View Full Version : No ETW Demo with latest PC Gamer mag
Hi all
I'm a long time reader but first poster, and a veteren TW player, i've been watching the demo thread with great joy, and when this month's PC Gamer magazine dropped through my door earlier my heart jumped at the thought of just maybe...the demo might be inside...but no...no...BAAAHHH
But it did have the first review of ETW that i've seen, and gives it 94% and a MUST purchase recommendation, the only negative points are the feeling of the sea battles and the problem controlling the sea battles, everything thing else was superb !
Regards to you all !
Polemists
02-07-2009, 16:01
Okay I know some of you hate spoilers but could someone who does not hate spoilers do a scan or something or this article. I'd like to read it, and sadly they don't sell the mag where I live.
Thank you
Sir Beane
02-07-2009, 16:12
Okay I know some of you hate spoilers but could someone who does not hate spoilers do a scan or something or this article. I'd like to read it, and sadly they don't sell the mag where I live.
Thank you
Actually scanning the magazine and posting it online is very likely a breach of copyright, and therefore not allowed here.
It would not be illegal for someone who has read the magazine to give us a summary in their own words however. :2thumbsup:
Actually scanning the magazine and posting it online is very likely a breach of copyright, and therefore not allowed here.
It would not be illegal for someone who has read the magazine to give us a summary in their own words however. :2thumbsup:
Roger that.
Upon release there will be many more articles. We will need to respect everyone's property rights.
Hello again
didn't have much time to write much earlier, the PC Gamer review is not online yet, so will not post the whole thing, PC Gamer are big TW fans and one of the first to have the MTW2 demo, the back page of this issue tells what will be in the next issue (12th March)- but still no mention of the demo, so i'm assuming the DEMO will only be direct from Sega or Steam ?
the important snippits of the review that interested me -
1700 - 1799 in 6 month turns
" there had been rumblings about TW being simplified for the US market, especially with the mini campaign Road To Independence, but don't think the complexity of the main game has been sacrificed, ETW is more and better than we've had before, CA do not seem to have shirked their responsibility, or stepped back from including more features or more detail"
" The trade routes arc around the huge main map, the core map stretches from Iceland on the top left to Sri Lanka on bottom right, red yellow and green status marks show you who you're sharing a sea-route with and how threatened you are, Pirates camping the route will need to be physically removed. The trade routes snake off into the rest of the world, including the 4 trade regions - S America, Ivory Coast, Straits of Madagascar and the E Indies, these are purely coastal regions in which fleets can be placed to generate money, it's then down to diplomacy and the grit of your admirals to keep them open"
" The AI turns remain achingly slow...."
" An empire can have up to 4 educational establishments....one of the new agent types is a Gentleman, and these can be installed in schools to speed up learning, this means you can push industrial, military, agricultural, or social research at different levels. In fact the tech tree and research process is one of the areas ETW seems to have nailed down best. Early races into particular areas of tech really do pay off, especially when you combine them with diplomacy, trading tech supremacy with your friends, this truly is a multi-layered game of cold blooded strategy"
" CA intend to make the campaign map multiplayer, this feature won't ship with the game, but within a couple of months you and a friend could be taking on the Ai nations"
" Naval combat although spectacular is unconvincing...I think there's a reason why there are so few naval combat sims, and even fewer good ones, it's a deeply difficult task, and CA have done the best that the game template will allow"
thats all for now folks!
Mailman653
02-07-2009, 18:51
Can someone explain the 99 years in six months thing?
Can someone explain the 99 years in six months thing?
It says 6 month turns so two turns a year.
CBR
Fisherking
02-07-2009, 18:54
Well it is interesting. Thanks for presenting it to us Stiboo!
Sounds like they were not ecstatic over the naval combat.
The game seems to have depth to it though.
It’s going to be a long 25 days before we can judge for our selves though.
Ituralde
02-07-2009, 18:56
Thank you for the Summary it is much appreciated.
Although I have to confess it always baffles me how game magazines feel competent enough to judge a game of the scope and size of Empire: Total War one month prior to its release. :inquisitive:
Mailman653
02-07-2009, 18:58
It says 6 month turns so two turns a year.
CBR
Thanks!:idea2:
Sir Beane
02-07-2009, 19:00
Many, many thanks to you Stiboo!
Tech trading with allies sounds fun :2thumbsup:.
The review actually made a mistake, if the far left of the map was Iceland then North America would not be in the game. :laugh4:
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-07-2009, 20:22
" The AI turns remain achingly slow...."
Hopefully they just don't know about the "don't follow AI" feature (that is to say, hopefully such a feature has been included as in the other games).
quadalpha
02-07-2009, 20:40
What's the PCG policy on review discs? Does this mean it's finished/release ready?
The Fuzz
02-07-2009, 21:11
It's a bit worrisome that the main feature that CA has been pushing (naval battles) is the part of the game PCG took issue with...
What's the PCG policy on review discs? Does this mean it's finished/release ready?
Well, I am not sure how it is for PC Gamer (UK) ..
But PC Gamer US policy is reviewing finished product only.
however, over the last couple of months that policy has slightly changed to gold games they get from the publisher that says "reviewable"
which is why you were able to see a DoW 2 review for last months PC Gamer (US) and the game is not even out yet.
I'm sure the UK counterpart has a similar policy.
MP
The review actually made a mistake, if the far left of the map was Iceland then North America would not be in the game. :laugh4:
Oh no, its there, but you cant trade with it :laugh4:.
More seriously: I believe they are saying that the main trade route which smaller routes connect to goes from Iceland, heads south, passes Africa and reaches Sri Lanka. That does not exclude the US, but simply ignoring the Pacific.
:balloon2:
Fondor_Yards
02-07-2009, 23:58
" CA intend to make the campaign map multiplayer, this feature won't ship with the game, but within a couple of months you and a friend could be taking on the Ai nations"
:gah:
Is this a joke? The whole game was delayed a month for a feature we probably won't get till July/August? What was the point in holding the release back if it's that far away from completion? Am I the only one upset by this?
:wall:
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 00:04
:gah:
Is this a joke? The whole game was delayed a month for a feature we probably won't get till July/August? What was the point in holding the release back if it's that far away from completion? Am I the only one upset by this?
:wall:
I don't think this is new info for most of us. CA's original message about the delay mentioned that Campaign multiplayer would not ship with the game.
It's a shame, but getting it late is better than getting Empire late.
I don't think this is new info for most of us. CA's original message about the delay mentioned that Campaign multiplayer would not ship with the game.
It's a shame, but getting it late is better than getting Empire late.
Its not like we dont have anything to do while waiting :idea2:
and finally now my typing finger has recovered,
Land battles from the PC Gamer review..
