Page 30 of 60 FirstFirst ... 520212223242526272829303132333435363738394055 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 1194

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

  1. #581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Theramines View Post
    Right, no problems there. That's fine and interesting by itself, and of course a major component of the setting. It wouldn't be complete without it. However, it isn't compelling enough by itself to sustain a TW historical game in my opinion. I suspect it also brushes aside more rounded interpretations of the era. Using the Romance as a primary source is fine. Is it enough?

    Take my remarks as coming from someone who finds history more interesting when it pulls together conflicting narratives and evidence and tries to find the humanity in its actors, individuals and masses of all types and classes doing what they can in their present circumstances. I mean no offence, if any is taken.
    No offense taken at all.

    My main point is that it's not just the Romance which has a massive character focus. Basically all the historical text do to. Not to the same extent certainly, as the characters of the Romance are essentially moving heaven, earth, and men without any of the latter so much as chiming in. However, basically every historical text also keeps the focus squarely on the people and their choices and decisions. Discussions of other facets of history are present everywhere, but the great men of the era take center stage and every battle, campaign, or period of peace is described through the lens of what important people were doing at the time. Being character focused doesn't meant that the Romance is taking over, rather it's in line with both the Romance and basically every semi-contemporary history we have on the matter.

    Time will tell how different the events and people of Classic mode will be compared to what we've seen so far, though even Romance mode doesn't seem to be going for Romance characterizations. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

  2. #582
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by herne_the _hunter View Post
    They are more blatent about it this time. But I do have to remind you of all the fantasy units in Rome 1 such as the head hurlers and also in Shogun 1 with its Kenshi. Head hurlers aren't as plausible as Puckle guns in Empire but they are all just as fantastical.
    There is a difference between a few imagined (but still possible) units in the game, and whole mechanics (like duelling generals or the way sieges are being conducted) being ahistorical.

    The base problem remains how their foundation is a novel, not actual history

  3. #583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eXistenZ View Post
    There is a difference between a few imagined (but still possible) units in the game, and whole mechanics (like duelling generals or the way sieges are being conducted) being ahistorical.
    The base problem remains how their foundation is a novel, not actual history
    The difference is that with one you downplay while with the other you overplay.
    The Armenian Issue

  4. #584
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eXistenZ View Post
    There is a difference between a few imagined (but still possible) units in the game, and whole mechanics (like duelling generals or the way sieges are being conducted) being ahistorical.

    The base problem remains how their foundation is a novel, not actual history
    But you are speaking about Romance mode We already know duels won´t be in Classic mode.

    And siege display is similar to all previous TWs, I especially watched E3 video with siege and for example the segment of wall going down in one shot was damaged. It was showing just some 50% of HP, being hit with two full salvos to fell down. Think I usually in other TWs use like 3-5 salvos from single artillery unit to tear down walls..Plus Seems like the cut off boring part of hitting the wall a few times with catapults in the video. So that´s it. Same with animations I don´t think they are final for example the jumping horses etc..
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  5. #585

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

    Quote Originally Posted by KamenLily View Post
    By the way, you're acting as if CA has made a personal promise and then broken it.
    That's exactly what CA did. They promised a historical game, but now they're delivering a fantasy game.

    They said that 3K is the next historical game. And it's the next historical game.
    No, no, no. It's a fantasy game. It's primarily based on a fantasy novel, it has a fantasy mode as the default campaign, it has fantasy weapons like the ginormous mace of XU Chu (which will probably persist in the classic mode as well, as I don't think CA will bother to equip the characters with different weapons in the two modes) and its mechanics and features are built based primarily on fantasy and not on history, the one hero units and the hero duels are major examples. And let's be completely honest here, they're bringing this concept in from warhammer, a typical fantasy setting.

    And here is further evidence that they're going full fantasy with this game (full warhammer style): these are photos of the campaign map, taken by people who were there at the E3 presentation





    Undoubtedly, the warhammer is strong in this one.

