How is historical accuracy "bad for sales"?

[Rosacrux]

The debate has been a heated one for ages, but it got completely out of control by the arival of the Egyptian faction description, which turned out to be an 15th century BC implant in the 3rd century BC RTW universe with no mentioning or otherwise of the Graeco-Egyptian culture of the era – and with a few medieval-Arabic style buildings in for good measure.

I am one of those who are extremely disappointed by the way CA is treating the people who’d made big bucks for them (that would be US) but in the same time I am more concerned about the way some people tend to interpret some things.

I’ve seen lots of that kind of talking in the .com forums and some here as well. It’s the “history is dull, CA needs to appeal to the mass market with cool units” bunch.

Even some respectable members of the community and the .org administration (well, since .org is only semi-dependant one could expect that much) are jumping on this particular bandwagon.

I wish to open up a conversation to actually discuss this issue. Do you think historically accurate is dull and shall drive potential buyers away? In what way? How is a fairly (we are not asking for 100% accuracy, that would be true only in dreamland but for a fairly accurate representation of the era the game is supposed to recreate) historically accurate unit lineup, “dull” and “uncool”?

And if “coolness” factor is what matters, why not include in the game transformers, pokemon, star wars stormtroopers, jedi knights, Rohan cavalry – hell, all those are “cool”, ain’t they”? Oh, wait, there are licensing problems, that’s why

Jokes aside, this is not good. First we see rabid dogs and flaming pigs. We say “ok, wtf, it’s just two units, we’ll mod them out or not use them, whatever”. Then a bunch of completely stupid units come up (with the infamous Bullshite Warrior – ie. Cornutus Iberiansis – and the horrendous Druids being the most prominent examples) that trample on each and every sense of historical accuracy. At the same time we start seeing the first signs of the abomination that is going to be Egypt (instead of Hellenistic Ptolemaic Egypt, officially called “Kingdom of the Lagids”, a right-out-of-15th century BC Pharaonic New Kingdom Egypt) but we believe them when they say “they’ll mix accurate Greek units with “cool” hollyweird crap to appeal to the masses”.

Then we see the final (?) depiction of Egypt… and the shit hits the fan.

For me, RTW is dead. After seeing “Egypt”, I change my previous statement (“I’ll buy this game no matter what”) to “I’ll buy it only when the modders come up with a version without kindergarten units and pharaonic Egyptians”.

Fair enough, I think. I am still going to cash out the 50 euros to buy this overhyped piece of shit.

[Leet Eriksson]

CA are going mainstream,i read yesterday on some newspaper that they will dumb down shakespear,and other historical texts for the younger generation to easily understand it,i mean things like"Br00t stabs ceasar in the back then ceasar sez:you too br00tus?"

Let me find the link for that...

[scooter_the_shooter]

well i dont mind i will buy this game no matter what i dont care what some of the units are like what about the acurate looking ones

spartan hoplites outdated who cares looks acurate
roman legionary
elephhants

more to come

[Basileus]

I had hopes for something amazing with RTW, after watching TC my hopes where very high. I dont know now though, the game will propably still kick ass but it could have been so much better, in my eyes CA has let us the hardcore fans down.

Im going to live with it, its only a game anyway but i expected far more from CA.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Basileus @ June 08 2004,13:07)]I had hopes for something amazing with RTW, after watching TC my hopes where very high. I dont know now though, the game will propably still kick ass but it could have been so much better, in my eyes CA has let us the hardcore fans down.

Im going to live with it, its only a game anyway but i expected far more from CA.
I'm with you there... I was going to buy this game on the day of release but I think I may just hold back until I guage the general reaction from the Community.

[crushinator]

All these comments about CA ignoring the 'hardcore' fans is just silly. If CA decided to cater just to the 'hardcore' TW fans then there is no way they could afford to spend so much time / money creating a new 3d engine etc.... If CA were just making the game to try and sell to a niche market i guarentee it would still be using the MTW enginer ;)

Considering the time and money they must have spent developing RTW, they really have no choice other than to market it to the mainstream gamer (or sell just to the 'hardcore' fans and charge £1000 per copy of the game :P )

The average gamer has seen most types of games/genere's done before and so you need hooks/new features to grab the buyers attention (the 3d engine is obviously one). I'm sure everyone has noticed that every single preivew have focused on the units like elephants and flaming pigs. Why? because it gets the attention of the average jaded gamer who has never played the total war series.... it makes them think "wow, elephants, flaming pigs .... never played a game with these types of units. Sounds fun / new etc"

CA are trying to sell a shed load of copies of the game. Simply, that is their focus. If they succeed then it is only good for TW fans, as the next game will be bigger, better.

And if CA do deliver on their promise of 'the-most-moddable-game-yet' then i think everyone wins

Gameplay > historical accuracy ;)

[Rosacrux]

crushinator

I think your assertions are simply wrong. No, most reviews do not focuse on the flaming pigs - they do mention (each and every one of them) the elephants, as a "cool" thing, but I've yet to see anyone use the flaming pigs to attract people to buy this game.

Also, I really don't understand how including historically accurate units is "uncool" or will drive the casual gamers away from RTW?

First of all, STW-MTW attracted a lot of casual gamers. They selled pretty well (very well, actually) and that's not a "marginall" market they aimed to. They succeeded in getting a good market share with a decent product - that is what I call good business.

Troy - the movie. It was loaded with Hollyweird crap (and it massacred the Heliad) but even that way it has shown us that there was a large effort to make this as historically accurate as a representation of a myth could be. Not to mention the Gladiator, which was as historically accurate as a Hollyweird film can be.

Did those films aim at a niche market of history buffs? Or at a huge, mass, global market? If you tell me that the target audience for CA is larger than the target audience for those films, I'll think you'll have more than a loose end to take care about.

Also, if they succeed now, the next incarnation of the TW series shall be only worse, not better. That was the point with RTW, to be "better" than STW-MTW. Well, it's not. It has a fantastic game engine (apparently) much better gameplay, more polished overall appearance, incredible potential... but all that will be wasted by making this a "historical strategy battle simulation with a completely made up unit lineup and a load of bullcrap pured all over" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 08 2004,06:07)]I wish to open up a conversation to actually discuss this issue. Do you think historically accurate is dull and shall drive potential buyers away?
You know my answer.



Quote[/b] ]Fair enough, I think. I am still going to cash out the 50 euros to buy this overhyped piece of shit.
You've found the right designation for the current state of RTW.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (crushinator @ June 08 2004,07:55)]All these comments about CA ignoring the 'hardcore' fans is just silly.
That's your oppinion.



Quote[/b] ]If CA decided to cater just to the 'hardcore' TW fans then there is no way they could afford to spend so much time / money creating a new 3d engine etc.... If CA were just making the game to try and sell to a niche market i guarentee it would still be using the MTW enginer ;)
Funny. You forget that it was the success and money generated by STW and MTW that allowed them to invest on the 3d RTW engine.



Quote[/b] ]Considering the time and money they must have spent developing RTW, they really have no choice other than to market it to the mainstream gamer (or sell just to the 'hardcore' fans and charge £1000 per copy of the game :P )
Sure. STW costed £1000 because it was an Hardcore only game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif



Quote[/b] ]The average gamer has seen most types of games/genere's done before and so you need hooks/new features to grab the buyers attention (the 3d engine is obviously one).
No, STW or MTW surelly didn't need that, and they were very sucessefull.



Quote[/b] ]CA are trying to sell a shed load of copies of the game. Simply, that is their focus. If they succeed then it is only good for TW fans, as the next game will be bigger, better.
Couldn't they succeed with their adopted formula for STW?



Quote[/b] ]And if CA do deliver on their promise of 'the-most-moddable-game-yet' then i think everyone wins
If. Judging by the previous lies, that's not going to happen.



Quote[/b] ]Gameplay > historical accuracy ;)
Oh Could you explain why? My view is completelly opposite and justified. Is it yours justified too?

[ShadeHonestus]

As I've said elsewhere..this is just a poor decision, by people who shouldn't be making decisions, and it was made obviously off the wrong information. It'll be desribed in vague terms meant to appear esoteric (ie marketing), when in reality they are transparent as decisions one person or one certain group of people in the company want as their way...plain and simple.

There is just no logic that can stand the test for doing something like that to the Egyptians.


Can't wait for the next one...

They've started going down the misguided path of dumbing down. Next thing you know, they will make excuses for units because of the need to make the game "sexy." Hey, maybe thats behind the Cilician Pirates...nothin' screams elan and dash like pirates.

[RisingSun]

Except the pirates have at least SOME basis in reality/the time period, do they not? Except for the whole harpoon thing, I thought it was an okay unit.

But this Egyptian House of Horrors™ is going too far. And even if the faction was just horribly mauled, I could maybe live with that due to the great modding community. It is the lies and downright sleaziness that gets to me. They promised at least some historical Ptolemaic units, but now we see that was just a glorious pipe dream.

And I usually am one to trust. But once you decieve me once, I become sceptical. Decieve me twice, and my trust is gone. I can remember a few certain lies CA have told. A certain Viking Invasion comes to mind. I no longer trust CA on anything they say. Not one thing. Which means I doubt that RTW will be nearly as moddable as they claim, especially since now you would need a 3d editor to change units. I'm frankly sick of it.

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

[Trax]

If they are using all those strange units for RTW, who knows how much and in what direction have they changed the gameplay?
I find it hard to believe, that complicated wargame with tens of factors effecting the outcomes of battles can be popular among the traditional RTS audience.

We already know, that they have speeded up the battles and made the battles "much more rock paper scissors" type of game.

Who knows what kind of doubtful decisions are yet to be uncovered?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

About making the game historically accurate being expensive, which somebody mentioned-I'd do the research for them, for free And I'm sure there would be a bunch of people here who'd help, just so we could make RTW the game that we know it should be.

[hundurinn]

Just got one question. How can history from 800 BC - 500 AD be boring? This is a period where empires rose and fall and huge battles were fought. Man now i'm confused http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[Rufus]

I don't think I'm going to be able to buy RTW because my PC isn't advanced enough, and MTW keeps me busy enough. Maybe later when I can afford a new PC. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

On the historical accuracy issue I'm sympathetic but it's a question of balance and the choices we have available as consumers. MTW is a great game, even though no country in Europe was ever in a position to conquer the whole continent in the Middle Ages, there was no "Italian" kingdom at the time, sometimes the English lords have Anglo-Saxon first names and Norman last names, etc.

Is there a better game or series of games available that strike as good a balance between gameplay (especially campaign strategy and battle tactics) and accuracy as the TW series has? (That's actually a real, not rhetorical question - my experience only extends to the Age of Empires series, which I thought was OK for what it's worth but far more limited and less compelling, in terms of gameplay and history, than MTW)

The question now is whether the liberties taken in the name of marketing for RTW tip the balance too far.

People have said, "well STW and MTW sold well enough" - in business, it's not enough to just do as well as you did before. To stay alive in a competitive and volatile business like computer games, you have to keep improving your profits, especially to compete with the shooters and the Sims, etc. Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)

And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up. Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

And where does that leave us, the history-buff niche of the game-buying public? Well, no more TW series games. As to whether that's a problem for you, it depends on your answer to my question in the 3rd paragraph above.

[Trax]

Had they sent Activision to hell, they would have immediately been picked up by some other publisher, just for their amazing engine if nothing else. Thanks to this new engine they can sell more copies then STW and MTW together, regardless of what time period the new game takes place or what kind of units (accurate of inaccurate) there will be in the game.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)

But i suppose you realise what the "capitalist machine" is doing to things we love, and i don't mean just the TW series.


