Hardcore Realism

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] ]For the more hardcore demographic, you've got Rome: Total War. Here at GameSpy we're gigantic Total War fans, but admit that the hardcore realism of the game (the BBC actually uses the game engine to re-enact historical battles) means that it won't get massive mainstream sales numbers. Still, the audience is built in: If you're serious about strategy, either turn-based or real-time, THIS is your game of the year. Banc of America projects around 500,000-600,000 units, and we have faith the franchise will meet or beat those numbers.


Long story made short Gamespy:To the devs beware your game is ubar realistic, add some more fantasy units or else it won't sell well

here is the article:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/533/533436p3.html

I knew why the developers are acting funny lately, they seem to listen to "hardcore" gamers more than their fans.

[Ser Clegane]

Nice - the article also includes a link from which you can download the full 45p Banc of America report.

Now I can read a report on videogames during work and with the "Banc of America" label on it it will appear as if was doing something productive that adds value to the company https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Dead Moroz]

What "hardcore" they are talking about? Did I miss something interesting in RTW screens and vids? https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Dead Moroz @ July 27 2004,08:04)]What "hardcore" they are talking about? Did I miss something interesting in RTW screens and vids? https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Typical retarded game site BS.

What would they say if it was REALLY Hard Core?? https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Barkhorn.

[CBR]

Hm seems like they expect RTW to sell at least twice as many copies as MTW/VI combined..nice


CBR

[Rosacrux]

Methinks the gamespy guys are hardcore wankers https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

[ah_dut]

watch the language rosacrux, but yes i agree they are err.. master debaters https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]For the more hardcore demographic, you've got Rome: Total War. Here at GameSpy we're gigantic Total War fans, but admit that the hardcore realism of the game (the BBC actually uses the game engine to re-enact historical battles) means that it won't get massive mainstream sales numbers. Still, the audience is built in: If you're serious about strategy, either turn-based or real-time, THIS is your game of the year. Banc of America projects around 500,000-600,000 units, and we have faith the franchise will meet or beat those numbers.

Hardcore realism?? ROTFLMAO We're talking about Total War, not Combat Mission OK, RTW is certainly more realistic and historically 'grounded' than the average game covering this period but hardcore? These Gamespy guys need to read something other than comic books, gaming magazines and Maxim.

RTW 'won't get massive mainstream sales numbers'? Banc of America only 'projects around 500,000 to 600,000 units'? That's a laugh. Had these dimwits at 'Banc of America' done their homework they would know that Medieval and the Viking Invasion expansion pack went on to sell over one million copies. This number was taken directly from a video interview with Tim Ansell at E3 2004. I firmly believe that in the year or so following its release RTW will go on to sell in excess of 1.5-2 million units. Medieval (and to be honest, Shogun) impressed a hell of alot of people and no doubt led the average gamer to believe that there was more to RTS and strategy games than the usual Starcraft/Command & Conquer and Civilization/Rise of Nations offerings. For over a year now Rome has consistenly 'shocked and awed' gamers and the gaming press simply with the look and scope of its tactical battles. The epic battles and eye candy factor of RTW alone should pad sales by a considerable amount. Impulse buyers will be all over this game. This isn't just fanboy talk either.

On an aside, I also have every confidence that should CA and Activision decide to license the 3D engine out to developers for a reasonable price they'll make a serious chunk of change off of it. But if Activision is anything like Electronic Arts then this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

[CBR]

I think the sales numbers mentioned are for US only.


CBR

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ July 27 2004,11:16)]I think the sales numbers mentioned are for US only.


CBR
Indeed - the numbers their report gives for M:TW+VI are 352,492 units (US retail sales).

BTW, for EA's Battle for Middle Earth they predict 1,000,000 of sold copies.

[Nelson]

Well, if it were really hardcore, Banc of America would predict sales of 50K to 60K instead of 500K to 600K.

Be as dismissive of gamespy as you like but the "hardcore" perception of Total War is something CA is trying mightily to combat without dumping the actual content and game play that we here in the org want. That's why a recent film begins by saying that Rome is "Easy to play". I know people who think TW looks difficult and requires too much time to learn. Fatigue and morale are pretty much unknown in other games. The possibility that one’s army can get tired or frightened, stop fighting and run away does not appeal to everyone, not to mention that the skills you must develop to prevent this unhappy event are not self evident to most people. Juggling these tactical considerations with the demands of the strategic map makes the game "hardcore", not the unit names or the soldier graphics. This perception is real and CA must deal with it. As far as I can see they are doing so without disturbing the game. Total War has never been as “hardcore” as wargame grognards would like and never will be. That does not mean that it is not seen by many as tougher to get a handle on than other games. Compared to most RTS games (and this is the genre TW invariably winds up in), TW is hardcore regardless of what some here believe. To a marketing person, perception is reality.

It’s easy (not to mention very condescending) for a devoted fan to say “To hell with those meatheads Anyone who says this is hardcore is too dumb to play Total War”. If I were running the show I would search for ways to convince people that the game is not so “hardcore” as it may seem. Broadening the appeal doesn’t have to mean abandoning the fundamentals that have made TW a success. It does mean changing perceptions. That is what CA and Activision are trying to do.

[shingenmitch2]

Well I still have a hard time reconciling how virtually every RTS or shoot-em WW2 game constantly strives for ultra-realism and they use it as a huge selling point, ("All weapons accurately modeled" "All the tanks accurately modeled" etc..) and yet for ancient warfare, realism suddenly becomes a liability.

And to compound this schizophrenia, EA has aggressively marketed RTW to history fans through Decisive Battles and Time Commanders, two shows that scream for realism, while at the same time producing fantasy units.

[Spino]

Ah, well that's what I get for not reading the report. However, I stand firm by my own forecast. The sale of 350K+ units of Medieval/VI in the U.S. is quite impressive but my belief that RTW will prove to be a huge success is fueled by the fact that the game never fails to awe everyone who sees it in action. I got the impression that many strategy gamers thought Medieval was a decent title (largely due to it's large scale tactical battles) but I don't recall anyone but 'hardcore' Total War and strategy fans getting seriously worked up over it. But strategy gamers who find it hard to get worked up over animated 2D sprites must have mental callouses several inches thick for them not to get hot and bothered by several thousand 3D animated, fully textured soldiers cleaving, shooting and trampling one another. The work CA has done on RTW is truly revolutionary and it's as if the Total War series has become a completely different beast. The game looks like a bonafide Hollywood epic in action and you don't need to be a military history nut to get excited over this game. When people see RTW and immediately mention popular movies like Braveheart and Gladiator you can be sure its sales will far outstrip those for Medieval.

If gamers can wholeheartedly embrace titles like Civilization III and Rise of Nations there's no reason to think they won't like RTW. There are a myriad of factors in CivIII and RoN which require a decent attention span and an eye for detail. And RTW's battles are comparatively easy to manage compared to the micromanaging nightmare that typifies most other RTS titles. And as far as RTW's strategic gameplay is concerned it really looks no more complicated than the two titles I mentioned earlier.

The report does make a valid point when it mentions that competition for gamers' dollars will be particularly intense this holiday season. With too many blockbusters to choose from shelf space is going to be extremely limited and you can bet many decent titles are going to bomb because of this. 'Indepedent' titles like 'STALKER' are sure to get lost in the shuffle. The gaming industry seems to be making the same mistakes as Hollywood by cramming too many blockbusters together in a relatively short period of time. These marketing suits should learn to spread the love out throughout the year.