    It's not like they're putting a portal opening and dorfs and greensking invading while Rome ally with the Lizarmen and attack with Tyrannosaur Legionary Cavalry. Which actually is kinda cool, take notes CA. Total War: The Crossover!
    As eXistenz correctly said, it's not only nonhuman races that make a game fantasy. Having it primarily derived from a fantasy novel is often enough, but when you also throw fantasy weapons, fantasy mechanics and fantasy visuals in the mix, there's no doubt it's a fantasy game.

    And zoner16 is right. You can't compare in-game and cinematic models.
    Sure I can. In fact, I just did.

    Quote Originally Posted by herne_the _hunter View Post
    They are more blatent about it this time. But I do have to remind you of all the fantasy units in Rome 1 such as the head hurlers and also in Shogun 1 with its Kenshi. Head hurlers aren't as plausible as Puckle guns in Empire but they are all just as fantastical.
    There are no fantasy units in RTW. Head hurlers are not a fantasy unit, they're a historical unit just portrayed totally inaccurately. In reality they were not head hurlers, but head hunters, which means that they didn't throw the heads on their enemies, but collected them as battle trophies and decorated their houses with them instead. The only unit that could possibly be considered fictional (not fantasy) in RTW is wardogs, and whether dogs were actually used in battle in real life is still debatable among professional historians.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    Any game about the Three Kingdoms is first and foremost going to be about the characters and their personalities, decisions, and relationships. Not only is that how the Romance describes it, and therefore how the majority of people who are familiar with this era understand it, but it is also how every single historical text from the Sanguozhi, to the Weishu, to the Zizhi Tongjian presents it. The historical texts give more credence to other factors than the Romance does, but each one is structured as the deeds of great men at the forefront of the times they lived in. The rest is there to give context and understanding to their lives and choices.

    The most successful strategists and conquerors of the period were those who understood their opponents and their allies. Control and knowledge of people is what dictated the era. Cao Cao was a great military commander but his finest aspects came from personal leadership, his ability to keep good men loyal and convince others to defect and serve him. The Sima family, who ultimately reunified China, were wildly successful based on their ability to control and predict the loyalties and temperament of those around them. Military success was about putting the right people in the right places to lead forces, talk to enemies or allies, and manage territory.

    No Total War forces you to use the exact tactics of the time, and so long as they allow you the opportunity to do so if you want to, I think that the tactical freedom is a strength of the series. I would honestly go as far as to say that a Three Kingdoms Total War that didn't focus on the characters would be a mistake. Those people and their impact is in my opinion the thing that most makes this period special.
    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    No offense taken at all.

    My main point is that it's not just the Romance which has a massive character focus. Basically all the historical text do to. Not to the same extent certainly, as the characters of the Romance are essentially moving heaven, earth, and men without any of the latter so much as chiming in. However, basically every historical text also keeps the focus squarely on the people and their choices and decisions. Discussions of other facets of history are present everywhere, but the great men of the era take center stage and every battle, campaign, or period of peace is described through the lens of what important people were doing at the time. Being character focused doesn't meant that the Romance is taking over, rather it's in line with both the Romance and basically every semi-contemporary history we have on the matter.

    Time will tell how different the events and people of Classic mode will be compared to what we've seen so far, though even Romance mode doesn't seem to be going for Romance characterizations. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
    But here is the problem with such strong character focus in this game: this is a TW game which just uses the 3K setting, not a generic 3K game which just borrows some TW mechanics. The game is called: "Total War: Three Kingdoms". Total War comes first, Three Kingdoms comes second. This is not an RPG, so it's not supposed to have as its primary driving forces characters and story. This is a strategy game, so it's supposed to have as its primary driving forces strategy and tactics. Characters are supposed to only compliment and reinforce strategy, not to supplant it. Otherwise, it's not a strategy game anymore.

    And don't get me wrong here, back in the days when TW:W had just been released, I wrote a very detailed review of the game here in TWC in which I actually praised CA for giving more attention to characters and bringing in more RPG-like elements for them. But it seems like they're taking the concept way overboard this time, to the detriment of strategy, which is supposed to be the first and foremost focus of any TW game, including the fantasy ones.