Quote[/b] ]And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up. Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

The answer to this has already been given by others but i will try to repeat it once more.
The huge marketing that they require for this game has already been done via the amazing graphics engine, the advanced gameplay, nice-looking legionaires and elephants
From what i've seen, their marketing campaign focus is based mostly on all those things and that's why they are constantly displayed in screenshots and vids and previews.

How many pics of elephants, romans and greeks have you seen anf how many of egyptians?
What i mean is that they don't need the Ramses-egyptians to promote this game. They had rarely shown us any egyptians so far anyway.

So, if they are heading for an even bigger and even younger audience, the thousands-of-troops-storming-cities vids, the legionaires and the elephants will do the work for them.
Few (outside the community) will notice anything about the egyptians before bying the game, fewer will by the game just because they saw their favorite chariot-riding Ramses in one of the previews, and even fewer will not buy the game because they will be put off by an unknown (to them) faction, called "the Ptolemaic empire".

Therefore i still think that this marketing decision is just idiotic.


Quote[/b] ]But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

That wouldn't happen for reasons i just explained.

[A.Saturnus]

I find it sad that CA goes this way now. This seems like a hysterical marketing decision to me. RTW surely won´t be avoided by the mass market if CA sticks to more historical accuracy. The mass market will focus mainly of the 3D-engine and the epic style. MTW was not a mass market game because it was complex, rather challenging in it´s control and had strange looking 2d-objects. RTW has a modern look, is supposed to be more intuitive in control and has a graphic engine that wins prices and generally kicks ass (it even was on television). That alone should be enough to make RTW "cool". If that´s not enough to attract Warcraft 3 players, flaming pigs won´t do it either. On the other hand it may drive off some hardcore players that might buy RTW for it´s historical accuracy alone.
I don´t think Activision´s marketing people have thought that out well.

On the other hand, as sad it is, I will still buy RTW. The features it will have a pretty much impressive and I expect that there will be pretty good mods that focus on historical accuracy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 08 2004,17:01)]Which means I doubt that RTW will be nearly as moddable as they claim, especially since now you would need a 3d editor to change units.
Only for completely new units. And, as many people have said, the Egyptians don't need new units because they should have exactly the same ones as the greeks. It should be the work of moments to make the greek units available to the Egyptian faction.

As to the original question, I don't think even the Activision marketing department thinks that people are going to be put off by historical accuracy, but they do clearly believe that the casual buyer is more likely to be excited by the game if they pick up the box and see Pharonic egyptians.
Biguth Dickuth and others have made the convincing point that this game is going to sell on the Romans, not the Egyptians. However, much as we dislike their decisions, we do have to accept that the marketing people have more information than us. It therefore isn't really reasonable to call them idiots, because they might be right.

Schrodie's Cat

[The_Emperor]

In reality it shouldn't be up to us to MOD-in the Egyptian units they SHOULD already have anyway...

Surely it should be up to people to create an ancient Egypt MOD if they want to play that part of history, because they certainly don't belong there.

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]but they do clearly believe that the casual buyer is more likely to be excited by the game if they pick up the box and see Pharonic egyptians.



Then they just could put the chariots on the game box and not have them in game. Like they did with Viking horns in VI http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[The Wizard]

What I don't understand about CA is that they forget that the mass market doesn't give a shit about units.
Not
a
shit.

You want to know what has been the staple of the series ever since ol' Shoggy came out of the CA labs, katana drawn and armor shining? The battles.

Why do movies like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Troy, and the upcoming Arthur, Hannibal and the two Alexander the Greats sell?

The battles.

Does it matter to the average Quaker, Unreal Tournamentalist, WarCrafter, or Everquester if there is a horde of Iberians with sundisk helmets charging into legionaries, or a horde of perfectly accurate, British Iron Age B warriors with the right moustache, shoes, hair strand amount and hairdo? No. All he/she cares about is if the battles look like those from the Hollywood movies. What can be better than to try your hand at an epic, Gladiator/LotR/Troy-esque battle? At that point, it doesn't matter if there are orcs, trolls, and hairy-footed annoying mongrels charging and fighting, or legionaries, the British warrios as mentioned above, and perfectly accurate Spartans doing the activity mentioned above anymore.

The battles and how they work and play is what matters to the casual, avid gamer. If these are done very well, and they show these off as marketing, people will talk about the battles, far quicker than about RTW with hordes of flaming pigs, demigod elephants and Ibero-Egyptian Isis Warrior Priests.

So, honestly, I don't understand why CA doesn't just make the game reasonably accurate regarding the units. It's a small effort, it's secondary to the battles. The revamped strategical mode, the expanded diplomacy, the units; the consumer group which CA and Activision are concentrating upon will all take those for granted, as presents with the wonderful, epic, amazing battles.



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

[Trax]

One other thing to consider,CA.
The Alexander movie will be out in the autumn, and the common people will see how the Egyptians really looked at the time.
In fact Anthony Hopkins will be playing Ptolemaios I in the movie. He will be the narrator of the movie, as an old man and the king of Egypt. All the common people will know about the Ptolemies, the way they looked, the way they lived.

And then they will come on to your forums and ask: "who the hell are those Egyptians in your game?"

[andrewt]

People keep saying that gameplay > historical accuracy. That statement is just silly when it comes to the Egyptians. An example of gameplay > historical accuracy is it was impossible to conquer the entire Europe in the medieval period but it's more fun if you can. Or this faction historically wasn't strong with spears but they're too weak without it so let's make their spear units stronger than they historically were. I fail to see how that is evident in the decision to change the Egyptians.

How will mass market people be convinced to buy this game? Game box, word of mouth, gaming magazines and websites. What do people think when they think Romans? Legions, Rome vs. barbarians, Rome vs. elephants. The box cover will likely focus just on Rome. The screenshots and advertisements in the flap and back cover will focus on Roman legions fighting elephants and tons of barbarians. The gaming magazines and websites are all focusing on fighting elephants and tons of barbarians.

Screenshots of the Egyptians will be few and far in between. Mass market people will buy on the Romans, the elephants, the barbarians. Only so few will buy because of Egypt. In fact, the people most likely to buy because of CA's current decision will probably be hardcore New Kingdom Egypt fans. How many of these do you think there will be?

The reason I don't trust the marketing is because marketing department rarely makes the decisions once a product gets big. Usually, it's a senior executive and most, even in gaming companies, have never played games in their life. They're just career managers who don't understand games and are there for their management experience.

[Steppe Merc]

I was a 'casual gamer' when I first bought MTW, with a bit of little history knowledge. When I bought it I didn't say, "Damn, no flaming pigs." I didn't say "Damn, you mean something called Medeival Total War is based off of history?" I was intruged by the history, the Mamluks, the Jannisaries, the Kataphpraktoi. I also didn't say, "Wow the Egyptian units don't look like their from the Mummy This sucks" No, because someone that buys a strategy game tends to be a bit more intellegent (though looking at some posts on forums I'm not so sure...), and can handle so called boring, historical units.
As for those wanting diversity, did any one think that the Germans should have been given Panzers and sturmtroopers, and the Russians AK-47 weilding communist? NO The Europeans were similar, but not identical, which will be the same case for the Succesor States (which Egypt should be included in).
There. Sorry for the rant.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 08 2004,11:14)]About making the game historically accurate being expensive, which somebody mentioned-I'd do the research for them, for free And I'm sure there would be a bunch of people here who'd help, just so we could make RTW the game that we know it should be.
Preciselly. Well put. But they just don't give a sh**... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[econ21]

I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".

Historical computer wargames, which seems to be what people here want, are a niche market and one that has disappeared from the commerical mainstream. Where are the bigger corporate outfits like SSI and Talonsoft now? Whose making similar games now? Small companies like Battlefront and BreakawayGames consisting of enthusiasts often marketing via the internet and probably paying themsleves very small bucks. We just got lucky that CA managed to produce in the TW game a mass market real time strategy game that happened to have a better engine for modelling real time battles than the more hardcore games.

As pointed out in another thread, I also think we're being rather cosmetic here, focussing on the appearance of units. MTW is NOT a historical wargame. The strategy layer is fun, but fundamentally ahistorical. The battles are awesome, great simulations but extremely stylised (e.g. regarding command and control). I think we're in danger of people like those collectors of historical memorabilia, obsessing about some gaudy SS dagger (of dubious authenticity) they picked up in a militaria shop. We've put up with the whole fake "swords" class of MTW units, mythical Saracen infantry, fictionalised ghazi warriors, anachronistic kataphracts, premature and bizarrely "metal stringed" arbalests etc. I think we can swallow the RTW Egyptians.

My recommendation is that people chill out. For me the big worry is whether the gameplay remains as sound as in STW and MTW. From what I've seen on Time Commanders, I believe that is true but we won't know until we open the box.

All that said, like most others here, I will be watching the modders with real interest on this.

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar ). But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".


But, as I already pointed out this is going to change with the new Alexander movie in the Autumn (what looks to be one of the most accurate looking Hollywood productions ever). I´m quite sure that many people are going to buy the RTW because of the battles in Alexander and those people already know what to expect from the Egyptian faction in the Hellenistic era.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (hundurinn @ June 08 2004,11:45)]Just got one question. How can history from 800 BC - 500 AD be boring? This is a period where empires rose and fall and huge battles were fought. Man now i'm confused http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif
That is because you're an Elitist History Buff and therefore, according to the Fantasy units rallyers, an uncool, boring nerd. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rufus @ June 08 2004,12:24)]I don't think I'm going to be able to buy RTW because my PC isn't advanced enough, and MTW keeps me busy enough. Maybe later when I can afford a new PC. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
You're in the same boat as I am.



Quote[/b] ]On the historical accuracy issue I'm sympathetic but it's a question of balance and the choices we have available as consumers. MTW is a great game, even though no country in Europe was ever in a position to conquer the whole continent in the Middle Ages, there was no "Italian" kingdom at the time, sometimes the English lords have Anglo-Saxon first names and Norman last names, etc.
Although those aproximations are irritating, they are passable.



Quote[/b] ]Is there a better game or series of games available that strike as good a balance between gameplay (especially campaign strategy and battle tactics) and accuracy as the TW series has?
Nope. That is the point. Why change a winning formula?



Quote[/b] ]The question now is whether the liberties taken in the name of marketing for RTW tip the balance too far.

People have said, "well STW and MTW sold well enough" - in business, it's not enough to just do as well as you did before. To stay alive in a competitive and volatile business like computer games, you have to keep improving your profits, especially to compete with the shooters and the Sims, etc. Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)
HEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif Yes. The gaming market is a dog-eat-dog environement. But to improve the game they had to see what was wrong and change it, not what was right



Quote[/b] ]And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up.
Is that the case? I think not. In fact, I think they are missing the mark alltogether. I might be wrong though...



Quote[/b] ]Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

And where does that leave us, the history-buff niche of the game-buying public? Well, no more TW series games. As to whether that's a problem for you, it depends on your answer to my question in the 3rd paragraph above.
As Trax said very correctly, presently, if Activision did drop them, other publishers would be tearing each other apart to get the deal with CA. But CA might not realize this... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ June 08 2004,13:08)]
Quote[/b] ]And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up. Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

The answer to this has already been given by others but i will try to repeat it once more.
The huge marketing that they require for this game has already been done via the amazing graphics engine, the advanced gameplay, nice-looking legionaires and elephants
From what i've seen, their marketing campaign focus is based mostly on all those things and that's why they are constantly displayed in screenshots and vids and previews.

