Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 833484950515253545556575859 LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 1168

Thread: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

  1. #1141

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    This is like when we read a series of books. Do we say the author omitted or cut content when he decided not to write everything in a single book?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  2. #1142

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    It depends on if the story makes sense with what's on the page. If the first book can't be a satisfying read on its own, whether it's because it doesn't have a workable structure or just can't be understood within the context it provides, then I would say that it's a fundamentally incomplete product.

    For example, The Fellowship of the Ring is still a good book that feels complete even though the story itself continues. It's got a good climax, and despite learning some additional information later, the events within make sense given what the book tells us about the world and characters.

    For games, I guess the questions would be "Is this a satisfying experience as is?" and "Is the experience worth the price?"
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  3. #1143
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    If they published a Medieval game that started at 1460, or one that didn't cover lands of modern day Greece or Turkey, sure, I wouldn't wonder why they didn't include the Eastern Roman Empire. Were Nanman present in the very same period and region vanilla Three Kingdoms set in?
    zoner answered those already. Although I would add that prior to 225 the Nanman were nominal vassals of Liu Zhang and their famed “rebellion” against Liu Bei was because he had disposed their overlord, whom they apparently liked and respected, and so raised arms against him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    And which factions and characters would you place into DLCs so they would sell reasonably enough? Just curious @Seether...
    Three Kingdoms shouldn’t have any period DLC. Prior to (Warring States, Eastern Han restoration) or after (8 Princes, 16 Kingdoms) the TK era is fine, but making your fanbase pay money for factions and characters that should have been in the base game (and essential to the TK story and history) is no bueno. They can majorly improve a game and add new content without charging you for it every time.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  4. #1144

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    zoner answered those already. Although I would add that prior to 225 the Nanman were nominal vassals of Liu Zhang and their famed “rebellion” against Liu Bei was because he had disposed their overlord, whom they apparently liked and respected, and so raised arms against him.
    zoner16's input didn't really support your idea of Nanman being cut content. In the end, they were decided not to be the focus of the vanilla game. You can not say that they should have been in the game. Its their design. Its their choices. You're not entitled to anything. Even the fact that up till now no one even mentioned Nanman before CA mentioned them as a DLC is enough to indicate the level of merit you position has.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  5. #1145
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    A “fact” that “no one” mentioned the Nanman up until now? Really? I saw numerous things on Reddit and Three Kingdoms forums before and after the game launched. But, yeah, it’s a fact no one mentioned anything until now...

    And I can appreciate you always outright dismissing everything you don’t agree with in every discussion you have in every part of this forum, but you’re not the arbiter of valid criticisms or complaints against CA in their development of Three Kingdoms. I can say they should have been in the game and I did say it. But thanks for your input anyways.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  6. #1146

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    A “fact” that “no one” mentioned the Nanman up until now? Really? I saw numerous things on Reddit and Three Kingdoms forums before and after the game launched. But, yeah, it’s a fact no one mentioned anything until now...

    And I can appreciate you always outright dismissing everything you don’t agree with in every discussion you have in every part of this forum, but you’re not the arbiter of valid criticisms or complaints against CA in their development of Three Kingdoms. I can say they should have been in the game and I did say it. But thanks for your input anyways.
    A simple search yields no one mentioning Nanman as a faction that should have been in the vanilla game or as a major faction, yes. The existing discussion is very limited that mostly revolves around units or mods of other games. However, this is not me outright dismissing what I'm disagreeing with. This is you failing to provide a half-convincing argument on why you're entitled to having a Nanman faction in the vanilla game. The fact that you're deflecting from actually addressing points made about your suggestion is self-evident.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  7. #1147
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    If you think my purpose here is to convince you or provide you (with what you deem to be) satisfactory evidence for an opinion I have, then you’re barking up the wrong tree. You injected yourself into the discussion, wanting to turn a simple opinion into a debate, then wanted me to provide you with a convincing argument on that front. Regardless, multiple points of evidence for the opinion were given, by myself and zoner, and you outright dismissed them as “failing”, “deflecting” and not “addressing” whatever imaginary point you’ve conceived. If you don’t like the evidence we gave, that is your problem, not ours. You’ll just need to deal with it.

    Anyways, I’m totally not into this type of Mudpit shenanigans and will not engage you in any sort of debate or oblige in providing further “evidence” (that you’ll straight out dismiss anyways). If you need to get in the last word to “own” me or prove to everyone how superior you are or stroke your own ego or whatever, feel free, but don’t expect any sort of response.
    Last edited by Seether; August 03, 2020 at 04:50 PM.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  8. #1148

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    I do remember the Nanman coming up at some point during the different discussions on starting factions, but I think they were much less of a focus than some other choices, namely other coalition members like Tao Qian (now FLC) and Liu Yu (RIP). I know I was willing to dump them into a woodchipper if it meant Shi Xie got to be in, but that's my personal bugbear.

    Fundamentally, I can't divine the movement of CA's budget and project management, so I can't say what is and is not feasible to put in from a business perspective. What I will say is that the experiences you do put in the base game (and thus justify the $60 for on the store page) should feel as complete as possible. If you say I can play as someone, I expect their full package. It's what drives me up the wall with Paradox games, because lacking DLC gimps basically any faction you try to play as when you're continually hamstrung and reminded of all the options you don't have. EUIV is the worst offender, but it's a present problem elsewhere.

    Like I said earlier, the Nanman not being playable doesn't bother me because the game was upfront about it: "Here's 12 factions in 190AD, you get to jump into them and do Total War things." That's ok for me, every historical game has limits on whose experiences you get. The Nanman (among other people) being completely absent however, hurts the experience of playing as those 12 factions. The emptiness of the southern half of the map makes it a chore to deal with because either you're playing down there and mindlessly colonizing, or you're playing elsewhere, get to the emperor stage, realize that Sun Quan owns half the map, see he just moved his capitol to Hepu, and now you'll be fighting through a dozen commanderies to reach it, because there was nobody to contest him.

    If CA goes the Warhammer route, expanding the map and filling in the empty space for free, fully allowing you to fight and interact with the new additions, while the thing behind the paywall just being the ability to play as said additions, I think I'd be alright with that. That way, the decision of whether to fork over cash is whether or not I want those experiences in the same setting, rather than charging me for completing experiences I would've thought I'd already paid for.
    My Three Kingdoms Military History Blog / Military Map Project - https://zirroxas.tumblr.com/
    Ask me a question!

  9. #1149

    Icon14 Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    I agree with zoner16. For me, including the Nanman as DLC is kind of like in Shogun II when they included playable Otomo and Ikko-Ikki as DLC. Both of these are kind of oddball factions, and I don't think anybody ever seriously agrued that the Ikko-Ikki should have been playable at launch, for example.

  10. #1150
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    I can agree with all of that. For me, a lot of it has to do with the modern day business model that these developers follow, where they try to milk as much money from their customers as long as possible by releasing a base game that is (in my opinion) incomplete and giving us (again in my opinion) cut-content as piece-meal DLC. It is the norm for most developers and we have become too accustomed and accepting of such anti-consumer policies. We just accept getting screwed over and forking over our cash. I would go a bit further than zoner and say the entire periphery of the map, not just the south and south-west, should never have been a devoid vacuum as the Nanman, Nanyue, Shanyue, Di, Qiang, minor Han warlords, and bandit groups (playable or non-playable) could have been used to fill in those areas. They were actually there, in both history and the novel, and there is more than enough source material to flesh them out ( even as non-playable roadblocks).
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  11. #1151

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    If you think my purpose here is to convince you or provide you (with what you deem to be) satisfactory evidence for an opinion I have, then you’re barking up the wrong tree. You injected yourself into the discussion, wanting to turn a simple opinion into a debate, then wanted me to provide you with a convincing argument on that front. Regardless, multiple points of evidence for the opinion were given, by myself and zoner, and you outright dismissed them as “failing”, “deflecting” and not “addressing” whatever imaginary point you’ve conceived. If you don’t like the evidence we gave, that is your problem, not ours. You’ll just need to deal with it.

    Anyways, I’m totally not into this type of Mudpit shenanigans and will not engage you in any sort of debate or oblige in providing further “evidence” (that you’ll straight out dismiss anyways). If you need to get in the last word to “own” me or prove to everyone how superior you are or stroke your own ego or whatever, feel free, but don’t expect any sort of response.
    Nope. I thought that your purpose was to provide a sensible argument. You didn't You merely provided your own opinion. You provided no evidence whatsoever. That's the problem. This is not a case of me going hard on you for no reason. This is you making a fuss out of your opinion being scrutinized. I simply asked you why Nanman was supposed to be in the vanilla. You've been throwing a tantrum since I didn't roll over and take your response blindly. I really don't like this attitude of pointlessly thinking that developers owe you anything. There is no authority other than the creator of the game that gets to decide what is to be added to a game at launch. You can, of course, argue that some things should have been in the game from the beginning but that's all you can present it as. Your opinion. What puts us at this stage is your failure to accept that criticism. You turned this into a Mudpit debate, not me.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #1152

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    they should have gone full historical and drop the Overpowered heroes

  13. #1153
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Arron4 View Post
    they should have gone full historical and drop the Overpowered heroes
    Honestly, the Romance (default) mode is mainly for the Chinese market and those who only know of the Three Kingdoms because of Dynasty Warriors (like all of the CA devs). That is who CA tailored the game for, that is who CA targeted in their marketing campaign, and that’s who CA therefore knew would be their core audience. Historical mode is half-hearted, disingenuous and is nothing near anything resembling historical. Going half-historical, let alone “full historical”, would have actually required effort on their part - something they obviously weren’t willing to do to fleece their customers over the long term. Profits over quality.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  14. #1154

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    Nanman should have been in the vanilla release. CA on the nickel-and-dime bandwagon... I remember when games used to be pretty much complete when released and additional content, not cut content, was added via expansions. Or, since you bought the game, the new content added was free to improve the game and player experience. That's why gamer-friendly developers, like CDProjekt Red, garner infinitely more respect than Creative Assembly of the past 10 years.

    Oh, and Hulao Pass wasn't even a defensive point during the Three Kingdoms era and no major battle (especially between Dong Zhuo and Coalition) took place in the area. CA devs need to stop playing Dynasty Warriors and read a damn book.
    INDEED! They are giving players mediocre content and cut it to pieces. Graphically wise it looks good, but it does not make a game!
    My reason for liking so much this franchise is not by CA itself, but by it's communitty that is 100% more creative with the mods they put out!
    That's why i hate that they changed their engine and made almost impossible for people to mod the newest games.

    BTW seether, don't agree that much on the last point, because the book is a fictitious drama go away from it's original sources such as the Records and the History of Later Han, and also...I freaking love Dynasty Warriors
    It was whend i was playing DW5 that i got interested in reading the book and sparked my love for history that lead me to this site and made me a fan.

  15. #1155
    Seether's Avatar RoTK Workhorse
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    FloRida
    Posts
    5,272

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Right, I’m in the same boat. The original Romance of the Three Kingdoms for NES is what got me interested in the era and from there I explored the history. But, you and I are in the minority. Most people don’t know of the era’s real history (not criticizing them, just stating a fact) and probably don’t care to find out. And that’s perfectly fine. People like you, zoner and myself are not who TWTK was made for and I can guarantee we all find the “Records Mode” to be an utter disgrace at an “historical mode”.
    Member of the Imperial House of Hader - Under the Benevolent Patronage of y2day
    A Wolf Among Sheep: A Rise of Three Kingdoms AAR

  16. #1156
    Razor's Avatar Licenced to insult
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Deventer, The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,943

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    Right, I’m in the same boat. The original Romance of the Three Kingdoms for NES is what got me interested in the era and from there I explored the history. But, you and I are in the minority. Most people don’t know of the era’s real history (not criticizing them, just stating a fact) and probably don’t care to find out. And that’s perfectly fine. People like you, zoner and myself are not who TWTK was made for and I can guarantee we all find the “Records Mode” to be an utter disgrace at an “historical mode”.
    What was that saying again: Ignorance is bliss...

    The more you know, the more you see and the more you despise. It appears to be applicable to most things in life.

  17. #1157
    PikeStance's Avatar Talk'in to me
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Zengcheng District
    Posts
    11,950
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seether View Post
    Right, I’m in the same boat. The original Romance of the Three Kingdoms for NES is what got me interested in the era and from there I explored the history. But, you and I are in the minority. Most people don’t know of the era’s real history (not criticizing them, just stating a fact) and probably don’t care to find out. And that’s perfectly fine. People like you, zoner and myself are not who TWTK was made for and I can guarantee we all find the “Records Mode” to be an utter disgrace at an “historical mode”.
    Well, I have said this before...

    Despite their efforts, the game has a number of failings.

    The management is tedious. The attributes are nice, but you are constantly clicking on things. I prefer if some things were just random.
    The so called "synergy" is a myth. I ignored it and had zero problems with money.
    The "trinkets" are a waste and it made it easy to negotiate whatever you want.
    "Historical" mode is a joke. It is obvious they had no intention of having an "historical" mode. It reminds me of the cards. Everyone complained about them. They still insisted on keeping them, but they gave you an alternative. The attitude, is that we loved the original and the alts were created like ..."whatever." Other makers do not express such contempt.

    Personally, I feel they moving away from historical altogether to avoid the "unhistorical" argument. Personally, Grand Tactician is the new Total War and Total War is a fantasy game.
    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

  18. #1158
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    4,164

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Grand Tactian is again tackling the same subject of the US Civil War, right? Same as Ultimate General?

  19. #1159
    PikeStance's Avatar Talk'in to me
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Zengcheng District
    Posts
    11,950
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    There some significant differences. The campaign is much better developed with logistics and economy comparable to paradox. The battles are more realistic. You cannot fight battles like you can on TW. Early access coming soon. There is still much work to be done on it, but potentially it will surpass anything TW has ever done. There implied that they will do another time period later.
    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. #1160
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    4,164

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    There some significant differences. The campaign is much better developed with logistics and economy comparable to paradox. The battles are more realistic. You cannot fight battles like you can on TW. Early access coming soon. There is still much work to be done on it, but potentially it will surpass anything TW has ever done. There implied that they will do another time period later.
    Yeah, the question how the AI is programmed and how many exploits will be possible. For the Ultimate General, the author DarthVader had muche experience with modding the TW, so you get pretty good AI.
    Another great advantage over the TW seem to be historicity. The current titles and DLCs (with the fighting tigers or harpies or chariots) belong to fantasy, much more than the Egyptian chariots from M2TW.

Posting Permissions

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