Thrones of Britannia: Criticism Thread

[Theramines]

Cutting down features is their new design approach ?

[my bolding] I read something similar to Huberto's quote from the the same guy at the release of Rome 2, so 'new' is the wrong adjective. Heaton elaborated that they used Metacritic scores to determine whether a feature survived the cutting process no matter how much work had been put into it. It explained the horror story that was the 2013 to 2017 version of Rome 2. One senses now that they really pushed the lean, tight and focused notion just a bit too far because the idea rather than the results predominated.

[zoner16]

[my bolding] I read something similar to Huberto's quote from the the same guy at the release of Rome 2, so 'new' is the wrong adjective. Heaton elaborated that they used Metacritic scores to determine whether a feature survived the cutting process no matter how much work had been put into it. It explained the horror story that was the 2013 to 2017 version of Rome 2. One senses now that they really pushed the lean, tight and focused notion just a bit too far because the idea rather than the results predominated.

It's not actually Metacritic. I found the original article. It's apparently a kind of hypothetical metacritic, since it happens during production.

Yeah, you bet. We go through the design process, which is pretty wide and all-encompassing, and then scope it out and then start cutting features, because hopefully we've got such a huge bag of features that we want, that it makes it physically impossible to ever make a game with all those in. So we'll cut some straight out, and we'll then start prototyping and judging the quality all the way through.
And our creative director Mike [Simpson] has been on Total War, as an example, since the first one, and he owns the scope of the game, and he will pick and choose his feature set as he sees it bubble up through prototyping. But equally, all the key leads on the game are working to certain quality thresholds as well.
While we're prototyping we're also figuring out how long the work that we'll need to do will take. It's a piecemeal work. And sometimes we'll need to pull stuff out, because although we can reach quality threshold that we want, it will simply take too long. So we will cut features, rather than delivering an 80 percent quality feature. And that all builds on top of each other, and all the features need to be of high quality; we don't really want to let any substandard features go in.
And then, through production, actually, we do what we call "Metacritic analysis." So we will break those features down into subsets, and we both look at it from a player's point of view, and a reviewer's point of view, and we'll weigh certain features as to how we see players and reviewers look at them, and they'll build up to a 100 percent score, and then we'll judge where we feel we are on those individual feature sets, and see the momentum on those and the velocity on those, too.
And so if we see one flat line and it's not where we want it to be, we then will cut it. Well, we'll cut it really late in the day. I think teams are really scared about doing 90 percent of the work and then cutting it. It's kind of like, "Well, it's nearly finished; I... I've done all the work! Please don't cut it! I'm sure I can make it better." And we're fairly brutal on that.
I'd much rather not see a feature in the game but still pay for it than risk... You know, every step of the way -- from the beginning to the end -- we're talking about a 90 percent Metacritic. That's our goal. That's what we tell Sega. And we communicate that through graphs, basically, of where we think we are.
We build into that also, on that Metacritic analysis, external events. So if we think we've done a really great PR job, if there's an individual event that we've done really good, we might add, you know, a .5 percent Metacritic. If we think it's ed up or somebody's not done their job right, or miscommunicated something, or whatever, we'll see that in our Metacritic analysis. And we share that with Sega on a weekly basis, so that they can figure out how we're doing, too.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/featu...ss_.php?page=2

[Theramines]

I know absolutely nothing about game design, so I'm obviously talking out of my hat. However, this seems a strange, upside down way of building a game. Quite inefficient. Consider:

And so if we see one flat line and it's not where we want it to be, we then will cut it. Well, we'll cut it really late in the day. I think teams are really scared about doing 90 percent of the work and then cutting it. It's kind of like, "Well, it's nearly finished; I... I've done all the work! Please don't cut it! I'm sure I can make it better." And we're fairly brutal on that.

I don't know, wouldn't it make more sense to start from a basic structure and build up from there? And from a basic management point of view what effect would it have on teams' morale to have wasted so many hours on something's that's just thrown away? I'd be furious to be honest, and would look for work elsewhere.

Finally, could stripped features be packaged and sold to modders?

[zoner16]

I know absolutely nothing about game design, so I'm obviously talking out of my hat. However, this seems a strange, upside down way of building a game. Quite inefficient. Consider:

I don't know, wouldn't it make more sense to start from a basic structure and build up from there? And from a basic management point of view what effect would it have on teams' morale to have wasted so many hours on something's that's just thrown away? I'd be furious to be honest, and would look for work elsewhere.