    Plus, the records don't have that much focus on characters. The romance is a novel, so it had to add a lot of focus on characters and their relationships to add drama to the narrative. And most of it is fictional anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    But you are speaking about Romance mode We already know duels won´t be in Classic mode.
    No, we don't. Unless I missed it, CA hasn't confirmed yet if there will be duels in the classic mode or not. Having bodyguard units doesn't mean you can't duel, it just means the duel will be bodyguard unit vs bodyguard unit instead of hero vs hero. We can't assume things like that, it's CA.

    Having said that though, I really hope there won't be any duels in the classic mode.
    Last edited by perifanosEllinas; June 17, 2018 at 08:51 AM.

  6. #586

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

    Checkout OfficiallyDevins vid about the the voice acting in 3KTW issues. Note : try not to be drinking whilst watching this you'll get fluid all over your monitor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAvqBrvKph0

    Serious point is if you are going to use English voice actors for the all of the ancient Chinese then why not use Scottish, Welsh or Irish as well to thematically represent the diversity of characters if they are not speaking actual Chinese. See it all starts to get abit ridiculous as a badly over dubbed martial arts film.

  7. #587
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

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

    Double post
    Last edited by Daruwind; June 17, 2018 at 09:30 AM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  8. #588
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

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

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    That's exactly what CA did. They promised a historical game, but now they're delivering a fantasy game.

    No, no, no. It's a fantasy game. It's primarily based on a fantasy novel, it has a fantasy mode as the default campaign, it has fantasy weapons like the ginormous mace of XU Chu (which will probably persist in the classic mode as well, as I don't think CA will bother to equip the characters with different weapons in the two modes) and its mechanics and features are built based primarily on fantasy and not on history, the one hero units and the hero duels are major examples. And let's be completely honest here, they're bringing this concept in from warhammer, a typical fantasy setting.

    And here is further evidence that they're going full fantasy with this game (full warhammer style): these are photos of the campaign map, taken by people who were there at the E3 presentation
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    Undoubtedly, the warhammer is strong in this one.



    ....Sure Warhammer is strong in China
    (I will speak about duels,items etc later...)

    There are no fantasy units in RTW. Head hurlers are not a fantasy unit, they're a historical unit just portrayed totally inaccurately. In reality they were not head hurlers, but head hunters, which means that they didn't throw the heads on their enemies, but collected them as battle trophies and decorated their houses with them instead. The only unit that could possibly be considered fictional (not fantasy) in RTW is wardogs, and whether dogs were actually used in battle in real life is still debatable among professional historians.
    So if unit are based on history but depicted totally unhistorical, that´s ok. But if we have characters based on historical ones but portrayed with totally exagarrated weapons that´s fantasy? It´s the same.
    (Only problem here with ANY historical source is that we don´t know how exact it is. The same problems goes for almost any such source. Herodotos, Ceasar and his commentaries...)
    Besides that in every TW are many un-historical things. Beach landing R2, women units...Naval Bombardment FotS, Shogun 2 heh where should I begin??,.......

    But here is the problem with such strong character focus in this game: this is a TW game which just uses the 3K setting, not a generic 3K game which just borrows some TW mechanics. The game is called: "Total War: Three Kingdoms". Total War comes first, Three Kingdoms comes second. This is not an RPG, so it's not supposed to have as its primary driving forces characters and story. This is a strategy game, so it's supposed to have as its primary driving forces strategy and tactics. Characters are supposed to only compliment and reinforce strategy, not to supplant it. Otherwise, it's not a strategy game anymore.
    Pardon me, but characters especially generals WERE/ARE one of the main assets for any strategy. Napoleon with with enmass artillery and having right Marshals at his side, Alexander/Phipil II with their phanxes, Eisenhower using Montgomery and Patton...Frederick (II) the Great, Helmuth Molke (Elder)...Characters are often DRIVING force for strategy, tactics, units or even formations. Of course all legionaries in Roman Empire know Testudo but quess why Marian reforms have such name. Somebody particular push his agenda through...

