factions have limited numbers of armies too, so we don't need to guard a border if that faction's armies are on the far side of their empire.)

    - Some players don't like the limited building slots and many building options in Rome II. Some see this as 'dumbed down'. I see it as the opposite, a feature which makes the game more strategic than a game in which we can build everything everywhere. For me, the large number of building options adds to the replayability of the game. In one campaign, I captured a major city and the faction which owned it had turned it into a military production centre. In another campaign, when I captured the same city, I found that the same AI faction had turned it into an economic centre. This means that the campaign is less predictable.

    - I wonder why someone would say that the economy is "screwed up" in Rome II. As I see it, the game requires strategic choices - we cannot just build everything and recruit every unit. If we build military buildings in every region, then our economy will suffer.

    - Yes, many players like being able to build walls. On the other hand, if we and the AI can build walls, then more and more battles are sieges. Eventually, I found the endless sieges repetitive - you make a breach, you fight at the breach, then you fight at the central square. In Rome II, I like the variety of battles - ambushes, ordinary land battles, battles in unwalled towns, sieges of walled cities, fort battles and combined land and sea battles.

    - Some people don't like auto-replenishment; I prefer it. It means that the armies and fleets of the AI replenish too. (In Empire, my experience is that the AI rarely if ever repair their ships, so naval battles get easier because I'm fighting damaged ships more and more of the time). Also, I'm always going to want to replenish lost troops, so clicking to replenish feels repetitive and unnecessary.

    - I feel that there is plenty to do on the campaign map and battlefield in Rome II. On the campaign map, there are lots of ways to improve our armies - army traditions, better equipment, military buildings which provide bonuses (and sometimes non-military buildings too), adding a veteran to an army to train it and sending a good general to command it.

    - Some players criticise newer games as 'arcadey'. I see them differently. I played arcade games such as Space Invaders; I recognise the problem in Empire that the AI sometimes moved its units back and forwards across their line (a bit like the aliens moving left and right across the screen in Space Invaders). While the newer games aren't perfect, I see them as a lot better than Space Invaders - particularly with mods. (For example, Bran's Battle AI mod for Empire helps with the 'arcade' behaviour problem. A more aggressive AI mod and Mitch's Guaranteed Major Faction Empires mod for Rome II help with the passivity of AI factions in the vanilla game). If the criticism of newer games as 'arcade' is meant to imply that they are too simple (as opposed to implying that AI factions move units like Space Invaders), then I see it differently. Watching YouTube commentaries on Rome II battles by Maximus Decimus Meridius and Heir of Carthage (and reading AARs in the Writers' Study) demonstrated the tactics which players can use with different kinds of armies. The game rewards players who use the right combination of units at the right time in the battle.

    Yes, the newer games aren't perfect - but I don't agree that 'Everything after Medieval II sucks'. Of course, players are entitled to say what we think of the newer games. Even so, I wonder if there is a downside to this. I wonder if what seems (to me) like relentless criticism of newer games as 'dumbed down' and 'arcade' makes some players who enjoy the newer games feel that TWC is not for them. If you prefer the older games, and if you found a site on which members said over and over again that older TW games are 'dumbed down', that they 'suck' and are for 'casual' players who don't love TW like the 'real' fans, would that make you want to return to the site?
    Last edited by Alwyn; October 28, 2017 at 07:37 AM.

  15. #15
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom, Cambridge
    Posts
    2,572