How many pics of elephants, romans and greeks have you seen anf how many of egyptians?
What i mean is that they don't need the Ramses-egyptians to promote this game. They had rarely shown us any egyptians so far anyway.

So, if they are heading for an even bigger and even younger audience, the thousands-of-troops-storming-cities vids, the legionaires and the elephants will do the work for them.
Few (outside the community) will notice anything about the egyptians before bying the game, fewer will by the game just because they saw their favorite chariot-riding Ramses in one of the previews, and even fewer will not buy the game because they will be put off by an unknown (to them) faction, called "the Ptolemaic empire".

Therefore i still think that this marketing decision is just idiotic.
Very well said. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ June 08 2004,13:32)]I find it sad that CA goes this way now. This seems like a hysterical marketing decision to me. RTW surely won´t be avoided by the mass market if CA sticks to more historical accuracy. The mass market will focus mainly of the 3D-engine and the epic style. MTW was not a mass market game because it was complex, rather challenging in it´s control and had strange looking 2d-objects. RTW has a modern look, is supposed to be more intuitive in control and has a graphic engine that wins prices and generally kicks ass (it even was on television). That alone should be enough to make RTW "cool". If that´s not enough to attract Warcraft 3 players, flaming pigs won´t do it either. On the other hand it may drive off some hardcore players that might buy RTW for it´s historical accuracy alone.
I don´t think Activision´s marketing people have thought that out well.
My thoughts exactly

[Nelson]

I agree that historically accurate units can never hurt a game. In all my years as a consumer of computer games (starting with a C64) I have never read a complaint that claimed that historic fidelity offended players or that they would not purchase a game because it is faithful to what we know. Has anyone else ever seen such a criticism?

We will get whatever CA gives us and almost all of us will like it. Nevertheless it can still be fun to discuss how we think decisions that effect our hobby are made.

We know that there are guys in CA who are devotees of history. They know the Egyptians look bogus and would change them if they could (I think). But they are just a part of a very large team. When the art guys were asked to produce Egyptian soldiers they likely went to a book somewhere, an Osprey maybe, and looked up ancient Egyptian soldiers. BINGO This is what they used. Perhaps somebody mentioned that Alexandrian Egypt was Greek but some work was already done, some other folks probably thought it looked cool, and it is kind of accurate, plus or minus a millennium, and there you have it. It would have been easy to justify in the interests of unit diversity plus the art guys likely wanted to express themselves. If someone suggested an Amazon civ the art people would love it.

Anyway, who knows how they got where they are? Not us. Any of the ideas so far could be correct. Unless a CA person enlightens us, we’ll never know. They are not likely to volunteer any information though if it looks like they would be met by a flurry of insults. And make no mistake, calling someone’s hard work shit is insulting, all the more so when it looks like they have already crafted one of the most amazing games ever.

It may feel good to vent here in the midst the True Believing Accurite Amen Chorus but untoward comments will not lead to civilized dialog.

[shingenmitch2]

"We've got to accept that the marketers have more information than us..."

ROFLMAO

I get the sense CA might not have the marketers on the level of those at Pentagram working for them.
No offense to any who may be marketers... but I've run into WAY too many idiots in marketing -- the good ones are VERY rare. Most are full of BS that they use to befuddle a V.P. into going along with them, but rarely really know what they are talking about. They use cookie-cutter lessons from school as their business models and rarely delve deep to get a complete understanding into the business they're selling. They insert themselves into the design process as a way to assert their authority and rarely to contribute. Usually what it entails is fekking up a well designed piece, because they underestimate the public. When I design, I try to raise the level visual communication and most peeps will rise to it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 08 2004,13:58)]What I don't understand about CA is that they forget that the mass market doesn't give a shit about units.
Not
a
shit.

You want to know what has been the staple of the series ever since ol' Shoggy came out of the CA labs, katana drawn and armor shining? The battles.

Why do movies like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Troy, and the upcoming Arthur, Hannibal and the two Alexander the Greats sell?

The battles.

Does it matter to the average Quaker, Unreal Tournamentalist, WarCrafter, or Everquester if there is a horde of Iberians with sundisk helmets charging into legionaries, or a horde of perfectly accurate, British Iron Age B warriors with the right moustache, shoes, hair strand amount and hairdo? No. All he/she cares about is if the battles look like those from the Hollywood movies. What can be better than to try your hand at an epic, Gladiator/LotR/Troy-esque battle? At that point, it doesn't matter if there are orcs, trolls, and hairy-footed annoying mongrels charging and fighting, or legionaries, the British warrios as mentioned above, and perfectly accurate Spartans doing the activity mentioned above anymore.

The battles and how they work and play is what matters to the casual, avid gamer. If these are done very well, and they show these off as marketing, people will talk about the battles, far quicker than about RTW with hordes of flaming pigs, demigod elephants and Ibero-Egyptian Isis Warrior Priests.

So, honestly, I don't understand why CA doesn't just make the game reasonably accurate regarding the units. It's a small effort, it's secondary to the battles. The revamped strategical mode, the expanded diplomacy, the units; the consumer group which CA and Activision are concentrating upon will all take those for granted, as presents with the wonderful, epic, amazing battles.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif
It's this exactly Priceless post.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ June 08 2004,14:22)]One other thing to consider,CA.
The Alexander movie will be out in the autumn, and the common people will see how the Egyptians really looked at the time.
In fact Anthony Hopkins will be playing Ptolemaios I in the movie. He will be the narrator of the movie, as an old man and the king of Egypt. All the common people will know about the Ptolemies, the way they looked, the way they lived.

And then they will come on to your forums and ask: "who the hell are those Egyptians in your game?"
Another good point. Although not everyone will see the movie, it's safe to say that most of the public who buys RTW will see it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 08 2004,14:39)]How will mass market people be convinced to buy this game? Game box, word of mouth, gaming magazines and websites. What do people think when they think Romans? Legions, Rome vs. barbarians, Rome vs. elephants. The box cover will likely focus just on Rome. The screenshots and advertisements in the flap and back cover will focus on Roman legions fighting elephants and tons of barbarians. The gaming magazines and websites are all focusing on fighting elephants and tons of barbarians.

Screenshots of the Egyptians will be few and far in between. Mass market people will buy on the Romans, the elephants, the barbarians.
Exactly.


Quote[/b] ]Only so few will buy because of Egypt. In fact, the people most likely to buy because of CA's current decision will probably be hardcore New Kingdom Egypt fans. How many of these do you think there will be?
In fact, I seriously doubt that New Kingdom Egypt fans would ever buy the game not taking into account Historical perspective. They would ask: "Were are our ferocious adversaries the Hittites? Were is the Empire of Babylon? Where are the Assyrians and Mithanians? The Caldeans? The Persians? WTF? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked2.gif"

On the other hand, "Cleopatra" and "Ben-Hur" Hollywood fans might. But those don't play games...



Quote[/b] ]The reason I don't trust the marketing is because marketing department rarely makes the decisions once a product gets big. Usually, it's a senior executive and most, even in gaming companies, have never played games in their life. They're just career managers who don't understand games and are there for their management experience.
Preciselly what happens when a product is too successefull and might reap large profits. The same happens in movies. The problem is that most of the times is the wrong decision. Movie sequels anyone?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ June 08 2004,14:52)]I was a 'casual gamer' when I first bought MTW, with a bit of little history knowledge. When I bought it I didn't say, "Damn, no flaming pigs." I didn't say "Damn, you mean something called Medeival Total War is based off of history?" I was intruged by the history, the Mamluks, the Jannisaries, the Kataphpraktoi. I also didn't say, "Wow the Egyptian units don't look like their from the Mummy This sucks" No, because someone that buys a strategy game tends to be a bit more intellegent (though looking at some posts on forums I'm not so sure...), and can handle so called boring, historical units.
As for those wanting diversity, did any one think that the Germans should have been given Panzers and sturmtroopers, and the Russians AK-47 weilding communist? NO The Europeans were similar, but not identical, which will be the same case for the Succesor States (which Egypt should be included in).
There. Sorry for the rant.
Sorry? Why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

BTW, I second that...

[Duke John]

The historical accuracy of the armylists R:TW is for me not even a penny worth. I will probably start from day 1 modding R:TW into M:TW. So I am happy as long as it proves moddable and wether the engine is realistic.
Dumbing down the engine like with the green selection circles would be one of the biggest mistake they could make.

And whoever says M:TW was historical, go wash your mouth All the units are running around in football shirts. The unitgraphics were a major screw up and I am left cleaning up their garbage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ June 08 2004,15:15)]I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
Oh come on Rosacrux is even more disappointed than me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".
Yes, I know. It's very unfortunate nonetheless. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif



Quote[/b] ]Historical computer wargames, which seems to be what people here want, are a niche market and one that has disappeared from the commerical mainstream. Where are the bigger corporate outfits like SSI and Talonsoft now? Whose making similar games now? Small companies like Battlefront and BreakawayGames consisting of enthusiasts often marketing via the internet and probably paying themsleves very small bucks. We just got lucky that CA managed to produce in the TW game a mass market real time strategy game that happened to have a better engine for modelling real time battles than the more hardcore games.
But you forget that the market is perpectually expanding and such niche markets also increase in size and profitability.



Quote[/b] ]As pointed out in another thread, I also think we're being rather cosmetic here, focussing on the appearance of units. MTW is NOT a historical wargame. The strategy layer is fun, but fundamentally ahistorical. The battles are awesome, great simulations but extremely stylised (e.g. regarding command and control). I think we're in danger of people like those collectors of historical memorabilia, obsessing about some gaudy SS dagger (of dubious authenticity) they picked up in a militaria shop. We've put up with the whole fake "swords" class of MTW units, mythical Saracen infantry, fictionalised ghazi warriors, anachronistic kataphracts, premature and bizarrely "metal stringed" arbalests etc. I think we can swallow the RTW Egyptians.
It might seem we are fanaticizing things and over-reacting, but that is just because we were mislead. I can live with MTW's minor inacuracies (specially if modable), but this ENTIRE fantasy faction is pretty difficult to cope with, specially when we had been told that things were "improving". I know that I speak for some of the fans when I say that it is a very sad revelation.



Quote[/b] ]My recommendation is that people chill out. For me the big worry is whether the gameplay remains as sound as in STW and MTW. From what I've seen on Time Commanders, I believe that is true but we won't know until we open the box.
Let's hope for that at least...



Quote[/b] ]All that said, like most others here, I will be watching the modders with real interest on this.
You and most ORG members, I believe...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Nelson @ June 08 2004,15:53)]I agree that historically accurate units can never hurt a game. In all my years as a consumer of computer games (starting with a C64) I have never read a complaint that claimed that historic fidelity offended players or that they would not purchase a game because it is faithful to what we know. Has anyone else ever seen such a criticism?
Nope.



Quote[/b] ]We will get whatever CA gives us and almost all of us will like it. Nevertheless it can still be fun to discuss how we think decisions that effect our hobby are made.

We know that there are guys in CA who are devotees of history. They know the Egyptians look bogus and would change them if they could (I think). But they are just a part of a very large team. When the art guys were asked to produce Egyptian soldiers they likely went to a book somewhere, an Osprey maybe, and looked up ancient Egyptian soldiers. BINGO This is what they used. Perhaps somebody mentioned that Alexandrian Egypt was Greek but some work was already done, some other folks probably thought it looked cool, and it is kind of accurate, plus or minus a millennium, and there you have it. It would have been easy to justify in the interests of unit diversity plus the art guys likely wanted to express themselves. If someone suggested an Amazon civ the art people would love it.
I do not believe such decisions are taken that lightly.



