The Chosen Live On !

[PSYCHO]

Well guys, check out the latest IGN game-play vids over at Legion Total War (http://www.legiontotalwar.com).

See "E3 Clips (High Quality), from IGN magazine" clip 2 and 3.

It appears that whilst we have seen some positive changes in cosmetics, the essence of "barbarian" units seem unchanged.

In the aforementioned clips, there's a battle between the Julii and Gauls amidst beautiful forests and scrub. You can't see all the different Gaul units but you can see the mouse over info as the player moves around the battlefield. The point to note is the unit info. Five units of note are the:

* Gallic Warband
(Gauls who only carry spears)

* Gallic Swordsmen
(Gauls who only carry swords)

* Gallic Skirmisher Warband
(Gauls who throw stuff and then run away)

* Gallic Chosen Swordsmen
(Specially Chosen Gauls http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif who only carry swords ...and wear helmets as seen in old 'Barbarian Movie')

* Gallic Forester Warband
(Erol Flynn Archers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif Yup, Gay Foresters are alive and well)


So instead of using the resources of history and ignoring suggestions from the community, they have:

A) Failed to take the opportunity to develop unit diversity along tribal lines and instead, have overly simplified Gallic units and thus diminished tactical Game-play options.

B) Then in order to bulk out the unit lists, have split the three historic / generic Gallic characteristics to make three separate spear, sword and skirmish (throwing) units, diminishing Game-play / combat options.

C) Tenaciously stuck to a simplistic dumb and dummer classification system, thus diminishing ambience, depth and feel for the period. Stay tuned for a Gay Forester (http://www.jrue.com/albums/userpics/11503/thumb_Gay%20Forester.JPG), or a British Road Warrior (http://www.jrue.com/albums/userpics/11503/thumb_Road%20Warrior.JPG), coming to a PC near you

D)...

...after almost 2 years crowing about these missed opportunities, there doesn't seem to be much point....


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Scipio]

Give them time Psycho, who knows what cards CA can pull out of their sleeves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Scipio @ May 18 2004,22:53)]Give them time Psycho, who knows what cards CA can pull out of their sleeves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Rrrright-o... they might introduce us to the mighty extremely chosen and hand-picked Gallic skirmishing swordsmen with spears http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Nowake]

I can't really understand why they are so stubborn; but nevertheless, they are making this game so ..

[Leet Eriksson]

Pipe down,i'm still pissed the darn camel riders carry curved swords.

[The_Emperor]

I can't say I'm surprised... I knew the essence of the Barbarian factions will remain.

However I am glad the Gauls have fewer axemen, even if the Gallic Forresters are in.

Replacing some of the Axemen with swordsmen and spearmen is a slight step in the right direction. Maybe the Forresters had to stay in for balance reasons? (lack of archers seriously undermined the faction's capability, such as the Irish in VI)

[Oleander Ardens]

Well at least under old Vercing the Gauls used archers in open battle, equipped mostly with one of the many european variants of the simple bow...

So I think the unit GW itself isn't bad as long they are not elite warriors, but from the lesser strati of the society.

Anyway I would dearly miss a decent spear/sword unit as this was the gaul/celtic unit par exellance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ May 19 2004,04:56)]Anyway I would dearly miss a decent spear/sword unit as this was the gaul/celtic unit par exellance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
The Naked Fanatics...

[Knight_Yellow]

i realy think you guys need to take a break from RTW.

who honestly cares apart from you few about how the barbarians are represented?

who cares if some guy has a curved sword instead of a straight one or if some guy doesnt have the exact armour patter on.

Gameplay > realism.

Honestly ive seen startreck conventions with less people whining about how some lazer beam cant kill some guy..... than ive seen you guys moaning about historical inacuracies.


There is 1 atrociously blatant thing you are missing,

Profit.

CA dont give a damn about the minority (and lets face it, you are a very small minority).

They will make far more money from selling the "hollywood" style of gameplay rather than the true style.


If they catered to your whims then it would please you and only you, the majority of people who will buy RTW are blissfully unaware that Barbarians arent technicaly barbarians and they dont want some damned history lesson.

Sure it sucks for you guys becuase you want something your not going to get, but theres only 1 way to rectify this, Mods.

Dont wait for Wes/etc... to mod the game, instead learn a bit of mod making and toy around with it yourselves....

In the latest preview the reporter mentioned a Unit builder that ships with the game, you can redo models or make new ones, along with map editors and other things.


This has turned into a realy long post but the point im trying to make is this:

Your tastes differ from the majorities, therefor you wont get your way, deal with it by making mods, or better yet... Make your own award winning game with revolutionary designs and features.

*not trying to flame, just telling the truth, dont shoot the messenger*

[Lord Aeon]

I cannot believe people are still entertaining these discussions and fuming about whether some unit carries a curved sword. Are you fucking serious?

What the fuck am i DOING here?

Goodbye, eunuchs.

[Kaatar]

Maybe so but would it have killed them to make just a few changes? We've been bitching about it for a long time.

That forester looked so gay http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

*Shoots Knight Yellow* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rifle.gif

My post was sarcastic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif i don't really give a speck if swords were curved,aslong as the gamepplay is OK.

You make some good points though,and i agree with you 100%,sooner or later historical games are bound to be more realistic.

[The_Emperor]

I'm sure most of us can learn to live with the Bullshite Warrior and Forrester as long as most of the units are reasonably close...

I'm not quite as hardline as some of the others around here. At the end of the day we all want the best gaming experience possible.

[Shahed]

I thought the videos were excellent I think it's going to be a great game, but a not that good simulation. I am happy that the game is looking so good, and is developing very well.

I am disappointed that even after all the Europa Barborum campaigning no notice has been taken of the very fair and reasonable points put forward by the totalwar community.

It IS possible to combine reasonable accuracy and gameplay to produce an excellent result...that is what Shogun was.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ May 19 2004,14:16)]i realy think you guys need to take a break from RTW.

who honestly cares apart from you few about how the barbarians are represented?

who cares if some guy has a curved sword instead of a straight one or if some guy doesnt have the exact armour patter on.

Gameplay > realism.

Honestly ive seen startreck conventions with less people whining about how some lazer beam cant kill some guy..... than ive seen you guys moaning about historical inacuracies.


There is 1 atrociously blatant thing you are missing,

Profit.

CA dont give a damn about the minority (and lets face it, you are a very small minority).

