CA blog from Mike Simpson

[Martok]

As Spock might say: "Fascinating...."

Link

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thursday Oct 01, 2009
Blogging for Quality - by Mike Simpson

Well, I’ve finally given in and decided to start blogging. It’s something I’ve tried to resist over the years. I’ve also not posted directly on the forums, and it’s mainly because it takes so much time. Many of the issues discussed on the forums are deep and complex, and the arguments well put and compelling. Writing considered and persuasive responses that really deal with the issue is time consuming, and that is time I can’t spend working on the games.

So it’s a choice - fix stuff, or talk about fixing stuff. Seems like a no-brainer, but things have changed. I can now add more quality to the games by talking to the community than I can by fixing issues.

Quite simply, the quality of what we produce depends directly on how much we get to spend on developing them. How much we spend depends directly on how many people buy the games. The user feedback on sites like IGN directly impacts sales, and that impacts how positively our publisher views the future of Total War, which determines how much we get to spend on the games.

Normally it’s a virtuous circle, and that’s allowed us to be very ambitious with what we try to deliver. We were not entirely happy with the state of Empire: Total War when it went out, and are only now getting to a point where we are broadly speaking happy with the game. Our own threshold for how we’d like the game to be is much higher than the commercial threshold required by our publisher. We are, like our community, hardcore fans of our own products, and any imperfections drive us nuts.

With Empire: Total War, the virtuous circle turned a little vicious. The community used user ratings and user comments on sites like IGN and Metacritic to highlight weaknesses in the game, to try to encourage us to fix existing issues before working on anything new.

I’m not saying that we didn’t deserve to have a fair number of verbal bricks thrown our way.

However overdoing the criticism (For example I think a 67% user score on Metacritic is unfair), has the opposite effect to what is intended. Gamers (and reviewers. retailers, marketeers and publishing execs) will be put off Total War. That could mean fewer sales and less money to spend on adding quality to the games.

And so I find myself blogging. The aim is twofold. Firstly, I want to explain why we do the things we do, and also a little more detail about what we’re spending our time (and your money) on. That should give the community a much better starting point for discussing issues. Secondly, I want to prove we listen to the community by directly addressing the big issues. I’ll be as honest as I can be without getting sued or fired.

Anyway, I started this by saying I’d rather be fixing the game than talking about it. That’s true, but talking about it is a pretty good second best. I’ll start with the 1.5 patch and AI on the next update, and then go on to talk about Napoleon - what it is, why it’s the size it is, how that affects the price.

Mike Simpson

At the very least, I found it an interesting read. I think this has been about the most candid anyone from CA has been with us in a long time; kudos to Simpson for having posted it. I can at least partially see where they're coming from now.

That being said, however, I still don't know how much I can truly sympathize with CA. They're still guilty of often having promised far more than what they've actually delivered on....and IMHO they really have no one but themselves to blame -- either for budgeting insufficient development time, and/or making a bigger game than the development time allotted to them by the publisher would allow for. While I'm generally critical of how publishers frequently seem to push games out the door before they're ready, I suppose I can't entirely blame Sega for getting impatient.

On the other hand, I'm pleasantly surprised that there's already a 1.5 patch in the works. (I'm even happier that, like 1.4, it's apparently going to be heavily focused on the AI.) It gives me some hope that Empire will maybe receive the support it needs to achieve its potential.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A vicious cycle, hmm? He makes the point that if us buyers had been easier on ETW, they would have made more money with it and been able to spend more making the next game.

That is true, I suppose. But it also makes me wonder; what incentive would CA have to improve the game if we didn't complain and thereby hurt them financially? If we didn't, they'd be rewarded for giving us a shoddy product. Perhaps now they'll have more incentive to make a better product than ETW so they don't suffer financial consequences. So really we're helping them.

Another thing I noticed; they're admitting now that they weren't happy with the release state of ETW. Gee, that'd seem to imply they were lying back when the game was released, weren't they? I think the 67% score for the release game is fair.

Now, what would that lead us to believe about what they're saying about NTW? I, for one, have the feeling I'm going to be punched in the face again.

Well, if I was planning on buying NTW. Given how ETW's AI performed after CA promised dramatic AI improvements, I'd have to be a real sucker. The blog is an improvement, I suppose. It's good to know they plan to work on ETW more, but I don't plan on spending any more money, and I doubt I'll be spending much time on their games I already own, so I feel distant.

Finally, I want to say I'm not trying to accuse any specific employee of anything; I understand their jobs and that they can't say what they believe all the time. It's how the business works. But I take their past statements into consideration when they talk about their next game. That's how I work.

CR

[Yun Dog]

Facinating indeed

Sooo the bottom line was we are to blame for putting at risk the future of total war, because we voiced our dissatisfaction with a product they now admit was not in a good state at release.

really CA have a perfect storm and the only people responsible for it is themselves.

1) people were angry about the game receiving high review scores when it was barely working, so to some extent they went to reviewing sites to show both their frustration with the game, but to correct the review sites from misleading other punters.

2) the blatant denial and spin by CAs PR department just added fuel to the fires

3) The untimely announcement of NTW, rather than envoking a positive response, further fuelled the fire and caused an ugly backlash, such that almost any anouncement by CA was fervently set apon with 'fix ETW first'.

