Tell me why any sane person would buy Attila? [Archive]

View Full Version : Tell me why any sane person would buy Attila?

I_damian

01-10-2015, 23:02

Bearing in mind the catastrophe that was Rome 2, the fake gameplay footage, the infamous "way way way pre-alpha" lies, the general dishonesty, etcetera. Pretty much everything about CA's release of Rome 2 and the way they acted afterwards tells me they have become a dishonest, lying game developer and not to be trusted.

So why would anybody pre-order or buy Attila? And don't tell me because it looks good. CA proved with Rome 2 that faking gameplay footage and graphics for trailers is absolutely something they're willing to do to sell copies.

Crandar

01-10-2015, 23:33

Don't be a hater! It will be "way way better" than Rome II.

I_damian

01-11-2015, 01:17

Don't misinterpret my original post by the way - I'm tempted to buy it myself. There's a lack of strategy games covering this period and it is one of my absolute favourite periods of history. You've got the Byzantine Empire facing off (and almost dying shortly after the western half) at the hands of brutal migrating tribes, Sassanid invasions and so forth. You've got the collapse of the western Roman Empire (I can't even describe how much I would love to play as them and stabilize the empire and bring it back to glory). It has the Anglo Saxons. It has all the good stuff.

If this were any other developer (aside from the other notoriously sly developers) I would pre-order this game so ******* hard it'd break my computer screen. I'd pre-order it on STEAM and Amazon to make sure I got it on release day one way or the other. But as I said in the main post, after the lies and deceit with Rome 2, I can't do it.

hoom

01-11-2015, 01:31

Because:

Fire?!
This time they didn't hire an actor to say 'its the greatest AI rework evar!!'
Attilla is badass!!!
Fire!!!
Dark & apocalyptic!
Fire!
Fire!!?
Stuff that should have been in Rome2
Might have fixed some stuff (probably not)
Fire!!
Did I miss anything?
Oh yeah, Fire!

I_damian

01-11-2015, 03:51

AntiDamascus

01-11-2015, 04:02

I have income to buy games like this and can move on if it's a loss? (I didn't preorder but I could)

Hooahguy

01-11-2015, 06:52

Basically what AntiDamascus said. I bought it on sale, my income is decent, my expenses are low, and I love the TW games. Attila looks great, and I wont miss out on the $33 if Attila fails, which I honestly do not think it will do, not after their PR disaster that Rome 2 was. It might fail, but if it does CA knows it will permanently lose the credibility it got back by doing what I think was a great job of patching Rome 2.

Also I kinda have a northern Germanic thing so the pre-order bonus was really attractive to me.

dge1

01-11-2015, 14:02

I enjoy playing almost all of the TW games. I still play Empire, working around the unfixed problems it has, because I like the scope of play. Same for Rome II.

Attila looks to be a dressed up Barbarian Invasion, which I could not get into, but the game looks like it may provide a decent challenge. If they don't get to deep in micro-management (my one fear) I'll probably spend quite a bit of time on it.

Bramborough

01-12-2015, 09:03

@OP, While I do believe that R2 release and aftermath were a big fail for CA, I don't go quite as far as perceiving it to be dishonest. It's true that they didn't deliver what they had promised. Regrettable, but not necessarily the same as deliberately not having delivered what they promised (although I have no doubt there were some in the company who must've seen what was coming in the last few weeks prior to release date, and just couldn't stop the train). I'm willing to chalk it up to mismanagement, competing priorities within CA, different visions/goals/priorities between CA and Sega, etc etc.

Bottom line...I'm willing to give them another chance, and take it on good faith that they've recognized and learned from their mistakes. Several of the recent youtube reviews are based on a demo version, and put together by independent gamers (Wrath of Sparta, etc). What I see there shows that CA indeed has incorporated much of the feedback of the last year. Alongside new features, they're also bringing back much things we liked about older TW editions (family tree, etc).

In any case, I'm cautiously optimistic about Attila, especially since most of what I've learned about the game has come from non-CA/Sega sources.

hoom, oh...and don't forget about fire!

hoom

01-12-2015, 20:59

I have no doubt there were some in the company who must've seen what was coming in the last few weeks prior to release date, and just couldn't stop the train).Given it took a year of patching to get up to release quality, people within not just CA but Sega should have been well aware they were nowhere near launch ready from months before release.

Honestly if they brought out a Rome2 DLC with a bunch of the Attilla improvements to GUI & gameplay stuff (but not the fire), I'd probably buy it.

Sp4

01-12-2015, 23:04

Good reason? TW games are pretty unique.

It's also a pretty good reason for anyone who sells them to do whatever they want.

Cazbol

01-13-2015, 12:22

I'm sane. Why have I bought Attila?

Because I've played every single Total War game and every expansion and found every single one to be an absolutely fantastic experience. To me, Rome II is brilliant, which is evidenced by the fact that my play time on it is up to 715 hours and I'm still far from having had enough.

Even though I've pre-ordered Attila, I probably won't play it at launch, as I'll first complete my current epic Emperor's Edition campaign and then move on to the Wrath of Sparta. By the time I get to Attila, the most significant release bugs will probably have been sorted out and my enjoyment of it will be as fantastic as with all the previous ones.

Patricius

01-16-2015, 13:34

Rome 2 is fine now, it was terrible on release, and I enjoyed the earlier Totalwar games.

BroskiDerpman

01-20-2015, 05:44

I vote with the wallet; I could have all the money in the world and I wouldn't buy something if I don't believe in it.

So attila will wait unless if I happen to enjoy watching it and see some mods that suit my tastes ready. Then that will be the time to make such decision.

Littlefinger

01-22-2015, 23:11

its sane to buy this game......but not on the first month, would be sane pay to be alpha tester and do the job of CA in testing and big hunting....

lars573

01-25-2015, 18:11

Given it took a year of patching to get up to release quality, people within not just CA but Sega should have been well aware they were nowhere near launch ready from months before release.
Matter of opinion that. By the third or fourth patch it was release quality. Everything after was tweeking.

easytarget

01-26-2015, 01:04

Matter of opinion that. By the third or fourth patch it was release quality. Everything after was tweeking.

Matter of opinion that. I wouldn't call the game release quality at 16 patches. In fact I wouldn't say the GC is capable of being patched into an enjoyable game and is a boring abomination.

Hooahguy

01-26-2015, 01:58

Am I the only one who enjoyed the GC? Everywhere I go everyone is hating on the GC, but I actually liked the two campaigns I played with it...

Kamakazi

01-26-2015, 13:05

Im still plugging away at the GC and im over 600 hrs in game time

lars573

01-26-2015, 16:56

I still play it. But really the GC is a full marathon. So it's easier to lose interest before you finish. While Imperator is a half marathon, and the CiG/HatG/WoS are sprints.

Matter of opinion that. I wouldn't call the game release quality at 16 patches. In fact I wouldn't say the GC is capable of being patched into an enjoyable game and is a boring abomination.
Not really, as you can look at patch logs for what was actually done. The only thing most devs focused on before releasing was big technical issues (now with steam and the ubiquity of high speed internets they don't have to do that as much). Balancing comes later with community input. And R2TW's patches were technical stuff in the early ones, balancing almost exclusively later on.

hoom

01-27-2015, 01:38

By the third or fourth patch it was release quality.Utter rubbish.

The really big fixes only came in the last few patches and its only with Emperor edition that they have fixed some very fundamental things like having the Politics & combat actually work properly.

Emperor edition is how it should have been at launch.

Am I the only one who enjoyed the GC? Everywhere I go everyone is hating on the GC, but I actually liked the two campaigns I played with it... The big problem with the GC is that everyone dies too quickly.

In the sub-campaigns you get to build up really elite Generals & Agents.

While that does make them pretty OP, it also means you get involved with their development & you actually care when one dies in a fight/of old age.

ichi

02-12-2015, 02:13

disclaimer, its highly likely that I'm not sane

but to answer the question, I'm not playing anything right now that really grabs me, I have some free time this winter, and I'm a sucker for TW

I know we'll probably never find those old glory days of Wolves and Hunters and Bears but who knows, maybe something interesting awaits

I am a little wary/skeptical, more than one TW game hasn't launched well

the real reason may be that ATW gives me a valid reason to drop in to the Org and see if any old friends still wander the halls

easytarget

02-12-2015, 02:42

Well welcome back, good to see something pulled you back in, hopefully it turns out to be a fun addition to the TW pantheon. We shall soon see.

Patricius

02-17-2015, 17:16

It is far more stable than Rome 2 was on release. I've had no crash so far. Rome 2 was different on that score....

eat cold steel

02-18-2015, 18:01

the real reason may be that ATW gives me a valid reason to drop in to the Org and see if any old friends still wander the halls
Wandering and watching, sure. Contributing, not so much.

I_damian

02-18-2015, 19:45

Despite what I said in the original post in this thread, I bought it. (I never said I was sane, did I?) Couldn't resist seeing if it was as horrendously bad as Rome 2.

I'm happy to report that I am pleasantly surprised and happy with my purchase. Trying to hold the Western Roman Empire together is fun as hell. Family tree is great, politics aren't redundant like in Rome 2, love the added depth like being able to appoint governors, retainers, all that stuff.

Music still sucks ass though, no life in it whatsoever, needs Jeff Van Dyck back.

Also I've noticed CA are deleting any criticism on the .com forums. I've been watching the forums a lot over the last 2 days and I've seen numerous threads disappear without trace because they mentioned criticism of things like the AI desolating too many area, etc.

easytarget

02-19-2015, 00:44

I_damian

02-19-2015, 12:13

It's funny you used the AI desolation example because that was specifically a thread I was interested in hearing a response from CA about. So did they delete it or for some reason move it somewhere else to hide it? This tactic of deleting stuff is so amateur hour and makes them look really rather sad.

I mean if the AI really is tac nuking the countryside fighting other AI you could conceivably make this almost a no win game.

In my experience (7 hours of playing lol) the AI seems to nuke a province about 50% of the time. Maybe a little less, maybe 40%. The Irish faction (I don't know their names yet so I'll be referring to them as their modern-day geographical location) attacked my county in Wales and nuked it, then the Scottish faction attacked my northern-most province in England and nuked that as well. Southern England has been raided to hell - Camulodunum has been looted 3 times, but they never nuked it. They nuked Frisia and one of my very far eastern provinces (Pannonia?) but that's it. The other times they managed to overwhelm my garrison they only looted the province rather than nuke it.

Patricius

02-19-2015, 12:53

This game is stable where Rome 2 was not stable on release. The design is of a higher standard than Rome 2. Perhaps it is what Rome 2 should have been.

I_damian

02-19-2015, 14:31

This game is stable where Rome 2 was not stable on release. The design is of a higher standard than Rome 2. Perhaps it is what Rome 2 should have been.

If I'd had this much fun with Rome 2 on release day then I'd have considered Rome 2 a success. I still wouldn't consider it as good as Rome 1, Medieval 2 or Shogun 2 because it wasn't - neither is Attila, but still it would've been a good game.

As it is, I was utterly shocked not just by how broken the game was but, even if it had been polished and stable, it was still boring and soulless. I'm stupefied by how you can take a game set in one of the most fascinating periods of history such as the rise of Rome, with so many fascinating civilizations such as Rome, Carthage, Athens, Macedonia, Gaul, Pergamon, Seleukids, Ptolemies, Parthians and so forth, and screw it up SO ******* BAD! It should've been so easy lol.

Patricius

02-19-2015, 15:14

I wonder if the testers for Rome 2 got toked, 420, high, whatever, instead of testing. This is stable, and the design is really neat. Rome 2 got part there, but politics still looks incomplete in that game. Politics was the heart of Rome, so that is a bit loss.

SirGrotius

02-22-2015, 21:37

We're older now, lots more disposable income, and for a fair chance that it'll be interesting, I don't see a problem paying $60 for entertainment. A night out with the lady is much more expensive relatively speaking. Plus, I like the idea of supporting strategy game franchises.

oz_wwjd

02-27-2015, 05:30

I'd like to buy the game,but I'm somewhat cautious about investing in Total war games since Rome II was the last straw for me,in CA releasing games that were broken from the start. Attila has a few too many bugs for me right now,and I'm holding off my purchase until I see if they are fixed to my satisfaction. If they do I'll most probably buy it,but until that happens,if it happens..

Sid_Quibley

08-15-2015, 14:02

easytarget

08-15-2015, 22:26

Agreed. :laugh4:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149389-CA-jumping-the-shark

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2015, 03:53

I went temporarily insane and bought Attila at full price, mostly because that epoch in history interests me, partly because I still have some of the brand loyalty that playing (original) Shogun and Medieval instilled in me.

Medieval Viking Invasion multiplayer was probably the most fun I`ve had in internet gaming
Totalwar Rome broke that with it`s cavalry blob spam tactics.

I`ve bought most of the TW games up until Attila after they`ve been fully developed and reduced in price. There`s been some interesting mods that have added more flavour to the base games.
So in 15 years of development the TW series has obviously progressed in the eye candy graphics department
In terms of ai campaign and battle development I`ve seen nothing to impress. Suicide generals have been sorted and cavalry attempts to flank enemy units which is nice but 15 years in development and that`s all????

The campaign is a boring grind of predictable battles, nothing more to say on that.

Would I pay full price for another TW product.....NOPE....will wait til they`re fully developed and mods that interest me are available.

Do I have any brand loyalty left for the TW series....NOPE...To me the DLC business model stinks to high heaven. If I want to buy a game I want to buy a full tested bug free game that does`nt give me the hard sell for overpriced feature poor add ons

I'd have to disagree. As far as battles being repetitive, that's true to an extent in real life because both parties would bring their "chosen army" and then the generals and the terrain decided who won - the Romans and the Macedonian Successors repeatedly re-fought essentially the same battle with the same types of troops.

As to the AI - it's a huge improvement over Medieval II, which is the last time CA got it remotely right in this sort of time period. I've tried presenting the AI with bizarre problems, bringing two much cavalry, splitting my army in two and trying to pin it.

I even split my army in three once and hid the middle division in a dell whilst putting two flanking divisions far out to create a three-sided box which I then slowly closed on the AI. The AI tried several formations as my units came in and out of view eventually settling on an open triangle with skirmishers out front and spears behind, general and other support inside, with the "point" of the formation facing my centre division that it couldn't actually see at the time. Then it sent cavalry and axemen to hack apart one of my flanking divisions before it could close on their main body, effectively pinning it and forcing my to sacrifice most of two units to close the box and make the kill.

Could a human player have done better? Sure, depending on the player, but it was an appropriate response to an unusual tactical problem which I presented the AI with because the AI itself was on a rise behind a tree line - so I had to send parts of the army up that hill and through those trees but try to occupy as much of their force as possible.

I got a great deal of satisfaction out of that battle.

Myth

08-28-2015, 10:00

Honestly I don't play R2TW any more and won't buy attila, not because of the qualirty of the games, but because I need to upgrade my gfx card to have lag free battles. And I can't justufy spending 500 euro on a toy at age 30.

ReluctantSamurai

08-28-2015, 17:29

R2 just has too many annoying aspects for me to ever consider buying it (and Attila, as well) even from the bargain bin. I bought every title from S1 to M2 and enjoyed them all. I skipped ETW & NTW because of the poor quality and because that period of military history is my least favorite.

S2 was a return to form in producing an excellent game (although FoTS was rather silly, IMHO), but R2 seemed a giant step backwards (and I refused to be CA's unofficial beta tester). Is R2 a decent game? Probably. Does it meet my expectations of what a game of this nature should be? Nope.

I think CA is done. There are few eras of military history left to game that would allow them to duplicate their previous successes (plus the whole gaming industry affair with DLC just makes me angry and ill). I can't foresee me ever purchasing another of their games:shrug:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2015, 19:47

Everything I've seen and heard leads me to believe that Attila is a very different game to R2 - granted it wasn't produced with as much insane attention to detail as Rome 1 but, frankly, it's the first game since M1 that has really delivered on the campaign being a vehicle for single-player battles.

It could have done with a few more features, the family tree could work better to assign consistent names to children etc. but overall I don't regret pre-ordering it at all.

Hell, I think I averaged 30 hours a week for the first four weeks!

ReluctantSamurai

08-29-2015, 23:37

It could have done with a few more features, the family tree could work better to assign consistent names to children etc

But it's details like this and others that keeps me from buying in. Very few players manually fight naval battles, from what I can see, because they are still FUBAR'd. You'd think that after 15 years, CA would have a clue as to what makes for an immersive TW game that keeps you coming back even years later.

I posed this question in a long forgotten thread back when R2 first came out: Will you be playing it in six months? a year? two? longer?

To this day, I still play the original STW & MTW, and to some extent, R1. Immersive...atmosphere...fabulous music...attention to detail. That's what I look for in a TW game, and sadly do not see it in R2 or Attila:Zzzz:

Myth

09-07-2015, 12:44

I'm hoping Medieval 3 will be at least as good as Med 2 + Stainless Steel. Perhaps a mix of Medieval 1 and Crusader Kings 2.

AntiDamascus

09-08-2015, 16:17

Have they announced Med 3? Or even hinted at it?