Finally, could stripped features be packaged and sold to modders?

So long as its managed properly and not unexpected, then it's not a big deal. The kinds of features that usually fall on the chopping block aren't core parts of the game, things you need in order to ship. They're ancillary features that were thought up later as value additions. Essentially, someone (or many someones) decided it'd be really good idea if feature X was part of the game, so you gave them a timeframe and some resources and told them to go hash it out. It's usually a tight timeline and a lean team (sometimes only a single guy), but the people on it have some passion for this idea which drives them forward.

Fast forward a bit, and the way they've put it together doesn't look like its going to integrate with the rest of the project for whatever reason (and there can be a lot of reasons). Now, it's best if this is caught early on, but it can be difficult to figure out if a feature is going to work with everything else when its only half done, so I'd say that it being 90% done isn't unreasonable, especially if it's looking like the good old "the last 10% is 90% of the work" syndrome. So you nix the idea, reassign the team to other jobs, and you haven't really lost much. The morale hit is entirely up to how the project is managed. With good leadership and good communication, people can be understanding and take one for the team, especially if this process was something you clearly defined going into the project. They even talk about it a bit later in the article:

Yeah, it does. So there's two hits on morale while we make the game, and we constantly debate this. At the beginning we don't tie down a lot of stuff. We let a load of stuff bubble around, we don't define it too hard, we take some risks...
And certainly some elements of a team -- and this always happens with every team I've ever worked with -- just go, "Come on, just give me a game design document. Just tell me what I need to do and then I will do it to the best of my ability". And we slowly, hopefully, educate people that's just not the best way.
And we will enter a fog of ideas for quite a long time, and some of those things will have risks against them right up until the end, and then we might pull them. And really yeah, it does. It pisses people off, absolutely, but it's for the best. But nothing makes the team prouder than delivering a 90 percent game and selling two million copies. So that's the bottom line, and people do come to understand that.

As for repackaging it for modders, that's probably a legal question.

[Theramines]

Yeah, on reflection I can think of a few reasons why repackaging for modders would potentially cause more trouble than good.

And certainly some elements of a team -- and this always happens with every team I've ever worked with -- just go, "Come on, just give me a game design document. Just tell me what I need to do and then I will do it to the best of my ability". And we slowly, hopefully, educate people that's just not the best way.

I suppose if we take at face value that this is "the best way", then perhaps No Man's Sky could be an example that supports this reasoning. As I understand it, Hello Games had a concept with a list of features that it should have, and then tried to make everything fit. Of course we know how it turned out (though I actually like the game!). Even though intuitively it seems almost madness to whittle down a pile of features, rather than build up from a basic standpoint, it probably, generally, works better.

[Theramines]

Looks like the lack of culture/religion might be addressed in future, along with campaign balancing in the next opt-in beta patch: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/throne...nia-whats-next

[Strengelicher]

Interesting that the "design approach" named "cutting features" comes up again after all these years. Yeah, I remember it transpired around the release of Rome II that CA had had the brilliant idea to reach an epic metacritic score (and thus epic sales, as they brilliantly thought there must be a connnection between the two), and that they had devised an internal "system" to do so. Not thinking about making a good game, no - thinking about reaching an epic metacritic score. Well, we all know how that worked out - one of the worst player ratings EVER on metacritic. The whole thing was so low, I never bought Rome II nor any other TW game after that. Still coming here to the forums occasionally, maybe in a vague hope that TW games might go back to what they were until Medieval II. Seeing the trailers and reading about every new game, DLC, Saga or whatever they call it now turns me off again. Britannia? Sounds interesting. Read about, see let's plays... no, thanks.

[kujirakira]

So the English game designers decided to delete Alba from history, sunder the Kingdom of the Isles, instead nonsensically lumping Dublin and Mann together while identifying Dublin and York as different cultures even in a timeframe when the Kingships were merged.
The lead for the Southern Isles faction says it all: "We don't have a clue about any of this unless it's directly related to the Saxons or Normans!"

As a Norse-Gael descendant of Jacobites who fled to Ireland after Culloden, started a shipping company, and then emigrated to America... I had some hope for this game; and now I'm like "Ahh right, of course the English couldn't leave their politics and disregard for neighbors out of it".
So much for that.
Guess I'll have to wait another few years for TW to come back to History... or not.

[zoner16]

I rarely like trying to defend Total War's "historicity," but I'm confused about a lot of this post.

So the English game designers decided to delete Alba from history

From what I understand, "Alba" doesn't exist at the start date. Aed mac Cinaeda is "King of the Picts," and the first guy to be called "King of Alba" (posthomously) was two kings later. You can form Alba fairly easily by getting the short kingdom victory as Circenn.

sunder the Kingdom of the Isles

They sundered every kingdom that was bigger than two regions. Honestly, they probably should have sundered West Seaxe some more.

instead nonsensically lumping Dublin and Mann together

Mann was controlled by the Kings of Dublin during this time. It's sometimes counted as part of the Kingdom of the Isles, but only about a century after the start date.

identifying Dublin and York as different cultures even in a timeframe when the Kingships were merged

What? These are separate kingdoms at the start date. I've never seen anything that suggests that their kingships were merged. Not only that, but the Vikings of Dublin and York were from different parts of Scandanavia. They were said to be allies, but that's the most I've seen.

The lead for the Southern Isles faction says it all: "We don't have a clue about any of this unless it's directly related to the Saxons or Normans!"

They outright admitted that they searched and couldn't find any record of who ruled those lands at the start date. Do you have any information on who it was?

[kujirakira]

I rarely like trying to defend Total War's "historicity," but I'm confused about a lot of this post.



From what I understand, "Alba" doesn't exist at the start date. Aed mac Cinaeda is "King of the Picts," and the first guy to be called "King of Alba" (posthomously) was two kings later. You can form Alba fairly easily by getting the short kingdom victory as Circenn.



They sundered every kingdom that was bigger than two regions. Honestly, they probably should have sundered West Seaxe some more.



Mann was controlled by the Kings of Dublin during this time. It's sometimes counted as part of the Kingdom of the Isles, but only about a century after the start date.



What? These are separate kingdoms at the start date. I've never seen anything that suggests that their kingships were merged. Not only that, but the Vikings of Dublin and York were from different parts of Scandanavia. They were said to be allies, but that's the most I've seen.



They outright admitted that they searched and couldn't find any record of who ruled those lands at the start date. Do you have any information on who it was?

1. You could debate start of Alba; If you date Kenneth McAlpin as the founder it's mid 9th c.
2. Circenn is entirely mythical. So you're pulling a technicality quibbling over 12 years (that again is disputed) to avoid Alba in the game -- only to replace them with a completely mythological faction? Interesting.
3. Kingdom of the Isles has no reason to be more than 1 region... the Hebrides are not that big. I'm certain you haven't a clue what we're talking about
4. Mann was not controlled by Dublin; the few times they are politically linked it's the other way around. Dublin started having Kings specifically to split off from the Isles leadership. Later when they're routinely subjected to the Overlords of Leinster, they frequently bring in Mann leadership in between.
5. In fact at this current date, and in keeping with the theme of the Great Viking Army in general, the Kingships of Dublin and York were joint. This was likely a condition of Ivar the Boneless' - who early in the invasion was a Sr. faction.
6. You can't play fast and loose with the dates for KotI, like Alba - it's well established by mid 9th c.
7. On who was running Kingdom of the Isles? You'd have to look at Mann obviously.. but they flubbed that by wrongly grouping it with Dublin.

[zoner16]

1. You could debate start of Alba; If you date Kenneth McAlpin as the founder it's mid 9th c.
2. Circenn is entirely mythical. So you're pulling a technicality quibbling over 12 years (that again is disputed) to avoid Alba in the game -- only to replace them with a completely mythological faction? Interesting.

To my knowledge, no historian dates the Kingdom of Alba back to Kenneth MacAlpin of all people. He conquered the region that would become Alba, certainly, but his title, as were those of his descendants until at least 900AD (some historians say even later) was "King of the Picts." They control most of the territory they probably would have at the start date. Calling it "Circenn" is probably just there because calling it "Pictland" would sound strange to people and the capital at Scoan is in what is traditionally associated with Circenn.