    And don't get me wrong here, back in the days when TW:W had just been released, I wrote a very detailed review of the game here in TWC in which I actually praised CA for giving more attention to characters and bringing in more RPG-like elements for them. But it seems like they're taking the concept way overboard this time, to the detriment of strategy, which is supposed to be the first and foremost focus of any TW game, including the fantasy ones.

    No, we don't. Unless I missed it, CA hasn't confirmed yet if there will be duels in the classic mode or not. Having bodyguard units doesn't mean you can't duel, it just means the duel will be bodyguard unit vs bodyguard unit instead of hero vs hero. We can't assume things like that, it's CA.

    Having said that though, I really hope there won't be any duels in the classic mode.
    1)You are basing all you assumption on one presentation with focus on Romance mode, characters. What´s more it was pre-alpha soalmost everything is subject to change. Units, animations, textures, numbers...so everyting here are just pure speculations
    2)You are guilty of thinking too much and reading too little...just head to my previous post
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15604869

    https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/07/h...-authenticity/
    -Heroes, comparing classic vs romanticized mode, ala WH hero vs ala general in previous TWs
    Lally: All the characters existed. The battles, predominantly, happened. Some of them are a bit over the top — they might not have played out how they’re described – but the events that happen in the game are based on history. It’s just that it started off—Lu Bu was presumably a good warrior, a competent warrior. So the story starts as, “I saw Lu Bu kill one guy,” and then it becomes “I saw Lu Bu kill five guys,” and then “I saw Lu Bu kill 10 guys.” Over the retellings it became more romanticized, more epic, and eventually you get this story about how he was unbeatable, how he could kill a whole army single-handed, he was this ultimate badass.

    It’s all grounded in history. It’s just a romanticized version of history. If you want something more historical, more like the approach we’ve used in previous Total War games, we do have that classic mode that you can turn on. That dials it all back down. Lu Bu becomes a good warrior. He can hold his own against another warrior. If he’s surrounded by 10 men he’s probably going to die, because that’s what happens to human beings.
    Given: You would go from having an individual hero to having a retinue. He’s part of a unit, rather than just an individual on the battlefield. It caters more to people who like historical accuracy, so they can play that. But it also gives the rich storytelling of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which, as you’ve seen today, definitely shows through.
    ...
    Given: Obviously this is very much a work in progress that you’ve seen today. It’s pre-alpha...
    https://www.pcgamer.com/5-big-change...hree-kingdoms/
    -Heroes
    Hero units work a bit like they did in the Warhammer games, signified by single, powerful units that can tear up entire armies. Based on 11 warlords from the era, they're paired with some special abilities and passive buffs/debuffs meant for pointed tactical use, especially directly against one another. When you go into most battles, you'll be able to choose up to three hero units to bring with you. Because heroes have varying recruitment options, who you choose will determine what kind of units you'll be able to bring to a given battle. You won't be able to pair any generals without consequence though. Three Kingdoms introduces heavier social dynamics between the lead characters. Generals will all have a taste or distaste for the others in their retinue that can affect how they perform in battle. You'll even need to worry about how they feel about themselves, according to Mann.
    -Unit formations back, tied to characters, units too
    Absent in the Warhammer games, unit formations are an extra tactical layer that effectively shift or buff the function of a given unit. For some, it was too much micromanagement, but Three Kingdoms will introduce them more naturally over the course of a campaign, and tie them directly to certain heroes in your retinue.
    Mann explains:"With Total War: Three Kingdoms, we're really pushing the concept of characters, and actually certain characters will be bringing these formations in to get them enabled for the rest of your army. So by default your army potentially can't form a diamond formation with its calvary. But by bringing a high-level strategist in with you, they're actually able to give you those formations, so it's kind of something you progress into as you're playing through the game."
    -Classic vs default mode
    The default game mode will see heroes as mythical figures capable of tearing up hundreds of enemy soldiers on their lonesome. Classic mode will give the generals some bodyguards to depict them in a more realistic manner. They won't be sweeping dozens of units aside with a single swipe, but they'll be just as efficient in practice.