4) unsolicited and unwelcome DLC and patch changes to the game (force fed thanks to steam) was CA version of taking a stick to a bull ant nest.

5) a groundswell of support to 'sack the quaterback' and have TW be taken over by another developer has found furtile ground in the embers of the ETW trainwreck.

and Im sorry... what was that... we're.. the bad guys here.!!!

so now this guy is showing us how much hurt we are causing to our beloved TW by voicing our dissatisfaction and being generally disloyalists. Probably in the hope of quenching some of the flames before the NTW train arrives. but he'd rather be fixing the game

maybe he shouldve signed it Homer and finished with a 'DOH'

whats that sound??... choo choo!! is that the 3:10 from NTW, someone better tell them the track is out!! someone.... anyone....

I wonder what its score on Metacritic will be

[Peasant Phill]

The positive:
- A mea culpa from a developer
- Confirmation that they're working on patch 1.5 with a focus on AI

The negative:
- He apparently can't see that the critical customer reviews and the consequential drop of sales was the long overdue wakeup call. I can't really blame him as he's thinking in terms of budget and time for development rather than in supply and demand. Perhaps higher-ups do get the signal and react appropriatly.

[edyzmedieval]

Most of the times it's not the developer, it's more likely the publisher who's been pushing CA to release E:TW before time. Dissapointing, but thumbs up CA for this blog post.

[Peasant Phill]

Most of the times it's not the developer, it's more likely the publisher who's been pushing CA to release E:TW before time. Dissapointing, but thumbs up CA for this blog post.

Point taken, but for now I can settle with at least someone from CA/SEGA acknowledging that ETW as shipped was far from finished.

[Sheogorath]

CA has, in my opinion, made real progress from a year ago. They've gone from denial and dithering to apologizing and getting something done.

True, ETW needs mods to bring out it's real potential, but the base game is basically playable now, at least.

The consumer-blame isn't good, though. They've done this a few times, as I recall. CA's team need to get over themselves on that point and admit that it's not the fault of the consumer for giving bad reviews to a product they themselves admit was broken on release. The product has been fixed now, more or less, and hopefully 1.5 will polish it up even more.

If 1.5 can hold up to expectations, I may actually buy NTW. And even the next TW game...at least, once it's been reviewed by independent sources and patched a bit.

[Yun Dog]

Point taken, but for now I can settle with at least someone from CA/SEGA acknowledging that ETW as shipped was far from finished.

I dont know Phill

I dont see how his admission is positive or in fact has any impact on anything - [edit} in fact it shows their willingness to release unfinished betas despite the reservations of their own staff.

other than an attempt to gain the trust of his audience as a 'truth sayer'

Is the admission of some guy who isnt the head of CA that ETW was released unfinished going to mean that NTW wont be released in the same state??

or that I didnt have to wait 8 months for a MPC which was promised for shortly after release

In what way is Mr Simpsons candid remarks, blame casting, and explanation of how if you release a broken product people complain and you dont make as much money from the next one.. going to improve TW at all?

they have already shown a complete disregard for the wishes of their community - and this does nothing to change that

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

there wont be a twice

dunno maybe Im missing the momentus significance of this blog which essentially says nothing

[Peasant Phill]

@ Lord Yunson

I'm not saying I'm overjoyed with this blog, rather that I'm choosing to see the silver lining( and stay cautious at the same time). The fact that this blog is an advertising tool is rather obvious. That Mr. Simpson threathens us as consumers is downright sad.
However, As Mr. Simpsons' blog is an advertising tool, I must asume that someone else has approved it in order to post it on the sega website. In other words, it's not just one developer saying that ETW was shipped to early. Let's just hope that Simpsons' view on the 'budget-sales-budget'-cycle isn't shared by everyone at CA/SEGA.

[Yun Dog]

I agree

lets hope that its not just words to placate us

and that hope carries us to purchase the expansion pack/not an expansion pack scripted campaign

but I personally had those same hopes when I read other words about what a revolutionary improvement ETW would be.

they say hope dies last.. mine died some months ago

now only bitterness remains

[Dradem]

I for one am happy with the blog,

Ok they released it to early no doubt about it, probably due to pressure from SEGA.
But also from a lot of the Fan base I remeber reading posts here and on the /shoguntotalwar.yuku.com (not to mention on other sites) that a lot couldn't wait for the release and where angry that it even got postponed for a few weeks.

I'm not blaming us just pointing this out.

[Boohugh]

But also from a lot of the Fan base I remember reading posts here and on the /shoguntotalwar.yuku.com (not to mention on other sites) that a lot couldn't wait for the release and where angry that it even got postponed for a few weeks.

I agree with this sentiment. Have you all forgotten all the DEMO spamming that occurred on these forums as release date approached? That was just a symptom of a general community feeling that the game should be released sooner rather than later and there were relatively few voices saying CA should take their time even if it were to add another 6 months or more to development time.

With a publisher trying to push the product out of the door and the community pushing for a release, what would you have done in CA's position?

Now, I'm not trying to absolve all blame from CA because they perhaps should have stood firmer against Sega as they clearly didn't have a stable and polished product (I don't want to use the word "finished" as I don't think a game can ever be finished as such, there are always improvements you could make) and Sega's own Q&A department should have realised the product wasn't up to scratch either. They could then have made a joint statement to the effect of explaining the game wasn't polished enough, or stable enough, to release at that point to appease the community to some extent (although as I said earlier, I think that would only have appeased a minority with the majority wanting an immediate release just because they don't care about the 'polish' as much).