" The battlefields are vastly more detailed than before, especially around towns, with the smaller scale details now coming into effect in the form of battlefield defences, use of buildings by troops, and accurate cover. Battles play out more convincingly than in previous games, thers's still some errant unit activity, but i've seen little evidence of units sitting around waiting to be killed, or getting lost, not perfect but certainly more robust. The harder AI has been an absolute bastard to take on, enemy generals work to split your ranks, or funnel you into firing line of cannons, or to avoid your flanking tactics, they'll drive through your lines and then fan back around, attempting to split and isolate your troops. When firing from buildings and harrying your troops with veteren skirlmishers it starts to feel like a more mature game....only a few units - certain cavalry, pikemen, and some foot soldiers of undeveloped nations go without gunpowder.... the possibility for battlefield variation is more wide open than ever, and consequently even more engaging"
"...I cannot do anything else other than play ETW compulsively, obsessively...I've still been overwhelmed with desire to keep spreading my flag across this glorious, beautifully detailed map. Hell you're lucky to get a review at all! If I had my way I'd be getting on with that invasion of India right now...."
The only other thing to say is....
pleeeaassseee give me the DEMO !!!!
I can't take much more waiting...sob...groan.....scream...bite dog..woof....dog bites me back...sob....
and finally now my typing finger has recovered,
Land battles from the PC Gamer review..
" The battlefields are vastly more detailed than before, especially around towns, with the smaller scale details now coming into effect in the form of battlefield defences, use of buildings by troops, and accurate cover. Battles play out more convincingly than in previous games, thers's still some errant unit activity, but i've seen little evidence of units sitting around waiting to be killed, or getting lost, not perfect but certainly more robust. The harder AI has been an absolute bastard to take on, enemy generals work to split your ranks, or funnel you into firing line of cannons, or to avoid your flanking tactics, they'll drive through your lines and then fan back around, attempting to split and isolate your troops. When firing from buildings and harrying your troops with veteren skirlmishers it starts to feel like a more mature game....only a few units - certain cavalry, pikemen, and some foot soldiers of undeveloped nations go without gunpowder.... the possibility for battlefield variation is more wide open than ever, and consequently even more engaging"
"...I cannot do anything else other than play ETW compulsively, obsessively...I've still been overwhelmed with desire to keep spreading my flag across this glorious, beautifully detailed map. Hell you're lucky to get a review at all! If I had my way I'd be getting on with that invasion of India right now...."
The only other thing to say is....
pleeeaassseee give me the DEMO !!!!
I can't take much more waiting...sob...groan.....scream...bite dog..woof....dog bites me back...sob....
I really appreciate the effort, lots of thanks :2thumbsup:
(On waiting: I could probably wait 25 years for ETW if it was promised to be the perfect game. Balance, AI, atmosphere and replayability that makes gods weep, and stuff. But then again, I won't be able to play ETW at release anyway, so a sort of Zen-like calm descends over me regarding demos and everything.)
Incongruous
02-08-2009, 05:34
Finally, affirmation on the quality if land battles, it sounds as if CA have really done a good job this time, with an AI that uses real tactics such as the dividing of an enemy line and setting up fields of fire:2thumbsup:
Polemists
02-08-2009, 06:10
Thanks for all the great info, the game sounds spectacular as I expected :)
As for Naval Combat, this is CA's first step in that direction, so I think anyone who expected a flawless naval combat simulator were setting there sights a little to high. It's playable, it works, and it's fun and for me that's what matters in the end.
Ai sounds more interesting as does tech tree and land combat.
On waiting, if it took 25 years to make a game every company would go bankrupt, kind of hard to pay your employees once every 25 years :laugh4:
It's a good game, it got very high marks, nothing is perfect and i'm sure some people will gripe regardless but for me it's just fine.
So bring on the demo.
Yes to my understanding the only way to get the demo will be through steam, and i'm sure when it's out steam will plaster it all over there front page.
Megas Methuselah
02-08-2009, 06:57
" The battlefields are vastly more detailed than before, especially around towns, with the smaller scale details now coming into effect in the form of battlefield defences, use of buildings by troops, and accurate cover. Battles play out more convincingly than in previous games, thers's still some errant unit activity, but i've seen little evidence of units sitting around waiting to be killed, or getting lost, not perfect but certainly more robust. The harder AI has been an absolute bastard to take on, enemy generals work to split your ranks, or funnel you into firing line of cannons, or to avoid your flanking tactics, they'll drive through your lines and then fan back around, attempting to split and isolate your troops. When firing from buildings and harrying your troops with veteren skirlmishers it starts to feel like a more mature game....only a few units - certain cavalry, pikemen, and some foot soldiers of undeveloped nations go without gunpowder.... the possibility for battlefield variation is more wide open than ever, and consequently even more engaging"
:sweatdrop: Oh, God help me...
Polemists
02-08-2009, 07:01
Lol, a few other tidbits I saw on other websites while browsing
Ports can be fisheries, trading ports or military ports.
The Knights of Saint John are a small faction which have Malta
Missonaries are a campaign map unit
This was taken from the UK PC gamer article, not sure if it's any different then the US one.
I found ports most interesting but apparently lots of people are excited that knights of malta are included. I assume as a nonplayable faction.
It sounds awesome...now if only I could play it..in some demonstration like form :laugh4:
lol very subtle pole, i would assume fishery would give a pop growth bonus, trading port would give more trade routes and possibly trade fleets and military would give better fighting boats.
interesting i thought only 2 non combat camp map units, gentlemen and scoundrels or w/e they were called this is the first i heard of there still being a religious campaign unit on the map.
Hi all
I'm a long time reader but first poster, and a veteren TW player, i've been watching the demo thread with great joy, and when this month's PC Gamer magazine dropped through my door earlier my heart jumped at the thought of just maybe...the demo might be inside...but no...no...BAAAHHH
But it did have the first review of ETW that i've seen, and gives it 94% and a MUST purchase recommendation, the only negative points are the feeling of the sea battles and the problem controlling the sea battles, everything thing else was superb !
Regards to you all !
The Euro PC Gamer mag did not have the demo? Hhmmm...that is weird, my US version has the demo. It is pretty good.
:beam:
Polemists
02-08-2009, 08:43
Either Vuk is fibbing.......or he inviting you all to his house to go play the demo haha :)
So Vuk, what does the demo include exactly, since you say you have it?
The good news is if the demo was included in us version, those of you in states have a easy way to get the demo (Go to your closest mag store and buy the issue)
For the rest of us, hopefully in a day or two steam will post it up anyhow.
Though i'd hold up rushing out and buying the mag with CD until Vuk confirms he does indeed have the demo (by giving us details).
lol, I am fibbing. :P Poor old Vuk is demoless like everyone else. :P
Polemists
02-08-2009, 09:09
Vuk has betrayed the honor of the demo legions. Demo legionares....you know what to do. :whip:
In happier news, as game gets closer, so does the possibility of our...demonstration possibilities :laugh4:
Yup, Vuk is naughty. Jennifer Ellison (https://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=28441ellison12512298loou9.jpg) had better spank the bad boy. :beam:
Fondor_Yards
02-08-2009, 10:02
I don't think this is new info for most of us. CA's original message about the delay mentioned that Campaign multiplayer would not ship with the game.
It's a shame, but getting it late is better than getting Empire late.
I was aware that it was going to added in after the release, but I didn't expect it to be over a month, month and half half max after the release. It just seems stupid to to delay the whole game if it's going to be longer then that. The only reason I can think of is they need to edit the actual code/engine/whatever in the actual vanilla version so that it would work.
I was aware that it was going to added in after the release, but I didn't expect it to be over a month, month and half half max after the release. It just seems stupid to to delay the whole game if it's going to be longer then that. The only reason I can think of is they need to edit the actual code/engine/whatever in the actual vanilla version so that it would work.
Honestly, if they need another month to make sure that those aspects are as good as they can be, I say give it to them. It is worth waiting a few months for a better game. Just relax and play what you got in the mean time. There are plenty of good games out there to keep you occupied until Empire is released.
Ituralde
02-08-2009, 10:36
I was aware that it was going to added in after the release, but I didn't expect it to be over a month, month and half half max after the release. It just seems stupid to to delay the whole game if it's going to be longer then that. The only reason I can think of is they need to edit the actual code/engine/whatever in the actual vanilla version so that it would work.
That's exactly what they said they had to do. The delay was due to bug fixes/polishing and to add the coding groundwork for the multiplayer campaign. And although it could take until July/August for it to be finished I am pretty sure there will be a beta test before. So for those who are really eager there should be possibilities before.
If reviewers that usually cheer for the smallest of reasons, took issue with the naval battles then it means that they might be as arcadish as a constant stream of gossip info insistently tells us they are. I am not surprised in the least - when CA introduced land combat in 2000 they did it with real focus on realistic tactics in mind - morale, terrain, weather and positional factors all played crucial parts in troop and weapon performance. I always thought that the move to include naval combat in ETW was pre-mature in terms of resources the studio would need to allocate alongside the campaign and land battle game (judging from the fact that their recent games were far from complete upon release with land battles and campaign game alone) and also in terms of current system capacity. To this, one should add commercial expectations for the game that ensure that accessibility is of prime importance - hence CA will choose *simplified representation* over *realistic focused representation* of parameters by default as all recent experience (RTW/M2) confirms.
In addition the talk about depth being equated with CA not shying to put more features is just telling of how much wrongly the two are connected - depth doesnt necessarily imply feature multitude - the Vices, Virtues and Ancillaries in RTW/M2 added another layer of gameplay by offering an extra Sims game within a TW framework but not more strategic depth. In short the article is indirectly confirming that the game is full of new toys and not of depth - and the fact that CA took issue to repeat this in all interviews confirms it even more. Unless of course you are prepared to believe their marketing chatter that they design for new players and veterans alike at the same time as if such thing was possible.
ETW is shaping up to be the most spectacularly compromising TW game ever, far from a return to form, and CA the equivalent of Metallica for those who like HM - a company that vented so far from its roots that it cannot find the way back to them even if it wanted to. Trully dissapointing.
!it burnsus!
If reviewers that usually cheer for the smallest of reasons, took issue with the naval battles then it means that they might be as arcadish as a constant stream of gossip info insistently tells us they are. I am not surprised in the least - when CA introduced land combat in 2000 they did it with real focus on realistic tactics in mind - morale, terrain, weather and positional factors all played crucial parts in troop and weapon performance. I always thought that the move to include naval combat in ETW was pre-mature in terms of resources the studio would need to allocate alongside the campaign and land battle game (judging from the fact that their recent games were far from complete upon release with land battles and campaign game alone) and also in terms of current system capacity. To this, one should add commercial expectations for the game that ensure that accessibility is of prime importance - hence CA will choose *simplified representation* over *realistic focused representation* of parameters by default as all recent experience (RTW/M2) confirms.
In addition the talk about depth being equated with CA not shying to put more features is just telling of how much wrongly the two are connected - depth doesnt necessarily imply feature multitude - the Vices, Virtues and Ancillaries in RTW/M2 added another layer of gameplay by offering an extra Sims game within a TW framework but not more strategic depth. In short the article is indirectly confirming that the game is full of new toys and not of depth - and the fact that CA took issue to repeat this in all interviews confirms it even more. Unless of course you are prepared to believe their marketing chatter that they design for new players and veterans alike at the same time as if such thing was possible.
ETW is shaping up to be the most spectacularly compromising TW game ever, far from a return to form, and CA the equivalent of Metallica for those who like HM - a company that vented so far from its roots that it cannot find the way back to them even if it wanted to. Trully dissapointing.
!it burnsus!
I got the feeling that naval battles may be very much in need of work as well. I do not agree with you that the game has to stink though, or that it is not the right time for naval battles. If fans would get off their backs and give them 4 more months, I bet that they would save months of listening to complaints from unsatisfied gamers, and working to get patches out. I think that a game this grand needs and deserves more time, and if I were CA I would take another few months to make sure that naval battles will live up to TW standards, and that the MP campaign will be at least as good as the SP campaign, and not a dissapointment. As much as fans like to act like little kids and whine now, they ARE gonna buy the game, whether they have to wait a little while more or not, and they will think better of the game in the end if it is not rushed. I know that there are tons of things the developers would like to do that they do not have time for, but naval battles and MP campaign HAVE to be done right.
I also agree with you that the (often conflicting) traits and ancillaries system was stupid and did not benefit gameplay. Total War IS a focused game and cannot do everything. I hope that CA realises that and tries to put out the best TOTAL WAR (not sims or age of empires or anything else) it can.
Despite the shortcomings though, I really did love RTW, as well as M2TW. They made so many positive developments that made the game fantastic. To be honest with you though, I think that ETW is being rushed way to fast, so I am not gonna buy it until it is out for a while and I hear what people think of it. And even then not until the complete thing is released.
I am confident that CA will put out a good game, even if it takes several tries...I just wish that they would do it in the first try.