    Besides character appearance, Mann shed some more light on some more differences between the two modes. "Things like random events, certain characters, certain historical events won't be occurring within the [classic] mode because they're more fictional and part of the actual Romance text."
    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...three-kingdoms
    -Duels
    ...
    This, I think, is where a lot of traditional Total War players will draw the line. Thankfully for them, there's obviously the regular, historical campaign mode that does away with these kinds of flourishes. But for the romantics who want to play the more mythologised version of the Three Kingdoms saga it's still going to be a point of contention - not so much because it takes a step too far from realism, but because it seems, at this early stage, that these larger-than-life characters require a significant amount of your attention, perhaps to a fault. Knowing when to initiate a Duel, and how to effectively counter or fudge one to your advantage is probably going to be an essential skill.
    The obvious counter to any worries about that is the fact that, aside from providing a narrative direction to your playthrough, these characters also give more of an anchor to the battles themselves. If there was one thing the Total War: Warhammer games showed it's that providing a focal point - giant units, spellcasting Wizards, mouthy generals - is a brilliant means of upping the stakes for the players who aren't as able to invest themselves in the minutiae of, say, taking out a regular unit that to the layman looks like any other, but has some slightly better armour. Then again, historical purists will say that's the point.
    -Items
    There are other tweaks and changes: items can now be "looted" from killing enemy characters - Lu Bu's ultra-fast horse, Red Hare, for instance, but I'm assured that characters will always start as those characters, with no quests to get special weapons or armour like say, Karl Franz's quest to get Ghal Maraz in Total War: Warhammer.
    If items can be looted that means characters have slots for such units. So either there will be jsut these unique items or more probably a lot common items with some unique at the top....
    Last edited by Daruwind; June 17, 2018 at 12:41 PM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  9. #589
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

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

    We all have seen the huge difference in quality between the fantasy TW games and the historical TW games past Attila. Thats not my words or some youtuber, that is just a fact. Just check steam ratings and mainstream reviews.
    There is little doubt this will continue in the two modes of 3K. Not because you need fantasy to make a good game (a lot of pre-WH games can vouch for this), but because CA doesnt bother to put any effort in historical games anymore. Otherwise 3K wouldnt even have two modes


    Face it, this is just a fantasy game, with a so called historical mode to trick the last €60 out of the pockets of the historical fans.

  10. #590
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

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

    I bet there won't be two modes (historical/novel). I am sure it is just a pre-release talking point to calm the fan base.

    I have a simple policy regarding CA : only trust what the studio can show. Even then be cautious and keep in mind what can be truly gameplay vs. scripts and "arranged gameplay".

    There was simply too many misleading marketing surrounding Rome II release.

  11. #591

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

    For a lack of better comparison, TW:3K gives me a huge TW:Arena vibe, at least as far as battles are concerned. I haven't played Arena recently, but at first beta if you lost a unit attached to your commander, you could no longer use commander abilities with those units, and so eliminating army commander attached to a group effectively deprives those units of formations and any other special abilities the commander might have used to strenghten them or weaken the enemy.

    We also know that there won't be any sort of revolution when it comes to engine for this game, and so the format of 160 soldiers per unit max and 20 units per army/40 units per side before reinforcements are throttled, will likely remain. A little bit disappointing, given how the flair of ancient chinese combat were massive armies employing army-wide formations and potentially fighting for days, but the performance simply won't be there to make that happen, not without asynchronous engine to distribute load evenly between cores to handle animations and pathing without hiccup.