Additionally, a number of you have admonished Mr Simpson for saying that the community has potentially compromised future quality by criticising the game so heavily. Whether you feel his criticism of us is justified or not, you seem to be ignoring the fact he is correct. If, due to the criticism of the community as a whole, sales of ETW fell significantly, then we will have impacted on future game development as they will have less money to spend. I'm not trying to debate whether they "deserved" it or not due to releasing a sub-par product, but I can certainly sympathise with Mr Simpson's position as a game developer. He presumably wants to create the best game he can, both for himself and the community, but is constricted by the amount of time and money given to him. Now if that amount of time and money is constricted even further due to the same community criticising all his work, I imagine that would be a very frustrating position to be in.

I think part of the problem was so much of the criticism was negative rather than constructive. Constructive criticism would help the developers fix aspects of the game, whereas lots of it was basically "oh, the game is broken" or "the way that aspect was designed is rubbish". That doesn't really help them track down problems or figure out why something doesn't seem fun (and remember they have to take into account a whole range of opinions about what is fun and well designed, as well as their own vision of the game which may well be different to your own).

All the negative criticism the game received from the community didn't really help anyone. The developers had to sift through all the dross to get to the useful nuggets of information on what the actual problems with the game were. The community atmosphere turned hostile and unfriendly to both CA and each other (you just need to read the posts in this thread to see how it has affected people, they've generally become cynical and hostile to any effort by CA to communicate with us now). In the end the victim of all this criticism is the game itself, in that problems don't get solved as quickly or at all and there is less money to spend on game development in the future.

So, I can wholeheartedly sympathise with Mr Simpson's position and his views on the damage the community has done to the game. He acknowledges in his first blog that the game went out when it shouldn't have and that CA deserved some criticism for this, saying:

I’m not saying that we didn’t deserve to have a fair number of verbal bricks thrown our way.

I think we now need to acknowledge that the community does deserve to carry some blame too. We had the chance to show the Total War community can be mature and criticise a game whilst remaining constructive and we comprehensively failed at that task, and it has damaged the game and its future as a result.

[Khorak]

I no longer have much truck with excuses, because they're meaningless to me as a consumer in the first place, let alone after they're all I've been getting. You don't get to tell the community what is and isn't fair in how they judge your product, it's a process where they take what you've given them, and you only get to watch as the result comes out. If they think you've given them something bad, that's the end of it. With the sheer numbers involved, it starts to become entirely amoral and faceless; you'll be able to put a face to a .org member and make judgments on them, but that Metacritic rating? Nah, that's what you get. There's no 'too harsh' anymore, the votes get tallied and that's how you did. If the game was ultimately good in spite of a few problems here and there, the averages would show that, but no, there are such vast numbers of people casting their vote on the basis of being buried under an army of bugs and inadequate gameplay that you end up with just what you deserve.

I, and no-one else, has any responsibility to spend money or recommend the spending of money, on anything they don't think they should. If that impacts future game development, that's not our fault. We are not the ones who put out a product which cannot be recommended in such a fashion. Any thought otherwise is an act of absolutely incredible hubris, and if you've slipped into a mindset that we should buy and recommend things regardless just in the hope that the future developments won't be a continuation of an apparently failing/failed process, then you get everything you deserve when it comes crashing down around your ears.

[caravel]

Sooo the bottom line was we are to blame for putting at risk the future of total war, because we voiced our dissatisfaction with a product they now admit was not in a good state at release.

That's how I read it as well. The whole blog is marketing pure and simple.

The blog tells us nothing new, reading between the lines, it's the same old "buy the games, don't criticise them (because ratings hit our (SEGA's) profits) and we 'promise' to fix it all later as we did with ETW, M2TW and RTW" ..........

-Edit: It's looks like CA have realised that the blogging/messageboard communites can damage sales by supposedly "hijacking" online user reviews and this is what has prompted this "counteroffensive".

It's only a matter of time before the TW bubble finally bursts. In the past us players complained about "fantasy units", historical inaccuracies and other fine points. Nowadays the complaints are about bugs, poor MP implimentation, serious game balance issues, AI problems, visual glitches, copy protection software, etc, etc. That says a lot about the decreasing standards of the games.

I think we now need to acknowledge that the community does deserve to carry some blame too. We had the chance to show the Total War community can be mature and criticise a game whilst remaining constructive and we comprehensively failed at that task, and it has damaged the game and its future as a result.

I totally disagree with this. The communtiy provides input and the developer can selectively choose to either use it or ignore it. The community is absolutely not to blame for how the TW series has turned out. That fault lies squarely with the developer.

[Monk]

Well this is not what I was expecting when I woke up this morning, but it is a bit of a nice surprise. Communities love to get attention from developers, and any bone thrown to us to make us feel that our comments aren't being out right ignored is always a plus. I have to commend Simpson for coming flat out and laying it down, even if I may not agree with it. We're big boys and girls, we can take it.

I was one of the loudest supporters of ETW prior to release, and I was banging the "demo" drum just like everyone else. I was also one of the ones who was severely disappointed with the state of the game in 1.0 and have not shied away from voicing my criticism. However, i have to take issue with the feeling that "too much criticism is a bad thing". I perfectly understand the sentiment, don't get me wrong. Poor reviews can kill a game and end all hopes of future support. But it's not as if anyone fabricated things to say about ETW, nearly every complaint* that was filed against it was completely fair. I have an important question - and If any CA developers are reading this please do not take it the wrong way this is a candid and honest question.

What score do you think Empire deserved, CA? Now. I'm not speaking of the Empire of today, version 1.4. That Empire has certainly come a long way (but oddly, still has a while to go before we get to what we were promised.) Instead, i ask what do score do you think Empire version 1.0 deserved? I dislike rating systems as they try to boil down the act of enjoyment into an arbitrary number. No reviewer uses honest numbers either, because if they did the score for a truely average game would be 5 of 10, not 7 of ten. But I'd be genuinely interested as to what some developers think on this subject since a 6.7 is "unfair".

This isn't an investment, this is a video game. One that i paid good money to enjoy. As it stands, i'm not enjoying it. My criticism has been aimed at helping the 'powers that be' get a handle on the situation so that they could improve it, not hinder that process. Criticism is only truly unfair when it is used in the hands of those who would destroy that process with argumentative attitudes and unwillingness to compromise. You won't find any of that here, all I want is what we were promised. All i want is better AI.

I stand by earlier comments i've made on this site, and in support Crazed Rabbit's point on NTW. Many of us felt NTW was a slap in the face when the core game still has so many problems. Especially since the touted features of NTW didn't seem to address those problems. It's good to see that they are continuing their patch support, and my fears of there being a "1.4 and no more" were unfounded. We're not out to get you, CA. We're frustrated, we're tired, and we would prefer that we didn't have to pay another $30 for features that were promised in the core game.





*barring rants that are emotionaly driven, of course

[econ21]

I think the blog is a good step - it shows that CA shares some of the concerns voiced at the Org about the ETW AI. The daily diary was already a novel attempt to try to engage with the community, but now that things are slowing down, that format is less attractive. The 1.4 and 1.5 patches are promising too, suggesting it is not just words.

The blog all but confirms the charge that ETW was rushed out the door for monetary reasons before it was ready. Perhaps the concerns expressed about the negative impact of community feedback on sales will give the money-men reason to pause before repeating that mistake.

Looking at the metacritic user ratings, I was struck by how many 0s and the like were given by users who suffered from CTDs or just could not get the game to run. My impression from the fansites is that those problems were not so common (I've never experienced one). In that sense, I suspect the 6.7 may be unfair: there may be a negative selectivity, of people with technical problems being more likely to rate it.

What score do you think Empire deserved, CA? Now. I'm not speaking of the Empire of today, version 1.4. That Empire has certainly come a long way ...

That's an interesting question, but also largely rhetorical. No one is playing 1.0 anymore. Just as no one is playing RTW 1.0. As the "revolutionary" step in the TW series, there were bound to be more teething troubles - just as RTW had more patches and problems than M2TW. I am reminded of the P-51 fighter or the Panther tank of WW2, which when they first came out were seen as very problematic due to poor technical performance, but then were revamped and reworked to become world-beaters.

What I am interested in, is what ETW will be like after the dust has settled (1.5+?) and what NTW will be like? Replaying RTW, I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that - despite the splendour of some of the mods - it is terribly hamstrung by the woeful strategic AI. Just trying hitting "end turn" for 20 turns in a row mid-way in a campaign to see what I mean. I confess I've put ETW to one side until it stabilises (was going to try 1.4, but with a 1.5 coming, am not sure it's sensible). But from the feedback in the Org to 1.4, I think there's a good chance ETW will end up leaving a better legacy.

[Peasant Phill]

It's only a matter of time before the TW bubble finally bursts. In the past us players complained about "fantasy units", historical inaccuracies and other fine points. Nowadays the complaints are about bugs, poor MP implimentation, serious game balance issues, AI problems, visual glitches, copy protection software, etc, etc. That says a lot about the decreasing standards of the games.

I've been saying this a few times of late, as have others many times before: It was about time the TW community gave a signal (by decreasing sales) to CA/SEGA that the TW series was in a decline of quality. Ever since RTW, some org members have pointed out that the lack of competition lulled CA into lazyness. I hope they now renew there effort in upcoming patches and TW titles.

[Monk]

Looking at the metacritic user ratings, I was struck by how many 0s and the like were given by users who suffered from CTDs or just could not get the game to run. My impression from the fansites is that those problems were not so common (I've never experienced one). In that sense, I suspect the 6.7 may be unfair: there may be a negative selectivity, of people with technical problems being more likely to rate it.

Without having looked, there's a good chance those are earlier reviews. CTD and lockups were very commonly reported in regards to ETW in the first few months. I haven't had a CTD for a long time, personally. At least two patches ago.

That's an interesting question, but also largely rhetorical. No one is playing 1.0 anymore. Just as no one is playing RTW 1.0.

Perhaps, but it is one I felt compelled to ask. To decry the current rating of ETW on metacritic as unfair just begs the question of "What would you give it." 1.0 was the state of things at release and where many critic scores based their opinions on. There are over 1800+ user ratings, so its hard to tell how many of them were playing which version. Well, beside going through each of them date by date and guessing.

I think the blog is a good step - it shows that CA shares some of the concerns voiced at the Org about the ETW AI. The daily diary was already a novel attempt to try to engage with the community, but now that things are slowing down, that format is less attractive. The 1.4 and 1.5 patches are promising too, suggesting it is not just words.

On this we can agree.

[Husar]

So basically some shareholders peed in their pants and now we're supposed to make a happy face over a pile of bugs so that the shareholders can earn a bit more money due to more unhappy but force-smiling customers?

[antisocialmunky]

They've been on a downward trend since RTW. If any other company were releasing polished unbroken games in the same vein, CA would have been in trouble. However, the simple fact that the developpers who capitalized on TW's success with clones have not met with the same success and that the games are equally buggy make me wonder if CA's onyl advantage is the TW label.

[al Roumi]

The communtiy provides input and the developer can selectively choose to either use it or ignore it. The community is absolutely not to blame for how the TW series has turned out. That fault lies squarely with the developer.

Indeed, CA and or Mr Simpson look frankly naive expecting the community of consumers to accept responsability for CA's misfortunes.

My charitable guess is that Mr Simpson is a good programmer who unfortunately has a fairly flimsy grasp of the market economy or expectations of it that are inconsistent with reality.

So it’s a choice - fix stuff, or talk about fixing stuff. Seems like a no-brainer, but things have changed. I can now add more quality to the games by talking to the community than I can by fixing issues.

What so "things didn't used to be like this" when:
1. there wasn't such an easy way for the community of our consumers to react to us directly and
2. when CA produced more complete/stable/enjoyable products -without shameless marketing gimmicks to squeeze more payback out of initial sales (Special forces edition)

What I find particularily galling is what I interpret as CA's perception that we as their consumers should appreciate their efforts -whatever they end up being and never mind what we expect them to be as a result of their marketing.

I can see why they might think that simply producing code which allows a consumer to play a game with a resulting "experience" should engender a mininum of respect and thanks -we wouldn't have anything to complain about if they hadn't programmed the game. Nonetheless, the short sightedness and lack of customer empathy of this point of view is astonishing.

If anything, ETW is a cautionary tale for CA, Sega and any developer who pushes their marketing beyond what their production team can actually provide.

ETW really has suffered from poor management and decisions which overall have made the publisher and developer look mendacious and more interested in exploiting new DLC features for financial reward than consumer enjoyment.

[Fisherking]

I appreciate the blog.

I don get the feeling that he wanted to stop criticism. I think he was just telling it as it is.

We have to differentiate between constructive criticism and just bashing.

I know the game was buggy in 1.01 and they deserved the unfinished label for it but unlike some of you I thought 1.01 showed a great deal of potential with a few fixes.

It was what they did in 1.2 and 1.3 that was so bad. By 1.3.1 it was getting a bit better but they through in the black knight diplomacy which brought on more gripes.

I too was an ardent supporter of ETW before release but after 1.2 I was accused of bashing. I didn’t see it that way though, and I would do it again. I thought they took things that were working fine and trashed them and put in some quick fixes to placate a vocal minority.

Well as various points they put things back mostly how they were and things are looking up.

The largest part of it is fixed now. I am mostly satisfied with what they have given us and I think I got my money’s worth out of it.

I am even considering buying the War Path Campaign, something I didn’t see happening just a few days ago.

Depending on support and developments I might even take a (skeptical) look at NTW.

[Durallan]

First off I'll try to explain why people may have gone for meta critics score, I anticipated Empire Total War quite eagerly even downloading the demo on my measly connection to see what it was like, (for my old computer, that struggled) I started off hearing about its announcement, then I read a preview in my favourite magazine and talked with a few friends and got excitied about its release, I then read about the Special Forces Edition coming with a special unit if I pre-ordered the game, I also foolishly thought it was the Collectors Edition, which it was not.

(Note to developers, put out a STANDARD and COLLECTORS edition game (try NOT to put ingame content in the collectors, that doesn't attract me, pretty maps or figurines or t-shirts or making of dvd's or a keychain, something appropriate to the game...)

The title on the preview, Exclusive Interview and Details! EMPIRE TOTAL WAR: 40,000 Redcoats agree: This is the BIGGEST strategy game ever!

I would have pre ordered the Collectors edition had I known there WAS one. I thought it was the special forces edition, foolish me. I then finally read the review of the game in my favourite magazine. They Scored as follows:
Gameplay: 10 - More theatres, more nations, more tactics, more tech, more Brilliant!
Innovation: 7 - New features don't always come off that well
Polish: 8 - lacking some big features at launch, waiting for DLC
Overall: 9 - Best of Total War, but some less than fantastic new additions

Now surely I could be forgiven for thinking that it meant it was rather bug free. Of course you expect a few bugs... But I couldn't even complete a campaign in 1.0, my computer kept crashing because of that incredibly annoying clicking on a ship CTD. I personally think it is probably half the game magazines faults as well of hyping up the game. I almost feel rereading the review that they went forward in time and managed to get a copy of 1.4 somehow! At any rate, I would have given polish, a 1 if they were lucky.

So my problems with the game at that point were technical and not, about how the AI was going about its business. I was fortunate to not be one of the people who couldn't even start the game. Now if I was one of those people I would have been veeeery angry. It is only fair, if someone buys a fridge or something that isn't easily tested at the store before you take it home and it isn't working at all when you try to turn it on or use it, you would have a right to a full refund. Obviously computers are complex and CA cannot test every configuration of computers known to mankind, but it felt to me that there were bugs that CA really should have identified even before release.

I can agree with the RELEASE IT RELEASE IT! sentiment although I thought I was more concerned that it be released bug free than prematurely. Either way it was released when it was and most people agree that it probably could have had a couple more months in the tank, but if I remember christmas was coming up and no one can miss that opportunity! (or am I completely misremembering when it was released? not good with dates...)

At least the naval changes don't seem to have destroyed the balance of the game, and 1.4 is making alot more sense than 1.3 ever did.

I would have hoped that CA picked up that people felt the AI could be a bit smarter after Medieval 2 Total War, and that someone double checks their unit stats, (shield bug!) before going gold.

I must say I am thoroughly angry at the magazine I buy that they did not seem to pick up on a single bug in Empire yet have thoroughly bunked a game called ARMA II which is apparently buggy, (never played it but suprised at the polish score they gave it when they were so generous with empire)

I believe the hostile community reaction is because simply, it was over hyped and not tested enough before release. Note how few people complain about having to wait for the Multiplayer Campaign (my most desired feature) I think we can take a few months for the whole game too! Project managment is mainly about time management, developers need to give publishers realistic completion dates and then add 3 months to cover problems that crop up (because they will, murphys law!) and Publishers need to give the developers that time because while games are incredibly simple compared to real life, they are incredibly complex! and therefore need alot of time to be worked on. If that happened in a magical fantasy land, games might not be so buggy on release and be more fun. (Most people I would hope realise that there will always be bugs in computer games, (they even get them in consoles now, no excuse there!)

CA, feel thoroughly shamed about ETW's Release, learn from it and improve on it. I realise there is only so much you can do, but PLEASE make the AI have the essential ingredient, and that is intelligence! the AI in this game needs to behave more cohesively and form up alliances and form power blocs because thats hows things worked, you built up alliances and went to war, (world war one and two are good examples) Like has been explained earlier, make sure the AI can ACTUALLY WIN YOUR GAME before you set it up against a player! then see how it goes compared to a player and then try to improve the AI till it is on par with average players, then set the difficulty modifers accordingly. Of course who am I to be telling people who make games how to do things, but just having played them for a long time, thats just how I feel.

Its a complex game, theyve done the graphics, now they need to work on the machinery behind it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I stand by earlier comments i've made on this site, and in support Crazed Rabbit's point on NTW. Many of us felt NTW was a slap in the face when the core game still has so many problems. Especially since the touted features of NTW didn't seem to address those problems. It's good to see that they are continuing their patch support, and my fears of there being a "1.4 and no more" were unfounded. We're not out to get you, CA. We're frustrated, we're tired, and we would prefer that we didn't have to pay another $30 for features that were promised in the core game.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. It's definitely going to be $50. It's not an expansion, after all, it's a full game! Though with less of a period change than the first MTW expansion, so they have to change much less, and can get it out the door faster. Heck, it's very convenient; they make the game they were supposed to with ETW and get to charge people for a whole new game!

And look at the end of the blog post, where he says he's going to talk about NTW's price. He wouldn't have to do that if it were $20 or $30, because that's what people expect to pay for an expansion. Instead he mention's the size of NTW and how that affects the price. And the size is a whole brand new campaign! Well, not new at all, just the current campaign moved 100 years, but you get my point.

It's $50.

CR

[econ21]

It's $50.

In some ways, I hope so - if it means a bigger game.

The worse case scenario is another Alexander Total War (or, I know this is unfashionable, Mongol Total Invasion). A small, half-baked campaign that added little.

What I thought most likely to be the case is a Barbarian Invasion or Viking Invasion. A fairly meaty campaign - not quite as big as the original game, but where the AI arguably poses more of a challenge.

But both of those would only justify an expansion price tag. I suspect you are right about the $50. They seem to be marketing it as a full game - the evolutionary successor to ETWs revolutionary step, a M2TW to RTW, or a MTW to STW. If that is so, then we are entitled to expect something pretty major.

And to be fair, the Napoleonic Campaigns do offer that prospect. They seem as well suited as any period in history for the TW strategic layer - a fair number of major powers, who could each credibly pose a threat. The little we have learned so far - more provinces in Europe, modelling supply - sound promising. I'm not wild about "Road to independence" type campaigns. The period seems better suited to a MTW style "early/medium/high" structure of alternate start dates, as France's power definitely flowed and then ebbed. There would be quite a lot of potential for selling separate campaigns as DLCs - Spain and Russia stand out, but there could be others. But the $50 price tag makes me more curious rather than less.

[Zenicetus]

Sooo the bottom line was we are to blame for putting at risk the future of total war, because we voiced our dissatisfaction with a product they now admit was not in a good state at release.

That does seem to sum it up. The blog post was remarkably thin-skinned, coming from someone in a game company trying to communicate with their audience. There seems to be an implied expectation that people who have followed CA over the years, and bought previous games, should be good fans of the series. We should keep a stiff upper lip and suffer through the flaws on release; we should help to boost the ratings at places like Metacritic out of past loyalty and future expectations.

It doesn't work like that, not for me anyway. I like to support game companies that are consistent in providing good gaming with minimum hassles on my end. Life is too short, and there are other good games out there to play. Maybe not games exactly like the TW series, but good enough. I don't like being asked to be patient for fixes to make the game playable and fun, after spending my money.

I thought I was being smart by waiting to buy ETW until several months after release and two patch cycles. But 1.3 brought the constant DOW's, and it was only the last 1.4 patch that has made the game worth playing (IMO) on the strategic level.

I'm having some fun with it now, but this experience (and similar experiences with RTW, M2TW) will only make me wait even longer to buy the next major TW game. They have zero chance of getting me to buy a game on release day, if they can't break this pattern. I don't know how a game company can survive, if a significant portion of the "loyal" fan base, who eventually will buy the game, doesn't want to buy it in the critical initial release phase due to past history.

Ok they released it to early no doubt about it, probably due to pressure from SEGA. But also from a lot of the Fan base I remeber reading posts here and on the /shoguntotalwar.yuku.com (not to mention on other sites) that a lot couldn't wait for the release and where angry that it even got postponed for a few weeks.

That has no bearing on the issues (IMO). This is something that every game developer with a large following has to deal with. It just comes with the territory. The better companies learn not to get too specific about release dates until they're forced to, by notices showing up on retail sale outlets.

If the other game companies can handle this kind of pressure, then CA can too. This is the least of their problems.

[Vlad Tzepes]

I absolutely love Total War games, but with ETW it turned out to be a love and hate relationship. I still think CA had a marvelous plan with Empire and after patch 1.4 it looks more like what they probably intended to offer us in the beginning.

Would it have been economically sustainable for SEGA/CA to take an extra year to develop and polish the game and to release it as it is now? I doubt that. But I believe much of the grief and disappointment they probably resent over the community's reaction could have been appeased by starting early a blog (or several) and communicating with people web 2.0 style long time ago. It goes with our grief and disappointment as well.

It's hard to understand why a company that designs software has so much trouble to interact with their software users in a time when anybody interacts with everybody on www.

It also puzzles me why they didn't react faster to the gamers disappointment after the 1.0 ETW release. The crisis was obvious and quick reaction was a must. I'm sure the fellows at CA put lots of hard work and imagination in fixing the game - and I bet they had some quite depressing moments, that they really don't deserve, after all.

The blog comes quite late in this relationship, but better late than never.

[econ21]

It also puzzles me why they didn't react faster to the gamers disappointment after the 1.0 ETW release. The crisis was obvious and quick reaction was a must.

To be fair, the ETW patches came quicker than with previous games. And we did get the daily diaries to reassure us that the fixes were ongoing. Also, given what Monk said about the CTDs etc, I guess the first priority of the patches was to get the game to work on most people's rigs. Fixing the AI was a longer job that was probably rightly scheduled for later.

It should also be born in mind that several folk - like Fisherking and Frogbeastegg - have argued that the earlier patch attempts to improve the challenge from the strategic AI made the game worse because it introduced excessive warmongering. Which probably goes to show that programming a good AI is harder than programming a stable game and so will take longer. Frankly, most TW games strategic AIs have been weak and unchallenging, except perhaps STW which cheated outrageously ("seeing" beforehand your supposedly simultaneous move).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Meh, damage control.
If they were truly interested in some sort of dialogue we'd have seen a more unreserved mea culpa and less pushing blame off on others. I mean... SEGA and us? Nor would we have been waiting so long for it if they truly felt bad about how it went down.
Face it, what he's saying is that before now it wasn't worth his time to come clean. Nice!

I'll believe CA's honest intentions the second they submit themselves to a Jeremy Paxman style Q&A session.

[mor-dan]

Well, I’ve finally given in and decided to start blogging. It’s something I’ve tried to resist over the years. I’ve also not posted directly on the forums, and it’s mainly because it takes so much time. Many of the issues discussed on the forums are deep and complex, and the arguments well put and compelling. Writing considered and persuasive responses that really deal with the issue is time consuming, and that is time I can’t spend working on the games.

It is not Mr. Simpson's job to write considered and persuasive responses to our pleas for better AI. It is his job to make sure the dev team delivers to the community what is needed to have a working game. It makes no sense that before this time when people complained there was no time to respond but now there is.

I can now add more quality to the games by talking to the community than I can by fixing issues.

This is actually the no brainer, because without communication you don't know what to fix. It makes no sense that there was no time to talk before, but now that you are hard at work on NTW you have time to discuss the problems with ETW. This is very suspicious.

Quite simply, the quality of what we produce depends directly on how much we get to spend on developing them. How much we spend depends directly on how many people buy the games. The user feedback on sites like IGN directly impacts sales, and that impacts how positively our publisher views the future of Total War, which determines how much we get to spend on the games.

In the movie, The Running Man, we would be seeing the flashing text saying, "Killian is lying to you!!!"

A) The quality of a game does not depend on how much you get to spend on the team. It does effect how many team members you get to hire which in turn determines how long it will take for a product to get completed. That's like Cheverolet saying, "The quality of car you buy from us is directly related to the amount of money you pay us." Who would buy a $12,000 car? You would then expect lower quality because you aren't paying $30,000. You would expect that the $30,000 would have better brakes, tires, windshield wipers, engines, harnesses, and body construction. You would expect the $12,000 care to be a death trap. Why? Because quality is related to cost. No sir. Quality is based on the commitment to excellence of the team putting the product together. Value is when I get more than what I paid for. Quality is what should come with everything I purchase.

B) If how much you spent was directly related to the game then the game should grow by leaps and bounds, not take steps backwards as has been the case with RTW up to now. NTW should almost be a different game because the engine should have been so completely overhauled and made to be some kind of a beast that pummels Shogun as like a pre-historic piece of grass. The games have sold in the millions of copies at $50 each, plus $30 for the expansions. That's $80+ million for each Total War title. Movie studios don't enjoy such elaborate successes. But as you are finding out, consumer purchasing is directly related to part A. You just told us that if we don't part B, you can't part A. This is an incorrect business model. You deliver qualify FIRST. Then we deliver our money.

C) If feedback determines how much you get to spend on the game, then you have been in trouble for a long time. You just didn't know it because everyone was being nice. Now people aren't being nice anymore. NTW is in danger of not selling and you have been asked to try and smooth things over with a community that is abandoning the marketshare.

Normally it’s a virtuous circle, and that’s allowed us to be very ambitious with what we try to deliver. We were not entirely happy with the state of Empire: Total War when it went out, and are only now getting to a point where we are broadly speaking happy with the game. Our own threshold for how we’d like the game to be is much higher than the commercial threshold required by our publisher. We are, like our community, hardcore fans of our own products, and any imperfections drive us nuts.

That's funny. Perhaps that guy promoting Napolean didn't get the memo that as a compay you guys weren't happy with the state of Empire, because that guy said he was very proud of Empire. And what do you mean ambitious? What are the primarily ambitious additions to Empire? Siege works? Been done before. Real time battles? Been done before. Turn based strategy? Been done before. Tech trees? Been done before. Naval comabt? Been done before. Diplomacy? Been done before. Guns? Been done before.

There is not a single thing I can think of about ETW that hasn't been done before either by you in the TW series or by a competitor in a different game. There is no ambition here. Only addition. By the way, I love how you threw the publisher under the bus and will later make a comment on how you won't say anything that will get you sued or fired. It's a huge red flag that the company knows you are writing this and has approved you bashing the parent to reach the masses.

With Empire: Total War, the virtuous circle turned a little vicious. The community used user ratings and user comments on sites like IGN and Metacritic to highlight weaknesses in the game, to try to encourage us to fix existing issues before working on anything new.

I’m not saying that we didn’t deserve to have a fair number of verbal bricks thrown our way.

However overdoing the criticism (For example I think a 67% user score on Metacritic is unfair), has the opposite effect to what is intended. Gamers (and reviewers. retailers, marketeers and publishing execs) will be put off Total War. That could mean fewer sales and less money to spend on adding quality to the games.

Now Mike... I know you are a smart guy. You wouldn't be in the position you are unless you had some sort of university degree. But let's be realistic, ok? It is basic rule of life that if you don't receive criticsm you don't grow. If everyone tells you how great things are, you won't change anything. The problem here isn't people being unfair, it's CA being deaf. I have not read a single complaint on these boards that I did not hear about M2TW or RTW. So this is game three. You have to expect the voices not being heard to get a little louder if you aren't going to listen to them. For a game I have repeatedly heard as "beta released", you are lucky to get a 67%. And if you will take a moment to look at the job you have now been assigned you will see that just the opposite of what you said has occurred. We haven't damaged the game, we've damaged the wallets of the powers that be. We accomplished our goal, and because of that your team may just deliver a better product. It sounds to me like we are winning the battle. And it's about damn time.



The reason I have responded thus is two-fold. Being an actor and reading scripts has taught me a few things. People have a thing called "sub-text". It's what you aren't saying but you really mean. We don't realize how often our subtext comes out in what we write. It's difficult for the company proof reader to catch (ie. "...we have higher standards than our publishers... i won't say anything to get myself sued or fired..." um, if you're my employee and i didn't give permission for you to say such things, you're fired). This is why I know that you aren't writing to tell us what you are spending your time and our money on. You're doing it to try and rebuild consumer confidence in your product. Bad reviews, sagging sales, and flame wars brought on by the announcement of Napolean with weak pre-order outlooks have the PR and AD campaign teams scrambling to put the piss back in the bladder. CA has been evacuating on us for three games now and the community finally said enough is enough.

Secondly, I am also a student of the bible, which means a student of ancient literature. When it comes to ancient literature you have to know things like who the author is, who the audience is, why is the author writing, what time frame is it, and what is going on with the audience at the time of the writing. This establishes historical context so we can understand what the writer meant. Obviously this is helpful not just with ancient literature, but all literature. It will help people to read what I have written and divulge why I wrote it. This is why I know that you are not writing to prove that you are listening to the community. You are writing to SAY that you are listening to the community. If you were listening to the community it wouldn't have taken three games for it to come to this point. You would have fixed it a long time ago. Action is what will show us you are listening. Less talking, more fixing.

That said, maybe you should go back to what you said at the beginning. If you are talking, you aren't fixing. That's what I see. That's what I read. It's good that you mentioned patch 1.5. It's the only thing that makes your post worth reading. It's the only thing that might show you really are listening.