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 11:16
If reviewers that usually cheer for the smallest of reasons, took issue with the naval battles then it means that they might be as arcadish as a constant stream of gossip info insistently tells us they are. I am not surprised in the least - when CA introduced land combat in 2000 they did it with real focus on realistic tactics in mind - morale, terrain, weather and positional factors all played crucial parts in troop and weapon performance. I always thought that the move to include naval combat in ETW was pre-mature in terms of resources the studio would need to allocate alongside the campaign and land battle game (judging from the fact that their recent games were far from complete upon release with land battles and campaign game alone) and also in terms of current system capacity. To this, one should add commercial expectations for the game that ensure that accessibility is of prime importance - hence CA will choose *simplified representation* over *realistic focused representation* of parameters by default as all recent experience (RTW/M2) confirms.
In addition the talk about depth being equated with CA not shying to put more features is just telling of how much wrongly the two are connected - depth doesnt necessarily imply feature multitude - the Vices, Virtues and Ancillaries in RTW/M2 added another layer of gameplay by offering an extra Sims game within a TW framework but not more strategic depth. In short the article is indirectly confirming that the game is full of new toys and not of depth - and the fact that CA took issue to repeat this in all interviews confirms it even more. Unless of course you are prepared to believe their marketing chatter that they design for new players and veterans alike at the same time as if such thing was possible.
ETW is shaping up to be the most spectacularly compromising TW game ever, far from a return to form, and CA the equivalent of Metallica for those who like HM - a company that vented so far from its roots that it cannot find the way back to them even if it wanted to. Trully dissapointing.
!it burnsus!
This sort of rant really throws me. You are basing all this negativity on one review which gave the game 94%, which I assume you haven't read, plus a handful of interviews and some gossip.
You have not played the game, so how can you call it 'Truly disappointing'? You call the game 'spectacularly compromising' based on what exactly?
For all we know the issues the PC gamer reviewer had with naval combat were related to it being too slow, something that a naval fan might actually appreciate.
It's amazing that from "It's all brilliant except this one thing" you can spiral off into a rant about CA losing their touch.
By all means call the game rubbish and critiscise CA, but please at least wait until the game is out and you have played it. *Sigh*
Polemists
02-08-2009, 11:32
Agreed.
Quite frankly there are always the two sides of the coin. There are the fans that whine constantly about delays, and there are the fans who whine constantly that if they'd just polish for a few more months it'd be great. Heck one guy mentioned 25 years. Neither are realisitic.
CA has to make money at end of the day and ETW will do that, in spades. Whether you dislike the rpgish factors or the add in of 13 colonies or fact naval combat dosn't have realistic sailing, CA has stated countless times that as they add in more across the board features, they get more players.
My opinon is I'd always rather have a game that works and is fun, and not perfect, then no game. Perfection is left for patches and expansion packs.
If the you want to wait another year, year and a half for a expansion pack that probably focuses on naval combat now, be my guest. I am going to buy the game.
To me the game sounds fun.
Yes there are and could be improvements, there always could, and even then the same people would be unhappy.
I'm glad the game got such a high review and a good rating and that's it's addictive. At end of the day that's what I want.
This is only one review though, so you may want to wait until at least 10 reviews or more are up, or as Beane said, until you play the game for a 100% sure comment.
Agreed.
Quite frankly there are always the two sides of the coin. There are the fans that whine constantly about delays, and there are the fans who whine constantly that if they'd just polish for a few more months it'd be great. Heck one guy mentioned 25 years. Neither are realisitic.
CA has to make money at end of the day and ETW will do that, in spades. Whether you dislike the rpgish factors or the add in of 13 colonies or fact naval combat dosn't have realistic sailing, CA has stated countless times that as they add in more across the board features, they get more players.
My opinon is I'd always rather have a game that works and is fun, and not perfect, then no game. Perfection is left for patches and expansion packs.
If the you want to wait another year, year and a half for a expansion pack that probably focuses on naval combat now, be my guest. I am going to buy the game.
To me the game sounds fun.
Yes there are and could be improvements, there always could, and even then the same people would be unhappy.
I'm glad the game got such a high review and a good rating and that's it's addictive. At end of the day that's what I want.
This is only one review though, so you may want to wait until at least 10 reviews or more are up, or as Beane said, until you play the game for a 100% sure comment.
I agree with you, a game cannot be perfect, and it has to be released, but naval combat and MP campaign are the two largest features of ETW, and they SHOULD be up to TW standards (I am not saying that they will not be, I have no idea). IF they do need an extra month or two to do that, they should take it to make sure that those features are up to par with the rest of the game. Do you know what I mean?
Polemists
02-08-2009, 11:57
MP campaign are the two largest features of ETW
MP campaign is not the largest feature, you may think so, but it only got added to Empire a month ago, and as a few sentences comment.
The MP battles are still intact and ask around, there's alot of people on these forums that care far more about MP battles then they do the MP campaign.
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 12:01
I can't say I'm too worried about naval combat. If it sucks, thats a shame, but if we take it away we still have a normal TW game left. The land battles and the campaign map will probably be excellent, and to be honest thats what most of us care about anyway.
If you play the naval sim genre for any length of time you get used to disappointment and putting up with sub-standard games. It seems like no company can do naval combat justice.
bloodshed
02-08-2009, 12:19
In my opinion I could care less about the naval combat. Ill probably play out the first couple and then auto resolve the rest. Just not interested in it. Sorry just my opinion. I mostly care about the land battles. Its very rare that I auto resolve a land battle even if I have like one group of peasants against hundreds of heavy infantry. If I'm going down I'm taking as many of them as I can with me lol. But I just love muskets lol. Just my opinion.:beam:
Originally posted by Vuk
If fans would get off their backs...
This has nothing to do with the fans - it has to do with commercial targets and expectations from the part of CA. They decide when the games are released, what the games will contain and who the games are imlpicitly addressed to.
As much as fans like to act like little kids and whine now, they ARE gonna buy the game...
I havent bought M2TW or its expansion - neither do i plan to - the same probably will happen with Empire. As for branding others opinion as whinning and them as kids it just goes to show the level of fanboysim that is the standard in this forum (parliament). Such wordings in my book - and no hard feelings towards you - are a breach of respect.
Originally posted by Sir Beane
This sort of rant really throws me.
Pull your self back up then beceause its not a rant.
You are basing all this negativity on one review which gave the game 94%, which I assume you haven't read, plus a handful of interviews and some gossip.
I am basing all this *negativity* in 9 years of experience with CAs track record and 4 years of participation in TW forums. Its well known what CA might mean between the lines when it markets the game and when you ll be around that long too and lose some of the new fans enthusiasm you have you might start seeing it too.
As for the 94% it means litteraly nothing. Even games the reviewers find hardcore and they basically dislike get scores around 80s - its a no brainer what they will give to TW games that are by now established, mainstream and succesful and have a powerful publisher behind them - to use Mike Simpsons words *we make sure the right reviewers get to see the game, in case the game is not a particular reviewers cup of tea*.
You have not played the game, so how can you call it 'Truly disappointing'?
I can since i was not reffering to the game but in CAs overall direction and mondus operandi.
You call the game 'spectacularly compromising' based on what exactly?
I dont call the game anything - i said that *its shaping into* meaning the impression of the game as it emerges through from promovideos, interviews and previews. This impression amounts to; three gamemodes (as opoosed to two until now), a map three times the size of the map used up to now; almost three times more factions than up to now. In other words the game has turned into a Gargantuan affair - and CA couldnt even manage decently RTW and M2TW that were far more smaller in size and scope and they were springing from previous experience. When on top of this you hear reviewers finding issues with the game - then something wicked this way comes.
For all we know the issues the PC gamer reviewer had with naval combat were related to it being too slow, something that a naval fan might actually appreciate.
There are other previews that mention that the element of windage has been underplayed and that boats rotate on the spot.
It's amazing that from "It's all brilliant except this one thing" you can spiral off into a rant about CA losing their touch.
Again much like Vuk you brand my opinion and perception in order to vindicate it - i am not particularly happy about this since it was espressed completely in bounds ie following the rules. You are entitled to your opinion of course - but this is not the most prudent thing in the world to do for an Assistant Moderator. I appreciate your engrossed enthusiam about the game - but a forum is a place that you might have to share with others that do not share the same feelings. When you are visibly upset about opinions that do not match your own while you are meant to ensure free expression of all views if done decently - then theres something wrong if you ask me.
By all means call the game rubbish and critiscise CA, but please at least wait until the game is out and you have played it.
I dont think tha game will be rubbish - i think it will be the epitome of recent CA games - that is substituting clear expression of true strategy and tactics with more micromanegement features and better visuals.
*Sigh*
I havent seen you *sighing* with the spamfest of DEMO-mania in which you subtly participated and partially instigated yourself ... neither did i sighed about it publicly irrespective of the fact that i did privately.
Originally posted by Polemists
CA has stated countless times that as they add in more across the board features, they get more players.
Now we are talking business.
Perfection is left for patches and expansion packs.
This is sadly wrong - neither patches nor expansion packs complete the game - RTW as well as M2 were left with major bugs in (for Kingdoms to be shaped up in those features that were broken despite being advertised it took a public outcry).
If the you want to wait another year, year and a half for a expansion pack that probably focuses on naval combat now, be my guest. I am going to buy the game.
i didnt mention anything about more time needed - the only reason that CA cant complete things is because the list of features and scale of te game is unrealistically large in respect to what time exists for developing-testing-correcting cycles. In other words as far as CA is concerned you do them a favor by buying the game at release - veteran players call it *large scale beta testing* - have fun doing it by the way.
...and even then the same people would be unhappy
I am not unhappy with bits and pieces of recent TW games - but with them as a whole since i disagree with the design standpoint and concept they (recently) follow.
This is only one review though, so you may want to wait until at least 10 reviews or more are up, or as Beane said, until you play the game for a 100% sure comment.
Sure and mine is only one opinion - since when Bean and others are entitled to their enthusiastic views before they play the game and me not in my not-so-enthusiastic view?
!it burnsus!
This has nothing to do with the fans - it has to do with commercial targets and expectations from the part of CA. They decide when the games are released, what the games will contain and who the games are imlpicitly addressed to.
I havent bought M2TW or its expansion - neither do i plan to - the same probably will happen with Empire. As for branding others opinion as whinning and them as kids it just goes to show the level of fanboysim that is the standard in this forum (parliament). Such wordings in my book - and no hard feelings towards you - are a breach of respect.
Pull your self back up then beceause its not a rant.
I am basing all this *negativity* in 9 years of experience with CAs track record and 4 years of participation in TW forums. Its well known what CA might mean between the lines when it markets the game and when you ll be around that long too and lose some of the new fans enthusiasm you have you might start seeing it too.
As for the 94% it means litteraly nothing. Even games the reviewers find hardcore and they basically dislike get scores around 80s - its a no brainer what they will give to TW games that are by now established, mainstream and succesful and have a powerful publisher behind them - to use Mike Simpsons words *we make sure the right reviewers get to see the game, in case the game is not a particular reviewers cup of tea*.
I can since i was not reffering to the game but in CAs overall direction and mondus operandi.
I dont call the game anything - i said that *its shaping into* meaning the impression of the game as it emerges through from promovideos, interviews and previews. This impression amounts to; three gamemodes (as opoosed to two until now), a map three times the size of the map used up to now; almost three times more factions than up to now. In other words the game has turned into a Gargantuan affair - and CA couldnt even manage decently RTW and M2TW that were far more smaller in size and scope and they were springing from previous experience. When on top of this you hear reviewers finding issues with the game - then something wicked this way comes.
There are other previews that mention that the element of windage has been underplayed and that boats rotate on the spot.
Again much like Vuk you brand my opinion and perception in order to vindicate it - i am not particularly happy about this since it was espressed completely in bounds ie following the rules. You are entitled to your opinion of course - but this is not the most prudent thing in the world to do for an Assistant Moderator. I appreciate your engrossed enthusiam about the game - but a forum is a place that you might have to share with others that do not share the same feelings. When you are visible upset about opinions that do not match your own while you are meant to ensure free expression of all views if done decently - then theres something wrong if you ask me.
I dont think tha game will be rubbish - i think it will be the epitome of recent CA games - that is substituting clear expression of true strategy and tactics with more micromanegement features and better visuals.
I havent seen you *sighing* with the spamfest of DEMO-mania in which you subtly participated and partially instigated yourself ... neither did i sighed about it publicly irrespective of the fact that i did privately.
Now we are talking business.
This is sadly wrong - neither patches nor expansion packs complete the game - RTW as well as M2 were left with major bugs in.
i didnt mention anything about more time needed - the only reason that CA cant complete things is because the list of features and scale of te game is unrealistically large in respect to what time exists for developing-testing-correcting cycles. In other words as far as CA is concerned you do them a favor by buying the game at release - veteran players call it *large scale beta testing* - have fun doing it by the way.
I am not unhappy with bits and pieces of recent TW games - but with them as a whole since i disagree with the design standpoint and concept they (recently) follow.
Sure and mine is only one opinion - since when Bean and others are entitled to their enthusiastic views before they play the game and me not in my not-so-enthusiastic view?
!it burnsus!
I do not agree with what you say in general, but I do believe there is one vital point to be made here.
"Dont judge the game until you play it", people seem to say when someone is negative about the game. Thats fine by me. But what people on this forum dont seem to realise is that everyone being positive about the game is actually doing the same thing. Judging it before they played it. Consequently making it okay to judge the game only if you are positive to it.
:balloon2:
This has nothing to do with the fans - it has to do with commercial targets and expectations from the part of CA. They decide when the games are released, what the games will contain and who the games are imlpicitly addressed to.
I havent bought M2TW or its expansion - neither do i plan to - the same probably will happen with Empire. As for branding others opinion as whinning and them as kids it just goes to show the level of fanboysim that is the standard in this forum (parliament). Such wordings in my book - and no hard feelings towards you - are a breach of respect.
Pull your self back up then beceause its not a rant.
I am basing all this *negativity* in 9 years of experience with CAs track record and 4 years of participation in TW forums. Its well known what CA might mean between the lines when it markets the game and when you ll be around that long too and lose some of the new fans enthusiasm you have you might start seeing it too.
As for the 94% it means litteraly nothing. Even games the reviewers find hardcore and they basically dislike get scores around 80s - its a no brainer what they will give to TW games that are by now established, mainstream and succesful and have a powerful publisher behind them - to use Mike Simpsons words *we make sure the right reviewers get to see the game, in case the game is not a particular reviewers cup of tea*.
I can since i was not reffering to the game but in CAs overall direction and mondus operandi.
I dont call the game anything - i said that *its shaping into* meaning the impression of the game as it emerges through from promovideos, interviews and previews. This impression amounts to; three gamemodes (as opoosed to two until now), a map three times the size of the map used up to now; almost three times more factions than up to now. In other words the game has turned into a Gargantuan affair - and CA couldnt even manage decently RTW and M2TW that were far more smaller in size and scope and they were springing from previous experience. When on top of this you hear reviewers finding issues with the game - then something wicked this way comes.
There are other previews that mention that the element of windage has been underplayed and that boats rotate on the spot.
Again much like Vuk you brand my opinion and perception in order to vindicate it - i am not particularly happy about this since it was espressed completely in bounds ie following the rules. You are entitled to your opinion of course - but this is not the most prudent thing in the world to do for an Assistant Moderator. I appreciate your engrossed enthusiam about the game - but a forum is a place that you might have to share with others that do not share the same feelings. When you are visibly upset about opinions that do not match your own while you are meant to ensure free expression of all views if done decently - then theres something wrong if you ask me.
I dont think tha game will be rubbish - i think it will be the epitome of recent CA games - that is substituting clear expression of true strategy and tactics with more micromanegement features and better visuals.
I havent seen you *sighing* with the spamfest of DEMO-mania in which you subtly participated and partially instigated yourself ... neither did i sighed about it publicly irrespective of the fact that i did privately.
Now we are talking business.
This is sadly wrong - neither patches nor expansion packs complete the game - RTW as well as M2 were left with major bugs in.
i didnt mention anything about more time needed - the only reason that CA cant complete things is because the list of features and scale of te game is unrealistically large in respect to what time exists for developing-testing-correcting cycles. In other words as far as CA is concerned you do them a favor by buying the game at release - veteran players call it *large scale beta testing* - have fun doing it by the way.
I am not unhappy with bits and pieces of recent TW games - but with them as a whole since i disagree with the design standpoint and concept they (recently) follow.
Sure and mine is only one opinion - since when Bean and others are entitled to their enthusiastic views before they play the game and me not in my not-so-enthusiastic view?
!it burnsus!
Gollum, you need to calm down. No one was attacking you, you are just being offensive. My comment about whining like children was directed at the "DEMO!!!!!" people (including my friend Polemists), not at you. Also, you say that you have never played M2, maybe that explains your low opinion of it. If you played it, you would probably like it a lot more. Also, you talk about its bugs when you have never played it! What "major bugs" were left over in M2?
I think that you are acting irrationally, but I do agree with you that CA has a habit of rushing things, and that I suspect that they are doing it with Empire. Still, you gotta calm down.
Polemists
02-08-2009, 13:03
Oh good, long topic time yayness :)
Pull your self back up then beceause its not a rant
Lots of things are rants, I think several of my posts and vuk's posts qualify as such :)
I havent seen you *sighing* with the spamfest of DEMO-mania in which you subtly participated and partially instigated yourself ... neither did i sighed about it publicly irrespective of the fact that i did privately.
Actually he did, lots of people participated, that hardly means they can't go against or pro the game. Your welcome to sigh, there is no non sighing law in the forum rules last I looked :yes:
Now we are talking business
Name of the game, you can be Black Isle (Closed rpg company) or Blizzard (World of warcraft company). It's not about making a better game, it's about making what you think will sell and is playable. CA has stated countless times if it comes to history vs playability, history goes.
i didnt mention anything about more time needed - the only reason that CA cant complete things is because the list of features and scale of te game is unrealistically large in respect to what time exists for developing-testing-correcting cycles. In other words as far as CA is concerned you do them a favor by buying the game at release - veteran players call it *large scale beta testing* - have fun doing it by the way.
This was in reference to Vuk's comments not yours, I probably should have specificed. I normally do enjoy it, I still like MTW2 and RTW and I havn't patched them yet. It's all about what you think is broken/etc. I remeber when games were completely crash worthy unplayable, so how horses charge not a game breaker for me (in reference to horse charge of MTW2 that was fixed in a patch.)
Sure and mine is only one opinion - since when Bean and others are entitled to their enthusiastic views before they play the game and me not in my not-so-enthusiastic view?
I don't think i ever said not entitled, I think I said "May" just as I don't get mad when I get excited and people say things like, "you may" want to wait until you play the game before being so excited.
Everyone is entitled to the view, and every is entitled to pick apart and counter any view. That's the joy of forums :), this isn't a unbiased area, we are all welcome to opinons and countering opinons. Long as it is polite. I like to think i'm polite :)
My comment about whining like children was directed at the "DEMO!!!!!" people (including my friend Polemists), not at you.
I keep my rabid enthuaism and demo love to this point. That dosn't mean we can't be polite and nice though. For instance I and Vuk laugh offline just as I and Beane laugh in ooc.
The forum is meant to share opinons, long as that occurs all is good :)
I keep my rabid enthuaism and demo love to this point. That dosn't mean we can't be polite and nice though. For instance I and Vuk laugh offline just as I and Beane laugh in ooc.