They will make far more money from selling the "hollywood" style of gameplay rather than the true style.


If they catered to your whims then it would please you and only you, the majority of people who will buy RTW are blissfully unaware that Barbarians arent technicaly barbarians and they dont want some damned history lesson.

Sure it sucks for you guys becuase you want something your not going to get, but theres only 1 way to rectify this, Mods.

Dont wait for Wes/etc... to mod the game, instead learn a bit of mod making and toy around with it yourselves....

In the latest preview the reporter mentioned a Unit builder that ships with the game, you can redo models or make new ones, along with map editors and other things.


This has turned into a realy long post but the point im trying to make is this:

Your tastes differ from the majorities, therefor you wont get your way, deal with it by making mods, or better yet... Make your own award winning game with revolutionary designs and features.

*not trying to flame, just telling the truth, dont shoot the messenger*
How many is including historically innaccurate units going to boost sales?

[Shahed]

.....I really liked that battle in between the forest , tall trees, lots of dust. It looked great I think a lot of positive stuff can be said about that video footage as well.

The siege looked great too. Again it's not the stuff of a battle simulator and there are clear signs that a lot of it is meant to make the game more arcade. It should be fun, but more arcade. The sound in the videos I watched was not that great I guess because of poor recording, the codecs on my machine, or something. Nevertheless the voices are well done from what I can make out, but again expect arcade...no Latin..etc just CHARGE HOLD THE LINE I'M MAXIMUS MAXIMUM It's clear all of the audio is in English which is also an small thing that the community campaigned against.

Lastly the marketers always feel that accuracy and profit don't go hand in hand. I'm sorry but I disagree totally.

The Total War series should never go the MCDonald's way.

It is possible to make the game (audio, video, etc) accurate and still make it mainstream. You can include options for most things and this could help those who want to see Romans speaking English. I must say though that this reminds me of those Cold War movies where all the Russians speak English as well..never really liked those. It adds authenticty to have the local languages, more immersion = more fun.

I do think I will like RTW as is but also think that it can be much better. The community has provided such extensive input it would be unwise to ignore it, and that's what seems to be done.

Anyway since MTW I'm more used to (though not more accepting) of a less responsive and more aloof from the community, CA.

http://www.jrue.com/albums/userpics/11503/thumb_Road%20Warrior.JPG

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Brilliant phtoskills there Psycho

[The_Emperor]

Sadly some languages have been totally lost from this period...

While Latin can easily enough be put in for the Romans, the 'Punic' Language of the Carthaginians was re-invented by the Romans into something different as part of their effort to discredit them and destroy our historical perceptions of them.

Its probably safer for them to do it in English (or whatever language of the country of release), for this sake.

[Shahed]

Yes I agree that it's safer and easier. I do think that it would add to the immersive value if some measure of lingual authticity was maintained. In the following thread we have an example of how a person has reconstructed and proposed orders in Gothic:

click (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=10687)

I did not find that poll I was talking about...will look later.

Anyway that's a slightly seperate issue from unit authenticity but it is relevant to the overall autheticty of the game and it's uniqueness.

[Spino]

While I am biased in favor of the historical accuracy argument it is clear there are people in this camp who are very passionate about this topic (some of whom are a touch fanatical). Obviously these people are upset but they do raise some valid points.

In defense of the historically accurate argument I believe some people at CA (or perhaps some overbearing people in Activision's marketing dept.) are seriously overestimating the reaction of strategy gamers to the presence of 'historically accurate units with funny sounding names'. The average gamer, let alone the average person, doesn't know history from a hole in the wall. And yet when it comes to other genres countless gamers have in their minds a lexicon consisting of a host of silly named creatures and monsters of fantasy found in countless role playing games. There are hordes of gamers out there who can spit out names like bugbear, harpy, summoner, liche, illithid, boring beetle, succubus, etc. and can tell you exactly what to expect from each. This applies to virtually every gaming genre. Take note of the Starcraft and Warcraft fanatics who have memorized the names and stats of every single unit in those games. RTW is about epic scale battles featuring ancient empires, a topic that many gamers consider to be 'really cool'. It is clear that the average gamer buys a Total War game because they want that sort of thing in spades. With respect to RTW they want to walk in the footsteps of great generals of antiquity and fight as or against the Romans, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, etc. I would go one step further and say that many gamers are expecting a certain degree of exoticism regarding names and appearances because of the time frame and vastly different cultures involved. But since I am loathe to give the average person credit for anything I firmly believe that if CA were to throw caution to the wind and offer either 100% historically accurate or 100% historically innaccurate units gamers would take it in stride and adjust because the end result would always be the same. At the end of the day these same gamers would be building empires and fighting massive battles in glorious 3D action. That is what Total War games are about and that is what has drawn millions of gamers to the series. Does anyone at Activision or CA honestly believe that the presence of strange sounding names and/or historically accurate units is going to discourage gamers from purchasing RTW? You want to know what would really discourage gamers from buying more Total War games? Do away with the real time combat and replace it with traditional turn based gameplay on a hex based map. Now THAT would adversely affect sales The only people that are going to deliberately avoid RTW are those gamers who hate Civilization style empire building games, real-time strategy games and ancient history in general. No amount of easy-to-read naming conventions and ahistorical units is going to persuade those people into buying Rome Total War.

Above all else one of CA's developers (I believe it was Mike Simpson?) has stated in a video interview that Shogun Total War sold over one million copies worldwide. Pretty good for a game with units named Yari, Ashigaru, Naginata, Nodachi and sporting a map that featured dozens of territories with Japanese names. Let's be honest, about the only Japanese terms in Shogun that the average gamer could relate to were samurai, shogun, geisha, ninja, and Japan. And despite this element of the game still went on to sell over one million copies Fancy that

As I stated earlier I firmly believe that if CA did make a more concerted effort to be more historically accurate RTW's sales would not be affected in the slightest. Most gamers won't give a damn if the name of their favorite unit is almost unpronouncable and is completely faithful to its real life counterpart. The average gamer can't tell the difference either way. Why settle for names like 'Chosen Axemen' or units like 'Bull Warrior' when you can give the average gamer a passive lesson in history?

[Captain Fishpants]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 19 2004,09:40)]Anyway since MTW I'm more used to (though not more accepting) of a less responsive and more aloof from the community, CA.
Did it not occur to you that we might just be very, very, very busy?

I have yet more content to generate for the game and a manual to write (by teatime yesterday, as near as I can judge) to be trying to persuade people here that we're not actually being terminally horrid by 'ignoring' them and their requests. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Shahed]

Very well stated

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ May 19 2004,16:35)]I have yet more content to generate for the game and a manual to write (by teatime yesterday, as near as I can judge) to be trying to persuade people here that we're not actually being terminally horrid by 'ignoring' them and their requests. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Actually no. That did not occur to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif
Just kidding, good to hear from you again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

Would you be so kind as to give us your opinion on the subject at discussion here, Captain ? If you have time ?

Once again thanks for your time in advance. Always good to hear from you. And my apologies for that off the cuff remark. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I must add that RTW is looking great, from what I saw in the IGN videos. Congrats on what looks to be an excellent game

[Shamus]

What’s that sound I hear? It must be the popping of the minds of those people here who are getting so bent out of shape because CA isn’t catering to their every whim. I have seen a number of people here complain that CA hasn’t listened to them or their suggestions.

In case you hadn’t noticed, just about everyone here has expressed a different opinion of what they want to see in the game. Some people are happy with some things, other people aren’t. CA can’t cater to the whim of every person here. They would have to make a separate game for every single person to achieve that (hence the addition of a mod with the game).

In my mind CA has tried to strike a healthy balance between the desires of those who want pure historical accuracy, and those who would enjoy a more arcade style of play.

A few of you have said that CA hasn’t listened to any of the “community’s” comments towards the game. This kind of reminds me of when I used to live at home, and my mother would say that I never did chores. I did do chores, just not enough to make her happy, so in her mind, I didn’t do any. What is my point to this? My point is that some people are so upset that they haven’t gotten their complete way with this game, they feel that CA has completely ignored them. However, CA has listened to the comments of people here, and made changes to the game. They have done this both before Rome was announced, and since we have been able to see the game in progress.

For example, people complained in MTW that there were too many units per province (i.e. spies, bishops, etc.), and so CA has cleaned that up. People complained that the necks of horses looked too long, so they were shortened. People complained about the fact that units walked in sync, and that was corrected.

There have been numerous things that CA has done to cater to the wishes of the Total War community, but you must remember that not everyone wants the same thing. You also need to remember as was pointed out before, that CA is trying to expand the Rome gaming experience to people outside of the current Total War community.

So the next time you feel your blood pressure rising because a certain unit has their armor on crooked, just take a deep breath and relax. It’s just a game after all.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ May 18 2004,22:49)]Well guys, check out the latest IGN game-play vids over at Legion Total War (http://www.legiontotalwar.com).

See "E3 Clips (High Quality), from IGN magazine" clip 2 and 3.

It appears that whilst we have seen some positive changes in cosmetics, the essence of "barbarian" units seem unchanged.

In the aforementioned clips, there's a battle between the Julii and Gauls amidst beautiful forests and scrub. You can't see all the different Gaul units but you can see the mouse over info as the player moves around the battlefield. The point to note is the unit info. Five units of note are the:

* Gallic Warband
(Gauls who only carry spears)

* Gallic Swordsmen
(Gauls who only carry swords)

* Gallic Skirmisher Warband
(Gauls who are too cowardly to make the Warband team and throw stuff instead)

* Gallic Chosen Swordsmen
(Specially Chosen Gauls http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif who only carry swords ...and wear helmets as seen in old 'Barbarian Movie')

* Gallic Forester Warband
(Archers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif Yup, Gay Foresters are alive and well)


So instead of using the resources of history and ignoring suggestions from the community, they have:

A) Failed to take the opportunity to develop unit diversity along tribal lines and instead, have overly simplified Gallic units and thus diminished tactical Game-play options.

B) Then in order to bulk out the unit lists, have split the three historic / generic Gallic characteristics to make three separate spear, sword and skirmish (throwing) units, diminishing Game-play / combat options.

C) Tenaciously stuck to a simplistic dumb and dummer classification system, thus diminishing ambience, depth and feel for the period. Stay tuned for a Gay Forester (http://www.jrue.com/albums/userpics/11503/thumb_Gay%20Forester.JPG), or a British Road Warrior (http://www.jrue.com/albums/userpics/11503/thumb_Road%20Warrior.JPG), coming to a PC near you

D)...

...after almost 2 years crowing about these missed opportunities, there doesn't seem to be much point


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
My, my, PSYCHO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif You still hoped for accuracy? That won't happen, even with Europa Barbarorum crying at their ears... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 19 2004,01:27)]
Quote[/b] (Scipio @ May 18 2004,22:53)]Give them time Psycho, who knows what cards CA can pull out of their sleeves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Rrrright-o... they might introduce us to the mighty extremely chosen and hand-picked Gallic skirmishing swordsmen with spears http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

That might happen. Ridiculous is the name of the game here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[The_Emperor]

Fair enough, those CA guys are busy... we should all just enjoy the summer and take a break from worrying. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ May 19 2004,08:16)]i realy think you guys need to take a break from RTW.

who honestly cares apart from you few about how the barbarians are represented?
We do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif



Quote[/b] ]who cares if some guy has a curved sword instead of a straight one or if some guy doesnt have the exact armour patter on.
Again, we do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif



Quote[/b] ]Gameplay > realism.
You got to be joking, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]Honestly ive seen startreck conventions with less people whining about how some lazer beam cant kill some guy..... than ive seen you guys moaning about historical inacuracies.
I 'm really annoyed at such abismal comparation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif ST fans are shitheads without a life. Most people at the ORG that are concerned with History has a life and I know it are, in most cases, furfiling ones, as a matter of fact. So, just because most public is ignorant of History does not makes us the problem, but the exception to it. Is someone ignorant? Then I might suggest them to do something usefull and learn, for a change...



Quote[/b] ]There is 1 atrociously blatant thing you are missing,

Profit.

CA dont give a damn about the minority (and lets face it, you are a very small minority).

They will make far more money from selling the "hollywood" style of gameplay rather than the true style.
Funny that you say that. Shogun was a success due to it's originality and faithfulness to the medieval Japan era.



Quote[/b] ]If they catered to your whims then it would please you and only you, the majority of people who will buy RTW are blissfully unaware that Barbarians arent technicaly barbarians and they dont want some damned history lesson.

Sure it sucks for you guys becuase you want something your not going to get, but theres only 1 way to rectify this, Mods.

Dont wait for Wes/etc... to mod the game, instead learn a bit of mod making and toy around with it yourselves....
Funny again. I quited my MOD to help WesW. That amounts to sacrificing our curiosity for the sake of the community. Something that all companies of all sectors (cinema, games, etc...) should learn from: Correct and well performed Edutainment isn't a bad idea.



Quote[/b] ]Your tastes differ from the majorities, therefor you wont get your way, deal with it by making mods, or better yet... Make your own award winning game with revolutionary designs and features.
BS. You don't get it. It's the system itself that is wrong. Unresponsible products are the worst you can have. Just ask CA's guys about KKND. That is the road RTW is taking... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 19 2004,09:40)]Lastly the marketers always feel that accuracy and profit don't go hand in hand. I'm sorry but I disagree totally.
Me too. That is a completelly erroneous concept. What is necessary is to know how to make it right.



Quote[/b] ]The Total War series should never go the MCDonald's way.
Preciselly my point.



Quote[/b] ]It is possible to make the game (audio, video, etc) accurate and still make it mainstream. You can include options for most things and this could help those who want to see Romans speaking English. I must say though that this reminds me of those Cold War movies where all the Russians speak English as well..never really liked those. It adds authenticty to have the local languages, more immersion = more fun.
Exactly. Just like Shogun and the Japanese language option.



Quote[/b] ]I do think I will like RTW as is but also think that it can be much better. The community has provided such extensive input it would be unwise to ignore it, and that's what seems to be done.
Yes. That is what's happening. After a breakthrough Shogun and a very successefull Medieval (they thought it was successeful because of invented units? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif ) they are going to the most common denominator: Hollywood dumbness. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif



Quote[/b] ]Anyway since MTW I'm more used to (though not more accepting) of a less responsive and more aloof from the community, CA.
Yes. Like I said before, although more vast and complex, MTW < STW in imersion, appeal and precision. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-karate.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ May 19 2004,10:32)]While I am biased in favor of the historical accuracy argument it is clear there are people in this camp who are very passionate about this topic (some of whom are a touch fanatical). Obviously these people are upset but they do raise some valid points.

In defense of the historically accurate argument I believe some people at CA (or perhaps some overbearing people in Activision&#39;s marketing dept.) are seriously overestimating the reaction of strategy gamers to the presence of &#39;historically accurate units with funny sounding names&#39;. The average gamer, let alone the average person, doesn&#39;t know history from a hole in the wall. And yet when it comes to other genres countless gamers have in their minds a lexicon consisting of a host of silly named creatures and monsters of fantasy found in countless role playing games. There are hordes of gamers out there who can spit out names like bugbear, harpy, summoner, liche, illithid, boring beetle, succubus, etc. and can tell you exactly what to expect from each. This applies to virtually every gaming genre. Take note of the Starcraft and Warcraft fanatics who have memorized the names and stats of every single unit in those games. RTW is about epic scale battles featuring ancient empires, a topic that many gamers consider to be &#39;really cool&#39;. It is clear that the average gamer buys a Total War game because they want that sort of thing in spades. With respect to RTW they want to walk in the footsteps of great generals of antiquity and fight as or against the Romans, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, etc. I would go one step further and say that many gamers are expecting a certain degree of exoticism regarding names and appearances because of the time frame and vastly different cultures involved. But since I am loathe to give the average person credit for anything I firmly believe that if CA were to throw caution to the wind and offer either 100% historically accurate or 100% historically innaccurate units gamers would take it in stride and adjust because the end result would always be the same. At the end of the day these same gamers would be building empires and fighting massive battles in glorious 3D action. That is what Total War games are about and that is what has drawn millions of gamers to the series. Does anyone at Activision or CA honestly believe that the presence of strange sounding names and/or historically accurate units is going to discourage gamers from purchasing RTW? You want to know what would really discourage gamers from buying more Total War games? Do away with the real time combat and replace it with traditional turn based gameplay on a hex based map. Now THAT would adversely affect sales The only people that are going to deliberately avoid RTW are those gamers who hate Civilization style empire building games, real-time strategy games and ancient history in general. No amount of easy-to-read naming conventions and ahistorical units is going to persuade those people into buying Rome Total War.

Above all else one of CA&#39;s developers (I believe it was Mike Simpson?) has stated in a video interview that Shogun Total War sold over one million copies worldwide. Pretty good for a game with units named Yari, Ashigaru, Naginata, Nodachi and sporting a map that featured dozens of territories with Japanese names. Let&#39;s be honest, about the only Japanese terms in Shogun that the average gamer could relate to were samurai, shogun, geisha, ninja, and Japan. And despite this element of the game still went on to sell over one million copies Fancy that

As I stated earlier I firmly believe that if CA did make a more concerted effort to be more historically accurate RTW&#39;s sales would not be affected in the slightest. Most gamers won&#39;t give a damn if the name of their favorite unit is almost unpronouncable and is completely faithful to its real life counterpart. The average gamer can&#39;t tell the difference either way. Why settle for names like &#39;Chosen Axemen&#39; or units like &#39;Bull Warrior&#39; when you can give the average gamer a passive lesson in history?
All hail to the wise beyond belief Spino http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif The truest of words... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif (even the fanatics one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif)

[alman9898]

jeez, triple post, man. anyway, I&#39;d favor historical accuracy and rather have the generals speak in their native languages... but it isn&#39;t a necessity for me. Just as long as they improve the unit naming system -- it&#39;s so generic and dumbed down.

[Monk]

I&#39;m sure if we all had out choice we would have RTW be 100% accurate. but as pointed out it doesn&#39;t give CA any sales advantage to do that. Making it 100% correct would maybe attract a few other historians who otherwise wouldn&#39;t have looked twice at RTW and maybe add a few cents in the overall net profit from the game.

Of course here&#39;s the good part, RTW is supposed to be ridiculously easy to mod. I even heard that there will be a *whisper* Unit Dresser tool that allows you to edit units */whisper*. With that along with all the battlemap and campaign editors that we have been promised, it&#39;s almost inevitable that some group of people will get together and make RTW 100% accurate while even managing to make it better. (WesW comes to mind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

As i said, if it was my choice rtw&#39;s barbarians and all factions for that matter would be represented equally accurate. And if the game doesn&#39;t ship that way, at least CA is shipping us the tools to make it that way ourselves. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 19 2004,10:43)]Would you be so kind as to give us your opinion on the subject at discussion here, Captain ? If you have time ?
Sinan, I too would like an answer to all our questions. But you know, I am pretty certain we won&#39;t get any. Not because Mike don&#39;t want to, I&#39;m pretty sure he does want to, but imagine the outcome.
He agrees with the historical accuracy points and states that he does. Then what? He has basically and officially gone against the corporation, not good if you want to keep your job or the contract with Activision.
And if he disagrees, then there is little point in answering as his answer will most likely just add fuel to the fire.
He is bound on hands and feet.

CA does listen to us. I doubt the necks or marching in step was fixed due to us, I&#39;m willing to give CA the credit that they could see it themselves. But the Night Raiders are basically taken directly from this very forum I can&#39;t remember the thread but the similarities are stunning. The only realy difference is the axe and their name (should have been Harii infantry).
They quite possibly also litened to us conserning the &#39;biker&#39; looks of the barbarians. The old units looked very finished, but suddenly when people began to bitch about them at extreme lengths, they changed to more pleasing looks. And now they look good.

The language would be nice if it was the original or similar to the original language. But even if the Gothic language is more or less given to them for free, they are still in the dark about Iberian, Punic, Dacian/Thracian, Scythian, Parthian, Pontic and Numidian (I&#39;m sure I forgot some). I think it is too much to ask for them to either invent them again or recreate them. They are after all just a game developer and not a language developer.
And what would it give them? Nothing Remember how people bitched about the languages in AOK? They were nice and far better than what could be expected by a company that has not worked with this. But still people complained a lot, "oh my god, this unit says X while he should say Y (blatant swearing and bitching)". I perfectly understand CA, it is a position where only a giant amount of work would be satisfactory, a work that CA knew they could not allow themselves to put in it for no gain.
I only hope now that the enhlish the Romans are speaking will be different from what the Carthies or Parthies will speak. Accents will be sufficient for me.

But I do not like the dumbing down of the game. Shogun was great with all its Japanese words and its style. You felt like a real Daimyo sitting and planning attacks and wars. It was less so in MTW, and I fear it will be even less so in RTW. I want that feeling, and a lot of that feeling were the names of units.
I don&#39;t believe that people will be put off by oddly named units, they might actually relate better to that than discriptive names. I know plenty of games that has oddly named units, the Craft games are full of them. Hydralisk and Ultralisk er great names. Imagine them as Spineshooter and Bladeswinger, or the Wraith as a Fighter. It doesn&#39;t ring well...

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 19 2004,19:37)]ST fans are shitheads without a life.
-
You hurt me Dom Aymar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif (For the first part that is...)

Seriously, I was sitting somewhere in between in this gameplay vs. accuracy thing, if any. (How can you build such a balance while historical accuracy is already a part of gameplay experience?) But seeing more and more hollyweirdish dumbass stuff coming out, I&#39;m feeling closer and closer towards the fanatical camp.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif
_

[Nowake]

But I do not like the dumbing down of the game. Shogun was great with all its Japanese words and its style. You felt like a real Daimyo sitting and planning attacks and wars. It was less so in MTW, and I fear it will be even less so in RTW. I want that feeling, and a lot of that feeling were the names of units.

This I whole-heartedly agree.

I don&#39;t believe that people will be put off by oddly named units, they might actually relate better to that than discriptive names. I know plenty of games that has oddly named units, the Craft games are full of them. Hydralisk and Ultralisk er great names. Imagine them as Spineshooter and Bladeswinger, or the Wraith as a Fighter. It doesn&#39;t ring well...

Heroes III had NO historical basis.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Monk @ May 19 2004,16:03)]Of course here&#39;s the good part, RTW is supposed to be ridiculously easy to mod. I even heard that there will be a *whisper* Unit Dresser tool that allows you to edit units */whisper*. With that along with all the battlemap and campaign editors that we have been promised, it&#39;s almost inevitable that some group of people will get together and make RTW 100% accurate while even managing to make it better. (WesW comes to mind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

As i said, if it was my choice rtw&#39;s barbarians and all factions for that matter would be represented equally accurate. And if the game doesn&#39;t ship that way, at least CA is shipping us the tools to make it that way ourselves. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
Let&#39;s hope so... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ May 19 2004,18:17)]
Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 19 2004,10:43)]Would you be so kind as to give us your opinion on the subject at discussion here, Captain ? If you have time ?
Sinan, I too would like an answer to all our questions. But you know, I am pretty certain we won&#39;t get any. Not because Mike don&#39;t want to, I&#39;m pretty sure he does want to, but imagine the outcome.
He agrees with the historical accuracy points and states that he does. Then what? He has basically and officially gone against the corporation, not good if you want to keep your job or the contract with Activision.
And if he disagrees, then there is little point in answering as his answer will most likely just add fuel to the fire.
He is bound on hands and feet.
You have a point here.



Quote[/b] ]CA does listen to us. I doubt the necks or marching in step was fixed due to us, I&#39;m willing to give CA the credit that they could see it themselves. But the Night Raiders are basically taken directly from this very forum I can&#39;t remember the thread but the similarities are stunning. The only realy difference is the axe and their name (should have been Harii infantry).
They quite possibly also litened to us conserning the &#39;biker&#39; looks of the barbarians. The old units looked very finished, but suddenly when people began to bitch about them at extreme lengths, they changed to more pleasing looks. And now they look good.
Most of them better, yes. But not all.



Quote[/b] ]The language would be nice if it was the original or similar to the original language. But even if the Gothic language is more or less given to them for free, they are still in the dark about Iberian, Punic, Dacian/Thracian, Scythian, Parthian, Pontic and Numidian (I&#39;m sure I forgot some). I think it is too much to ask for them to either invent them again or recreate them. They are after all just a game developer and not a language developer.
And what would it give them? Nothing Remember how people bitched about the languages in AOK? They were nice and far better than what could be expected by a company that has not worked with this. But still people complained a lot, "oh my god, this unit says X while he should say Y (blatant swearing and bitching)". I perfectly understand CA, it is a position where only a giant amount of work would be satisfactory, a work that CA knew they could not allow themselves to put in it for no gain.
I only hope now that the enhlish the Romans are speaking will be different from what the Carthies or Parthies will speak. Accents will be sufficient for me.
This a point that I agree upon. The language question is far more ambiguos than anything else, due to the very few references we have for most "barbarian" languages. It would be too much of a guessing work. I have no problem in RTW being presented in English.



Quote[/b] ]But I do not like the dumbing down of the game. Shogun was great with all its Japanese words and its style. You felt like a real Daimyo sitting and planning attacks and wars. It was less so in MTW, and I fear it will be even less so in RTW. I want that feeling, and a lot of that feeling were the names of units.
I don&#39;t believe that people will be put off by oddly named units, they might actually relate better to that than discriptive names. I know plenty of games that has oddly named units, the Craft games are full of them. Hydralisk and Ultralisk er great names. Imagine them as Spineshooter and Bladeswinger, or the Wraith as a Fighter. It doesn&#39;t ring well...
Preciselly. You are right. But Ca doesn&#39;t seem to think so. They are everytime closer to the big corporation vision of the public... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
In my dream, I saw RTW naked like PotC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif, ie open script to do whatever you want with it.

Well, it was just a dream and yes, I have no life. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif
_

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 20 2004,01:26)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 19 2004,19:37)]ST fans are shitheads without a life.
-
You hurt me Dom Aymar. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif (For the first part that is...)
Well, there are exceptions... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif What&#39;s your age? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]Seriously, I was sitting somewhere in between in this gameplay vs. accuracy thing, if any. (How can you build such a balance while historical accuracy is already a part of gameplay experience?) But seeing more and more hollyweirdish dumbass stuff coming out, I&#39;m feeling closer and closer towards the fanatical camp.
Preciselly what I&#39;m feeling. I like to think myself as reasonable person, but portraing lack of commitment or seeling to the most common denominator (Hollywood dumbness) makes me loose my temper and increase my fanaticism in regard to historical accuracy... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 20 2004,04:50)]-
In my dream, I saw RTW naked like PotC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif, ie open script to do whatever you want with it.

Well, it was just a dream and yes, I have no life. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif
_
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Yes, you can always dream while RTW isn&#39;t released. But then you&#39;ll have to awake up to the harsh reality... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[MadKow]

There is a lot of artificial stuff in both STW adn MTW that is only there for the sake of game play. We could quote certain units as an example, or the tech tree itself, or even the provinces resources.

However these are our favorite games, or at least high up on the list. I for one like them because they present a fun and somewhat believable experience.

That&#39;s all i&#39;ll ask from RTW.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 20 2004,12:54)]What&#39;s your age? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
-
28 for the next 23 days. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif

Gameplay, yes, it&#39;s what counts. But in these games historical feel is an essential of gameplay.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
_

[Mega Dux Bob]

Hehe "Worry about the historical names in just being dull, geeky and shows you have no life" and the Total War series is an exercise in anything else?

The historical names are cool and add to the flavor. These cheesy names like "elite forrestors with special swords and small tight pants" and the like are pretty lame and come accross as excessively left brained programer talk if you ask me.

Still, if we&#39;re going Hollywood; were&#39;s Astrix?

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]Still, if we&#39;re going Hollywood; were&#39;s Astrix?

Asterix looks more like a proper Gaul then many of the RTW units.

[Captain Fishpants]

Just a couple of minutes spare, so I thought I&#39;d add that, IMO, some people debating here are assuming that realism and gameplay are a "zero-sum game", and I don&#39;t think they are; the two are as linked as anyone wants to make them. If the existence of a particular item in the game is going to cause you to fly into a spasm of righteous anger, then there&#39;s nothing that I can say that will make you feel any better.

Rome: Total War is a model of the Roman Empire and its world - a model, not the real thing - and furthermore a model designed to be a game that is fun and challenging to play. And yes, I am using model in a technical way here.

It is in the nature of all models that reality is codified, enumerated, abstracted, simplified and otherwise made into a representation, not the original thing. This means that a certain amount of abstraction has to go on, and this is where the "it&#39;s not realistic" comes in.

Realism is in itself a fluid concept anyway. One man&#39;s realism is another man&#39;s rampant retentiveness Some of the "not realistic" stuff has been along the lines of someone moaning because the rivets aren&#39;t right on a model train. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Hot news, then: none of it&#39;s realistic. It&#39;s a game. I think it&#39;s going to be absolutely the bees&#39; knees of a game, and I&#39;m rather proud of how it&#39;s turning out. But then I would say that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And no, Asterix won&#39;t be in there.

[The Wizard]

Well, then I&#39;m not going to buy the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[The_Emperor]

Thanks for the heads up Captain.

I think everyone here is gonna buy RTW as soon as it comes out regardless of how much they are currently complaining... It does seem to be getting pretty bad though.


Quote[/b] ]Well, then I&#39;m not going to buy the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Yeah, ok you&#39;ll be waiting in line with the rest of us... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

Seriously, I&#39;m unable to see the connection between the correct moustache of a Briton and a wholesome addition to the gaming experience.

I mean, looking at RTW trailer #4, it&#39;s unlikely I&#39;ll give one tiny sh*t about Briton moustaches while my equites ride into their flanks.




~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Trax]

Me neither http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
,if it gets any worse then it is already.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

edit: unlike Wiz I mean it seriously, I have other things to do with my money.

[Captain Fishpants]

I would love to put Asterix in. I wanted to put Noggin the Nog into MTW as a Danish hero. But there is such a thing as copyright.

[Ragss]

Correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt haveing the game be extremely historicly accurate mean certain factions would be seriously under, or overpowered?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ May 21 2004,09:40)]I would love to put Asterix in. I wanted to put Noggin the Nog into MTW as a Danish hero. But there is such a thing as copyright.
Imagine if it was done... Forget the Elephants, all we need is Obelix to break a Roman formation of heavy Inf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Nowake]

But the trampling would not have been as efficient. Yet, no problem with flaming pigs.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ May 21 2004,10:15)]But the trampling would not have been as efficient. Yet, no problem with flaming pigs.
There might be a problem with flaming pigs... Obelix might get hungry

[Nowake]

Damn, we need strong supply linnes.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Dear Captain Fishpants,

With most respect to your self and position (game developper),

I don&#39;t think anybody here wants a 100% simulation of real history. We&#39;re glad with the "model" and the fun. We&#39;re happy with the great gameplay experience that you have been offering us with the TW series.

However, what makes TW what it is, is mostly the "serious" approach to historical recreation, which cannot be found in any cheesy AOE clone or a crappy Hollywood movie/TV series. All we are looking for is a correct and "believable"basis on history, which allows us make fun with "recreating" it. That&#39;s what makes TW superior over its competitors in the market, at least IMHO. That&#39;s why I&#39;ve been playing MTW for two years, modding it, and considering a computer upgrade for RTW despite my awful allowance.

Not that I wish but, still most respectfully, why don&#39;t you just make a LotR or King Arthur or Sagas or Shahname etc. TW if you&#39;re feeling that pathetic about historical accuracy?

Several game companies just do that and their games are equally enjoyable. However, when you put a historical context in, we players much rightfully expect a correct and believable connection to the real thing for a perfect gameplay experience.

Best regards and good luck with your endeavours
_

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]I don&#39;t think anybody here wants a 100% simulation of real history. We&#39;re glad with the "model" and the fun. We&#39;re happy with the great gameplay experience that you have been offering us with the TW series.

However, what makes TW what it is, is mostly the "serious" approach to historical recreation, which cannot be found in any cheesy AOE clone or a crappy Hollywood movie/TV series. All we are looking for is a correct and "believable"basis on history, which allows us make fun with "recreating" it. That&#39;s what makes TW superior over its competitors in the market, at least IMHO. That&#39;s why I&#39;ve been playing MTW for two years, modding it, and considering a computer upgrade for RTW despite my awful allowance.


Exactly we are not after a 100% accurate simulation of the time period, that just isn&#39;t possible.

The Serious attitude tohistory that the Total War series had taught me a little bit, but more than that it encouraged me to look into history. Indeed other friends of mine who are not normally into gaming that much have been attracted to TW because of its scope and resonable &#39;model&#39; to history.

I think we all want RTW to be great and thats where this historical passion comes from.

We&#39;re not an ungrateful mob, even if sometimes it seems that way.

[Trax]

Yes, we all complain and whine because we want the best result, for us and for CA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Why am I interested in RTW?
Not so much because the computer gaming experience, but rather because of great love in ancient history. It´s almost physically painful to me to see those pharaonic Egyptians or knowing, that I won´t be able to recruit entire manipular or Marian legions. So I go on and whine to let CA know, there are people ot there, who don´t think that flaming pigs and pharaohs are "cool". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 20 2004,10:03)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 20 2004,12:54)]What&#39;s your age? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
-
28 for the next 23 days. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif
Then you really need to get a life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif I was joking... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

I don&#39;t think you fall in the category of "common" ST freaks... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-klingon.gif




Quote[/b] ]Gameplay, yes, it&#39;s what counts. But in these games historical feel is an essential of gameplay.
Very true.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ May 20 2004,10:41)]Hehe "Worry about the historical names in just being dull, geeky and shows you have no life" and the Total War series is an exercise in anything else?

The historical names are cool and add to the flavor. These cheesy names like "elite forrestors with special swords and small tight pants" and the like are pretty lame and come accross as excessively left brained programer talk if you ask me.
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

You&#39;re right. Probably a very "relate to the technical specifications book no matter what" person...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ May 20 2004,11:41)]Just a couple of minutes spare, so I thought I&#39;d add that, IMO, some people debating here are assuming that realism and gameplay are a "zero-sum game", and I don&#39;t think they are; the two are as linked as anyone wants to make them. If the existence of a particular item in the game is going to cause you to fly into a spasm of righteous anger, then there&#39;s nothing that I can say that will make you feel any better.

Rome: Total War is a model of the Roman Empire and its world - a model, not the real thing - and furthermore a model designed to be a game that is fun and challenging to play. And yes, I am using model in a technical way here.

It is in the nature of all models that reality is codified, enumerated, abstracted, simplified and otherwise made into a representation, not the original thing. This means that a certain amount of abstraction has to go on, and this is where the "it&#39;s not realistic" comes in.

Realism is in itself a fluid concept anyway. One man&#39;s realism is another man&#39;s rampant retentiveness Some of the "not realistic" stuff has been along the lines of someone moaning because the rivets aren&#39;t right on a model train. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Well, there are limits to interpretation. Please, don&#39;t step over the edge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]Hot news, then: none of it&#39;s realistic. It&#39;s a game. I think it&#39;s going to be absolutely the bees&#39; knees of a game, and I&#39;m rather proud of how it&#39;s turning out. But then I would say that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Of course you would. Even if it wasn&#39;t. However, from what I&#39;ve seen I&#39;m inclined to agree with you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif



Quote[/b] ]
And no, Asterix won&#39;t be in there.
What??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif No Asterix???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif Were is the historical justification not to include Asterix???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 21 2004,05:48)]-
Dear Captain Fishpants,

With most respect to your self and position (game developper),

I don&#39;t think anybody here wants a 100% simulation of real history. We&#39;re glad with the "model" and the fun. We&#39;re happy with the great gameplay experience that you have been offering us with the TW series.

However, what makes TW what it is, is mostly the "serious" approach to historical recreation, which cannot be found in any cheesy AOE clone or a crappy Hollywood movie/TV series. All we are looking for is a correct and "believable"basis on history, which allows us make fun with "recreating" it. That&#39;s what makes TW superior over its competitors in the market, at least IMHO. That&#39;s why I&#39;ve been playing MTW for two years, modding it, and considering a computer upgrade for RTW despite my awful allowance.

Not that I wish but, still most respectfully, why don&#39;t you just make a LotR or King Arthur or Sagas or Shahname etc. TW if you&#39;re feeling that pathetic about historical accuracy?

Several game companies just do that and their games are equally enjoyable. However, when you put a historical context in, we players much rightfully expect a correct and believable connection to the real thing for a perfect gameplay experience.

Best regards and good luck with your endeavours
_
See? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif I knew he wasn&#39;t a "common" ST fan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif He can really think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif I agree with all of what he said. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif Beautifull explanation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 21 2004,06:21)]
Quote[/b] ]I don&#39;t think anybody here wants a 100% simulation of real history. We&#39;re glad with the "model" and the fun. We&#39;re happy with the great gameplay experience that you have been offering us with the TW series.

However, what makes TW what it is, is mostly the "serious" approach to historical recreation, which cannot be found in any cheesy AOE clone or a crappy Hollywood movie/TV series. All we are looking for is a correct and "believable"basis on history, which allows us make fun with "recreating" it. That&#39;s what makes TW superior over its competitors in the market, at least IMHO. That&#39;s why I&#39;ve been playing MTW for two years, modding it, and considering a computer upgrade for RTW despite my awful allowance.


Exactly we are not after a 100% accurate simulation of the time period, that just isn&#39;t possible.

The Serious attitude tohistory that the Total War series had taught me a little bit, but more than that it encouraged me to look into history. Indeed other friends of mine who are not normally into gaming that much have been attracted to TW because of its scope and resonable &#39;model&#39; to history.
Once again, I agree.

A game like this has the hability to atract people to a subject like history. But only if it portrais a faithfull as possible historical scenario. Of course that gameplay must be considered. That is as important. CA must have the capacity to understand that something like historically correct unit names and characteristics isn&#39;t a detriment to gameplay. Because it really isn&#39;t. Inventions like the Iberian Bull Warrior, Briton Druid or Pharaonic units, on the other hand, do really handicap the game&#39;s fell and immersion. That&#39;s the problem.



Quote[/b] ]We&#39;re not an ungrateful mob, even if sometimes it seems that way.
We&#39;re really not. We aren&#39;t here to make the game worse. We want what CA wants (I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif ): to make the game as good as it can be... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[alman9898]

5 posts in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ May 22 2004,20:03)]5 posts in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Everybody has been telling me that lately. Is there any problem about that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[Tricky Lady]

I post this on Colovion&#39;s request:


Quote[/b] ]Historical accuracy should be a very important part of such an immersive game as any in the Total War series. There are limits and I realize that if you were to take the most realistic approach that there would be many potential buyers left out because they just don&#39;t want to have to wait for their civilians to produce enough soldiers so that they can take over one more province. There are extremes to every situation - but there is a very good balance.

The Age of... series was brought up - go and play the newest one Age of Mythology, or download the demo. It has many units Norse, Egyptian and Greek which all have their original names - like the Greek units are: Toxote, Hypaspist, Hoplite, Hippikon, Peltast, Promodromos...... the list goes on and on - that&#39;s just the Greeks.

The point is that most people (including me when I started playing it) have/had NO idea what the units were. There were some people on the forums that said that it was confusing and that they&#39;d rather have just Archer, Calvary.... titles and not the whole Historical Accurate deal that eventually happened (thank goodness); they were a minority. Also there are so many things to learn about a lot of Historically based games that I&#39;ve played like the Civilization series, Age of... series and the Total War series. You can&#39;t just pick any of them up and expect to win every time unless it&#39;s on easy - sure you can, but most of the time you ahve to learn a little about each faction, what units you&#39;re using and their Historical strengths and weaknesses. If the Game developer feels like it they can be crafty and make it so that if you choose to - you can learn more about the unit than just that it has +2 Attack vs Calvary but can read the whole history of the unit, where they originated and so on. Having the correct name for the units really seems like a no brainer and I&#39;m dying thinking that they&#39;re going to go the Warcraft route..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

THen again, it is their game - they are putting the effort into the game. Perhaps their core fans will change from those that are really into History to a group that are really into flaming pigs and gay forresters.... not that there&#39;s anything wrong with that.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Geezers don&#39;t you think you are taking this historical accuracy thing a little too seriously? Jesus i just want to play the game Why don&#39;t we judge then? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Bhruic]

Hmm, it seems like some people are talking about historical accuracy as if it&#39;s something you either have or don&#39;t have. Like so many other things, it&#39;s a matter of degrees. Take M:TW as an example. On the one end, we could simply have the various empires named "Black", "Red", "Green", etc. Units could be "Swords", "Better Swords", "Really Good Swords". And on the other end, you could spend 20 years researching the appropriate costume, weapons and speech patterns of an individual soldier.

Obviously a game needs to aim somewhere inbetween the two. Although CA might not be putting as much historical accuracy in as purists might like, I suspect that the flavour of the game will come through strongly when it&#39;s released.

Bh

[alman9898]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 23 2004,06:13)]
Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ May 22 2004,20:03)]5 posts in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Everybody has been telling me that lately. Is there any problem about that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif
There is an edit button http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Bhruic @ May 23 2004,09:02)]Hmm, it seems like some people are talking about historical accuracy as if it&#39;s something you either have or don&#39;t have. Like so many other things, it&#39;s a matter of degrees. Take M:TW as an example. On the one end, we could simply have the various empires named "Black", "Red", "Green", etc. Units could be "Swords", "Better Swords", "Really Good Swords". And on the other end, you could spend 20 years researching the appropriate costume, weapons and speech patterns of an individual soldier.

Obviously a game needs to aim somewhere inbetween the two. Although CA might not be putting as much historical accuracy in as purists might like, I suspect that the flavour of the game will come through strongly when it&#39;s released.

Bh
I agree that historical perfection isn&#39;t achievable or even desired. I also agree that the degree of correctness varies from person to person.

My problem with CA&#39;s efforts isn&#39;t that. My problem are the inventions devoid of logic that might impair the game itself. Invented units like IBWarrior or BDruids. The game would work just fine without such nonsense.

In fact, if needs be, just don&#39;t put those ridiculous units in the final release. No need to replace them.

[The_Emperor]

Relax Aymar, the British Druids did acually fight and Roman accounts have stated it (does it really matter if he uses a bent sword or not).

As for the Iberian Bull Warrior, will they actually be around long enough to make an impact in this game before Rome or Carthage conquer them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Trax]

If the game is historically accurate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , then every faction should think twice before going to war against Iberians, considering all those Roman armies they massacred in real life.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ May 23 2004,10:37)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 23 2004,06:13)]
Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ May 22 2004,20:03)]5 posts in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Everybody has been telling me that lately. Is there any problem about that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif
There is an edit button http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif
Yes, there is. But when I&#39;m answering to many people, composed posts get pretty confusing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 23 2004,10:48)]Relax Aymar, the British Druids did acually fight and Roman accounts have stated it (does it really matter if he uses a bent sword or not).

As for the Iberian Bull Warrior, will they actually be around long enough to make an impact in this game before Rome or Carthage conquer them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yes, if I&#39;m leading them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ May 23 2004,10:54)]If the game is historically accurate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , then every faction should think twice before going to war against Iberians, considering all those Roman armies they massacred in real life.
So true, Trax So true... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-devilish.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-devil.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 23 2004,12:13)]
Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ May 22 2004,20:03)]5 posts in a row. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Everybody has been telling me that lately. Is there any problem about that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif
You could do it all in 1 single post...



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif