View Full Version : Do You Still Play TW?
Strike For The South
11-13-2009, 04:32
With the new faces round these parts it's time to resurrect an oldie but a goodie.
As per me.
I haven't played TW in over a year and I haven't touch a video game in 4 months. My sibilings kept our consoles and my roomates don't have any.
Add in school and other hobbies and I just haven't had time.
I do plan on getting a near constant fix of HOI2 and NCAA 10 (the only 2 games I play) over thanksgiving break.
CountArach
11-13-2009, 04:38
Nah, and I haven't for a good year and a half to two years. I've moved on to various Paradox games, and plan on going to HistWar:Les Grognards as soon as that is finished.
Crazed Rabbit
11-13-2009, 04:51
Nope. I bought ETW, and I hate myself and CA for it.
CR
Azathoth
11-13-2009, 04:58
I'm waiting for EBII (there isn't much point in playing EB right now), though I might try out some more RTW mods. I plan on getting the rest of the TW series at some point in the future.
pevergreen
11-13-2009, 05:15
Yes. ETW and to a lesser extent, RTW and M2TW.
I love roman period, so RTW is like a drug.
No.
I enjoyed my time in M2TW with the help of mods. Same goes for RTW. STW and MTW could stand on their own.
GeneralHankerchief
11-13-2009, 06:49
I still hit up M2 because of Throne Room games, and occasionally go back to Rome. One of these days, my answer will finally switch to "no" in this poll, but not yet.
Megas Methuselah
11-13-2009, 07:00
I play ETW (with mods) often enough in my spare time and am waiting for EBII.
I've got a MTW campaign I need to finish (real life has interfered), but I consider myself to be "still playing". Just can't allocate at the moment the many consecutive hours in a row needed to take a couple of turns in the end-game.
Banquo's Ghost
11-13-2009, 08:39
I had ETW as a gift recently, and I'm quite enjoying it off and on. I can't see much replay value in it though.
Unlike MTW (especially with VikingHorde's excellent XL mod) in which I play a campaign every six months or so. I never liked RTW because of the fuzzy portraits and interface pictures, as well as it suffering from my early dislike of the controls. I like loading up M2TW, mainly to play battles rather than campaigns and look at the pretty graphics - which is really all TW games are nowadays.
Tratorix
11-13-2009, 09:08
On and off. But I can't see myself ever playing it on a regular basis again unless I get a computer with a graphics card the doesn't hate MTW.
seireikhaan
11-13-2009, 09:56
I still fire up MTW occasionally for nostalgia's sake. Played some M2 fairly recently, and kinda enjoyed myself with the Stainless steel mod, but its probably going to end at that. Empire is a severe disappointment that only got worse with age.
So, the answer is a "sorta, yeah".
Ser Clegane
11-13-2009, 10:01
Still playing - but only very occasionally.
If I play it is mostly R:TW with EB or M:TW with the XL mod.
I actually wanted to start an S:TW campaign again but did not find the time yet...
I recently started a M2 campagin with the Egyptians, but kinda lost interest.
Still have S:TW, M:TW and R:TW installed on my PC and I do start a campaign sometimes, but hardly ever finish one once I reach the point of "victory is inevitable".
I still play STW, but very seldom nowadays, can't play MTW due to graphics card, so voted Gah!
Kralizec
11-13-2009, 11:36
I reinstalled MTW about a month ago and played some campaigns. That's about it.
Played a couple of ETW campaigns since 1.5 came out but not sure if I want to start another. Didn't play M2TW all that much, even when it came out, and didn't bother getting the expansion so haven't done much with that recently. Don't have my MTW discs with me but don't think it'll work on my PC with it's modern Nvidia card anyway and have somehow managed to lose my RTW discs so can't play that :wall:.
Doubt I'll get Napoleon so not sure I have much more of a future playing the Total War series, although I may be tempted to buy RTW (and it's expansions) again because I always enjoyed that era (loved the various Roman mods for MTW orginally, they were the main reason I first started lurking at the .org).
Occasionally and with intervals of TW inactivity that keep getting longer. STW and MTW with a passion and up to this day, although i have played RTW too for quite a bit with home mods and mods back in the day.
M2TW i played the little that was needed to get me convinced that it wasn't worth my time.
ETW had potential but in the state it was released and most importantly the state it was left in, is a disaster without precedence. Any little hope remaining that CA could win me back vanished with that.
Its not so much the work they do as for whom they do it for; i am certainly not among the fans they aim their latest games at, and unfortunately it seems that is true for many other orgahs too judging by viewings and participation in teh Parliament. Apparently the .org is disassociating slowly but steady from TW, which means essentially that it is the only tw mainstream fansite not frequented by fanboys.
And yes, for those disenchanted with TW and looking for a good SP experience, i too suggest to give a try to Paradox games. Its not that they are the best thing that happened after sliced bread, but that PI gives actually a thought to the people who play regularly their games as opposed to the phantom "casual" gamer, both in terms of design/concept as well as long term execution.
Patching policy is top notch and goes on for years; Crusader Kings (2004) received its latest (beta witch means there are going to be more) patch 2.1 last automn/winter (2008). CA in comparison has left MTW to its fate in terms of compatibility with newer systems despite indication that there is still (relatively) strong interest in it, and despite the game still being sold in retail (with "Vista Compatible" stickers on!).
In addition the direction Paradox games evolve into through patching, takes into account what forum frequenting fans ask/suggest. It really makes you feel so much better, to not being treated like an idiot, as opposed to CA; the .com is infamous for its "kind" moderation in full knowledge (and perhaps even support) of CA that drove a number of dedicated and knowledgeable long term TW fans away to other fansites like here and the twcentre.
In any case if NTW becomes a flop, as it will most likely deserve, CA may turn even more mainstream or drop TW altogether. From many respects this will be fair, perhaps catharctic even. If you keep piling up lie upon lie year after year, it will come back and haunt you someday.
KukriKhan
11-13-2009, 14:55
Downloaded the Empire:Total War demo and played through it; then waited to see the opinions of other org players. Didn't see overt enthusiasm - instead folks with troubles, so I didn't buy it.
Rome was the last product I bought, and was disappointed. I still have STW & MTW, and fired up STW last month. But it was really for old times' sake, to hear the old music, and remember old playing pals. So I don't count that as "still playing".
So: No. But that could change in the future. Meanwhile, I play mindless FPS's to blow off steam.
I'll play EB2 when it's released, but currently don't play any TW Games. I didn't even buy ETW.
In other news, I've started playing starcraft again. Talk about an underrated gamed. Ten years after it's initial release it is still fun to play.
I still play EB occasionally, but I'm waiting for either Asia ton Barbaron or EB2 to finish.
Louis VI the Fat
11-13-2009, 15:02
I do actually still play M:TW. I simply like the game, the mechanics. I pull it out and play a nice, long campaign once or twice a year.
I love the combination of strategy and tactics, so my main interest is in full games. The AI unfortunately lacks any strategical sense, so I keep it interesting with setting myself challenges, trying new approaches, using mods. The game is not yet exhausted for me.
Nope. S:TW was the best, M:TW was good but I was heavily interested in other stuff when it came out, R:TW is probably my favorite though, and by far the most time spent playing. M2:TW I regret buying, even mods didn't really save it for me. E:TW is utter garbage. I'm simply not in CA's target audience anymore. There are some good people here, that and the chat room are the only reasons I stick around.
Originally posted by Ice
Talk about an underrated gamed. Ten years after it's initial release it is still fun to play.
Its actually far more fun to play now due to the multiplayer scene which Blizzard supported and listened to. Starcraft was conceived as a fairly standard RTS and on release was a little better than that. It was by listening to the people who played the game competitively and patching for balance, while ironing glitches and bugsout that Blizzard brought the game to the standard it is now, that is the first pc game for which there is a University Course:
http://www.counterfeitculture.com/news/university-of-california-at-berkeley-starcraft-course-is-a-hoax/
Shogun:TW had far better balance on release in my view and a numerous, very enthusiastic and competent MP scene that was used for its skills as long as CA deemed it necessary and subsequently abandoned to its fate as CA turned its scope on the civilisation/historical buff SP crowd.
The same happened with the second generation of mpers that came about the time of RTW and were treated in RTW:BI, that for many of them was the peak of the series in terms of competitive mp gameplay.
STW also had a better pacing than Starcraft that did not prohibit people that didnt want to put up with vast amounts of micromanaging practice to still become fairly good at it; in that sense it was far more accessible than Starcraft ever was.
CA lacked the vision to play to the strengths of their work, namely the superb battles with the realistic parameters/factors, good gameplay with excellent pacing, controls, environments and atmosphere and instead watered it down by inflating the SP part and destroying the superb battlefield gameplay in the name of accessibility and 3D graphics.
TW is now to the point of being a hybrid of hybrids. It suffers from a lack of focus, and part of the bugginess of the new releases is probably due to the spread of resources that such a state of affairs in the design department requires. On the other hand such an approach brought them the vast commercial success they are so proud of.
Sadly, the buggy, unstable mess that was Empire reminds me that inscription in Scrooge McDuck's Money Building (the Money Bin!): "it was built with your money" :laugh4:
http://thescreamingfish.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/money_bin.png
Hooahguy
11-13-2009, 15:38
i really liked ETW and im waiting to get my laptop back to play it again.
I played the Seleucids well beyond the 50 province requirement some months ago, and prior to that I played M2TW extensively. Haven't tried anything related to ETW. Currently not playing PC games at all.
Louis VI the Fat
11-13-2009, 17:30
Currently not playing PC games at all.I hear that a lot. The same goes for me. I don't spend even half the time playing games that I did ten years ago.
I assumed this was just a case of me maturing. But maybe games are less interesting nowadays?
Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.
Originally posted by Louis VI the Fat
Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.
I think that it depends if one wants to play games that take ages to learn and to master or just games that take ages only to master.
At least this is the case with board games. For example, one game i really like is Bruce Harper's "A World at War" that is basically the designer of Advanced Third Reich and Empire of the Rising Sun (hex and counter) Grand Strategy Games about WWII (http://aworldatwar.org/).
(By the way for those that are into this kind of thing you can now find opponents to play against via email by using the Warplanner - a tool that incorporates everything needed to PBEM (http://www.warplanner.com/).)
The game is really good and deep, as on top of the good design it has evolved through a lot of playtesting eversince the initial versions were released decades ago. However, you need to learn by heart an extensive and complicated set of rules in order to appreciate and enjoy the game in all its aspects: tactical, logistical, planning, grand strategy that take too much time and dedication.
On the other hand of the spectrum there are games like chess, that take an afternoon to learn but a lifetime to master - the player is introduced into each successive layer of the game from tactics/material considerations all the way through to strategy/position considerations, and is expected to integrate this into a coherent playstyle - essentially it is like learning a language.
TW is of the tradition of a relatively simple board wargame, with the added advantage of having the CPU to do the many chore tasks that are necessary for such a game, that revolves around the superb tactical battles.
As such, as long as the strategy map was used as a means to give a context to the battles essentially being a support element, TW was really refreshing as each layer was acting as a brake from the intensity of the battlefield or the thoughtful concentration of the strategy map.
However the strategy part eventually took precedence and evolved into a gargantuan Civilisation inspired affair, with poor playbalance and even poorer AI - a cheap version of a Paradox game - while the battles acted as a Hollywood style cinematic brake in full 3D, perfect for promo videos and screenshots, but full of glitches and bugs in actuality. Micromanagement also shot through the roof making the game exremely tedious after the first 10-20 turns or so, since additional features were added by the ton.
One problem with pc games is that the players and developers publishers want them to be ephemeral products that last a short while most of the time - hence there is no reason to improve them with time - its far better to make a new game and sell it again, rather than developing to perfection a single game.
Another is that there is a certain amount of specialization within certain genres - the games are addressed to people that have played similar games before and want more: more features, more factions, more scenarions, more weapons...generally more.
This indeed makes games hard to get into - and the worse part is that after you managed you realise that the gameplay was full of holes that the player can exploit.
EDIT: For those interested in such a thing, there are plans for a pc version of "A world at War": http://www.gamershell.com/news_18660.html
No...I only played shogun...and even that one I haven´t touched in years.
I hear that a lot. The same goes for me. I don't spend even half the time playing games that I did ten years ago.
I assumed this was just a case of me maturing. But maybe games are less interesting nowadays?
Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.
Don't know about that, half of the reason is that I am currently stuck with a laptop only, and that I am [supposed to be] a busy student. Personally I find many new games enjoyable, just not been playing any the last months. Hopefully, I'll be able to play some during Christmas when I have access to a stationary. :book:
Aemilius Paulus
11-13-2009, 20:01
Not quite.
I never bought ETW and M2TW was a major frustration for me.
I played Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Opposing Fronts, then Cossacks II (MUCH better than ETW - which I tried but never actually bought), and now I am going back to Mount and Blade (unbelievable game).
Eventually, I plan on going back to Europa Barbarorum though. The first one. I may try Sins of the Solar Empire. Also, I already have Hearts of Iron II and EUIII (both with all the expansions). Eventually, after reading the whole manual and scouring through the official forum, I will tackle the two games.
Reenk Roink
11-13-2009, 22:37
I still play EB and vanilla Rome from time to time. Also am trying to get through M:TW but it bores me (I never was a fan of the Medieval setting). Didn't get E:TW.
Nope, haven't played in about 7-8 months and probably never will again. ETW was the end of the line for me on TW games. Paradox own my soul now for strategy games.
Samurai Waki
11-13-2009, 23:01
Nope. Bought ETW back in April, hated it, haven't played any TW since.
A Very Super Market
11-13-2009, 23:40
I'm a recent Paradox convertee. Currently playing various saves in Hearts of Iron 3 (Which is said to be worse than II, but serves me alright), Europa Universalis 3, and Victoria: Revolutions.
I don't see myself getting EU:Rome, any time soon, althought Crusader Kings sounds interesting.
And, like many others, I am waiting for EBII eagerly.
Azathoth
11-14-2009, 00:56
Lol so much hate for ETW.
tibilicus
11-14-2009, 01:35
Nope.
ETW will probably be the last total war game I play. To many high hopes and broken promises.
Crazed Rabbit
11-14-2009, 01:39
What's going to make EBII an improvement over EB? I'm sure it'll be a great mod, as the first EB was, but won't it still have to deal with CA's underlying game? Is MTW2 improved in some key ways that will make for an improved game?
CR
Originally posted by Crazed Rabbit
Is MTW2 improved in some key ways that will make for an improved game?
As you say they will always have to deal with the hardcoded limitations of the core game, however in terms of the campaign M2 has a number of extra features that can add to the game if they are intgrated with how the AI plays, the rosters etc. From a modding perspective they mean poential.
As far as the battlefield is concerned balance and challenge can be achieved within what the game has to offer, as they did with EB - and as other mods did such as the MP semi official balance mod by CA and the Celtiberos clan for kingdoms (Retrofit).
Vanilla releases lack in optimasation in both the campaign and battlefield maps as well as in binding the two. Mods can always achieve far better results in these areas through extensive playtesting and feedback and longtimes of development that vanilla releases lack.
:bow:
I still play STW and MTW, but only very sporadically. I'll play for a 3-4 hour chunk, and then not again until a week or two later. I've been planning to fire up a new MTW campaign as Aragon this last week, but haven't actually gotten around to it yet. (Busy busy at work; little time to game on actual workdays, and have been spending time with friends on my rare days off.)
Empire sickened me to the point that I'm ashamed for having purchased it in the first place. The era holds little interest for me, but I was lured in (yet AGAIN) by CA's lies promises of a vastly revamped & improved strategic/diplomatic AI. Unless/until this (the AI) is truly fixed -- and there's no way in hell I'm forking over another $50.00 for Napoloeon the new patch -- it will stay uninstalled and in one of my storage boxes down in the basement.
So....Gah!
Rhyfelwyr
11-14-2009, 14:53
I don't really play PC games that much now, where I do it's usually a Paradox game.
Louis VI the Fat
11-14-2009, 18:46
Hmm, everybody keeps mentioning Paradox. Could this solve my dry spell?
I have played Europa Universalis (I? II? Don't remember). The first week I thought it was the greatest game I had ever played. Then boredom set in quickly. The game lasts too long, doesn't really go anywhere.
Should I give it another go? Which one out of the series is best?
What of their other titles? Is that WWII game any good?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-14-2009, 18:53
I like EUII. The major countries are a bit too easy though. Try brandenburg, you'll have to start out with diploannexing the german city states and then you'll butt heads with the very powerful france and austria.
Originally posted by Louis IV the Fat
Should I give it another go? Which one out of the series is best?
My favorite is Crusader Kings, in the EU II engine (the "2D", "old" engine). The game and its community are alive currently.
It is a strange mixture of elemnts the SIMS and a grand strategy game. Typical of Paradox, it takes a little investigation and getting used to to find the right strings to pull and understand how things work and how does that affect the gameplay. Again typically of Paradox, the game lacks a concrete set of goals although there is a "Victory points meter".
The best parts of the game is the combination of Roleplaying and Strategy, that unlike most strategy games allows you to play in unorthodox, unoptimal ways. Also because you can set your own goals, once you understand how the game works, you can play for them and see history unfold in front of your eyes.
The simulation of the societal/political aspects of the middle ages is more than decent and really well done. Combat is typically of PI again, abstracted - actually this was teh major thing that kept putting me off in the beginning, everytime there was a battle going on, i was foaming to... get in the battle map in person, being a typical MTW player :laugh4:
However, once i saw the game for what it was, i had great fun with it - playing felt almost like semi-writing your own Novel - in particular while playing teh Batatzes Byzantine family in one game, it fely like i had written "The Sisters Karamazof" :laugh4: - really good times.
Just allow your self to slowly get into it, as the level of detail is at first overwhelming.
:bow:
A Very Super Market
11-14-2009, 19:13
HoI3 gives an unnerving advantage to the major players, Germany, the US, Japan, the Soviets, and Britain. Everyone else simply gets rolled over in a month.
Sadly, I've never succeeded in keeping the Germans out as the French. Even in the odd game where they don't bother going through Belgium, you can't even muster enough men for the Maginot Line.
I believe HoI2 is a bit more lenient, since you aren't limited by certain game mechanics in research.
Of course, typical of all Paradox games, they require a few hours of hair-pulling frustration, fruitless searches across their forums, and utter shock when you somehow disband half your army by not stroking your mouse wheel correctly.
Aemilius Paulus
11-14-2009, 19:17
HoI3 gives an unnerving advantage to the major players, Germany, the US, Japan, the Soviets, and Britain. Everyone else simply gets rolled over in a month.
.
I am sure they will tweak that. Paradox is usually (although not always) good about fixing such flaws. Not to mention, I would think their game is, from the programming point of view, much simpler than TW. If not, then a mod will fix it.
Centurion1
11-14-2009, 20:49
no not really. updating my computer to keep up is just too expensive
Owen Glyndwr
11-14-2009, 20:58
I may have lost interest in RTW vanilla, but I still play a lot of EB.
I would play MTW if I could get the thing working properly :furious3:
Cute Wolf
11-15-2009, 09:19
Still playing EB and M2TW a lot... My Kart-Hadast campaign are just going nuttier... And currently also enjoy slaughtering Saracens with my Jerusalem-Templar legion...
I had bought ETW, but after some time playing and get frustated with the Road to Independence (British Hessians kill off most of my men everytime we meet and do the musket volley, and before my melee infantry close-in they often rout first... I HATE GUNS NOW!!!!), I decide that what suits me best is old style swordfighting and human kebab on pikes...
empires lags like hell (and its not that good) my disk driver dont work and none were installed other than medieval 1 total war, i installed ancient total war (a medieval 1 add on) and its easily on par with rome for enjoyment :balloon2:
Ramses II CP
11-16-2009, 22:54
I play hotseats and KOTF in MTW2 but I see nothing appealing in Empires... in fact I see just about everything that's wrong with PC gaming going on with ETW. Quite honestly even if they fix the worst of the problems, as they did before I bought MTW2, I probably will never pick it up.
:egypt:
I play hotseats and KOTF in MTW2 but I see nothing appealing in Empires... in fact I see just about everything that's wrong with PC gaming going on with ETW. Quite honestly even if they fix the worst of the problems, as they did before I bought MTW2, I probably will never pick it up.
:egypt:
it was ok, but honestly (despite lag) i never got into it like any other TW game, it just bored me and overall had no big effect on me AT ALL :P
Owen Glyndwr
11-17-2009, 01:29
I gave E: TW a try, played through the first mission of the RTI and it was so frustrating!! The companies didn't respond too well to very clear orders, and when zoomed out, the units look worse even then M: TW (blurry sprites that seem to hover from place to place), once I zoom in the detail is incredible. Frankly I'd sacrifice all the juicy graphical wonders so I could simply watch units from a distance that actually look like people.
It's so annoying I can't even enjoy any other aspect of the game.
Originally posted by Owen Glyndwr
...the units look worse even then M: TW (blurry sprites that seem to hover from place to place), once I zoom in the detail is incredible.
Indeed - and in RTW/M2TW were just as bad if not much worse. Its indicative of what is emphasized ie visuals over gameplay. No sane "general" would prefer detailed 3D up close to the excelent sprites of MTW and the immaculate ones of STW. The ones of the latter featured amazingly well crafted detail. It is noteworthy that CA delayed the release of STW for a year in order to get the game in the best shape possible out. Compare this with the latest 3 releases; its sad really.
Alexandros_III
11-17-2009, 06:00
I've never been able to donate much of my time to TW, and haven't played at all in a while.
Alexander the Pretty Good
11-17-2009, 08:44
Voted no, because I keep forgetting to bring MTW to my dorm.
Indeed - and in RTW/M2TW were just as bad if not much worse. Its indicative of what is emphasized ie visuals over gameplay. No sane "general" would prefer detailed 3D up close to the excelent sprites of MTW and the immaculate ones of STW. The ones of the latter featured amazingly well crafted detail. It is noteworthy that CA delayed the release of STW for a year in order to get the game in the best shape possible out. Compare this with the latest 3 releases; its sad really.
:yes:
It's all well and good to have pretty 3-D models slugging it out, but the whole point of the game is to have battles with as many men on the field as possible. While you are distracted admiring the pretty graphics and little variations of your pikemen, the opposing army is running a knight unit around your backside. You should be paying attention to your lines and attack axis, not the eye candy. And don't the animations screw with the battle mechanics?
With enough frames, sprites can be bang on perfect and are ideal for viewing at distances. There is not point in 3D models in a game that really needs to be viewed from a distance in order to play it correctly. Also the removal of the 3D geometry from the units would free up more resources to have more detailed and even larger maps, buildings, vegitation etc.
-Edit: It's also worth noting that the 3D models, certainly in RTW and M2TW, look crap from a distance also (before they get far away enough to turn into sprites that is).
graphics is good, but its certainly not essential for me, rome and medieval 2 play and look great, but empires new engine is not one i like, plus it takes up far too much room considering its not that good, again 3d is nice but the first two games, shogun and med r still brilliant in my opinion and are more fun to play than empires even if the units arent as detailed.
Tellos Athenaios
11-17-2009, 18:21
What's going to make EBII an improvement over EB? I'm sure it'll be a great mod, as the first EB was, but won't it still have to deal with CA's underlying game? Is MTW2 improved in some key ways that will make for an improved game?
CR
A very large part of the technical appeal of M2TW is that it allows for ‘co-constraints’. E.g. if you use a 4 turns per year script, you can throttle recruitment based on ‘season’. Similarly you could have an ‘event counter’ which tracks, say, the faction leader's popularity with the masses that make up the ranks of his army; and if it exceeds or falls below certain thresholds you could have this reflected in the availability of units.
The really good thing here is that event counters are ‘persistent’ which means that they are part of the saved file; and this means that we can get rid of a lot of the witchcraft that goes on in deducing event counters from certain tracked settlements.
Originally posted by drone
And don't the animations screw with the battle mechanics?
Heh - that's an understatement. They also though, crucially, affect another area: sales :laugh4:
Major Robert Dump
11-17-2009, 21:55
etw was a time and money sink. warpaths is atrocious, i mean really, really lame. ship combat is the only cool thing about ETW
Owen Glyndwr
11-18-2009, 11:13
-Edit: It's also worth noting that the 3D models, certainly in RTW and M2TW, look crap from a distance also (before they get far away enough to turn into sprites that is).
Yeah, but at least with R: TW I can tell it's people I'm commanding when I zoom out. From afar, the units in ETW (at least for me) look like blurrier versions of the M: TW or S: TW units that don't move their legs when they run, at all.
In terms of the gaming industry in general, I'm absolutely dreading the direction we are going, particularly with the advent of DLC. I fear the repercussions on the modding community when the developer can simply release the fancier skins themselves, at an exorbitant price.
The fact that the modding tools for E: TW still haven't been released speaks volumes.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.