    I'm not sure what historical title will be after this (I don't count Saga in here), but I don't see how it could have fundamentally different gameplay without an engine upgrade. Warhammer felt fresh given the huge variety of character models, animations, unit counts and roles despite the old and tried 'gather 20 units and rush the enemy', but the innovation simply isn't there for the historical titles - and the Warhammer model of introducing autonomous hero-commanders or the Rome 2 model of introducing a few dozen magic abilities for units simply doesn't feel like something that belongs to the historical TW games.

    Preferably, I'd like to see a return of multi-tier sieges from M2TW, bigger battlefields and more units per army with more men per unit, as well as a slower pace, to genuinely make it feel like each battle proceeds in phases rather than a giant snowball for the stronger army after initial army clash, as well as naval domination that's relevant on the campaign map, like with Empire or Rome 2's WoS campaign. Naturally, I'm well aware that what we see with TW:3K is what we'll be getting.
    Last edited by lavez; June 17, 2018 at 02:08 PM.

  12. #592

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

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    But here is the problem with such strong character focus in this game: this is a TW game which just uses the 3K setting, not a generic 3K game which just borrows some TW mechanics. The game is called: "Total War: Three Kingdoms". Total War comes first, Three Kingdoms comes second. This is not an RPG, so it's not supposed to have as its primary driving forces characters and story. This is a strategy game, so it's supposed to have as its primary driving forces strategy and tactics. Characters are supposed to only compliment and reinforce strategy, not to supplant it. Otherwise, it's not a strategy game anymore.
    That's the thing though. The strategy of the time period, as it is presented in both the Records and the Romance is based around characters. It's about being able to recruit the best warriors and scholars, being able to put them in the right places at the right times, and understanding their strengths, weaknesses, and loyalties. Think of Crusader Kings, and how its strategy revolves around characters yet is undeniably strategy, or take Medieval 2, and its character management system that added so much to campaign, just this time with less procedural generation and a lot more complexity.

    Plus, the records don't have that much focus on characters. The romance is a novel, so it had to add a lot of focus on characters and their relationships to add drama to the narrative. And most of it is fictional anyway.
    The Records are structured as the biographies of the great men of the period, and each biography is majorly describing their interactions with other major characters. Our other best (complete) source on the time period, the Zizhi Tongjian, is written as an ensemble piece that jumps between what important people were doing at the time, again, mostly through their interactions with other important characters.

    As for the Romance, well, calling most of it fictional isn't exactly right either. The series of events the Romance presents is mostly correct, with the majority of changes coming to characterization and tone (e.g. moralizing and superhuman feats). It makes up a few minor stories, but the most it changes outside of that is moving a couple of death dates around to get people to die in battle rather than from illness or natural causes.

  13. #593
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,420

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

    That campaign map looks awesome.

  14. #594

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

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    And here is further evidence that they're going full fantasy with this game (full warhammer style): these are photos of the campaign map, taken by people who were there at the E3 presentation
    Undoubtedly, the warhammer is strong in this one.
    Oh wow... What the hell is full Warhammer style in those screenshots? They look beautiful with no fantasy elements whatsoever. Sigh...
    The Armenian Issue

  15. #595
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

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

    I happen not to mind the fantasy setting (even though I prefer historical settings). What has and will continue to frustrate me is the excuse fantasy settings give CA to further abandon the original battle design philosophy behind Total War; a focus on manoeuvre and formation based RTS. Instead they excuse themselves from this laudable expectation with the euphemistic term 'creative license'. Since Shogun 2 the CA have expanded the amount of typical RTS industry design decisions and tropes in battles, where the strategic focus of the player has become more stats and micro oriented, the ever increasing emphasis on 1-click special abilities and exploiting rock-paper-scissors unit balance being major indicators of this trend. It is clear that Total War battles, with each successive title are converging towards a casual, fast-paced arena-battle experience, a description lately coined with the phrase 'arcadey'. At this point it has been so long since we had melee combat comparable to Rome and Medieval 2, long enough for the melee flaws of TW3 engine to have become acceptable in the eyes of the devs and for a majority of the dev team (most of whom were hired post-Empire) to have never known better. The decision to move into fantasy settings plus years of new hires has probably irreparably changed the culture and design philosophy of CA. Those artists and designers who never worked on anything pre Shogun 2 are probably dying to get away from the strictures of historical accuracy and extend the 'creative license' of the games in aesthetics as much as mechanics, such that the transformation of the franchise away from its original strengths and uniqueness continues in totality. 3K is an ideal stage for them to continue as such. And when they complete their latest title, what we are inevitably left looking at, time and again, is a title that neither plays like, nor resembles what was once the pinnacle of historical battle simulation in PC gaming, with a clear impression that the franchise is moving further away from the vision many old-school fans, rightly or wrongly, imagined for Total War all those years back, the peak for unit mechanics being Rome/Medieval 2 and peak historicity being Empire/Napoleon. At this point I feel the franchise is doomed to converge to a stale, arcadey, recycled formula, devoid of charm, continually plagued by its engine flaws and evermore derivative in its features.
    Last edited by Evan MF; June 19, 2018 at 12:42 PM.

  16. #596

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

    My main hope for TW:3K is that lukewarm reception of the title by historically-minded western audience will have the CA reconsider their design for next non-Saga historic title in the works (preferably Victoria or Middle Ages TW), giving us a down-to-earth game about managing your political cabinet or royal family, maintaining alliances and trade relations, developing your kingdom or republic and expanding militarily through technology, strategy and tactical nuance appropriate for the era, with no magic buttons for units and turbo-powered god-heroes on the battlefield.

    In addition, that same lukewarm reception might push CA to release a stand-alone expansion for TW:3K, in the likes of Fall of the Samurai (personally my favourite warscape title to date), centered on the Warring States period - which both in historic record as well as popular culture is viewed through the lens of political maneouvring, strategic and tactical genius spiced with a bit of romance and drama, with little to no fantasy elements so easily attributed to modern depictions of Three Kingdoms period.

  17. #597
    Lionheart11's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,375

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

    Once you go fantasy , you never go back?. (never go full retard)
    "illegitimi non carborundum"

    TW RIP

  18. #598
    Lionheart11's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,375

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

    would be suprized if those screen shots r legit
    "illegitimi non carborundum"

    TW RIP

  19. #599

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

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    That's exactly what CA did. They promised a historical game, but now they're delivering a fantasy game.
    No, no, no. It's a fantasy game. It's primarily based on a fantasy novel, it has a fantasy mode as the default campaign, it has fantasy weapons like the ginormous mace of XU Chu (which will probably persist in the classic mode as well, as I don't think CA will bother to equip the characters with different weapons in the two modes) and its mechanics and features are built based primarily on fantasy and not on history, the one hero units and the hero duels are major examples. And let's be completely honest here, they're bringing this concept in from warhammer, a typical fantasy setting.

    And here is further evidence that they're going full fantasy with this game (full warhammer style): these are photos of the campaign map, taken by people who were there at the E3 presentation

    [pics snipped]
    Undoubtedly, the warhammer is strong in this one.

    As eXistenz correctly said, it's not only nonhuman races that make a game fantasy. Having it primarily derived from a fantasy novel is often enough, but when you also throw fantasy weapons, fantasy mechanics and fantasy visuals in the mix, there's no doubt it's a fantasy game.

    There are no fantasy units in RTW. Head hurlers are not a fantasy unit, they're a historical unit just portrayed totally inaccurately. In reality they were not head hurlers, but head hunters, which means that they didn't throw the heads on their enemies, but collected them as battle trophies and decorated their houses with them instead. The only unit that could possibly be considered fictional (not fantasy) in RTW is wardogs, and whether dogs were actually used in battle in real life is still debatable among professional historians.

    But here is the problem with such strong character focus in this game: this is a TW game which just uses the 3K setting, not a generic 3K game which just borrows some TW mechanics. The game is called: "Total War: Three Kingdoms". Total War comes first, Three Kingdoms comes second. This is not an RPG, so it's not supposed to have as its primary driving forces characters and story. This is a strategy game, so it's supposed to have as its primary driving forces strategy and tactics. Characters are supposed to only compliment and reinforce strategy, not to supplant it. Otherwise, it's not a strategy game anymore.

    And don't get me wrong here, back in the days when TW:W had just been released, I wrote a very detailed review of the game here in TWC in which I actually praised CA for giving more attention to characters and bringing in more RPG-like elements for them. But it seems like they're taking the concept way overboard this time, to the detriment of strategy, which is supposed to be the first and foremost focus of any TW game, including the fantasy ones.

    Plus, the records don't have that much focus on characters. The romance is a novel, so it had to add a lot of focus on characters and their relationships to add drama to the narrative. And most of it is fictional anyway.

    No, we don't. Unless I missed it, CA hasn't confirmed yet if there will be duels in the classic mode or not. Having bodyguard units doesn't mean you can't duel, it just means the duel will be bodyguard unit vs bodyguard unit instead of hero vs hero. We can't assume things like that, it's CA.

    Having said that though, I really hope there won't be any duels in the classic mode.
    Why is it always people who have no idea what they are talking about who are the loudest?

    You clearly have not seen any of the unique terrain features of China, nor have you got past a single page of any historical or romance works on the period. How is it even possible for anyone to miss the fact that original “Record of Three Kingdom” is literally written in form of short biographies of various people, which includes a large amount of character interactions?
    We are not talking established empires here, it is a chaotic time of small divided warlords(many of them don’t even have military experience), where relationship between people will absolutely affect the fate of factions. This is how real life works, people have likes, dislike and get into petty dramas that affect their work, it doesn’t work like total war where leaders are robotic stat modifiers. Your daily routine would have taught you this unless you don’t interact with other people.

    I’m no fan of duels and I absolutely despaise single entity units, which is definately historically inaccurate. However, single combat between officers irl, while extremely rare, were recorded in history.
    Infact, let me find one for you right now.

    《三国志 裴注》
    魏书七 吕布传
    “㈠英雄记曰:郭汜在城北。布开城门,将兵就汜,言“且却兵,但身决胜负”。汜、布乃独共对战,布以矛刺中汜,汜后骑遂前救汜,汜、布遂各两罢。”
    Rough translation: LüBu opens the city gate, with soldiers standing by and challenges Guo Si to Single Combat. During the duel, LüBu lands a piercing hit on Guo Si, Guo Si’s cavalry immediately rode forward to rescue him, the duel ended with both sides calling it off.

    I could easily tell you that most of the armour, clothing worn by non-general units(seen in the gameplay) closely resembles Late Han Dynasty armors etc and is not only historical, but accurate as well.
    But hey, go on about how the The Mummy Egyptians, United Greek city states, bowling ball head hurlers, purple pyjamas warriors and Super Elite firefighter units is actually perfectly historical, just inaccurate.
    I could go on about how the non-general units seen the recent gameplay trailer have ,but wears the
    Had CA approached this game with the same degree of research and respect as Rome 1 and Medieval 2, half of the units seen so far would have been the perfectly historical KungFu monks(Shaolin), Wako mercenaries(Sumo) and Fu Manchu battlefield assassins(Poisoned).

    According to your bizzare standards, the entirety of the Romance of the Three Kingdom novel would be historical since the armour and weapons do exsists some point in history(Yes they do exsist, even Single combat between Officers).

    The game is not going to be totally historical, but no more fantastical than previous historical games(which are damn near Modern Stereotypes: The game).
    Every post you wrote only exposes your ignorance and bias further,
    your mind is already set on the game been based on “complete fantasy” and its clear no amount of research or facts is going change this.

  20. #600

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

    I don't really mind the fact that Characters seem to have very innacurate armor, some going as late as the Song. They are characters, I understand they want them to look unique and cool. As long as non-general units look fairly accurate(with the standard TW rule of +-1 century of tech, which it tends to follow even in later games) I'm perfectly fine.

Posting Permissions

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