[Blodrast]

quote from their full report:

"The Total War games have such enormous critical respect. There will be a hardcore audience that will buy that it s almost a mass-hardcore game, exceptionally hardcore and graphically fantastic. Not necessary a massmarket game. The numbers will look good, but that does not make it mass market."


well i can think of several crappy games that sold really well and were far from "graphically fantastic"...if this is "graphically fantastic", why wouldn't it sell well, eh ?
That's really silly. Just because it's not a mainstream game does not make it "exceptionally hardcore", and even if it were so, I would think that its originality and "hardcore"ness would make it more attractive than an attempt to make it more mainstream would. Because going mainstream simply means competing to brand names like EA or Blizzard or Micro$oft on their own terms, which will be a total loss.
Much better, methinks, to have and promote the original thing that you have and that you're renowned for, in the spirit that you had for Shogun and MTW.
But ofc that's my non-professional opinion, and I'm no specialist...
It does however make me sad that just because a thing is not mainstream it has to be "straightened out" to be like every other crap...

[Leet Eriksson]

I think, they made the game more mainstream for the US market, *cough* Activision *cough* is involved apparently.

If you look at sales of "historical" games in the US they are pretty low, ie Nemesis of the Roman Empire, Spartan, Preatorians, Against Rome....etc.

[Nowake]

As if Praetorians would have been a historicaly accurate game ~:pat:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Methinks the gamespy guys are hardcore wankers *https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

Hahahahaha! You said what we were all thinking! ~D

[The_Emperor]

These guys suck... According to them unless the game is a Starcraft/Warcraft/C&C clone then it is 'Ultra Hardcore'. How pathetic can you get!

Anyway how do they know it is hard to use? It hought we had tutorials and advisors comming out of our ears so we would "Never need to pickup the manual".

Seems that any RTS that is slightly historical is stereotyped into the "Hardcore" category... We need something like RTW to come out and Break the Mould!!!

[Leet Eriksson]

As if Praetorians would have been a historicaly accurate game ~:pat:

Gamespot had it as runner up for strategy game of the year for 2003, in the article they mentioned it as "historically accurate, or thats what the writer implied"

The game is kinda ok, not really bad, Barbarians and Romans have some accuracy, but egypt is still pharonic.

[Blodrast]

I think that Nelson makes a very good point.
However, while I do agree that to become _fully_ aware of everything MTW, for instance, is all about, you need to spend more time than you would, say, in Starcraft, I agree with Spino when he claims that Civ and Rise Of Nations also have a bunch of subtleties (esp. Civ, in my opinion) that not all gamers are aware of or use.
The same goes for MTW (and might as well for RTW too): sure, there's stuff like fatigue and morale, but you don't have to know everything about them to play the game. Hardcore gamers will figure them out; non-hardcore gamers probably won't care about it anyway, and it won't bother them. I know several people of varying ages who are content to play in what I would call a "stupid", or at least "non-professional" way. I believe this is what most people are like, the average person.

Most of the ppl who will buy the game will either be veteran gamers (young adults or kids), or will buy it for a veteran gamer. These people won't have a problem "learning" the game.
The others won't care either way if fatigue/morale exist in the game or not. The game can be played and enjoyed by just pumping units and having grand-scale battles, without being obsessed about hidden bonuses for certain units in certain provinces, or the exact depth of the formation for each particular unit type, or the exact value of the charge of the flaming pigs. I know this, because I've seen it in too many people.

So, again, what exactly does make the game "hardcore" ?
Because I can't agree that the existence of some features that you can pretty much safely ignore and still have fun with the game and fight the big spectacular battles justifies calling it that.

And I have yet to see a kid that is into computer games and says "Oh no, this game is too complicated, I can't play it. I don't want it". On the contrary, throughout the years, small kids who came and visited me always wanted to see what games I had, and were fascinated by the more complicated ones (I removed solitaire, minesweeper, etc, from windows; they annoy me), even though they had absolutely no idea what was going on. And these were well below 10 years old.

I don't have kids (yet), but those of you who do I am sure can certify that at least as far as computer games are concerned, today's kids are awfully precocious (hell, that's the only incentive that my wife keeps throwing at me for having kids that I'm actually taking into consideration...that one day I'll finally have a constant partner to play games with ~D )

sorry for the long rant, in any case.

[andrewt]

Starcraft had around 12 units for each side. Most players know only how to use around 2-4 and barely at that. You will rarely see the units with special abilities used until the very high levels of play. Most protoss players build zealots then rush straight to carriers. Terrans go marines then battlecruisers and siege tanks for defense (most people don't know how to properly use these things on offense). People use more zerg units but that's because they have more brain dead units.

The point in that example is that people don't need to know much about a game to enjoy it. Morale/fatigue and other subtle things could be like all the units in Starcraft that are used mostly by hardcore gamers.

What delights me the most is finding out that media sites and analysts don't think that CA's fantasy units are working. Hopefully, they'll drop that idea and try something to attract mainstream audiences that doesn't actually detract from the game.

[afrit]

I mostly agree with Nelson.

I think MTW has a steep learning curve. Many of us forget how hard it was to win with MTW at first. For the first few dozen battles I really had trouble controlling my army and I lost most battles. I only improved when I started replaying quick battles over and over, looking at replays and reading the forums until I "got it". Nowadays I routinely win equal-army battles even on expert. But the learning involved is probably more than the average computer gamer is willing to invest. What CA fears is that a gamer would pick up RTW and then give up after a few days and go to something else.

So CA is obviously trying to flatten the learning a bit. For that they are :
1. Providing lots of in-game advice and help.
2. Differentiating the factions and pruning the tech and unit trees.
3. Trading historical accuracy for playability whenever necessary
4. Providing rewards for playing in the form of spectacular effects from historically inaccurate units. Hence scythed egyptian chariots, flaming pigs, berserkers (berserk is a viking word IIRC, not germanic) etc...
5. Starting with easy tutorial campaigns and senate mission assignments that ease the novice player into the game.
6. Improving the human interface (MTW's interface is truly lacking. Left click is used to select, move and attack, all in the heat of battle! I have yet to figure out how to use the shift-click for way points. You can make a walking unit Run but cannot make a running unit walk. Selected units are hard to spot etc. etc. ).


At the same time they are also striving to keep the game historically accurate to appeal to the History Channel crowd and this forum.

This is a tough balancing act. And I wish we knew more so that we can give them constructive criticism. I expect lots of options in RTW to fine tune play and performance. I fear that oversimplification and the use of certain units will ruin gameplay. But given CA's track record, I think we will be all right.

afrit

[Blodrast]

What CA fears is that a gamer would pick up RTW and then give up after a few days and go to something else.

afrit

without trying to criticize CA, I think you're not entirely on the right track here; I don't see why it should matter to them what the gamer does with the game after a few days, as long as he bought the game.
Companies don't care for replayability that much; what keeps them alive and makes them prosper is the number of sales, which is a one-time event. If the gamer never even plays the game, it makes no difference to them as long as they sold it.

just being a bit cynical here, ofc, but i'm afraid that it's quite true.

[Oaty]

without trying to criticize CA, I think you're not entirely on the right track here; I don't see why it should matter to them what the gamer does with the game after a few days, as long as he bought the game.
Companies don't care for replayability that much; what keeps them alive and makes them prosper is the number of sales, which is a one-time event. If the gamer never even plays the game, it makes no difference to them as long as they sold it.

just being a bit cynical here, ofc, but i'm afraid that it's quite true.




Nope they do'nt care about replay at all your completely right oh wait whats that an expansion pack for RTW

[Blodrast]

heh, now don't take it wrong: all companies do it, and to some extent it's probably normal, if not necessary. They survive by making money, they make money by selling games, period. the more sales, the more money. Everybody's happy.
Of course if you come out with a crappy no-good game, and then again, and again, next time nobody's gonna buy it. But in particular I'm quite happy with MTW and I'm definitely drooling with anticipation for RTW :jumping:

[afrit]

I think a lot of people buy a game because of word of mouth (their friend likes it and plays it all the time) or internet reputation or reviews. WHich all amount to the same thing: a player's opinion of the game.

So whether someone plays the game after they bought *IS* important, IMHO.

Afrit

[spmetla]

Right now there's probably some chum up in marketing going "I told you it was too real, I wanted combat snakes and barrel chucking gorillas, if only you had listened to me!"

[andrewt]

Companies should care what customers think of their games after they buy it. Word of mouth is very important in just about everything and good word of mouth will beat any form of advertising anytime, anywhere. They should also care because expansions make more money on the time and resources spent versus the original game. Making the graphics engine, physics engine, etc., etc. takes up most of the time. Making new unit skins and animations are easy compared to the underlying mechanisms.

I disagree about the learning curve. I easily picked up Shogun. The problem with me initially with MTW was that I had no idea which units were good for this and that. The numbers were very helpful in Shogun. I easily picked up which units were for attack, for defense, etc. In MTW, it was much more difficult comparing units. I got slaughtered many times in my initial campaign because I had a hard time estimating how much troop strength I really needed.

[Puzz3D]

The game is very impressive, but let's face it the combat animations are silly and repetative. They have a very obvious limitation of animation frames which makes the motions seem robotic. (The game looks like "Attack of the Clones".) No one parries a thrust. The men just stand there taking turns whacking at each other until one falls down. Only one whack allowed until the other guy gets his chance to whack back. There is no visible damage on the armor, helmet or shield. No one gets cut. No one gets impaled with a spear or slashed with a sword. No one looses a limb. You don't see anyone with an arrow in them or in their shield. You don't even see an arrow in the bow or in the ground. Exploding projectiles make it look like 19th century warfare. History channel says the hoplites interlocked shields, and then they show RTW and it clearly doesn't have that feature modelled. The phalanx doesn't fight properly by pushing forward with the shield. The flash site is obviously edited so you see a thrust or slash and then a quick cut to a sceen of a man falling to or lying on the ground. You don't see the actual contact of weapon to body, and there probably isn't any actual contact occuring. The game looks more real from a distance. Zooming in reveals just how far away from reality the game really is despite the 3D polygon men.

I'll buy the game and play it, but I'll also be embarrased to admit to anyone I know that I play a game that is obviously primarily aimed at the early teens age group. I had a couple of people I know sit down and watch the Decisive Battles program, and I had to apologize that I had asked them to watch something that was so fake looking.

[CBR]

The 3D graphics are great for short vids or screenshots. But in the end it wont matter that much, as most people wont zoom in like that when actually playing.

Its funny how the battle engine now has been used in two historical tv shows and how the missing stuff are highlighted.. no shieldwall, no overhand spears, Romans slashing more than stabbing etc. But at least we got burning pigs ~:joker:


CBR

[Steppe Merc]

Why are they so stupid? Common! Now you made me get all agnry right after I got home! ~:angry: Is it really that bad to have a difficult game? Huge reviews are coming in for that xbox game, Full Spectrum Warrior... and while I don't have it, from what I read it's hardly 'easy'. Any CA people reading this: don't dumb it down any more, please! You did well with STW and MTW because of the realism, not by making it stupid!

[lonewolf371]

I'm shocked that they could even possibly conceive of calling STW or MTW "hardcore" if that means that CA is going to make RTW "easy" I'm dreadfully frightened. Even as is MTW once you got the hang of it was so easy, the AI being so retarded allowed you to flank, bombard, stab and shoot to your heart's content. Hopefully they will still manage to keep all the base values of the other two games and increase the AI, that's my greatest hope, next being historical accuracy.

OT: Sorry if this has been asked before but isn't the Eastern Infantry highly innaccurate? I noticed they had purple clothing and thought that purple dye during ancient times was very expensive and not affordable to the masses, yet it is still the most prevalent color among them in this game.

[andrewt]

Another good example is Ninja Gaiden. That game is awesome and the difficulty is just right. It forces you to get better at the game and be more methodical rather than just button mashing your way to the end. It scored very high in reviews but just about all of them were complaining of the difficulty. It took me a few tries to beat the first few levels but once I learned how to block, roll and not button mash my attacks, the game wasn't that hard at all.

Games have become really sissified (yes, I'm making up this word) ever since the PSX, Saturn 32-bit era. That's the reason I'm playing mostly PC games right now since some actually have depth and some difficulty.