Alba isn't erased from the game or anything like that. You just have to form it by getting a Short Kingdom Victory. It's not even very hard.

3. Kingdom of the Isles has no reason to be more than 1 region... the Hebrides are not that big. I'm certain you haven't a clue what we're talking about

The Hebrides are plenty big on the map. The regions here represent fairly small areas because the map scale is so focused. Hell Sudreyar controls a good chunk of the mainland too.

4. Mann was not controlled by Dublin; the few times they are politically linked it's the other way around. Dublin started having Kings specifically to split off from the Isles leadership. Later when they're routinely subjected to the Overlords of Leinster, they frequently bring in Mann leadership in between.

I've never seen anything that says that Mann controlled Dublin at any point. The area of "Lochlann" that these Vikings ruled is difficult to place exactly, but most accounts always call them "King of Dublin", and I've never seen Mann referred to as the seat of anyone's power until the Vikings got kicked out of Dublin for a while after the turn of the century and they were forced to relocate for a while (though they came back to be "Kings of Dublin" again).

5. In fact at this current date, and in keeping with the theme of the Great Viking Army in general, the Kingships of Dublin and York were joint. This was likely a condition of Ivar the Boneless' - who early in the invasion was a Sr. faction.

The association of Imar with the legendary Ivar the Boneless is sketchy at best. Regardless, Imar is dead by the start date and I've seen no evidence that he ever ruled Northumbria, though I just did some digging and found that a couple of later kings of Dublin did rule Northumbria as well after about 900, so my bad there. However, at the start date, I don't know of any formal connection between the Kings of Northumbria and the Kings of Dublin.

6. You can't play fast and loose with the dates for KotI, like Alba - it's well established by mid 9th c.

The Kingdom of the Isles was far from "well established" in the mid 9th century. It was declared, briefly, during that period, then it disappears for a long time after Ketill Flatnose dies and doesn't reappear in any formal capacity until sometime around the mid 10th century. At the start date, we don't have any record of what state the isles are in.

7. On who was running Kingdom of the Isles? You'd have to look at Mann obviously.. but they flubbed that by wrongly grouping it with Dublin.

See previous answer about Mann.


To prevent myself from rambling on without purpose, my main point is this. Total War has never been completely historically accurate. Plenty of stuff has been sacrificed for gameplay purposes, and others of it is just because CA are game developers, not historians, so they're going to get things wrong. The idea of there being some kind of English conspiracy to degrade the other inhabitants of the British Isles is just silly.

[kujirakira]

1. You apparently didn't look very hard. He's listed as 1st King of Scots elsewhere vis a vis Alba
2. So we're going to strike Scottish history out of the game b/c at 2PM on August 13th 876, there was no universal consensus from Historians about the state of Pictland and Alba? Remind me again what date the Norman Invasion happens in this game... it's OK to grossly fudge the dates to increase excitement for the English factions. But god forbid we accept the hazy uncertainty around Highland history to use a Factual kingdom instead of slapping a mythological placeholder in there.
3. Kingdom of the Isles didn't control much mainland, so you're just attempting to confuse the issue with Misinformation at this pointg.
4. You're serious that you've never heard of KotI before? Or Mann's repeated use as a staging point for various actions between Ireland and Scotland dating back long before the Vikings? Or that it was obviously the first place taken by both the Light and Dark Vikings? Give me a break... no point reading anything more after that line.

You're trolling. I get it.
I hate Disinfo peddlers like this in the Age of Post-Fact Trumpisms.

Total War has never been completely historically accurate

bla blabla... this is the Criticism Thread.
Nobody asked you to decide what criticisms are / are not valid. And certainly not from somebody that clearly knows f-all about the history.

[zoner16]

You're trolling. I get it.
I hate Disinfo peddlers like this in the Age of Post-Fact Trumpisms.
bla blabla... this is the Criticism Thread.
Nobody asked you to decide what criticisms are / are not valid. And certainly not from somebody that clearly knows f-all about the history.

You're getting really bent out of shape over this. I don't mind criticism of the game. I have a whole essay I can write about all the places it let me down. But criticisms are based on fact and I was trying to debate the facts since this thread also helps others notice flaws with the game.

Since this has gotten personal, let's just stop it here.

[Huberto]

Well, the game ends up being too shallow to retain intrest past 20-25 hours, as I feared. It's easy to appease the disloyal with estates. Early challenges to feeding armies are overcome too easily. Unlike Shogun 2, the CAI is too passive and the BAI is too predictable. The economic development system doesn't give the player enough interesting things to weigh, just +1, +2, etc, for the most part. Occasionally I reduce a mine by one level for the sake of public order, yawn. Supply is very easy to manage, i.e. requires little thought.

I'm skeptical if CA simply increases difficulty by adjusting corruption or making units more costly whether this will actually make ThroB replyable. The BAI is the same as TWR2 and Attila, except worse for amphibious assaults. Y'all play the beta patch and let us know if it's really any better.

[stevehoos]

I knew I wouldn't purchase the moment I found out the trade option is now out of the player's hands. What if I don't want to trade with a faction that's an ally because I plan on taking them over in the near future? What if said trade agreement gives a huge boost to their economy? This is staggeringly stupid, it's a highlight on the road to video game perdition SEGA CA is traveling.

[zoner16]

I knew I wouldn't purchase the moment I found out the trade option is now out of the player's hands. What if I don't want to trade with a faction that's an ally because I plan on taking them over in the near future? What if said trade agreement gives a huge boost to their economy?

It wont (and I can't think of any game it would have). Trade income is even more pitiable than usual this game.

This is honestly something they're going to have to fix at some point. Trade has always been meaningless to the AI. Base income + economy modifiers means that the AI is free to not give a damn about trade and refuse it all over the place. On the other hand, trade is massive for the player early game, then stops being important around mid game. It's real purpose used to be to keep good relations with someone you didn't want to ally with. However, nonagression pacts/declarations of friendship have taken over that role.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

It wont (and I can't think of any game it would have). Trade income is even more pitiable than usual this game.

This is honestly something they're going to have to fix at some point. Trade has always been meaningless to the AI. Base income + economy modifiers means that the AI is free to not give a damn about trade and refuse it all over the place. On the other hand, trade is massive for the player early game, then stops being important around mid game. It's real purpose used to be to keep good relations with someone you didn't want to ally with. However, nonagression pacts/declarations of friendship have taken over that role.

I'm not sure if trade also gives negative/positive relations bonuses to the AI. Will need to check this.

[Huberto]

Two ThroB reviews worthy of mention, which I caught yesterday.

First is Darren's take, which is thoughtful and well organized, and matches my experience, although I didn't notice all of the AI glitches he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=wFCnDX_GNsM

Next, listen to the Three Moves Ahead podcast. I think they mostly have it right, i.e. early game is interesting mid to late game dull. Ignore Warhammer fanboy Fraser Brown's "unit diversity" nonsense.

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/

Enjoy

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Two ThroB reviews worthy of mention, which I caught yesterday.

First is Darren's take, which is thoughtful and well organized, and matches my experience, although I didn't notice all of the AI glitches he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=wFCnDX_GNsM

Next, listen to the Three Moves Ahead podcast. I think they mostly have it right, i.e. early game is interesting mid to late game dull. Ignore Warhammer fanboy Fraser Brown's "unit diversity" nonsense.

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/

Enjoy

Thanks for sharing buddy.

[Goots]

My take on the game?

Blah.
It feels very hollow.. I'm an avid/loyal TW player and strategy buff.. all the way back to the original Shogun. Before the game came out I, I went back to Rome II with the new overhaul. With the new"system" in place, you felt a vested interest in your empire and coveted your legions. I played as Kush, and there was a real strategy to carefully decide who to invade, who to stop trading with.. to carefully check your neighbors' attitude towards you.
TB's campaign seems.. Meh.. barren.. hardly any intrigue with your kingdom
I get the stylized Alerts..they look cool..but after a while.. i ignore them.
The battles?..Attlila rehash.. they need to be more immersive...cinematic. I hate sunny weather battles.. the weather needs to be foggy, rainy more often.. If you choose to wage a battle.. sometimes you shouldn't have a choice of waiting out the weather.. You attacked?.. then you take a chance with the weather.
I'm showing my age.. but those of you who remember "Excalibur".. now that's immersion in a battle.. fog.. rain.. drama.. cool stuff.
Like I said I'm a TW fan, so I'll keep playing TB.. I just hope it gets better.