The forum is meant to share opinons, long as that occurs all is good :)
lol, what I said there can be accurately called a rant. :P I am sorry if I offended you, I just thought that insisting on CA finalising things to the point of a demo before they were ready was not a good idea. (or very mature :P)
Polemists
02-08-2009, 13:16
lol, what I said there can be accurately called a rant. :P I am sorry if I offended you, I just thought that insisting on CA finalising things to the point of a demo before they were ready was not a good idea. (or very mature :P)
You didn't offend me, i'd take alot more then that :laugh4:
I wasn't insisting they finalize anything, I was just insisting that we needed a demo (and claiming full responability for the reason Total war website added a demo section) :2thumbsup:
Mature? Oh if you want people on this forum to be mature your going to be let down i'm afraid :laugh4:
You didn't offend me, i'd take alot more then that :laugh4:
I wasn't insisting they finalize anything, I was just insisting that we needed a demo (and claiming full responability for the reason Total war website added a demo section) :2thumbsup:
Mature? Oh if you want people on this forum to be mature your going to be let down i'm afraid :laugh4:
lol, BE MATURE! :whip: I ORDER YOU! :whip:
:balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:: balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 13:25
I havent bought M2TW or its expansion - neither do i plan to - the same probably will happen with Empire. As for branding others opinion as whinning and them as kids it just goes to show the level of fanboysim that is the standard in this forum (parliament). Such wordings in my book - and no hard feelings towards you - are a breach of respect.
There's quite the difference between appreciating the good qualities of a game and being a fanboy. You won't see anyone in this forum minlessly praising CA for whatever they do. You'll see fans praising the good and politely critiscising the bad. Yes we are being quite poitive about Empire. Why not? Innocent until proven guilty I say, I'll remain enthusuastic and positive until the game gives me a reason I shouldn't.
Pull your self back up then beceause its not a rant.
You may not have intended it as one, but it gives a reader who doesn't know what you intended the impression that it is.
I am basing all this *negativity* in 9 years of experience with CAs track record and 4 years of participation in TW forums. Its well known what CA might mean between the lines when it markets the game and when you ll be around that long too and lose some of the new fans enthusiasm you have you might start seeing it too.
As for the 94% it means litteraly nothing. Even games the reviewers find hardcore and they basically dislike get scores around 80s - its a no brainer what they will give to TW games that are by now established, mainstream and succesful and have a powerful publisher behind them - to use Mike Simpsons words *we make sure the right reviewers get to see the game, in case the game is not a particular reviewers cup of tea*.
What makes you think I'm a new fan? I've played every TW game. I've been with the series since Medieval, which I bought when it came out. I've hung around TW forums for years as well.
I'm enthusiastic because I think CA make brilliant games and I have enjoyed playing every single one. Being a veteran of the series doesn't automatically mean turning into a cynic.
I can since i was not reffering to the game but in CAs overall direction and mondus operandi.
Fair enough then, but it's a shame such a great series can disappoint you.
I dont call the game anything - i said that *its shaping into* meaning the impression of the game as it emerges through from promovideos, interviews and previews. This impression amounts to; three gamemodes (as opoosed to two until now), a map three times the size of the map used up to now; almost three times more factions than up to now. In other words the game has turned into a Gargantuan affair - and CA couldnt even manage decently RTW and M2TW that were far more smaller in size and scope and they were springing from previous experience. When on top of this you hear reviewers finding issues with the game - then something wicked this way comes.
Yes, making the game three times the size is quite the compromise. It's a reviwers job to find issues with a game. If you expected a game above critiscism then you are always going to be disappoiunted.
There are other previews that mention that the element of windage has been underplayed and that boats rotate on the spot.
Fair enough I suppose, but I still think it's too early to judge the game when all we have is one review.
Again much like Vuk you brand my opinion and perception in order to vindicate it - i am not particularly happy about this since it was espressed completely in bounds ie following the rules. You are entitled to your opinion of course - but this is not the most prudent thing in the world to do for an Assistant Moderator. I appreciate your engrossed enthusiam about the game - but a forum is a place that you might have to share with others that do not share the same feelings. When you are visibly upset about opinions that do not match your own while you are meant to ensure free expression of all views if done decently - then theres something wrong if you ask me.
This whole section seems to be a thinly veiled way of saying you don't think I'm fit to be an Assistant Mod, but I'll let that slide. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but so are we. I'm not upset that your opinion is not the same as mine, but I do dislike the fact that your post is extremely negative about a games company I happen to have a lot of respect for.
I dont think tha game will be rubbish - i think it will be the epitome of recent CA games - that is substituting clear expression of true strategy and tactics with more micromanegement features and better visuals.
Ok, it's nice to hear the specific reasons you dislike the game.
I havent seen you *sighing* with the spamfest of DEMO-mania in which you subtly participated and partially instigated yourself ... neither did i sighed about it publicly irrespective of the fact that i did privately.
You haven't seen me do that because I contacted several members in private and asked them not to. The fact they ingnored me is not my fault. I may have added a mention of demos to my signiture, but I never spammed the forum with demo posts.
Polemists
02-08-2009, 13:31
You won't see anyone in this forum minlessly praising CA for whatever they do.
Actually if they give me a demo i'll be pretty darn tempted :laugh4: j/k
I think everyone should try to have fun and not get to negative or positive. Game will be what it is :yes:
I actually think I see both sides on that argument. There are some people who seem determined to bash CA for anything it does, and some who seem insistant on claiming that CA is perfect, but they are very few and far between. I think that most people here judge CA based on the merits of its game, even if some are a little carried away with anticipation. The best thing to do now would be to drop this conversation I think...completely.
Polemists
02-08-2009, 13:37
Okay so now that we are off the opinons we can get back to facts and the topic
No ETW Demo with latest PC Gamer mag
SO, any other quotes or facts from article someone else found that we are missing?
Schiltrom
02-08-2009, 13:39
If you play the naval sim genre for any length of time you get used to disappointment and putting up with sub-standard games. It seems like no company can do naval combat justice.
Perhaps, but only so far, I bet CA will eventually master it. Don't say "I told you so" when they don't.
Or else... :wiseguy: :hmg:
Sorry, I just love those smilies.
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 13:53
I actually think I see both sides on that argument. There are some people who seem determined to bash CA for anything it does, and some who seem insistant on claiming that CA is perfect, but they are very few and far between. I think that most people here judge CA based on the merits of its game, even if some are a little carried away with anticipation. The best thing to do now would be to drop this conversation I think...completely.
I agree of course. Back to topic everyone :2thumbsup:. We've said what we wanted to say and I don't think any good can come of furthering this line of discussion. I apologise for contributing to this off-topic segue. :sweatdrop:
Originally posted by Vuk
Gollum, you need to calm down. Still, you gotta calm down.
No offence meant but this is either a misunderstanding or a fiasco from your part - i am perfectly calm ~:)
...you are just being offensive. I think that you are acting irrationally
Please specify how - because my posts are in bounds and argued and moreover, unlike yours, avoid branding.
My comment about whining like children was directed at the "DEMO!!!!!" people (including my friend Polemists), not at you.
With all due respect i find this hard to believe as it makes little sense - if you meant them then why would you add that the whinners *would buy the game anyway in the end*? It means that the whiners you mention whine against the game and not because they ask for a demo.
No one was attacking you
None indeed - however there shouldnt be a need for long explanatory post to defend a view that is expressed decently simply because it diverges from the mainstream perception here at this time.
Also, you say that you have never played M2, maybe that explains your low opinion of it. If you played it, you would probably like it a lot more.
I said i never bought it, i never said i never played it. And to dispell potential catches a friend borrowed his copy once he was done with it. BTW, playing it worsen my opinion of it substantially, and there is only so much mods could do.
Also, you talk about its bugs when you have never played it! What "major bugs" were left over in M2?
Ask FactionHeir and mp players for a full list.
...but I do agree with you that CA has a habit of rushing things, and that I suspect that they are doing it with Empire.
Bingo - and wether we are enthusiastic or not about Empire doesnt change that.
Originally posted by Polemists
Lots of things are rants, I think several of my posts and vuk's posts qualify as such :)
I merely stated my opinion based on the overall picture in conjuction to the info of the new preview. The fact that this was not *positive* was immediately branded a *rant* and received three identical answers in a row. In my view you Vuk and Beane were mildly ranting of my post, not me of Empire.
Actually he did, lots of people participated, that hardly means they can't go against or pro the game. Your welcome to sigh, there is no non sighing law in the forum rules last I looked
Thank you - but i avoid sighing as a member towards others views as a matter of good conduct and respect.
Name of the game, you can be Black Isle (Closed rpg company) or Blizzard (World of warcraft company). It's not about making a better game, it's about making what you think will sell and is playable. CA has stated countless times if it comes to history vs playability, history goes.
With all due respect you have confused the arguments - the one you mention is the one CA uses to botch historical accuracy - the one i imply is the one they use in order to diffuse TW gameplay with standard RTS elements and accessibilty in disfavor of strategic depth and meaningful tactical components. It comes in phrases as *we have streamlined* this or that and other such. The best example of this is what happened to battles in RTW.
This was in reference to Vuk's comments not yours, I probably should have specificed. I normally do enjoy it, I still like MTW2 and RTW and I havn't patched them yet. It's all about what you think is broken/etc. I remeber when games were completely crash worthy unplayable, so how horses charge not a game breaker for me (in reference to horse charge of MTW2 that was fixed in a patch.)
Apologies for the misunderstanding then - i agree with you; it all depends what you think is broken etc and i was merely stating what i personally consider *broken*.
I don't think i ever said not entitled, I think I said "May" just as I don't get mad when I get excited and people say things like, "you may" want to wait until you play the game before being so excited.
Everyone is entitled to the view, and every is entitled to pick apart and counter any view. That's the joy of forums :), this isn't a unbiased area, we are all welcome to opinons and countering opinons. Long as it is polite. I like to think i'm polite :)
I agree with you and thank you for saying so - i like to think i am polite too.
!it burnsus!
You may not have intended it as one, but it gives a reader who doesn't know what you intended the impression that it is.
Especially if the reader disagrees with the view expressed.
What makes you think I'm a new fan?
Many of your comments.
I'm enthusiastic because I think CA make brilliant games and I have enjoyed playing every single one. Being a veteran of the series doesn't automatically mean turning into a cynic.
The key words here are brilliant games (thats your opinion) and cynic (thats me);
so whoever doesnt think CAs games are brilliant is a cynic.
QED
If you expected a game above critiscism then you are always going to be disappoiunted.
You willingly or unwillingly have convince yourself that i am complaining for complains sake - you are wrong - just because what i see as drawbacks you see as advantages doesnt mean that i am a *whiner*. Be careful in branding people from a position of power because i ve seen this kind of thing in other forums and it ended very badly.
This whole section seems to be a thinly veiled way of saying you don't think I'm fit to be an Assistant Mod, but I'll let that slide. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but so are we. I'm not upset that your opinion is not the same as mine, but I do dislike the fact that your post is extremely negative about a games company I happen to have a lot of respect for.
It actually says openly and plainly that in my view an assistant moderator shouldnt be so openly taking sides according to his opinion. It never mentions that i think you are not worth of the position or that i think badly of you.
And a word of advice - be wary of giving respect to people that are motivated by sales charts.
!it burnsus!
Polemists
02-08-2009, 14:18
For all those concerned with naval combat, a dev for CA posted over in total war center forums
Here is the quote
We've already responded to criticism about the naval battles since the reviewer wrote the article and have improved the fun factor at sea quite a bit.
Although the game is almost finished, we're still tweaking and improving until release (and will continue to do so after release, of course)!
Especially if the reader disagrees with the view expressed.
Many of your comments.
The key words here are brilliant games (thats your opinion) and cynic (thats me);
so whoever doesnt think CAs games are brilliant is a cynic.
QED
You willingly or unwillingly have convince yourself that i am complaining for complains sake - you are wrong - just because what i see as drawbacks you see as advantages doesnt mean that i am a *whiner*. Be careful in branding people from a position of power because i ve seen this kind of thing in other forums and it ended very badly.
It actually says openly and plainly that in my view an assistant moderator shouldnt be so openly taking sides according to his opinion. It never mentions that i think you are not worth of the position or that i think badly of you.
And a word of advice - be wary of giving respect to people that are motivated by sales charts.
!it burnsus!
Gollum, you have taken this way too far. I will ignore what you said about me in the other post, cause I wanted this to go away, but this post is far too much.
First off, just because he is a moderator does not mean that he cannot have an opinion, or that he should punish you for yours (which unless I am mistaken he did not do).
You are insulting, critisizing his ability to do his job, and trying to use his position to your advantage by making him afraid of expressing his opinion. You have no right to talk to someone like that or to try to use their position against them. He was being respectful and professional, simply stating his opinion (which I may add, I did not agree fully with either).
Dry up and stop starting trouble. Keep the thread on topic:
No ETW Demo with latest PC Gamer mag
For all those concerned with naval combat, a dev for CA posted over in total war center forums
Here is the quote
That is good, I hope that they can get a solid fun release out.
Sir Beane
02-08-2009, 14:26
At this point I think the discussion is continuing based on a fundemental misunderstanding between the two sides. I think we can safely leave it here.
If anyone has anything else to say about this topic it is best to do so via PM.
For now consider this thread closed. I'll leave it to the higher-ups to decide whether it should be re-opened or not.
I apologise to members who were discussing things civily. I take full responsibility for this little off-topic adventure. My recent posts were ill-considered, and needn't have been made. Sorry about that folks. :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.