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    I wouldn't call it dead, I would just say it has stagnated to a ludicrous degree, to the extent that I no longer buy their titles (haven't touched anything after Rome 2). What was a fresh and revolutionary formula back in 2004 with Rome TW has now lost all its shine and magic to reveal a rather stale and boring experience underneath. A set of game mechanics that do nothing particularly well on their own but together were just about holding together an engaging experience by the early Warscape 3 engine (Empire TW). The only thing that has really changed since Rome has been the graphical fidelity. We are still stuck with simplistic campaign economy,trade and diplomacy mechanics and diminished building slots. We are still stuck with a battle engine that is designed only to support 20-unit armies with at most around hundred or so men in each unit (hell, battle sizes may have actually fallen since Rome, I remember Legionary units in being as large as 240 men on Huge settings back then). We are stuck with shallow character significance and development (I was more engaged by Rome and Medieval 2 general traits and retinues than I am anything from later games). We're stuck with stagnant unit mechanics, worse combatant interaction than in the Rome/Medieval engine where combatants would execute short, snappy animations, opposed to drawn out mocap animations that take all the feeling of impact out of the melee. Dare I say, we're also stuck with turn based campaigns which can mean tedious wait times and make it impossible to simulate proper army maneuvering and logistics (armies just appear out of nowhere after a turn), there's been no innovation on this front at all. Variety and accuracy is still too limited for any historical aficionado, the peak of historicity in terms of aesthetic was probably Napoleon or Empire, we've gone downhill from that point onwards. And an outright negative has been the feature-creep of cookie-cutter RTS elements from other games in the industry, the most toxic being the mass adoption of active unit buffs (power-up buttons and 'special abilities') which are totally anathema to the gameplay of Total War battles, which in my mind are supposed to be about 'reading the field' opposed to 'reading the spreadsheet'; combined-arms maneuvering affairs and not statistically calculated button-clickfests, as every other MOBA or 2D RTS out there appears to be - I fear CA's new hirings over the years are the main culprits for this creep and I also believe the gimmicky nature of Warhammer units (which as I understand it are chock full of this special ability, that power-up, can receive this passive buff, etc in the Tabletop) are going to infect Total War the development culture going forwards into new historical titles (3+ years of working on Warhammer will inevitably have an effect on the studio's game design philosophy in future titles).

    I think most veteran players cling to the idea of Total War, the vision we have of a deep simulator/strategy game which fuses geopolitical and economic affairs in the macro, with life-size armies and proper newtonian battle physics in the micro, rather than what CA's actual execution tends to be. I believe we're long past the point of believing CA are ever going to deliver this or make any effort to take Total War down this road. I'm sure they're happy with their market position (effectively a genre-monopoly) and are making good money being conservative and derivative, opposed to revolutionary and innovative, as they were back in the early 2000s. It's time to look elsewhere for another ambitious development team to give them some competition and attempt to move us a few steps closer to realizing our dream game.

    Disclaimer: these words are just my opinion.
    Last edited by Evan MF; October 30, 2017 at 01:51 PM.

  16. #16

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    A game series isn't truly dead unless it has loot crates....

  17. #17

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan MF View Post
    I wouldn't call it dead, I would just say it has stagnated to a ludicrous degree, to the extent that I no longer buy their titles (haven't touched anything after Rome 2). What was a fresh and revolutionary formula back in 2004 with Rome TW has now lost all its shine and magic to reveal a rather stale and boring experience underneath. A set of game mechanics that do nothing particularly well on their own but together were just about holding together an engaging experience by the early Warscape 3 engine (Empire TW). The only thing that has really changed since Rome has been the graphical fidelity. We are still stuck with simplistic campaign economy,trade and diplomacy mechanics and diminished building slots. We are still stuck with a battle engine that is designed only to support 20-unit armies with at most around hundred or so men in each unit (hell, battle sizes may have actually fallen since Rome, I remember Legionary units in being as large as 240 men on Huge settings back then). We are stuck with shallow character significance and development (I was more engaged by Rome and Medieval 2 general traits and retinues than I am anything from later games). We're stuck with stagnant unit mechanics, worse combatant interaction than in the Rome/Medieval engine where combatants would execute short, snappy animations, opposed to drawn out mocap animations that take all the feeling of impact out of the melee. Dare I say, we're also stuck with turn based campaigns which can mean tedious wait times and make it impossible to simulate proper army maneuvering and logistics (armies just appear out of nowhere after a turn), there's been no innovation on this front at all. Variety and accuracy is still too limited for any historical aficionado, the peak of historicity in terms of aesthetic was probably Napoleon or Empire, we've gone downhill from that point onwards. And an outright negative has been the feature-creep of cookie-cutter RTS elements from other games in the industry, the most toxic being the mass adoption of active unit buffs (power-up buttons and 'special abilities') which are totally anathema to the gameplay of Total War battles, which in my mind are supposed to be about 'reading the field' opposed to 'reading the spreadsheet'; combined-arms maneuvering affairs and not statistically calculated button-clickfests, as every other MOBA or 2D RTS out there appears to be - I fear CA's new hirings over the years are the main culprits for this creep and I also believe the gimmicky nature of Warhammer units (which as I understand it are chock full of this special ability, that power-up, can receive this passive buff, etc in the Tabletop) are going to infect Total War the development culture going forwards into new historical titles (3+ years of working on Warhammer will inevitably have an effect on the studio's game design philosophy in future titles).

    I think most veteran players cling to the idea of Total War, the vision we have of a deep simulator/strategy game which fuses geopolitical and economic affairs in the macro, with life-size armies and proper newtonian battle physics in the micro, rather than what CA's actual execution tends to be. I believe we're long past the point of believing CA are ever going to deliver this or make any effort to take Total War down this road. I'm sure they're happy with their market position (effectively a genre-monopoly) and are making good money being conservative and derivative, opposed to revolutionary and innovative, as they were back in the early 2000s. It's time to look elsewhere for another ambitious development team to give them some competition and attempt to move us a few steps closer to realizing our dream game.

    Disclaimer: these words are just my opinion.
    Bravo, very well put.

    I'm not saying everything after Med II sucks (Med II and Rome were only THAT great because of mods, in terms of playability they were already flawed compared to Shogun/MedI), Shogun II and Attila have some merits, but aside from the problems with battle mechanics since Empire, it's the campaign side that lost immersion and depth for me. The simpflified city building and RPG style character development made this completely stale. Even if people think TW is all about battles, the campaign map is where you spend the most time. Medieval I's camapign was so archaic (omg the diplomacy!), but the immersion was excellent (music, historical events etc), sth I found lacking in newer TW's-

    And I don't think I can ever forget or forgive Rome II. This game was a travesty on every level. I view Creative Assembly with different eyes ever since.
    Last edited by Candy_Licker; November 02, 2017 at 01:37 PM.

  18. #18
    Flinn's Avatar oh man.. I did it again!
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    11,366
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Candy_Licker View Post
    Medieval I's camapign was so archaic (omg the diplomacy!), but the immersion was excellent (music, historical events etc), sth I found lacking in newer TW's-
    I know very well the feeling! I was used to loosing myself in fantasies while listening to that awesome campaign music, with the wind effect, the bells from afar and such. I guess nostalgia has its weight here, though
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22& Socrates1984; of the Imperial House of Hader

  19. #19
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,693
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    My first game was Shogun. I instantly loved the game. I loved the idea of fighting battles. I used to play the hexagonal games as a kid ans that game was the digital version in my eyes. Later I saw medieval. At first I could not play it because my computer didn't have the right requirements. Played exclusively on a new laptop until I lost one of the disk when moving around. This is when I found ETW. I had a choice, Empire or Napoleon. I played it for a few years before arriving on TWC. I would later buy all of the games except Rome and Warhammer (fantasy isn't my thing). I like each game for the error they present. Some are better than others in different ways. The games have various degrees of complexity which I like.

    You know TW endures. Most gamers seem to prefer RPG type games. Console games have also increased in complexity. Paradox have come out with amazingly complex games, though a different approach. Of course there are smaller companies producing interesting comment. Moreover, former members of this forum also produce their own game which has been well- received. Total War is not dying. Sales continue to be excellent despite occasional boo boos (e.g. Empire and Rome II) and intense competition from other genres. Arguably you can say there is a TW game for everyone. There are people, like myself, that love Empire for the time period despite its failings. people can say the same about other games. Even though there are smaller companies producing "tactical" games, TW is still standard bearer in that genre. I am interested to see what they are working on. I look forward to it even though I might be disappointed.

    If y'all have done so, please give this a read.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  20. #20
    crazyroman's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Athens,Greece
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

    Why are you here then ? And have you played Rome 1 or MTW 2 before criticizing them ? By the way i like some features of the new games but not other feautures.And i like Warhammer a lot even if i havent played it.

Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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