Quote[/b] ]Anyway, who knows how they got where they are? Not us. Any of the ideas so far could be correct. Unless a CA person enlightens us, we’ll never know. They are not likely to volunteer any information though if it looks like they would be met by a flurry of insults. And make no mistake, calling someone’s hard work shit is insulting, all the more so when it looks like they have already crafted one of the most amazing games ever.
You're right. I admit I overeacted, but I've already apoligized for my words against CA in another thread.



Quote[/b] ]It may feel good to vent here in the midst the True Believing Accurite Amen Chorus but untoward comments will not lead to civilized dialog.
True. Wise words, Lord Nelson.

[Knight_Yellow]

Point is this:

No matter what the community did to help RTW would have to be delayed to implement all the historical stuff you people want.

There is no "buts" or "what if" the game would simply and completely need to be delayed.

Any Delay what so ever costs money.

They have to repay the banks who gave them the loan to make the game and they need to pay themselves whilst keeping activision happy at the same time.

Delaying also pisses off the community, sure maybe 10 people in this entire community would actualy be happy with a delay considering the game was going to be historicaly accurate the other X,000 would not be.


So after X amount of months after Fall, RTW is finaly released, how many more people will buy a historivaly accurate version X amount of months later compared to just buying the normal version?

lets say 5000 (and thats being overly generous) becuase i dont care how hard you try no game is ever going to be totaly realistic. For example CA could rewrite the entire egyptian faction and all the barbarians but the massive and i mean Massive unrealistic part of the game still remains.

the fact that No nation could ever control the entire campaign map of RTW, hell the "greatest" empire of all time only ever conquered a small percentage of it.

So there is a very simple equation you have to look at no matter what your opinion is

Delay + pissed community + competition from other games: more realistic = £X

Release in fall + Happy community (bar 20 people)+ less competition = £Y

Wich is higher X or Y?

And let me assure you it is most certainly not X.

Argue away but the simple fact is that if you dont belive that then you are lying to yourself, Bearing in mind that CA agree with me since they dont show any sines of delaying the game to please 10 people.

In short:

Its not that Historical units/factions are bad... its what has to happen for them to be implemented and the thing that has to happen is a delay. Delay = loss of money.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 08 2004,22:37)]The historical accuracy of the armylists R:TW is for me not even a penny worth. I will probably start from day 1 modding R:TW into M:TW. So I am happy as long as it proves moddable and wether the engine is realistic.
Dumbing down the engine like with the green selection circles would be one of the biggest mistake they could make.

And whoever says M:TW was historical, go wash your mouth All the units are running around in football shirts. The unitgraphics were a major screw up and I am left cleaning up their garbage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
Oh, joy, joy joy Please turn it into something more accurate than MTW, where more interesting situations can be created Think of something in between MTW and Crusader Kings...



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[TigerVX]

Face it, hard core history fans are grossly outnumbered by hard core gamers searching for a cool and entertaining game. I want the egyptian faction to stay the way it is, its more units, more unts = COOL. CA can't be historically accurate, or it wouldn't sell as well.

"WE HAVE 5 ROMAN FACTIONS, 5 GREEK FACTIONS, 3 BARBARIAN FACTIONS, AND 1 CHARTHAGE FACTION, EACH WITH 2 UNIQUE UNITS"

I don't like how MTW countries each had the same things, with two or one unique units (Exceptions Turks and Byz) I want these factions to have their own unit lists.

If you go on any other forum besides TWC and .org, you'll find the majority says

GAMEPLAY > HISTORICAL

And if you really want to dis the game by calling it a piece of shit and such, DON'T BUY IT.

[Trax]

How many important Total war forums are there except .org, TWC and .com. IMHO votes in those forums have made it quite clear that in the community you (the fans of the current abominable Egyptian
faction) are the minority. Although for some reason you claim to be majority. For all those votes it seems that only around 10-15% of total war fans are perfectly happy with the current solution.

Particularly TWC vote is very important, many people new to the total war series visit it because of the Time Commanders videos. They are the part of the wider audience who are supposed to like those time travelers. And still, even over there only 20 % approves the current situation (including those wishing for accurate depiction of the New Kingdom)

[The_Emperor]

Do we really need to explain that this game is going to sell no matter what the Egyptians look like.

It has been crowned the Best at E3 Two years in a row and hailed by many to be a true masterpiece, that in itself will be enough to convince your average "Stupid Casual Warcraft 3 style-Gamer" to take a look.

He won't care what the Egyptians do.

But the Bulk of the Existing TW Community would prefer a more accurate faction for Egypt, and not some made-up nonesense... And we are the people who have stuck with TW for a lot longer than any "Casual Gamer".

Long after the novelty has worn off for most casual gamers, most of us here will still be comming back to it.

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]Face it, hard core history fans are grossly outnumbered by hard core gamers searching for a cool and entertaining game. I want the egyptian faction to stay the way it is, its more units, more unts = COOL. CA can't be historically accurate, or it wouldn't sell as well.

Hey look everybody It's the lowest common denominator CA is trying to attract with this scheme. I guess we were wrong. It is working alright.

We already concluded that the GAMEPLAY > HISTORICAL factor is not at work here. This is not one or two choices, this is an ENTIRE FACTION gone horribly horribly wrong.

I think I'm done here. Not only are we lied to, but no matter how much we whine and complain, CA does not even stop by and give us a reason. Maybe they don't want to face the music. Or maybe they just don't F*%$#ING CARE.

[TigerVX]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 08 2004,18:58)]I think I'm done here. Not only are we lied to, but no matter how much we whine and complain, CA does not even stop by and give us a reason. Maybe they don't want to face the music. Or maybe they just don't F*%$#ING CARE.
I doubt CA is going to care about a band of angry historical zealots when there are thousands of regular gamers out there who read reviews and wait for the game to come out but don't join the boards, rather wait for the reviews.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ June 08 2004,23:33)]How many important Total war forums are there except .org, TWC and .com. IMHO votes in those forums have made it quite clear that in the community you (the fans of the current abominable Egyptian
faction) are the minority. Although for some reason you claim to be majority. For all those votes it seems that only around 10-15% of total war fans are perfectly happy with the current solution.
"Fans" of the egyptian faction do seem to be in the minority, but then so are those of you who are so annoyed. The majority of people, I think, would prefer a more historically accurate game, but aren't going to lose sleep over it.
Also, before you make generalised statements that most of the org is against historical innaccuracies, bear in mind that most org members do not post regularly in the colosseum. The main topic of debate in the colosseum is the historical side of the new units etc, with the odd discussion about new videos or screenshots. Most people who aren't worried about the historical side therefore stay out of the discussion, and presumably look in every now and then for news. It follows that regular colosseum posters are much more likely to be worried about historical accuracies, and so the opinions gathered here are far from scientific.

Schrodie's Cat

[bhutavarna]

Quote[/b] (TigerVX @ June 08 2004,17:15)]And if you really want to dis the game by calling it a piece of shit and such, DON'T BUY IT.
i won't, if it's bad enough. i play other games.

[ShadeHonestus]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 08 2004,17:58)]
Quote[/b] ]Face it, hard core history fans are grossly outnumbered by hard core gamers searching for a cool and entertaining game. I want the egyptian faction to stay the way it is, its more units, more unts = COOL. CA can't be historically accurate, or it wouldn't sell as well.

Hey look everybody It's the lowest common denominator CA is trying to attract with this scheme. I guess we were wrong. It is working alright.
What the first part here says is that the regular hard core gamer fails to realize is that they wouldn't know any better one way or the other. I suppose this is the same person who buys 35 RTS games every year because the reviews are so good, but GAH, they are all the same and they suck.

The hard core gamer who only cares about the reviews wouldn't care about the historical accuracy so wouldn't be affected by it BEING historically accurate.

And I still contest that their lowest denominator theory is as bogus as the Sycthed Chariots currently in the gameduring this time.

[biguth dickuth]

After all those posts and arguments, i really don't understand how can people come out and use arguments like:
gameplay > accuracy
when it has been explained so many times that accuracy is not antagonistic to gameplay and that both can be combined in a very good mix.

Ragarding what Knight_Yellow wrote, i think that you forget that when we say "accuracy" for a historical strategy game it means that the game makes you feel like a commander of the era, that you really "live" the game.
We don't mean total accuracy, which is by any means impossible as you have also noted.
But in order to feel like you really "live" the game, you need to see something that is convincing enough. For a person who doesn't know much about history and starts playing the game, seeing an accurate ptolemaic egyptian faction will be quite convincing, maybe even challenging, and will not steal away the good gameplay feeling from him.
This showes that fundamental "accuracy" can be applied in perfect harmony with good gameplay, being even necessary for it sometimes.

On the delay subject, my opinion is that the game doesn't need to be delayed for the egyptian faction to be given a more authentic appearence. If the game is as moddable as they claim it is (with unit dressers and such applications) then the developers, who are experienced in toying with it for almost three years now, will probably be able to make the necessary changes in a couple of days.
It's will that stops them from doing it, not inability.

Besides, it's not that we will lose sleep over it, it's just sadness for seeing something beautiful being reduced to something less than what it could be, still not because of inability but because of ill decisions.
People who claim the "marketing" reasons in order to justify this may be picking the reasons why CA or Activision are doing this, but seem to fail in realising that marketing can be achieved with less sacrifices.

[The_Emperor]

To be honest I don't see why people complain that Egypt needs to be so radically different to the other successor kingdoms to be fun...

In Medieval I seem to recall all of the Catholic factions all having access to the same units. (CMAA, FMAA, Chiv Knights, Etc) With Faction unique units alongside (Longbows, Billmen, Clansmen, Spanish Jinettes)...

I don't see anyone complaining about the huge amount of Men At Arms units and all the factions being "the same" in MTW. And there are a lot more of them in MTW than there are successor Kingdoms proposed to be in RTW.

Just a thought.

[Seven.the.Hun]

um, here's a stab,
if some game was 100% accurate, or something like that...
then where is the versatility???
the winner decided by who had the best text history book, or simply by who chose which side???
um...no...hence versatility...being playability...to adapt...
fun fun fun in the sun...or moon...or whatever...

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

[Seven.the.Hun]

if outcome's are determined, like in reading about history, as are the things 'already done'...where is the fun in that as far as a game is concerned?...
hence the hurting of sales, perfectly logical

[Rosacrux]

Hun, either you don't read what we write or you choose not to understand, huh?

once more, in large, bold letters so everybody can perfectly understand this (even some unnamed marketing retards of an unnamed gaming company):

Nobody, and I mean no-frigging-body, is asking for 100% historical accuracy. What we wish is not to be considered a bunch of ignorant, moronic cretins, like CA-Activision seem to consider us. We want this game to be on par with the previous TW incarnations, historically-wise. TW didn't became a major hit because it had "cool" units, but because it featured REALISTIC (as realistic as the current technology would allow) battles in a historical context. Not because it had super-flaming-rocking'o'rolling Pigs with wings, but because it had basic historically accurate - more or less - units, a rich historical environment and a great battle system. Of course the historical part was no more than 40-50% accurate, but nobody cared much. So, that is what we want. A realistic strategy/battle simulation in historical context, not some frigging fantasy game.

