New MTW2 Q & A at Gamespot

[screwtype]

- At least, I haven't seen it before.

Link

Edit: It includes some new pics as well, but they're dl'ing so slowly I can hardly be bothered.

The article says all the action has been motion captured, so hopefully the animation will look less robotic and more realistic...

[doc_bean]

Lots of new info, some things seem weird, like turns not representing a specific amount of tume anymore.

[Dutch_guy]

It does seem new, though the interview doesn't reveal to much new information, by glancing the article this is what caught my interest :

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

GS: Naval combat was abstracted very heavily in Medieval and Rome, to the point where the computer automatically generated battle results whenever hostile fleets clashed. Will we see that same level of abstraction in Medieval 2, or will naval combat be fleshed out a bit more?

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.

Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map.

GS: Will the multiplayer gameplay in Medieval 2 still be restricted to being able to battle other players? We know that one of the impediments to creating a fully multiplayer campaign game is that, by Creative Assembly's calculations, it would take years to play an epic game from start to finish online.

BS: A full multiplayer campaign is certainly an idea we've discussed, but the time it would take to play out a full game to completion would seriously affect the number of players who could commit themselves to such a game mode. With this in mind, it makes far more sense for us to spend our time developing features that'll be enjoyed by a larger numbers of players. Having said that, we do have some exciting plans for multiplayer battles. We can talk about these in more detail in the months ahead.

Also, yes there are new screenies, interesting ones worth clicking the link.

[Puzz3D]

"The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns."

That means the campaign is about half the length of a campaign in RTW or MTW.


"Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map."

Well I hope the AI stops making frontal assualts it can't win with weak units as it does in RTW. BTW, the AI didn't do that in STW.

[Templar Knight]

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

[USMCNJ]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

[aw89]

I really hope they make that modable.(..)

[Garvanko]

Never played MTW. But this game looks interesting.

[Brighdaasa]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

may i point out that your math is seriously flawed? The outcome strangely is still the same
1530-1080 = 450

450/225 = 2

[Servius]

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

I'd really like to hear CA rave about how badass their AI is going to be this time around. I want them to promise the AI will never field an army without a general leading it again. Since they're using the RTW map, in which provincial borders basically mean nothing, I want them to promise that rebel bands won't wander aimlessly around the map. I want them to promise the AI will look after it's own economy wisely, so it doesn't bankrupt itself with a stack of Royal Knights like the Danes and Aragonese always seemed to in MTW.

I'm also a bit concerned about this castle-OR-city idea. It's completely innacurate from a historical perspective. I believe the gameplay choice they're trying to force (economy or military, but not both, at least not in the same "settlement", whatever that is) could be forced in another way. Time could be the limiting factor instead of the use of a settlement. Time was the limiting factor in STW, MTW, and RTW, in that you could only build one type of structure at a time, and all the time you spent building farm upgrades was time you didn't spend building military structures. I never saw a real problem with that way of forcing a balance between economics and military, so I'm not sure why we need this new system. I'm gonna be quite peeved if Constantinople can't be an economic AND military colossus. If it truely was both about a thousand years ago, it's kinda pathetic if we can't/won't recreate that in a game a thousand years later...

In general, I say graphics be damned. I have an imagination and I can compensate for less-than-stellar graphics, but I can't imagine my way past a crappy AI or dumb game mechanics.

[JR-]

i'm not keen on this 225 turns business.

if its 450 years i'd like 900 turns split between summer and winter.

[Hurin_Rules]

I agree completely with you Servius. They're focusing on their strengths and ignoring their weaknesses. The graphics for RTW were great, and were clearly not the main problem with the game. For me, the main weakness was gameplay, specifically a weak AI and battles that were too fast. This was why I played MTW for over a year, but RTW only off and on for about 4 months.

It seems that this article confirms that their priorities are directed not towards their base of loyal fans, but towards catching the eyes and pocketbooks of RTS and casual gamers. Disappointing. Well, thank God for modding.

[Zenicetus]

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources. I'd prefer they throw all their QA and balance testing into making sure the one long campaign is both realistic and fun to play, instead of having their efforts divided up into different historical periods.

[Powermonger]

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

Sadly the trend these days is for all developers to concentrate too much on the visuals and sacrifice the gameplay. I don't play as many games as I use to anymore, there just doesn't seem the same calibre of games to choose from. All this push to make everything 3D just doesn't make sense and seems to be in detriment to gameplay.

I was in EB the other day and was looking at all the titles and noticed Railroad Tycoon 3 sitting on the shelf. I picked it up and had a look and was severely dissappointed that the devs had gone full out 3D when the style of game doesn't even need it. The current situation in PC games reminds me of the early 90s when CDs were just starting to be used to distribute games and there was a big push by the developers to use as much FMV as possible. It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Anyway, MTW2 does look visually impressive but it all comes to naught if the rest of game falls far short. They need to make all the other aspects of the game just as polished if they don't want to release a dog.

[Martok]

Servius: I also wholeheartedly agree with everything you said; couldn't have put it better myself.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources.

Except that CA did have the resources to do this with MTW, so why can't they do it with Medieval 2 as well? And only having one long campaign would be ludicrous. Shogun and MTW both have different start periods/eras, so there's no reason why Medieval 2 shouldn't also have them.

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short. Yes, I can beat MTW in 200 turns if I wish; but it's not very fun for me, as I have to "rush" instead of "turtle" (which is my preferred style of playing). I have standard RTS's like Command & Conquer if I want to rush an enemy; I don't want to be forced into doing the same thing in an empire-building game like the TW series.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Psst!

Maybe modding can add more start dates if CA doesn't want to!

[Servius]

Well, in the end, if CA goes in a bad direction, the only way to encourage them to do otherwise is to put our money where our mouths are and not buy the game. CA will do whatever is most cost-effective. Given the differences between MTW and RTW, it seems pretty clear they believed that it was more cost-effective to shirk on game design in favor of a snazy graphics engine.

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I bought RTW sight-unseen because I was so impressed with STW and MTW. I was so disappointed with RTW that I didn't buy the expansion right away. I waited and I read a lot of player reviews and played the demo. The demo had all the same crappy terrain and unit AI as RTW, the corporate hype focused mostly on graphics and not on gameplay/AI improvements, and I didn't read that many player posts talking about how much better the AI was, so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

[econ21]

...so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

Your loss. BI was the best expansion of the TW series so far.

And you are definitely losing out if you have not tried any of the major RTW mods like RTR or the EB beta. They make the game better than STW or MTW, IMO.

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

Too right - there is no computer game out there that comes close to the Total War series as vivid historical wargames. Of course, I want to encourage them to do more of the same. The coming Alexander expansion, M2TW, the M2TW expansion, the third generation TW game - keep 'em coming CA.

[Dead Moroz]

BI was the best expansion of the TW series so far.

What grass are you smoking?

[econ21]

What grass are you smoking?

Well, your mileage may differ. But the scope of BI was far greater than either MI or VI. In MI, you had only two factions and a very simple (not to say hypothetical) strategic situation. In VI, you were stuck on a damp insignificant island with some squabbling primitive factions that lacked even decent cavalry. By contrast, with BI you got a full RTW sized map and a great choice of varied factions covering an earth shattering period of history. I personally think BI was almost a RTW2 rather than an expansion. Rome's fall has always captured my imagination more than the its republican period.

And the really nice thing about BI was - unlike the previous expansions - you were not forced to buy it if you wanted to patch the vanilla game.

Um, maybe this would be a good subject for a poll?

[Zenicetus]

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I bought RTW sight-unseen because I was so impressed with STW and MTW. I was so disappointed with RTW that I didn't buy the expansion right away. I waited and I read a lot of player reviews and played the demo. The demo had all the same crappy terrain and unit AI as RTW, the corporate hype focused mostly on graphics and not on gameplay/AI improvements, and I didn't read that many player posts talking about how much better the AI was, so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

I'm still having a lot of fun with BI. It's totally unlike RTW, where all factions start out weak and then expand, like most strategy games. The choices for starting factions in BI are incredibly varied... all the way from a fully-developed-but-falling-apart empire to hordes that are on the run, being pushed by other horde factions behind you. Or you can play something completely different like the Sassanids pushing in from the East, and see if you can establish your non-Christian, non-Pagan religion into Europe and the Med. The variety of ways to play on the strategic level is very interesting.

Yes, the tactical/battlemap level still needs some work. It's better than RTW (fewer suicide generals and overall buginess), but CA still needs to figure out how to make an army act more like a cohesive whole, as if it's being directed by a general.... or at least following training and orders.... instead of each individual unit thinking and acting for itself. That's still my main complaint about the AI, and it's only a *little* better than vanilla RTW in that respect. However, I don't know of anything else out there that hits this balance of historical semi-accuracy, "what if" historical scenarios, and pure fun.

[screwtype]

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short.

Well, I don't know, to tell the truth, of the few RTW campaigns I played before I gave the game up as a pushover, I didn't play one that was more than 50 turns long because by that stage I was always so far ahead of the other powers it didn't matter. In fact, I usually became the biggest faction by about turn 20-24 as I recall.

So if they make the AI four times better, I guess it will take me four times as long or about 200 turns to get that same decisive break where I know there's no point continuing

[screwtype]

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I didn't buy it. Nothing anybody said about the expansion persuaded me it was substantially better than RTW.

Although now I think about it, the price may have come down to a more acceptable level by now...

I don't think I'll be buying M2TW sight unseen either. I'll probably wait until I hear how the grognard community receives it. I just recently threw away $100 on a speculative purchase of Civ4 that I regard as a waste of money, and I have no desire to repeat the experience any time soon.

[Samurai Waki]

has it ever occured to any of these game developers that nerds make better games than businessmen? Its like they're trying to be used car salesmen or something, this baby looks cool on the outside, but personally I'm more concerned about whats under the hood.

Such as a smarter dynamic AI, moddability, and User Interface. Not OUR UNITS NOW LOOK COOL BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SHIELDS, FACES, AND LIMBS! BUY THIS GAME, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE THE BEST TACTICAL SIMULATOR EVER MADE!!!!

I think some of CAs marketers need to go back to college, if they ever did.

[Dead Moroz]

Well, your mileage may differ. But the scope of BI was far greater than either MI or VI. In MI, you had only two factions and a very simple (not to say hypothetical) strategic situation. In VI, you were stuck on a damp insignificant island with some squabbling primitive factions that lacked even decent cavalry. By contrast, with BI you got a full RTW sized map and a great choice of varied factions covering an earth shattering period of history. I personally think BI was almost a RTW2 rather than an expansion. Rome's fall has always captured my imagination more than the its republican period.

And the really nice thing about BI was - unlike the previous expansions - you were not forced to buy it if you wanted to patch the vanilla game.

Um, maybe this would be a good subject for a poll?

The real advantage of BI over RTW was in 2-3 new features. The rest was the same. The same bugs plus new ones. The same stupid AI. The same weird fantasy units fiesta. The same poor GUI graphics. The even more acid colors of units then in RTW.

BI was so poor made that I even suspect it was made not by CA itself, but by temporary hired unknown studio or just amateurs. It is level of standard fan modification, not the level of professional product. I was going to mod the map and just after quick look at it I noticed so many bugs. We all saw holes and dislodged textures in models of units. Did you see Berber units? Even my grandma could make better models and textures! And many many other things too. Who the hell did test the game before release? ...if it ever was tested. It was made anyhow, in a slipshod way, just to make more money out of nothing.

RTW itself was quite disappointing product. Though it had some really great and innovation features, the other things was disappointed. It inherit all weak aspects of previous TW games (ancestral damnation?), but some aspects became even worse. And this tendency was continued in BI. It was so disappointing and wretched that I played it just for few days. After this fault of CA I'm not going to buy MTW2 right after release, but will wait for community impressions. Moreover I'm not going to buy Alexander expansion at all, 'coz I'm sure there will be nothing really interesting in it. To say more, after reading recent articles about MTW2 I have big suspicion that this game will be just development of game graphics, not the real improvement of gameplay and quality of product.

[Servius]

I never bought STW: Mongol Invasion (because I didn't know about it at the time). I did buy MTW: Viking Invasion, and personally I thought it was a neat little addition to MTW. Basically the same mechanics, UI, AI, etc., but it was a neat perspective and told the background story of my favorite MTW faction (England). VI also added the cool feature of being able to see which units you and your opponent were taking into battle and which you'd leave for reinforcements. That was a neat thing to add.

The GS article isn't important enough to get in a tissy about though. The game is far away, and who knows, it could be bad or it could be great. I remember hearing that RTW was made by a different CA group than the one that made MTW, which helped me understand how it could be so different. Well, it seems that MTW2 is being made mostly by Aussies, who didn't make RTW, so again, we're rolling the dice, who knows what it will be like. I just wish the corporate reps. were touting all the time they're pouring into making the AI and UI badass, rather than how pretty the units look.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm of an age when I can tell a bimbo from a real woman. Bimbos are very pretty, but nothing upstairs, good for a hook-up, but not a long-term relationship. If MTW2 turns out to be a bimbo, I'll spend the price of a few drinks on it, but not the price of a dinner and a movie...

[screwtype]

BTW There are a few things I like the sound of in M2. Okay, the enhanced unit graphics we know about and that's good, but it sounds as though they've put a lot more effort into the appearance and battlefield functionality of the cities too, and the lack of interactivity in the cities was a big turn-off for me. For example, the way you could only mount one attack per wall section, or the silly cartoonish way the sappers would work, or the busted pathfinding, or the inability to maneouvre on anything but the roads.

Some of this has obviously been changed in M2, for example in this article it mentions that you can attack any part of a city wall now, and buildings as well. So it sounds a lot more interactive, which is a definite plus.

And they have said they're working hard to improve both the campaign and battlefield AI. Whether they're working hard enough - obviously I'm sceptical about that as are a lot of folks, but it's good to know they are at least aware of the dissatisfaction and trying to address the problem.

The way I figure it, most of the really hard yards were done in the four years it took to develop RTW. Hopefully now they have begun the work of polishing up the product to bring it to the standard of challenge of the earlier games. But certainly, I have few complaints over what I've been hearing from CA about this game so far.

[Martok]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm of an age when I can tell a bimbo from a real woman. Bimbos are very pretty, but nothing upstairs, good for a hook-up, but not a long-term relationship. If MTW2 turns out to be a bimbo, I'll spend the price of a few drinks on it, but not the price of a dinner and a movie...

LOL.

That's funny, because I've told all my friends how Rome is the "dumb blonde" of the Total War games: pretty to look at, but that's about it. I'm starting to worry a little that the TW series is in danger of being turned into more of a "beer-and-pretzels" franchise, and away from the deep strategy "five-course dinner" that it was originally known for.

(Dang it, now I've gone and made myself hungry! )

[Samurai Waki]

Its only a matter of time before other franchises start getting the idea of moving into CAs turf, and if CA wants to be at the top they're going to really have to knock the words out of all of the naysayer's mouths by making a product thats superior to everything that will become available, at the rate they're going, I highly doubt that is going to happen...

[lancelot]

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.

Been saying that for eight years now....change the record?

Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map.

Like Rome had 'improved AI'...

Seems like there is a lot of cynicism regarding MTW2...Im gonna buy it anyway but as many have already hinted at...people are getting tired of 'the talk' from CA and as the comments above show...we have heard these statements before.

Cmon, CA...get back to your ground-breaking roots ala STW & MTW!