Hope I made myself clear...

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Seven.the.Hun @ June 09 2004,10:46)]if outcome's are determined, like in reading about history, as are the things 'already done'...where is the fun in that as far as a game is concerned?...
hence the hurting of sales, perfectly logical
But the game outcome isn't determined... We can advance in any direction we want and conquer anyone we feel like.

It isn't a liner history book, its interactive letting you not just live a part of history, but begin to change it as you go.

Wiping the Golden Horde off the map in one go is great fun to do in MTW, but it certainly wasn't practical in history.

[shingenmitch2]

ShadeHonestus said it perfectly. This has always been my contention as well

"The hard core gamer who only cares about the reviews wouldn't care about the historical accuracy so wouldn't be affected by it BEING historically accurate."

Peeps who don't know about history won't care one way or the other so long as the play itself is good. Did any of these "gamers" care one way or the other about the Kataphractoi or Janisarry Heavy Infantry in MTW? All they knew was "okay a different faction with odd-named units" and then they accepted it. They didn't buy the game because of it, but they didn't return the game back to the store either.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (TigerVX @ June 08 2004,23:15)]Face it, hard core history fans are grossly outnumbered by hard core gamers searching for a cool and entertaining game. I want the egyptian faction to stay the way it is, its more units, more unts = COOL. CA can't be historically accurate, or it wouldn't sell as well.

"WE HAVE 5 ROMAN FACTIONS, 5 GREEK FACTIONS, 3 BARBARIAN FACTIONS, AND 1 CHARTHAGE FACTION, EACH WITH 2 UNIQUE UNITS"

I don't like how MTW countries each had the same things, with two or one unique units (Exceptions Turks and Byz) I want these factions to have their own unit lists.

If you go on any other forum besides TWC and .org, you'll find the majority says

GAMEPLAY > HISTORICAL

And if you really want to dis the game by calling it a piece of shit and such, DON'T BUY IT.
Think of the little, but important fact that RTW prises itself on being an accurate model of the historical situation.

Since we'll go around changing the whole course of history by making our chosen faction the most powerful, the only part which has to be historically accurate is the situation of the factions at the start dates, their rulers at the start date, and above all, their units.

I agree with "Gameplay > Accuracy" BUT: a game that prises itself on its historical basis needs to have the history right. And since the units are the only historical constant in the game, they are what should be accurate.



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ June 08 2004,21:24)]After all those posts and arguments, i really don't understand how can people come out and use arguments like:
gameplay > accuracy
when it has been explained so many times that accuracy is not antagonistic to gameplay and that both can be combined in a very good mix.

Ragarding what Knight_Yellow wrote, i think that you forget that when we say "accuracy" for a historical strategy game it means that the game makes you feel like a commander of the era, that you really "live" the game.
We don't mean total accuracy, which is by any means impossible as you have also noted.
But in order to feel like you really "live" the game, you need to see something that is convincing enough. For a person who doesn't know much about history and starts playing the game, seeing an accurate ptolemaic egyptian faction will be quite convincing, maybe even challenging, and will not steal away the good gameplay feeling from him.
This showes that fundamental "accuracy" can be applied in perfect harmony with good gameplay, being even necessary for it sometimes.
You've explained it rather well. Let's hope detractors make the effort to understand it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 09 2004,07:54)]ShadeHonestus said it perfectly. This has always been my contention as well

"The hard core gamer who only cares about the reviews wouldn't care about the historical accuracy so wouldn't be affected by it BEING historically accurate."

Peeps who don't know about history won't care one way or the other so long as the play itself is good. Did any of these "gamers" care one way or the other about the Kataphractoi or Janisarry Heavy Infantry in MTW? All they knew was "okay a different faction with odd-named units" and then they accepted it. They didn't buy the game because of it, but they didn't return the game back to the store either.
I agree entirelly. ShadeHonestus was spot on with this phrase:

"The hard core gamer who only cares about the reviews wouldn't care about the historical accuracy so wouldn't be affected by it BEING historically accurate."

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar ). But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".

No, seriously, how cool one faction is, doesn´t influence the sales. The average buyer will focus on 3 maybe 4 aspects to decide whether he buys or not. (I can back that up with scientific papers if you insist.) And these aspects will mostly be the 3D-engine, the epic battles, the intuitiveness of control and probably the elephants.
If CA want to make coolness of units a major feature, they will loose against Lords of Warcr.. err Everquest.

[SwordsMaster]

They could just sell the game in a pack with a T-shirt autographied by Beckham, but with historical content, and they would get many more buyers than making pharaonic flaming pigs or undead criminal elephants.

[The Wizard]

Exactly.

Either this is just plain madness, or there has to be some other explanation for the fact that CA has chosen for some pretty whack unit rosters...



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

[alman9898]

I think CA should market the inaccurate, cool units while including them along with the accurate units in the game (attracts the avg. gamer and has historical accuracy).

Who knows... maybe this is what CA is doing... maybe not for Egypt but you neverknow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[andrewt]

This isn't the 100% historical accuracy people railing against the most minor of inaccuracies. If it was, you'd only hear the lone voice of somebody who sounds like they're screaming from the middle of the Sahara. What most people want and expect is accuracy on the level of Medieval and Shogun. If the Egyptians were at least 50% accurate, you'd only hear either praise for CA coming out from me or nothing at all. If they look Ptolemaic and feel Ptolemaic, even though my knowledge of them is somewhat vague, I don't care if CA makes up a few units as long as the feel is there. The fact is, the Egyptians are totally inaccurate that even the people who are ok with 10%-20% historical accuracy are going, "huh?" The entire faction, all of the units, buildings, weapons, each and every part of their outfit, not just a few minor details or units, is made up and inaccurate.

[ah_dut]

Histrical accuracy is a necessay thing for a game that markets itself like this. I had high hopes after seeing time commanders. Now it seems that hey are going for thee 'mainstream' market. Here warcraft will beat them. TW has it's own niche market so CA stay there. It boosts sales, does not alienate existing fans and teaches the average warcraft iii player cre... sorry dunce to learn a bit of history, so STay in that Niche. Other game developers would kill for such an opportunity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

[vlad_demstra]

It looks like a good game. But I'll wait untill you all get it and repley your answers on how good or bad it is.

[Colovion]

They'll lose sales because their regularly fanatic fans will just say "meh, it's good, but could've been better" instead of running around to all of their friends telling them to buy it because it's the best game ever. When you snub your core fans from the things that they most enjoy you're likely to lose their word of mouth promotion.

[TigerVX]

Quote[/b] (Colovion @ June 12 2004,14:03)]They'll lose sales because their regularly fanatic fans will just say "meh, it's good, but could've been better" instead of running around to all of their friends telling them to buy it because it's the best game ever. When you snub your core fans from the things that they most enjoy you're likely to lose their word of mouth promotion.
You know that this game will rock, no matter which faction has what, you know you'll love it. No matter how much historical inaccuracy there is, you know the Gameplay will rock, and you know it. REMEBER, THEY'RE NOT MAKING THIS FOR HISTORIANS THEY'RE MAKING THIS FOR GAMERS. For the last time Gamers will buy this and think its awsome, and tell other people You historian people make up the UPMOST minority to the game sales.

[Colovion]

Quote[/b] (TigerVX @ June 12 2004,10:58)]
Quote[/b] (Colovion @ June 12 2004,14:03)]They'll lose sales because their regularly fanatic fans will just say "meh, it's good, but could've been better" instead of running around to all of their friends telling them to buy it because it's the best game ever. When you snub your core fans from the things that they most enjoy you're likely to lose their word of mouth promotion.
You know that this game will rock, no matter which faction has what, you know you'll love it. No matter how much historical inaccuracy there is, you know the Gameplay will rock, and you know it. REMEBER, THEY'RE NOT MAKING THIS FOR HISTORIANS THEY'RE MAKING THIS FOR GAMERS. For the last time Gamers will buy this and think its awsome, and tell other people You historian people make up the UPMOST minority to the game sales.
I know it will rock - but their core enthusiasts of this simulation type military conquest style game will not be as enthusiastic about it. But you never know, they could have enough positive things about the game that it outweighs the bad.

Example:

Lord of the Rings was brought up. KNow how close it kept to the books? It was amazing at parts how identical they kept it. HOWEVER, also notice that they left out large parts of the story such as Tom Bombadil and other things that are awesome to see and really bring out the rich detail of the story but aren't really needed to produce a good rendition of the story to the public. I think CA is going that route - making it awesome, but have to kind of do a few things to cut back..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

Or that's what I"m hopeing and that they aren't just lazy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[RisingSun]

Tiger- Anything to back that up? Anything at all? No? Nothing? How surprising. Ah, the works of blind faith.

All games and franchises who have had success with a first attempt which was really not expected and attempted to move away from their current market and into the "mainstream" have failed, and utterly so. Look at Masters of Orion 3.

When you move away from what made you a success- your fans- you are only going to fail.

Maybe you will buy it, because apparently you have money to throw away on companies who don't care about their customers- but I will not. And please don't try to tell me otherwise- it will only make you look stupid.


Quote[/b] ]NOT MAKING THIS FOR HISTORIANS THEY'RE MAKING THIS FOR GAMERS.

Wrong again. They're making this for gamers who enjoy history. It is they who have gotten CA this far, they should not abandon us now.

And you seem to think the average gamer has no conception of history at all. Maybe this is what you know and assume others kow just as little; maybe you have a large ego. It's not important. What is important is that anyone who has been through a freshman history class will know that something is definitely wrong with these units.

Finally, you seem to think debating is not about who has the most valid point, but WHOEVER SHOUTS THE LOUDEST1 That is not so. Please try to present your points in a calm manner as opposed to "yelling."

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]Wrong again. They're making this for gamers who enjoy history

nope wrong too smaller population in that sales margin - they are making this for the RTS market with emphasis on Empire Building - the fact that it fits into a time slot is neither here nor there to marketing they are after most sales possible - the reason they deivate from History is very very Simple - Variation

all the Factions have to feel slightly different or else theres gonna be hell to pay in the marketing division - THe successor States play .... well like Greeks so theres a big proportion all playing like the same and oh no they cant do that so what they do is draw up a list of "commonly" known things about the said faction - and by commonly imean the bloke off the street kind of commonly - and to that kind of people Egypt wasnt like it was it was lots of people in head dresses and thats how they make it - they do how evewr toss a bone to the History people by adding a few (and it is a few) actual units

tbh just all and i mean all give up and shut up - Give CA a break and let them produce the game who cares what it comes out as - i and others will Mod the £%$" out of it anyway so we can set it straight so u have zip to worry about let it be produced and STOP these annoying whiney posts - business is business and we arnt in the loop so no point whineing about it

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 12 2004,17:28)]
Quote[/b] ]Wrong again. They're making this for gamers who enjoy history

nope wrong too smaller population in that sales margin - they are making this for the RTS market with emphasis on Empire Building - the fact that it fits into a time slot is neither here nor there to marketing they are after most sales possible - the reason they deivate from History is very very Simple - Variation

all the Factions have to feel slightly different or else theres gonna be hell to pay in the marketing division - THe successor States play .... well like Greeks so theres a big proportion all playing like the same and oh no they cant do that so what they do is draw up a list of "commonly" known things about the said faction - and by commonly imean the bloke off the street kind of commonly - and to that kind of people Egypt wasnt like it was it was lots of people in head dresses and thats how they make it - they do how evewr toss a bone to the History people by adding a few (and it is a few) actual units
Good to know your oppinion about this. Yeap, YOUR oppinion. Just that...



Quote[/b] ]tbh just all and i mean all give up and shut up - Give CA a break and let them produce the game who cares what it comes out as - i and others will Mod the £%$" out of it anyway so we can set it straight so u have zip to worry about let it be produced and STOP these annoying whiney posts - business is business and we arnt in the loop so no point whineing about it
Whining? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif My, my Are you bothered by our "whinning"?... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Your theory is very good, IF the game is mod-friendly enough. But, judging form CA's promisses and from those they've kept, a mod-friendly game won't be in order...

BTW, we ARE very much in the loop...

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] ]If you go on any other forum besides TWC and .org, you'll find the majority says

GAMEPLAY > HISTORICAL

And if you really want to dis the game by calling it a piece of shit and such, DON'T BUY IT

I continue to be amazed by the myths perpetuated by the
shrill raving fanboys for fantasy units community. The argument that we must have fantasy units in order to somehow improve gameplay has got to be the biggest. Would someone please explain to me how on earth history is not compatible with gameplay? I have yet to see anyone even attempt to explain this.

It is also a myth that those who are unhappy with fantasy units (and fantasy factions like the Egyptians) are in the minority. As was pointed out earlier, if you go to any of the major Total War forums (including the .com) you'll in fact find that polls show that you are in the minority.



Quote[/b] ]You know that this game will rock, no matter which faction has what, you know you'll love it. No matter how much historical inaccuracy there is, you know the Gameplay will rock, and you know it. REMEBER, THEY'RE NOT MAKING THIS FOR HISTORIANS THEY'RE MAKING THIS FOR GAMERS. For the last time Gamers will buy this and think its awsome, and tell other people You historian people make up the UPMOST minority to the game sales.

Here is a fine example of another myth perpetuated by the shrill raving fanboys for for fantasy units community: That those who want the Egyptians to have some Greek units are history geeks and not gamers.

The Total War series aren't the first games I've played, and they aren't the only games on my shelf. I've been playing games from the days of the Atari 2600 and the Commodore 64. On my shelf I have both Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Gothic I and Gotchic II, Call of Duty, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Half Life, Grand Theft Auto, Hitman ect, ect. But I guess I'm not a gamer and just a history geek who'd rather have his head buried in a textbook than playing a game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ShadeHonestus]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ June 12 2004,19:50)]The Total War series aren't the first games I've played, and they aren't the only games on my shelf. I've been playing games from the days of the Atari 2600 and the Commodore 64. On my shelf I have both Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Gothic I and Gotchic II, Call of Duty, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Half Life, Grand Theft Auto, Hitman ect, ect. But I guess I'm not a gamer and just a history geek who'd rather have his head buried in a textbook than playing a game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
very well said and I think this represents the majority of those of us being termed "historical fanatics".

I myself own more games than I care to admit to anyone, yet the total war series had called to me in the beginning because of its history...and its homage to history will keep me.

[Sir Moody]

look we are not in the Loop - we may be the fans and we may be the ones buying the game BUT the game is slated for release in the next 6 months - a complete rediesign of the units would take them longer and force them to delay release - as it is all they will be doing now is the tieing up of loose ends (Balancing etc) the units we see at the com are not new they are planed and propbably implimented months ago - they are labled as new as we (the fans) havent seen em before - there is zip we can do about CA's choices and so making posts (which are very whiney) doesnt produce anything of value it just makes these forums choked with complaints

i happen to agree that historical accuracy would improve the game somewhat but i dont see the lack of it effecting the game much - no game is perfect - and since i cant do anything about it i dont post

[lonewolf371]

Yea but it is rather annoying to see such out of whack depictions of history. Honestly, I think if 2000 years from now they made a game about World War I and instead of having the classic doughboys fighting for the US that most of us know about they decided to replace all of them with a bunch of Rambos and a few guys from Platoon I think that the game might not go too well with most of the community, and that's kind of what they're doing to RTW, they're butchering the game with grossly inaccurate historical units.

Sorry for the rant.

[TigerVX]

Oh come on, look at BF 1942. Its totaly inaccurate Its all autmomatic weapons, where are the rifles? I didn't see anyone complaining there though.

[rasoforos]

I am getting more and more dissapointed by RTW as well. War druids , pharaonic archers , whats next? Oh i know the Kimmerian Barbarian who is trowing poisonous blowdarts from his ass.
CA is spending time and money to make stupid units while they were not willing spend a couple of phonecalls and the help of the community to make the greeks speak greek for a change.
We tolerated horns on vikings but i think this commercialisation of the games goes too far. Its a dangerous tactic to ingore your customers base to sell more copies. What i know now is that CA needs some competition ASAP, think of how many of us would jump to buy an accurate TW clone.
I have serious doubts i ll buy this game at this point , if i need phantasy units i have better choices in my inventory. I wonder if CA will indeed sell more copies if its loyal customer base decides the game is not worth its price and ...obtain in through a cheaper method.

[ah_dut]

Historical accuracy dont affect sales. we can teach those WC iii morons a thing or million about history and give them a game you know

[The Wizard]

Shush, I play WarCraft III but I'm quite well-versed in history, as you may already know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz

[andrewt]

Same here. I play Warcraft3 and while it's kinda disappointing in its own way, it's still loads of fun. Truth be told, if it's going to be this historically inaccurate, Warcraft3 > RTW. Warcraft3 has spells, abilities, heroes, etc. What makes the TW series good is that it's battles has more tactical realism that makes it deeper and more fun. It also gives a good feel for the period it is set in. Starcraft is still better than both, though. I thought RTW will be better, but I'm having second thoughts.

The thing you have to remember is that empire building games really don't appeal that much to the casual gamer. It appeals more to people who play a lot of games. It appeals to people who like to use more brainpower instead of simple hand-eye coordination and fast fingers. That's why Battlefield 1942 is successful even with its inaccuracies, because it is a shooter. Egypt, right now, is appealing to a lot of gamers who won't be purchasing strategy games, much less empire building strategy games that take a long time to finish.

Also, Warcraft3 had their version of dark elves as the good guys and their high elves are not really very good. Sure, they named them the night elves but that's beside the point. As long as the game is good, casual gamers are willing to bite even if the things in it are unfamiliar to them. Hardcore gamers, on the other hand, won't. If you know what viral marketing is, you'll know that 1 hardcore gamer is much more important than 1 casual gamer. Simply put, many casual gamers rely on their hardcore gamer friends for their game recommendation, that's why the hardcore gamer shouldn't be completely ignored, no matter how few they are, like what CA is currently doing.

[Knight_Yellow]

I get the feeling you all ignored the main reason i posted.

ANY and i mean ANY change to the game regarding an entire faction WILL delay the game.

Delaying the game costs $$$ and lots of it.

Show me any game in the entire history of games that delayed itself then corrected the historical inacuracies then sold a lot more copies than it would have.

I think its quite funny how Longshanks says any1 who is happy with the current game is a

"shrill raving fanboys for fantasy units community"

Quite eqauly i could say that any1 who disagrees with my opinion is a

"pedantic whining child, with nothing better to do that complain"

its a bit rude and incorrect to say such a thing though isnt it?

As for the majority part of the arguement:

you will find that the only people who hang around on internet boards are generaly people who discuss historical accuracy concerning the game.

and unless the org and the .com have upwards of 2 million members each you cannot possibly claim that a poll in a biased section of the community represents the entire community.

Its like asking only people in Wales what they think of Europe for instance.... when you need the entire country ie. Wales Scotland england and N. ireland to answer.

[Rosacrux]

Well, lads, I think that this whole "historical vs unhistorical" sides issue, is rather pointless. CA has proven that they ain't listening to the community (they know better, I guess http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) so whatever we say is meaningless.

One way or another, we'll all play the game (I am not going to buy it, as I stated before, but I am just one) and some of us will actually mod the game into decency.

I assume the lot who goes "this game rocks, gameplay uber alles" will enjoy those mods equally with us... if not even more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[ah_dut]

sorry wiz
@Knight_Yellow surely CA could have got it right in the first place?
@rosacrux, bets you'll get RTW

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 14 2004,11:19)]@rosacrux, bets you'll get RTW
perhaps, one way or another http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif

[RisingSun]

Yes, I believe Rosacrux hinted at that several times.

Maybe I'll use my persuasion skills to get one of my more affluent friends to let me, then I'll borrow it for a little while. Once there is an accuracy mod out, of course.

But you can be sure I won't be spending MY money on it.

And you can also bet that everybody I've been telling how awesome this game is gonna be for the last eight months is gonna get nothing short of a 180 degree turn.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 14 2004,17:19)]sorry wiz
Just kiddin' with ya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[lonewolf371]

There is still a good chance that I'll get it also. The Romans just look awesome and hopefully that will be where the majority of the game is, but if I find out that another one of my favorite companies such as Bio Ware or the like releases another game around the same time, I'm not sure I'm going to waste my money on this.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadeHonestus @ June 12 2004,23:46)]
Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ June 12 2004,19:50)]The Total War series aren't the first games I've played, and they aren't the only games on my shelf. I've been playing games from the days of the Atari 2600 and the Commodore 64. On my shelf I have both Fallouts, Baldur's Gate, Gothic I and Gotchic II, Call of Duty, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Half Life, Grand Theft Auto, Hitman ect, ect. But I guess I'm not a gamer and just a history geek who'd rather have his head buried in a textbook than playing a game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
very well said and I think this represents the majority of those of us being termed "historical fanatics".
Agreed. Me too. I play games since the ZX Spectrum 48K.



Quote[/b] ]I myself own more games than I care to admit to anyone, yet the total war series had called to me in the beginning because of its history...and its homage to history will keep me.
Yeap. That happened to me too.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ June 13 2004,01:55)]Yea but it is rather annoying to see such out of whack depictions of history. Honestly, I think if 2000 years from now they made a game about World War I and instead of having the classic doughboys fighting for the US that most of us know about they decided to replace all of them with a bunch of Rambos and a few guys from Platoon I think that the game might not go too well with most of the community, and that's kind of what they're doing to RTW, they're butchering the game with grossly inaccurat historical units.

Sorry for the rant.
Most people think we're talking about details when we protest about Egyptian faction description. That is quite puzzling, since it's comparable to making a WW2 game with one faction using the Medieval Feudal system as a social and economical model, as well as Medieval knights as the elite unit of it's army. Meanwhile it's opponents have a XX century economical and social system and M1 tanks and F15 fighter bombers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[andrewt]

Well, Jade Empire and Star Wars:KOTOR 2 (not Bioware developed thought) are coming out Q1 2005 so RTW has a jumpstart compared to them. They are also more likely to be delayed since they are farther away from being finished. That and Bioware is like Blizzard than CA in the quality area (will delay a game to make it better).

World of Warcraft is coming out around the end of 2004 and is likely to slip seeing as it's Blizzard. I'm not sure of I'm going to have the time by then to make an MMO worthwhile, though.

I'm not really expecting any games that will released around the timeframe of RTW, so I'm guess I'm stuck with it.

[lonewolf371]

Even if there isn't another game in the RTW time frame, a new CD player couldn't hurt, the one I have right now skips too much... Or I could go new age and buy an MP3 player, one of my friends has one of those. It would be nice to have for those un-godly long bus rides to band contests.

[shakaka36]

i'll still buy it, but im gettign rather annoyed with the historical innacuracy (i read a review somwhere sayign persia which as a state ahd been dissolved some 60 years prior to the start date, and would not be revived till after the end date)

it is no longer my most eagerly anticapated game, that place has been taken by Supreme Commander

[andrewt]

What's Supreme Commander? I did a google search and searched on gamefaqs and nothing turned up.

[shakaka36]

woops Supreme Ruler

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]Oh come on, look at BF 1942. Its totaly inaccurate Its all autmomatic weapons, where are the rifles? I didn't see anyone complaining there though.

Actually there are plenty of people who complained about it including myself. That's why there's multiple realism mods for it with varying levels of realism and accuracy, the major ones being XWWII, Forgotten Hope, and Battlegroup 42.

But the thing is that the entire Battlefield**** series are and are marketed as arcadey games, the intention was never to create a historically accurate game just a shoot em up game.

The Total War series on the other had has had a record of being fairly accurate historically, that's why the Samuris had spears and naginatas instead of just katana's like the average joe imagines them or for medieval having chain mail clad warriors for the earlier periods instead of everyone running about in gothic plate and then again in VTW were the vikings were accurately depicted instead of them all having horns on their helmets.

The other side of the Total War series is just the big battles, most people just want to fight huge battles such as the ones they see in the movies instead of building individual troops like in Starcraft or C&C or AoEs. These are the two primary selling points with battles being what grabs the audience. But now that's being exploited, instead of maintaining a balance between the two only the movie battle aspect seems to getting the red carpet treatment. Accuracy is being dumped in favor of dumbing down the game so it appeals to "dumber" masses of people or at least that's the perception that I'm getting.

I guess they know all too well that despite the inaccuracies though that most of us will buy the game and perhaps *perhaps* having sterotypical egyptian units will get a few more buyers, perhaps as many as they lose due to disgust with the inaccuracies which is a small number.

I know I'll buy the game, I want to fight those battles and then mod the f**k out of the game and turn it into what I believe this period in history was supposed to be like. Not everyone mods the game though, most people don't, not everyone uses the mods, and some people play purely multiplayer and the people that fall into this group and also want accuracy are left in the dust.

[Duke of York]

hi all....well from what ive been seeing everyone thinks CA has made a bad choice.....i wonder what the staff have to say about this?

anyway..i think the decision to have a inaccurate historical depiction is bad. For a casaul gamer like me, and a amatuerish historian, games like Total War provide a huge wealth of information and for many kids like us, we get most of the stuff we know off TV and games. There was this one article and it suggested that the main reason why primary school kids knew where and when D-day was, was because of games like Medal of honour. So jsut saying that an inaccurate historical depiction could have a bad influnece on how people remember history

[spmetla]

You'd be suprised at the number of *expert historians* that appeared on the Eastern Front of WWII when Enemy at the Gates appeared and later when IL2 Sturmivok was released. Suddenly there was a huge interest in the Russian contribution to the allied victory was more or less ignored in the US since WWII itself.

Games generate interest in what they are about, I know that I've learned a lot about Japanese history thanks to STW due to the interest it created for me about that period and I was already alright about medieval warfare but MTW did show me a few new things I didn't know about before that I researched and read about later on my own.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ June 18 2004,21:53)]You'd be suprised at the number of *expert historians* that appeared on the Eastern Front of WWII when Enemy at the Gates appeared and later when IL2 Sturmivok was released. Suddenly there was a huge interest in the Russian contribution to the allied victory was more or less ignored in the US since WWII itself.

Games generate interest in what they are about, I know that I've learned a lot about Japanese history thanks to STW due to the interest it created for me about that period and I was already alright about medieval warfare but MTW did show me a few new things I didn't know about before that I researched and read about later on my own.
I know, this is what i've been saying.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ June 18 2004,04:24)]The Total War series on the other had has had a record of being fairly accurate historically, that's why the Samuris had spears and naginatas instead of just katana's like the average joe imagines them or for medieval having chain mail clad warriors for the earlier periods instead of everyone running about in gothic plate and then again in VTW were the vikings were accurately depicted instead of them all having horns on their helmets.

The other side of the Total War series is just the big battles, most people just want to fight huge battles such as the ones they see in the movies instead of building individual troops like in Starcraft or C&C or AoEs. These are the two primary selling points with battles being what grabs the audience. But now that's being exploited, instead of maintaining a balance between the two only the movie battle aspect seems to getting the red carpet treatment. Accuracy is being dumped in favor of dumbing down the game so it appeals to "dumber" masses of people or at least that's the perception that I'm getting.
Nicely written. I agree.



Quote[/b] ]I know I'll buy the game, I want to fight those battles and then mod the f**k out of the game and turn it into what I believe this period in history was supposed to be like. Not everyone mods the game though, most people don't, not everyone uses the mods, and some people play purely multiplayer and the people that fall into this group and also want accuracy are left in the dust.
Most of the offended Historical buyers will do that. I don't think I will though... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke of York @ June 18 2004,06:52)]hi all....well from what ive been seeing everyone thinks CA has made a bad choice.....i wonder what the staff have to say about this?

anyway..i think the decision to have a inaccurate historical depiction is bad. For a casaul gamer like me, and a amatuerish historian, games like Total War provide a huge wealth of information and for many kids like us, we get most of the stuff we know off TV and games. There was this one article and it suggested that the main reason why primary school kids knew where and when D-day was, was because of games like Medal of honour. So jsut saying that an inaccurate historical depiction could have a bad influnece on how people remember history
Great point you take into consideration here, Duke of York It is one of the things I've mentioned previously. Why stear away from a good experience for all the wrong reasons? The game wouldn't loose any of appeal beeing as historical accurate as it's predecessor: Shogun. In fact, it would be MORE appealing, not less. It would be original among all of the other game's innacuracies and preposterous approaches to history.

And good to know this from a young guy, a person within the targeted audience that CA is trying to get the most off, with their dumb-down approach...

Your answer is a confirmation to what the Historical "freaks" have been posting about. It is a mistake to undermine the buyers. EVERY buyer.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ June 18 2004,13:53)]You'd be suprised at the number of *expert historians* that appeared on the Eastern Front of WWII when Enemy at the Gates appeared and later when IL2 Sturmivok was released. Suddenly there was a huge interest in the Russian contribution to the allied victory was more or less ignored in the US since WWII itself.

Games generate interest in what they are about, I know that I've learned a lot about Japanese history thanks to STW due to the interest it created for me about that period and I was already alright about medieval warfare but MTW did show me a few new things I didn't know about before that I researched and read about later on my own.
Of course. That happens to people mildly interested in History. It's a consequence for any game based on History. But it is only good when things are made the wright way, like in Shogun. Remember The Way of the Daymio in pdf? It was just beautifull. Or the Intro and Outro movies with all those drawings and paintings?

The feeling it provokes, makes it for everyone, even people not interested in History, to have curiosity to read more about those Historical civilizations, periods and cultures.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] ]Of course. That happens to people mildly interested in History. It's a consequence for any game based on History. But it is only good when things are made the wright way, like in Shogun. Remember The Way of the Daymio in pdf? It was just beautifull. Or the Intro and Outro movies with all those drawings and paintings?

The feeling it provokes, makes it for everyone, even people not interested in History, to have curiosity to read more about those Historical civilizations, periods and cultures.


Oh yeah the way of the Daimyo was just pure class I spent a fair bit of time reading that after getting really into Shogun.

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

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 19 2004,17:09)]
Quote[/b] ]Of course. That happens to people mildly interested in History. It's a consequence for any game based on History. But it is only good when things are made the wright way, like in Shogun. Remember The Way of the Daymio in pdf? It was just beautifull. Or the Intro and Outro movies with all those drawings and paintings?

The feeling it provokes, makes it for everyone, even people not interested in History, to have curiosity to read more about those Historical civilizations, periods and cultures.


Oh yeah the way of the Daimyo was just pure class I spent a fair bit of time reading that after getting really into Shogun.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Me too. In fact, I did not know a lot about Medieval Japan until I bought STW. I prefered the Ancient Period. After that, I just dug deep that period of History in Japan. It was just enthralling. Later, MTW also motivated me to study more the Medieval period in Europe.

Therefore my disapointment about RTW. It's one of the periods of History I know best. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 20 2004,19:10)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 19 2004,17:09)]
Quote[/b] ]Of course. That happens to people mildly interested in History. It's a consequence for any game based on History. But it is only good when things are made the wright way, like in Shogun. Remember The Way of the Daymio in pdf? It was just beautifull. Or the Intro and Outro movies with all those drawings and paintings?

The feeling it provokes, makes it for everyone, even people not interested in History, to have curiosity to read more about those Historical civilizations, periods and cultures.


Oh yeah the way of the Daimyo was just pure class I spent a fair bit of time reading that after getting really into Shogun.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Me too. In fact, I did not know a lot about Medieval Japan until I bought STW. I prefered the Ancient Period. After that, I just dug deep that period of History in Japan. It was just enthralling. Later, MTW also motivated me to study more the Medieval period in Europe.

Therefore my disapointment about RTW. It's one of the periods of History I know best. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif
Same, i know a lot about ancient history comparative to other periods http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[andrewt]

I also liked reading way of the daimyo. That was good reading.

[Puzz3D]

I read the IGN description of RTW's Egyptian units. Let's see: spears are primarily defensive and work better in phalanx moving straight ahead and can block the cav charge, there is a weaker and a stronger spear type, cavalry beats archers, camels beat cavalry, archers are used to weaken enemy units with their arrows (implies weak archery) and are weak in melee, there are elite archers which apparently have better melee ability, there is light cav for flanking and heavy cav for direct assault, slingers are weak in melee and I'll guess are short range probably something like javelins in MTW, axemen have a high offensive combat value and low defensive value and can beat spears but loose to cav, catapult artillery can be used as an anti-personel weapon, there are archer chariots presumably to replace cav archers and peasants are useless. This sounds a lot like MTW gameplay. Only the sword chariots stand out as different because they have the speed of cavalry and the staying power of infantry. There doesn't seem to be an anti-chariot unit within the Egyptian unit types unless it's camels. Possibly other factions have an anti-chariot unit.

One of the programmers from CA is on record on this forum with the statement that the Total War series is a strategy game with an historical flavor, and that the gameplay has the highest priority. It's not an official company statement, but I would think it's an accurate statement since he would know. Now that statement was made at the time to counter the people asking for more historical accuracy. I have nothing against historical accuracy and I don't think it has to be sacrificed for better gameplay, but, given that statement by CA, I hope the gameplay in RTW multiplayer surpasses what it is in MTW/VI v2.01.

[spmetla]

I realize it's been discussed before but when has historical accuracy really ever impeded gameplay? It might rule out bull warriors or ancient ancient egyptians but that's not destorying gameplay. I imagine historical accuracy would add to gameplay, it'd be far better to pit units against each other that were around during the same period because they were designed and used in history to counter those other units.

It also allows people to mimic accurately the people they see in movies or read about in books.

I see there have to be concessions made, like being able to conquer all of europe just because it's fun. I'm fine with that and so are most people, that's the nice thing about the Total war series the ability to change things throughout history. I know I'll enjoy after my intial campaign to sack rome with my germanic troops or to take gaul before the romans but I'd actually feel more proud of myself and more accomplished if what I did was with as close a representation of the actual units of the period.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 21 2004,18:36)]I read the IGN description of RTW's Egyptian units. Let's see: spears are primarily defensive and work better in phalanx moving straight ahead and can block the cav charge, there is a weaker and a stronger spear type, cavalry beats archers, camels beat cavalry, archers are used to weaken enemy units with their arrows (implies weak archery) and are weak in melee, there are elite archers which apparently have better melee ability, there is light cav for flanking and heavy cav for direct assault, slingers are weak in melee and I'll guess are short range probably something like javelins in MTW, axemen have a high offensive combat value and low defensive value and can beat spears but loose to cav, catapult artillery can be used as an anti-personel weapon, there are archer chariots presumably to replace cav archers and peasants are useless. This sounds a lot like MTW gameplay. Only the sword chariots stand out as different because they have the speed of cavalry and the staying power of infantry. There doesn't seem to be an anti-chariot unit within the Egyptian unit types unless it's camels. Possibly other factions have an anti-chariot unit.

One of the programmers from CA is on record on this forum with the statement that the Total War series is a strategy game with an historical flavor, and that the gameplay has the highest priority. It's not an official company statement, but I would think it's an accurate statement since he would know. Now that statement was made at the time to counter the people asking for more historical accuracy. I have nothing against historical accuracy and I don't think it has to be sacrificed for better gameplay, but, given that statement by CA, I hope the gameplay in RTW multiplayer surpasses what it is in MTW/VI v2.01.
hello, slinger have a LONGER range than any bow. sorry, just an important matter of semantics

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ June 22 2004,10:53)]
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 21 2004,18:36)] slingers are weak in melee and I'll guess are short range probably something like javelins in MTW

hello, slinger have a LONGER range than any bow. sorry, just an important matter of semantics
Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. Do we know the range of the slingers in the game? The IGN description does say they have various ranges depending on the length of the sling used, but not what the range is relative to other ranged units.

[The Wizard]

Slingers should be very effective in disrupting formations and should be dangerous to armored troops. Hell, those damn pellets were dangerous to everybody



~Wiz

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 23 2004,12:13)]Slingers should be very effective in disrupting formations and should be dangerous to armored troops. Hell, those damn pellets were dangerous to everybody



~Wiz
like an uber long ranged javelin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[CrackedAxe]

Sorry if you're already sick of this topic but I just have to put in my 2 pennies worth. It's interesting how worked up peeps are getting over the whole egyptian faction thing, demanding accuracy from the developers and this and other points. To some extent I absolutely agree, Old Kingdom Egyptian units in Classical historical times is a bit laughable, sort of like having Roman legions in VI, but this is a GAME, not an educational tool, and we've been living with this for as long as the total war series has been on our HD's. Example: In VI, we have cavalry units for all factions. Cavalry in dark age Britain it did'nt exist Saxon Thegns of the time had to have horses to fulfil their military obligations to their lord or king, but they only ever rode these TO battle, and dismounted to fight. This was for good reason, the horses in Britain at the time were not strong enough to carry armed and armoured men. The normans did have such horses though, in the squat, muscular norman warhorse (they had been learning cavalry tactics from the french for some time. It was'nt until after Norman conquest of Britain that we had horses of strong enough racial stock to start breeding cavalry capable gee gees over here (strangely enough we did'nt pick up the habit from the Romans, but then, their cav was pretty crap). Until then Britons always fought in the static, rigid infantry formations of the 'shield fort' (i forget the Saxon term), so battles would have been NOTHING like what we see in VI. this would'nt have been fun for us gamers though, so understandably the devs went for gameplay over accuracy, which is fine by me. They are making a product for the mass market, not a minority of history buffs and doing a fine job of it. The Total War series is easily the best strat series available on the PC, and I cant wait for RTW, despite the carping and criticisms (would you rather it did'nt come out at all?).

BTW this is my first proper post, do you like it? Hope i hav'nt sent u all to ---->
Back to top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re-posting this here as I originally intended to but could'nt as I was a junior patron at the time.

Now a Member http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[ah_dut]

atmosphere my friend, atmosphere, by the way congrats on being a member http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[Captain Fishpants]

Reading through this thread I think many of you missed your true calling as medieval theologians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

I have to point out that perceptions about Rome: Total War are based on a small amount of information, and that often an out-of-date snapshot - I've said this in other threads too.

For now, please chill, and bear in mind that what we're creating is a game, in the same way that Medieval and Shogun were games... rather good games, really.

The history is important, of course, and informs many decisions round here (some arguments in the office get amazingly retentive from time to time). So some of what's been said here is actually way off the mark.

But I felt it necessary to reiterate a point I've made before: gameplay and history are not zero-sum features. More of one does not diminish the other. Making the game accessible does not immediately drop it into a category of a-historical tosh. It widens the audience, and might just encourage new players to get involved, pick up a book, learn stuff and think about things for themselves. Ooops. Nearly let slip that I think education is a good thing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Oh, captain, my captain

Zero-sum? You are not a Rappoport fan, by any chance? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin.gif

Seriously now, as I said it before, there is a certain amount of the members that put the historical accuracy above all; it might seem almost blasphemous from me to object, but I am not so…focused upon that specific issue. If you continue the trend you have been following ever since you brought out S:TW in the first place, this game will be one of the greatest strategy highlights ever made

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Let's wait and see... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The new movie on legion only proves how much this game will kick ass. The lads are obviously working hard on it and looks beautiful. The greel hoplites and the militia hoplites look great. Greece is nicely divided and the way the elephants smash into the legions and then the legions getting back up, to have it smashed again is magic to the eyes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 28 2004,16:41)]Let's wait and see... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[The Wizard]

While I cringe at the sight of bare-chested hoplites in the latest Gamestar movie, I know that I will play this game longer than even Black & White, which is long.

It will be great gameplay-wise, and I know that that is the most important and I hold it above all else, but what I'd like to know is why historical accuracy is apparently so much harder to implement than great gameplay, which it really shouldn't be, according to my ever-present logic.



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

[eds]

Don't lie, you'll all secretly buy it and come here and declare you haven't bought it yet and refuse to until CA panders to you.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (eds @ June 30 2004,07:28)]Don't lie, you'll all secretly buy it and come here and declare you haven't bought it yet and refuse to until CA panders to you.
when did i say i wouldn't buy it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[lonewolf371]

Well I'm still going to buy it pretty much no matter what, but thanks to CA for appearing. Ever since I came back I saw all sorts of mal-contentness about R:TW, but I never saw a CA member comment.

[Jade]

Resurrecting this thread for follow-up:

Now that RTW has come and gone, and MTW2 is on the verge of release. How do you feel CA has done?

I haven't purchased it, but I think I'll probably buy a used copy, eventually. I just don't have a ton of time to play.

[johhny-turbo]

Which do you think the average joe will understand better.

MT2 or Crusader Kings?

[El Diablo]

I think (and this is of course my opinion and hence no more/less significant that anyone elses) that RTW is a GAME. Yes it has many historical flaws - however it has been made to be be a game - not a historical biography of what actually occured. It is for entertainment - not learning about history. Gee - you spend half the time in the game tring to change history (can I rule Briton with the Egyptions etc.??)

The same can be said of the Hollywood-i-sation of "historical" movies - like Braveheart for example. The hot "French" Queen was an "entertaining" part of the movie but not historically accurate. Could they have taken the love interest out? Yeah probably. Would the movie have been the same - probably not. But the point here is that things like games and movies are made for entertainment.

It does however, increase peoples interests in history and lets them "discover" for themselves what actually happened.

Also people have vasty differing opinions on history. Being from a Commonwealth country I confess to a heavy "UK-centric" look at history, whereas someone from Eastern Europe or the Mid-east would look on it differently. So whose version is correct??

And finally, I ask you - who would have won in an even, one-on-one fight between a unit of Hastati and a Warband unit in 56BC??? I do not know, and as most history was written by the Romans who would probably not have listed all the times they got the behind handed to them on a plate we will probably never really know. RTW is a game to be played, not a history to be studied.

And hats of to CA for a fine GAME

[snevets]

I agree it is a game. However there are some things which CA has put into games in the past which were just plain laziness in terms of their historical research. And don't forget that of all historcial games CA does claim the mantle of historical accuracy, so it's partially their fault.

[El Diablo]

Fair call Snevtes. Some is bad, some lazy - but you must also accept that some is also unfairly branded bad or lazy.
Some people consider the factional colour schemes "ahistorical" whereas I am sure that they are given serperate and distict colours so enable quick and easy identification of whose troops are whose (to aid the gameplay!!).

Hollywood would probably also consider Breaveheart a "Biographical film about William Wallace". Simply not true. Some is close some is not even in the same ballpark. But as films go it is a historical style film.

(BTW I LOVE Braveheart a film. Highly entertaining, I am just using it as an example that entertaining does not mean accurate).

RTW is sold as a game and thus must have good gameplay (why else play it?). It is not sold as a history documentary.

[GottMitUns]

Moderation and balance! Too much historical accuracy or realism in any game is boring because some parts of reality to suck in a very tedious way. No one wants to spend all day selecting magistrates or watching your units march for a real six months to get from here to there. But thats historicaly accurate!
On the other hand, too little historical accuracy is boring because there are a million fanatsy games with absolutely no basis in or reference to reality.

So the designers have to come up with a balance between the two. I personaly think CA has done a great job at striking that balance. There will always be "cheese" in these games. But at least they do stimulate more serious historical study. It is an ironic blessing that someone might be inspired enough by a TW game to actualy study history and then complain that the game its self is way historicaly inaccurate.

There is ALOT of this kind of media right now an though much of it is holywoodized, its a great thing. All of the various History and science channels, books, magazines, etc.

This type of media as well as serious research both can be classifed as study. The media part (games, history channel, movies etc) is "light study", the actual books- mostly direct sources- as "heavy study".

If readers of most academic secondary historical works were as anal about accuracy as players of historical games, academia would be far advanced and reductionism nearly nil! Seriously, 8 out of 10 modern analysis of history (secondary sources) are often even less accurate than something like RTW, political or social message often being the goal instead of accuracy or entertainment.

The cool thing is looking at the entire phenomenon from a scientific standpoint. Most historical and political science writers and professors indulge in gross reductionism in order to make a point. We often find even less reductionism in those whos only point is profit. Thats fkn crazy.

[Nelson]

Historical accuracy and detail are two different topics. Having too much boring minutia is never good regardless of how real it might be. I think that, generally, when people complain about historical accuracy, it’s the flagrantly UNREAL and INCORRECT things that offend them such as the Egyptian skins that are totally bogus for the era depicted. Or uber cavalry units. Not every historic aspect needs to be included to have an accurate game. But devs do need to avoid presenting that which is known to be wrong if history is to remain relevant.

Realism is important to some people but meaningless to others. However, those for whom it is meaningless are unlikely to be bothered by what is correct whereas those who demand accuracy will find fault with gross factual errors. So why not get the history right and please everyone?

It is my contention that history never gets in the way. It should show the way.

[El Diablo]

Well said both Nelson and GottMitUns I agree with what both of you have said. One thing that I do find a little annoying is the venom with which some people seem to vent their displeasure at the game.

You can never please all the people all the time and I think that CA do a fantastic job. They try their best and yes the Egyptians are a tad cheesey (okay really cheesey) but that fact and several other do not "ruin" what I feel is a great game.

As for this genre of game inspiring "personal historical investigations" I myself have been trying to find good quality Alexander the great books to find out about one of the greatest military minds ever. I was always interested in history but generally not Ancient history and so this game (in all its forms and expansions) has helped me.

BTW - if anyone knows are REALLY good Alexander book then please let me know as my local bookstore seems to be full of Mills and Boon romance novels and cosmopolitan womans mags - :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: