Shogun's response to patch campaign [Archive]

View Full Version : Shogun's response to patch campaign

screwtype

04-12-2005, 09:36

Shogun has responded to the "patch campaign" over at the com.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=24704.topic

HarunTaiwan

04-12-2005, 10:01

I don't think you should post about the com here at org...The mods have (rightly) said many times that other forums aren't a good topic.

I think we all know the campaign got their attention. There's about 50 NEW reviews by now - if the same response happens to their XP they will be in trouble - so for their sakes I hope they won't fight their own customers and instead do proper QA and think about after-sales service.

I encourage everyone to review the game: positive, negative, however they want - it can only help consumers and offer valuable feed-back to CA.

I'm in manufacturing myself, and personally, I almost like to see negative feedback on my products, because then I can fix a problem that probably has affected way more people than I realize. Also, you can see what bothers the consumer - not always what you think.

screwtype

04-12-2005, 10:23

I don't think you should post about the com here at org...The mods have (rightly) said many times that other forums aren't a good topic.

This is not a thread about the com. It's about Shogun's response to the patch campaign, which I'm sure will be of interest to the org community.

Vlad Tzepes

04-12-2005, 10:40

I also think Shogun's response is a legitimate matter of debate at the .org.

There is one really interesting twist in Shogun's post:

The Shogun:

"I see absolutely no reason to let individuals who are set on damaging the TW series (no matter how good their declared intentions) continue posting here. Why would we encourage such behaviour on a board that we pay to keep running? Continued destructive posting will result in the individuals concerned being banned."

I do not surf a lot the .com, so I can only imagine what "destructive posting" should mean.

But if it's only about opinions, then I don't think that these should be conditioned - positively or negatively - by a "we pay for what we want to listen, so start singing" philosophy. It kind of worries me that somebody at CA can think like this.

Of course there has been a lot of criticism lately towards RTW, but there is also a lot of praising. As always, the truth might be somewhere at the middle, and I assume CA and Activision are able to correctly identify where truth stands in this controversy. :bow:

HarunTaiwan

04-12-2005, 10:41

Hmmmm, good point on the thread.

Regarding CA/Sega figuring out "the truth"

There is only one truth, and that is if you anger your customer or damage your own reputation in any way (be it your fault or not) there are often consequences.

Read through this article about campus IT service and see if anythings fit the current situation. See if any of their suggestions have been implemented.

http://staff.valpo.edu/myohe/papers/02repu/02repud.htm

Kraxis

04-12-2005, 10:54

Honestly would you allow people to actively campaign against you on your forum? I can't see why CA has to put up with that. Yeah they won't patch it, but that doesn't make it a right to be allowed to work against them. No honest company would allow that.
You would also get kicked out of a store if you tried to do the same thing there. Where is the difference?

Now I might not agree with how this is handled but I see the Shogun as tied on both hands here.

HarunTaiwan

04-12-2005, 11:01

Kraxis,

Many companies now specifically have websites and forums for people to complain about their products so they can catch problems and fix them.

If you have any kind of campaign against your company aside from a lone crazy, you've alienated customers somehow and should review your policies.

I would welcome anyone interested in this topic to check out last week's Economist's - about how the internet makes consumer the King.

Catiline

04-12-2005, 11:11

so long as it's a reasoned discussion on what CA have stated this is fine for discussion. as has been pointed out stay clear of discussing .com.

Divinus Arma

04-12-2005, 13:13

I don't think you should post about the com here at org...The mods have (rightly) said many times that other forums aren't a good topic.

I saw this and had to reply. I respectfully disagree.

The TW community is just that: a community. Conversation should be held about any and all matters as the community sees fits. There will always be discussions that some do not care for or see constructive. Can you imagine if TosaInu posted a giant announcement "no talking about the com or you may be banned!"

Instead, in the context of the TW patch and fan concerns, It is my opinion that criticisim be constructive. I don't mean polite, I don't mean cordial, I don't mean butt-kissing. I just mean that "RTW sucks and all you who play it are losers" or similar comments are not productive criticism. Similarly. comments about the com should be productive as well.

Oh and by the way: You're all a bunch of freakin whiners! RTW is the best game of all time so go eat s*** and die! YARRRAAGRGHHHHH!!!

(yes that was a joke)

Divinus Arma

04-12-2005, 13:17

as has been pointed out stay clear of discussing .com.

Really... hmm. Is this a forum rule or something? I must have missed something here. Not being sarcastic.

Vlad Tzepes

04-12-2005, 15:59

Honestly would you allow people to actively campaign against you on your forum? I can't see why CA has to put up with that.

I work in a media company.

This company has a web site and, of course, a forum for viewers. Of course the company pays for the site.

You should see what people have to say when they do not like a certain programme. :furious3: Wow. Criticism towards RTW is nothing compared to that.

On the other hand, this company i work for never witnessed a coordinated campaign against any of it's programmes, like this one against RTW. Again, :bow:

Bhruic

04-12-2005, 16:14

I guess it all comes down to what a "destructive post" is in his mind. If they started banning anyone who posted negatively, I'd find that extremely distasteful. But if they are merely banning people who are trying to campaign against them (via the Amazon route or others), then I can see their point.

Bh

Old Celt

04-12-2005, 16:37

I can see their point in that no one likes to have such unpleasantness to deal with. I disagree that banning and censorship is the best way to deal with this kind of problem. Unless people are being obscene or woefully ridiculous with no backup to their arguments, I believe such conversation SHOULD be had, and the arguments refuted publicly.

I wish CA would respond with whatever evidence they have to say there is no bug. When people suggested the problem could be avoided by letting the program run long term in the background, a CA staffer responded with insinuation that it would be ridiculous to do that, like avoiding stepping on cracks in the sidewalk. This whole thing begins to feel like a conversation with a debtor and a collection agency. The customers are the collection agency, and CA is in the role of debtor. They don't seem to want to speak with us, but not much progress can be made unless they do.

Catiline

04-12-2005, 17:00

I should prehaps clarify - discussion of .com is in principle fine. There is a significant danger that any discussion of .com brings their problems here. .com patrons are welcome, .com issues are not.

Satyr

04-12-2005, 17:00

It appears that they are just deleting threads that have anything to say about the the lousy AI, the reload bug, and the lack of another patch. Oh well, all we can really do is hope that CA has learned a good lesson and the next game is much improved over Rome. Signing with Sega may be the first sign that CA realized they had a serious problem with Activision and the 2 patch deal. Let's hope so.

Bhruic

04-12-2005, 17:11

When people suggested the problem could be avoided by letting the program run long term in the background, a CA staffer responded with insinuation that it would be ridiculous to do that, like avoiding stepping on cracks in the sidewalk.

No, that was Killem54 (or whatever his nick is). He's a moderator, but that's his only affiliation with CA (ie, he doesn't work for them). I have no idea how he became a moderator, as his posting style is, well, I'll be generous and call it "annoying". Moderators should be tactful, but he more often pours oil on the fire than tries to douse it.

The moderators here are a much nicer crew. ~;)

Bh

Mikeus Caesar

04-12-2005, 18:42

The moderators here are a much nicer crew.

Indeed. They let you talk about almost whatever you want, without any threat of intimidation, leading to a relaxed atmosphere.

Catiline

04-12-2005, 18:48

THe praise is lovely gents, but if you want to give us a pat on the collective head do it in the Watchtower and lets get this thread back on topic please.

red comyn

04-12-2005, 19:52

With regards to the com, it is run by CA but should be run for the benefit of the comsumer. As long as the post are resonable and constructive and not multiple topics on the same subject then they shouldnt be blocking threads. I for one didnt got there very often until all the chat on here saying how bad they were being for locking threads. If they were deleting them it wouldnt look so bad, but all you could see for a while was a row of padlocks down the side of the board. Which I belive leads new or prospective customers to ask "what they hiding". Which will damage there reputation / profits more than if they just stated what the facts were. If they cant afford the time or personel to fix the flaws in the game then say so. Would others and not just myself have more time/respect for them if they said "look sorry guys we screwed up".

A.Saturnus

04-12-2005, 19:53

Many companies now specifically have websites and forums for people to complain about their products so they can catch problems and fix them.

Complain? yes, campagning to damage the company economically? hardly

Accept it, there won't be another patch whatever you do and the reason is simple: Activision can't win anything with it. Total War is now - since CA belongs to Sega now - a dead end for Activision. Why should they support it any further? CA and Activision are competitors now, they will fulfill existing contracts and nothing more.

red comyn

04-12-2005, 20:00

Activision can't win anything with it. Total War is now - since CA belongs to Sega now - a dead end for Activision. Why should they support it any further? CA and Activision are competitors now, they will fulfill existing contracts and nothing more.

Why should they support it?, activision has nothing to gain, CA and sega have both things to gain and even more to lose if they dont support it. The good will and support of the people who buy there product, both now and in the future, however the compnay politics work out its the CA company name and the total war brand that will be damamged unless people are in some way satisfied.

Old Celt

04-12-2005, 20:05

Well, here's a novel solution to the problem:

SEGA could invest the peanuts it would take to fix the known serious issues! OR

CA could just factor the cost of the patch material into the X pack. We're paying the whole freight on that one, so money is no excuse at all. The coding has to be done anyway. The only expense would be for QA and patch delivery construction. They could tap the hundreds of willing players on this and other forums to get all the beta testing they could possibly want-- for FREE!

OR

CA could work OT and fix this on their own. Devs are salaried, it's not like they'd be working for nothing. Other companies (e.g. Blizzard) do this all the time without crying it will break them, or they need money from the publisher.

That's 3 solutions in less than 5 minutes of thought. You know what that tells me? It tells me there are WAYS to solve this, just not any WILL to solve it.

There will be a patch. It's just a matter of whether we call it an expansion pack or not, pay for it ourselves or not, and get it soon, or sometime in "late 2005".

Colovion

04-12-2005, 20:16

Ridiculous. He's basically saying

"the product is shit. we know it. we know you know it. it's too expensive for us to make our product resemble a status superior to fecal matter. deal with it or get the fuck out."

let's all take stock of the reactions to overwhelming opinions of people who play this game and understand that money runs the world and people don't give a flying fuck if something is sub-par because in the end if there's no money in doing something then it won't get done

you win again capitalism

damnit

Quietus

04-12-2005, 21:07

Complain? yes, campagning to damage the company economically? hardly Criticism is one thing, sabotage is another.

Old Celt

04-12-2005, 21:16

Criticism is one thing, sabotage is another.

What exactly are you getting at? I see such terms as "guerilla warfare", and "perpetrators" being thrown around pretty loosely in Shogun's rant. It would be nice if he would have been specific about the nature of his accusations.

If he is refering to reviews being written about RTW, then I don't agree with him. People have every right to rate things as they choose, provided they can back up their statements. I don't consider harsh reviews to be any more of an attack on CA, then I would a harsh movie review to be an attack on Paramount. If people don't agree with what is said in a review, they are free to review themselves and set things straight as they see them. That's freedom of speech in action.

Colovion

04-12-2005, 21:24

Dear Shogun

If you don't like seeing people complaining about the game then you've chosen the wrong forum to moderate. Reality check. Your hopes of a candy and flowers forum don't coincide with the reality of a large number of unsatisfied people in the community. It's disconcerting to see that closed-minded and ignorant people such as yourself are in a position of authority. I hope you can accept the fact that people have opinions and feel the need to share them with others. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

Sincerely,

A devoted member of the Total War Community.

Bel

04-12-2005, 21:25

Well, one thing we know about CA is they're not the biggest fans of free speech or dissent. Everything written in those reviews is true, if they think the truth reflects poorly on them, their game, and their reputations they are finally correct about something. It does.

Crazed Rabbit

04-12-2005, 22:00

I bought this game, paid good money for it.

Now, I say there's a problem with their product, and their response is "We don't want to listen to your complaints. Anyone else complaining will be banned. Get out, then come back and buy the XP when its out."

Well, I won't buy your XP pack then, and you can moderate an empty forum all you want, striking down invisible flamers and locking all threads not praising you.

Crazed Rabbit

aphex

04-12-2005, 22:13

I've been an active part in the loadgame threads over there, but I just can't agree with the way it's gone external in this anti-CA bugfix crusade...
IMO, it would have been a lot more contained if ye olde Killemall moderator hadn't inflamed the situation several times.
Still... maybe his posts were meant to inflame so the thread could be 'legally' R&R'd..?

Bhruic

04-12-2005, 22:19

marcusbrutus

04-12-2005, 22:47

CA have a fair point when they say that they arn't making another patch because it's not up to them. The suits only care about the bottom line ~;) .

Everyone who bought the game has a fair point that it should do what it says on the tin. I want a challenging game, not a challenge to play the game for as long as possible without loading :furious3: .

I hope the expansion pack fixes the 'statistical fluke' and I'll find out because I'll buy it because I really enjoy playing Total War.

All in all, Total War rocks and I don't care that it's broken, all my best toys get broken and I dont care! It's MORE of a challenge for eagle eye action man can't see what's next to him :dizzy2:

Sorry lost it a bit.

Puzz3D

04-12-2005, 22:59

Most people are satisfied with the RTW. Those that are unsatisfied are in the minority, and would do well to understand that they're debating from a minority position. If a minority becomes too demanding they will be locked out.

The one patch policy is nothing new. (I don't count v1.1 because that was an emergency fix for MP.) This is how all the games in the series have been handled going all the way back to the first game: STW. It would have been unprecidented for CA to make a v1.3 patch. One patch has never solved all the problems in these games, so you end up buying the second patch in the form of an add-on. The problem for me is that I no longer believe that CA will address the remaining issues to my satifaction even in the add-on. It just too obvious now that CA is not trying to maintain a high level of quality in the gameplay. The fact that many things in the game don't work as they should seems to be ok with CA, ok with the majority of the players and ok with the professional reviewers. It's only a minority of the players who would like to see the game come close to its potential.

Colovion

04-12-2005, 22:59

Asking the mods of the forum to allow threads aimed at hurting the image of RTW is a little silly, imo. It's like asking a store owner to let you in his store to hand out flyers asking people to boycott his store. If you want to stand outside the store (ie, public property, in this case, create your own forum), by all means, do so. But expecting him to cooperate is just asking too much.

While I think this crackdown may be going too far in suppressing opinions of the game, I would, in their position, be doing the same thing. Except I'd have booted "Killemall" from the mod team for his flagarant exacerbation of the situation.

Bh

I see your point, seeing as it is the main site and all.

However, (and you knew there had to be one) the least they could do is setup one single thread that says "List your Gripes Here" and close all seperate threads.

A community that is discouraged from posting their concerns on the official website is going to find somewhere else (The Amazon ordeal). Would CA rather have people posting in their main site, where they can control it, or in a public area? Sounds like they've made their choice and they can't understand why no one likes it.

SpencerH

04-12-2005, 23:16

It's been repeatedly stated the Amazon campaign and its results are not up for discussion - Cat

Satyr

04-12-2005, 23:17

After having exchanged a couple emails with one of the staff at CA I think the problem is one of lack of communications from CA and the fact that CA can't fix the problem because of Activision. Even if they wanted to distribute another patch I don't think they can. Rome belongs to Activision and I don't think anything will be different until the first game or expansion is released under Sega. If after that happens and CA fails to deliver a decent game or reasonable patches I will abandon CA all together. Till then I will maintain hope that they do GET it but can't do anything other than what they are doing.

Ab Urbe Condita

04-12-2005, 23:57

I see your point, seeing as it is the main site and all.

However, (and you knew there had to be one) the least they could do is setup one single thread that says "List your Gripes Here" and close all seperate threads.

A community that is discouraged from posting their concerns on the official website is going to find somewhere else (The Amazon ordeal). Would CA rather have people posting in their main site, where they can control it, or in a public area? Sounds like they've made their choice and they can't understand why no one likes it.

As far as I can tell, the Shogun has only promised to ban people "set on damaging the TW series." You make it sound like he's vowed to ban anyone who comes to the forums with a complaint.

Gregoshi

04-13-2005, 02:17

1) A few of us need to watch the language.

2) I thought Cat and Nelson made it clear that the Org forums were not to be used to sling insult or abuse at CA and its Org patrons. We wouldn't allow someone to say such a thing to you. Why would we allow you to say it to others?

Colovion

04-13-2005, 03:25

As far as I can tell, the Shogun has only promised to ban people "set on damaging the TW series." You make it sound like he's vowed to ban anyone who comes to the forums with a complaint.

Well no, I didn't mean that you'd get banned for complaining - but that the thread would be locked and/or deleted rather quickly if there was a new person coming with a complaint about near anything.

Valid complaints can't be heard/posted on the official site anymore because they've all been heard already. Doesn't that seem a little strange? The mods probably think it is getting rather old with people complaining about the poor quality of the game without very much other substantial threads besides ones pleading for improvement, hence the lockage. However, that very reality speaks volumes about what the people who are enthusiastic about this game are concerned about.

:help:

Crazed Rabbit

04-13-2005, 03:54

I'm sorry.

I got carried away in my anger at their patronization. I have edited the post.

Crazed Rabbit

hoom

04-13-2005, 07:00

For quoting whats in my sig I was accused here by a CA staff member of being destructive.

I've been playing Medieval since.
Why? Because my N.I. (natural intelligence) decided that indeed I would be better off doing something other than playing RTW.

Many did it before me and many will do it after but all because they are not satisfied.

Fundamentally as I see it CA themselves & Activision are doing the most damage to the TW series by poor design decisions and long term poor support.

I have not partaken in campaigns against CA just argued for better support.

starkhorn

04-13-2005, 07:01

IMO, it would have been a lot more contained if ye olde Killemall moderator hadn't inflamed the situation several times.
Still... maybe his posts were meant to inflame so the thread could be 'legally' R&R'd..?

I agree that the whole review thing on amazon probably wouldn't have happened if the moderation and communication had been handled better. I don't understand though how they can lock and ban people from making posts disagreeing with shogun, whilst leaving threads open that agree with them.

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=24780.topic

Even more strange was I had seen a post after Killemall's post which basically said "isn't this double standards ?" which appears to have been deleted.

Doing stuff like that has only inflamed the situation (as Aphex said) leading to the whole amazon and email campaign thing.

Shame that moderation policies got in the way of game issues.

Cheers
Starkhorn

screwtype

04-13-2005, 10:35

The problem for me is that I no longer believe that CA will address the remaining issues to my satifaction even in the add-on. It just too obvious now that CA is not trying to maintain a high level of quality in the gameplay. The fact that many things in the game don't work as they should seems to be ok with CA, ok with the majority of the players and ok with the professional reviewers. It's only a minority of the players who would like to see the game come close to its potential.

You know, I have to take issue with that. CA spent four years developing this game! That is hardly what you'd expect from a company that doesn't care about its products.

More likely Activision blew the whistle and forced them to release before it was quite ready. Either that or the code has just proven too complex to fix. But I don't think one can assume they don't care about their games or their customers. After all, they've given us five great games and expansion packs, most of which have been very well received.

I just hope that when it comes to the XP, they have paid attention to some of the criticisms of RTW, particularly the complaints about quick battles and the less than ideal campaign and battle AI. If they fix these things, and also design it to be as moddable as possible, then I can probably live with a few minor bugs ~:)

ElmarkOFear

04-13-2005, 10:53

I think it all comes down to the market RTW was targeted to. CA wanted to attract the massive "casual gamer" market and they did.

Casual gamers do not find a lot of "bugs" and are less apt to recognize them or feel they ruin the gaming experience. They do not really get very "deep" into the mechanics of the game, and just play to enjoy the grandeur and spectacle of it all.

Hardcore fans, DO find a lot of problems, which they consider bugs, but which the much larger "casual gamer" market feels are inconsequential.

The same could be said for the MP community. It was not the market RTW was targeted to, so there was less emphasis placed on it and more on the "wow" factors and "feel" of the single-player game.

Since we are not the target market, I can understand CA's decision to not to waste resources on us and make changes which will not increase the satisfaction of the main, and larger target market.

I have also come to understand over the past 4+ years, that it will always be that way, until CA decides to target the MP market or the hardcore fanbase. I am waiting on that day, and will then buy into the TW series once more, but not until I am sure it offers what I am looking for in a game.

screwtype

04-13-2005, 11:00

After having exchanged a couple emails with one of the staff at CA I think the problem is one of lack of communications from CA and the fact that CA can't fix the problem because of Activision.

Aw heck you exchanged emails with a CA staff member and didn't post them here? How inconsiderate ~;)

I have to agree though, from what I've read they have a contract with Activision and they can't release another patch unless Activision agrees, which they apparently don't.

So I'm inclined to think that if there's going to be some sort of campaign, it should probably be directed toward Activision rather than CA or gaming mags.

Even if they wanted to distribute another patch I don't think they can. Rome belongs to Activision and I don't think anything will be different until the first game or expansion is released under Sega.

Again I tend to agree, except that I heard the XP is stll under contract to Activision, though I don't know if that's true.

If after that happens and CA fails to deliver a decent game or reasonable patches I will abandon CA all together. Till then I will maintain hope that they do GET it but can't do anything other than what they are doing.

Yes, I can overlook the flaws in RTW if we see a substantial improvement in the XP. As I said to another poster, RTW shows all the signs of being rushed to market prematurely. I'm hoping that with the XP we will see the polish that was lacking in RTW. I'll be very disappointed if we get the same old game with nothing more than a new map and units. But CA has dropped a few hints here and elsewhere that that will not be the case ~:)

screwtype

04-13-2005, 11:19

I think it all comes down to the market RTW was targeted to. CA wanted to attract the massive "casual gamer" market and they did.

Yes, they wanted to appeal to a broader market, and there's nothing wrong with that, except that I think they went too far in the direction of dumbing things down.

Surely it couldn't be all that hard to offer a comprehensive list of options as in games like Imperialism II or Panzer 3D. In those games, you can set virtually every variable to suit yourself, or just pick from a variety of presets. There's no reason I can see with a game like RTW that they couldn't design it the same way, to appeal to both the RTS crowd and the tactical/strategy buffs. Or perhaps even better, make the game as moddable as possible so the mods can create just the game they want.

I realize of course that modding won't be a solution for the MP crowd. I sympathize, but since I'm not an MP'er this is not something that affects me.

HarunTaiwan

04-13-2005, 11:27

Companies that care about quality and reputation pay attention to the small details and keep the hardcore customers as happy as possible.

Just as an example, the scarred general bug - it's unfathomable that someone playing a Roman faction for 4 hours straight would never notice all the "Scarface" "Cruelly Scarred" family members popping up after 1.2 patch was released.

I think even a casual gamer would start being annoyed at this - I know I had several generals all named Scarface. ha ha - isn't that funny - the first time.

Lucky for CA, they can rely on hardcore customers to fix this stuff for them...but what happens when they drive those people away?

Now, I hope CA can talk with Sega before they launch the next TW, and explain that there will need to more after-sales service and support. They should be using the experience frm RTW to push for this. (Lemon into Lemonade.)

screwtype

04-13-2005, 11:44

Actually, I have to agree with you that some of the bugs are so obvious it's unfathomable how they were missed. In my first few hours of playing RTW 1.0, I found so many bugs I could scarcely believe my eyes.

Also, they didn't fix all the bugs the community listed before 1.2. The broken pathfinding in cities is one that comes to mind. I'm sure there were others, but I no longer have the original list.

Anyhow, I have to agree with you that CA needs a more flexible patch policy. A game like RTW is obviously too complex to be limited to just two patches.

Puzz3D

04-13-2005, 12:34

You know, I have to take issue with that. CA spent four years developing this game! That is hardly what you'd expect from a company that doesn't care about its products.

More likely Activision blew the whistle and forced them to release before it was quite ready. Either that or the code has just proven too complex to fix. But I don't think one can assume they don't care about their games or their customers. After all, they've given us five great games and expansion packs, most of which have been very well received.

I just hope that when it comes to the XP, they have paid attention to some of the criticisms of RTW, particularly the complaints about quick battles and the less than ideal campaign and battle AI. If they fix these things, and also design it to be as moddable as possible, then I can probably live with a few minor bugs ~:)
I didn't say they don't care about the game. I said they are not interested in maintaining a high level of quality in the gameplay. That's why they don't see something like the loadgame issue or fast battles as issues that should be addressed. Of course, CA isn't one person, but some key proqrammers who were interested in gameplay left before RTW was released. You can readily see the shift away from gameplay in RTW.

Cendre

04-13-2005, 12:38

I think Shogun's response is a good thing, it acknowledges that CA is concerned with people campaining against their game.
Industry in general is getting more and more driven by profitability, revenue is increased at the expense of quality. QA is considered a cost to a product not an asset to it's making. If a company knows it's selling a faulty product but believes it can get away with it, it won't hesitate to release it, the only driving factor is increased short term revenue.
So when a company realises there's enough people out there unhappy with the product to the point where it could impact future sales, what they do is either improve product or lose a big chunk of profitability.
For those people who complain about other customers 'smearing at RTW', I only have to say to them that if everyone adopted their attitude to faulty products then everything we'd buy would be total junk...
I think even if CA doesn't release a patch the message as sunk in and they'll make sure their next product fixes the existing bugs, I'm sure there will be new bugs and news debates but I hope there will also be a better emphasis on QA and customer support.
Oh, and for all the companies who continue decreasing support for increased profitability, I just wish you all to go bust...

Zawath

04-13-2005, 12:55

The expansion pack is coming in September. It's not wise to spend months doing a new patch for RTW, when they can concentrate on the expansion, which should fix most of the bugs.

screwtype

04-13-2005, 13:11

I didn't say they don't care about the game. I said they are not interested in maintaining a high level of quality in the gameplay. That's why they don't see something like the loadgame issue or fast battles as issues that should be addressed.

Admittedly it's possible to draw that conclusion ~:) Certainly I agree that those issues you mention - and others, like the campaign/battle AI - ought to be fixed.

However, if CA has a contract with Activision, and Activision will (a) not provide money for QA and (b) not allow CA to release a patch that hasn't been tested by Activision's QA, then CA's hands are tied, it seems to me.

Look, I understand the frustration of people on this board, and I'm unhappy with the situation too, but I'm willing to give CA the benefit of the doubt until I see (or rather, read about) the quality of the XP. If the XP also turns up with obvious issues, I won't be buying it until they are fixed, and if they aren't fixed at all, I might go buy a piano instead ~:)

Bhruic

04-13-2005, 16:16

The expansion pack is coming in September. It's not wise to spend months doing a new patch for RTW, when they can concentrate on the expansion, which should fix most of the bugs.

Yes, because everyone knows that after buying a game, you then have to pay more money to buy an expansion to get the bugs fixed in the game. :rolleyes:

Bh

red comyn

04-13-2005, 18:35

To put a slight (lmao) tilt on this, you have the same right to customer service with this product as any other.

Lets take a car for a bigger example. You buy one it dives, but the handling is very poor as the suspension is missing, it wont do over 20 miles an hour, the electric windows dont work and the engine cuts out sometimes.

You take it back but it comes back now does 30 suspension is there so handels better but electric windows now go up and down everytime you turn it on engine still cuts out.

So you take it back again and are told by the dealership that they have a strict one go at fixing it policy as anything else would impact on there profits, but if you wait for them to develop a new engine they will let you buy one from them, which should also fix the windows.

Ok bit big, cars cost lots more than RTW so lets go for a television, cheap on from one of those 24hr tescos. So you get it home just in time to watch corrie. But it switches itself off only half the channnels work, and youve got to rest all the channels. So it goes back to the maker, it comes back its on all the time, but youve still got to reset all the channels and some still dont work, but there is a note saying that this is a feature of the televisonnot a problem so ther not going to fix it.

Now everytime you try and ring there call center they tell you your not allowed to discuss the matter as it might make them look bad and bar your number so you cant call back.

Im sure we could come up with relevent examples, phones for instance and the recenly withdeawn sony eriksson k700i for instance, or any other product you care to mention. I know these are extreme examples but seams to be what CA are telling us, and as a consumer you wouldnt stand for it with any other product, just because this one cost you less dosnt mean it shouldnt do what it is ment to.

ElmarkOFear

04-13-2005, 19:48

Harun: Actually, for the casual gamer, which is probably the majority of players of RTW, they wouldn't notice the scar problem, since they do not delve that deeply into the game to even check for general's bonuses.

I know when I first started playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri game, I played it as a casual gamer to start out and enjoyed it very much. I put it away, and several months later, I broke the game out and actually decided to take a lot of time to learn its nuances. My enjoyment increased and I found out I had missed out on a great many things which I never noticed when playing it casually.

This is more than likely the cause of the big difference of opinion between the groups. What you hardcore players take for granted as obvious, is not obvious to casual gamers and not a big deal for them since they enjoy the game for other reasons.

I understand your frustration. I have had 5 years of the same for the MP side of the game. But I realize that RTW MP is more enjoyable for the casual gamer (which the game is targeted for), and not as popular with the hardcore MP community. I resigned myself to waiting for an MP-focused TW game. Until then I will wait to purchase another TW game.

ShellShock

04-13-2005, 20:18

To put a slight (lmao) tilt on this, you have the same right to customer service with this product as any other.

Lets take a car for a bigger example. You buy one it dives, but the handling is very poor as the suspension is missing, it wont do over 20 miles an hour, the electric windows dont work and the engine cuts out sometimes.

You take it back but it comes back now does 30 suspension is there so handels better but electric windows now go up and down everytime you turn it on engine still cuts out.

So you take it back again and are told by the dealership that they have a strict one go at fixing it policy as anything else would impact on there profits, but if you wait for them to develop a new engine they will let you buy one from them, which should also fix the windows.

...some more examples

Before we install the game we have to agree to an EULA that absolves Activision and CA of any responsibility. I think this is legally how they (any many other software companies) protect themselves - we the poor consumer have to agree to put up with any defects, or we have the choice of not installing the software, and presumably getting our money back (although I don't know if anyone has ever tried this after they have taken the CD out of the packaging).

Also the analogy with other products is not as straightforwards, as there are different degrees of fault. CA have said that the load siege bug is a design feature. We can imagine a car having many such "design features" that we do not like, but you would not be able to get the manufacturer to change them under warranty.

red comyn

04-13-2005, 20:49

Also the analogy with other products is not as straightforwards, as there are different degrees of fault. CA have said that the load siege bug is a design feature. We can imagine a car having many such "design features" that we do not like, but you would not be able to get the manufacturer to change them under warranty.

yes there may be many things that niggle about something that we may have liked done slightly differant, but what im saying is that if something else in another product affected it performance/usfulness as much as the A.I. stopping everything and restarting everytime you reload does then you wouldnt let the manafactuer/supplier just fob you off by telling you it was ment to be like that, so why should we here?

Old Celt

04-13-2005, 21:02

yes there may be many things that niggle about something that we may have liked done slightly differant, but what im saying is that if something else in another product affected it performance/usfulness as much as the A.I. stopping everything and restarting everytime you reload does then you wouldnt let the manafactuer/supplier just fob you off by telling you it was ment to be like that, so why should we here?

You shouldn't. To be quite objective about it, The Shogun's statement never actually uses the word "feature". He rather refers to the AI behavior as "reassessment" several times. My position is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a turkey doesn't make it not a duck.

But whatever you call it, we are right to speak up if we believe it hurts the quality of the game. I think there is a severe disconnect on that point. CA doesn't seem to understand that software performance which may not strictly fall into the definition of "bug" is still quite actionable if the public perceives it as a problem or undesireable.

ToranagaSama

04-13-2005, 21:08

IMUHO, the proble with CA and its 'Community' could be solved, if CA were to adopt a policy of greater communication and interaction. MORE than exists presently.

THE major problem with RTW is that CA failed to communicate and advise the Community regarding the direction they were taking RTW; and that "direction" was taken WITHOUT sufficient Community involvement!!!

*I* and, quite apparently, MANY others, particularly veterans, were SHOCKED, at what RTW turned out to be. I don't mean this in either a negative or postive, simply the fact of.... NOBODY KNEW!

Nobody knew how dramatically *different* an experience RTW would be in comparision to previous TW versions. Yeah, we saw screenshots of the Campaign Map, but, generally, that was about it! as far as we knew that was the major dramatic difference.

This, imuho, is where the animosity toward CA lies.

Lack of communication and involvement.

In the last decade or two there has been a whole business theory developed upon *Empowering Customers*.

I can't think of another industry, Computer Software, where listening and empowering your customers is more vital toward CONTINUING success.

It wasn't always this way. Gosh, I can remember when Shogn first came out. I had a problem getting the game to run properly (I don't remember the specifics) or something. I believe it had something to do with one of my firewalls or something.

I spoke DIRECTLY with Richie in the Strategy Newsgroup. We went back a forth a few times. He used the same firewall, problem found, problem solved, feedback absorbed. He was a great guy! This was before he worked directly for CA. In the early days, there were lots of such coversations between Org members and CA members.

To my eye, this sort of interaction and involvement has been on a declining course, to the point of who knew about RTW. Offhand, I'd say the devolvement began with the issue of Campaign Multiplay. When CA had problems delivering on that, they went quiet; and, IMO, if we hadn't badgered them they might never have talked to us about the issues.

---

The .com site was created to PROMOTE the game. No other reason. If the site no longer serves that purpose, time to end it; not indulde in censorship.

Additionally, the .com issue, again is one of their own making. From the outset, *they* let that site run wild!!! The manner and style of posting at the .com s/h been reigned in a LONG time ago.

So now they are reaping what they sowed. I would have suggested rather than resort to belated censorship, that they should have shut the site down and created a new one with new policies.

What's that saying, "Sorta like shutting the barn door after the animals have been let out (??)".

---

After having exchanged a couple emails with one of the staff at CA I think the problem is one of lack of communications from CA and the fact that CA can't fix the problem because of Activision. Even if they wanted to distribute another patch I don't think they can. Rome belongs to Activision and I don't think anything will be different until the first game or expansion is released under Sega. If after that happens and CA fails to deliver a decent game or reasonable patches I will abandon CA all together. Till then I will maintain hope that they do GET it but can't do anything other than what they are doing.

Sounds fine, but you know what the problem is?

We, that is we *Veterans*, have heard it allllllll BEFORE!

Before there was Activision, there was (if I recall the company correctly) Sierra, and the same Patch mantra was spoken by CA: "It's not up to us!".

Personally, I'm tired of the same ole song...

Other Developers take a different approach, why can't CA?

Is EVERY developer limited to a single patch?
Have other developers released *unofficial* patches?

Bel

04-13-2005, 21:13

Especially when a feature like Load Game does not actually load the game you left but instead ruins the game you left...

ShellShock

04-13-2005, 21:17

Bel

04-13-2005, 21:39

The usefulness of analogies is limited. Sometimes a thing is simply itself, and not like anything else.

I have another analogy for you.

I buy a DVD of a movie that has received good reviews. When I get it home I find that the disk is scratched and won't play, so I take it back to the shop and they are happy to give me a replacement.

However, once I get it home again and start watching the film, I begin to have doubts. There are some continuity problems that I can put up with - after all most people would not notice them, but the lead actor's supposed English accent is appalling; but he does make the most of his part, so I grudgingly accept that.

However, when the hero and the love interest finally get into space on their rocket ship...ohmigod what is this - the space ship is whizzing around like an aeroplane, and there is an almighty, thunderous explosion when they blow up the alien mothership. This is too much, totally unrealistic and I start an email campaign demanding the studio release a director's cut that is scientifically accurate.

Is this analogy any more helpful?

I often think so-called software engineering is much more an art than a science; the most fun I get out of programming for a living is when I can be creative. As an art, should we not compare software to other arts, and not harder disciplines? In many aspects, a large software game is created in a similar way to a movie, with visuals, audio, motion, animation, branding and marketing.

So, by your analogy there is no minimum acceptable standard of functional software? If Quicken did your books and got all your numbers wrong? If all your tetris pieces dropped through the floor making the game unplayable? An MMO that doesn't go online?

No, I do not consider this "Art". I spend good hard earned money for software to utilize the purpose of that software. I've read page 7 of the manual and it quite clearly states I can "load a previously saved game." However, in my previously saved game my sieges would not break off (I believe proven through numerous imperical data but I will concede the Shogun's philosophical argument that I cannot deductively know this, inductively it is quite clear however,) after a load the sieges break. It is not the same game. Thus I am mislead about a key function of this game putting its very playability into question

Old Celt

04-13-2005, 21:50

aphex

04-13-2005, 21:55

Hmmm... I think gameplay may have a more direct parallel with art.
And I guess speccing, measuring and testing it is an artform ;)

ShellShock

04-13-2005, 22:10

So, by your analogy there is no minimum acceptable standard of functional software? If Quicken did your books and got all your numbers wrong? If all your tetris pieces dropped through the floor making the game unplayable? An MMO that doesn't go online?

No, I do not consider this "Art". I spend good hard earned money for software to utilize the purpose of that software. I've read page 7 of the manual and it quite clearly states I can "load a previously saved game." However, in my previously saved game my sieges would not break off (I believe proven through numerous imperical data but I will concede the Shogun's philosophical argument that I cannot deductively know this, inductively it is quite clear however,) after a load the sieges break. It is not the same game. Thus I am mislead about a key function of this game putting its very playability into question

There is also a "SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT" on page 79 of the manual, which (if you can read the very small print, which I have trouble doing) limits the warranty to replacing the recording medium.

I sincerely wish that this wasn't the case, and that CA would see the light and issue a patch to fix this bug/feature/reassessment; I'm trying to point out that comparing RTW to other products does not necessarily add any weight to our case. IMHO, your analogies to Quicken, tetris and MMO are more extreme than the the RTW load bug, but this is purely a subjective judgement. For some people the load bug makes RTW unplayable, for others it does not. In your analogies the relevant software is unusable/unplayable for everyone.

Even in this situation, a license agreement such as the one that comes with RTW would probably protect the software supplier from having to do anything about the bug. Undoubtedly a spreadsheet that could not do it sums would not sell; but how much do we/CA/SEGA think TotalWar sales will be affected now and in the future by the lack of support? I suspect not very much, as the vast majority of buyers never visit forums like this, and would never realise that there was a bug that needed fixing in the first place.

Bhruic

04-13-2005, 22:19

There is also a "SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT" on page 79 of the manual, which (if you can read the very small print, which I have trouble doing) limits the warranty to replacing the recording medium.

You're talking about the legality of the situation, when I believe the rest of us are talking about the ethics of it. If it were legal to hang a dog by its neck and beat it with a stick, I don't think that would make it ethical.

In the same vein, the fact that legally speak, CA and Activision aren't required to support RTW doesn't make that the ethical choice. I think many of us would prefer to deal with a company that displayed ethics, when it comes to situations such as this.

Bh

Colovion

04-13-2005, 22:21

ethics have no place amongst the wolves of currency

red comyn

04-13-2005, 22:27

For some people the load bug makes RTW unplayable, for others it does not. In your analogies the relevant software is unusable/unplayable for everyone.

but how much do we/CA/SEGA think TotalWar sales will be affected now and in the future by the lack of support? I suspect not very much, as the vast majority of buyers never visit forums like this, and would never realise that there was a bug that needed fixing in the first place.

1. How can you class a bug (lets call a spade a spade) which changes the very nature of a game as anything other than unplayabe, it takes the difficulty out of the whole game. If every time you loaded the game it put 1,000,000 in your bank then would it ruin the aspect of developing your economy? of course it would, so how soes this differ?

2. This will be of course why people are taking other more extrene measures.

ShellShock

04-13-2005, 23:02

1. How can you class a bug (lets call a spade a spade) which changes the very nature of a game as anything other than unplayabe, it takes the difficulty out of the whole game. If every time you loaded the game it put 1,000,000 in your bank then would it ruin the aspect of developing your economy? of course it would, so how soes this differ?

I don't think this bug makes RTW unplayable, but it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it. That's why I use Windows hibernate so I do not have to reload. My point however is I think for the majority of people who bought the game it is not unplayable as they will not know the bug exists, never having visited one of the RTW forums. They may think the game is a bit easy, and wonder why...but that will be as far as it goes. If this bug made the game unplayable, then there would logically be no-one playing it, which is patently not the case (or the posters on the various forums must have very vivid imaginations).

I had played several campaigns (starting last September) before the community realised that there was a problem. By definition the game certainly was not unplayable for me during those campaigns.

Ignorance is bliss.

ShellShock

04-13-2005, 23:05

ethics have no place amongst the wolves of currency

Quite.

And sad but true.

Shambles

04-13-2005, 23:16

I don't think this bug makes RTW unplayable, but it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it. That's why I use Windows hibernate so I do not have to reload. My point however is I think for the majority of people who bought the game it is not unplayable as they will not know the bug exists, never having visited one of the RTW forums. They may think the game is a bit easy, and wonder why...but that will be as far as it goes. If this bug made the game unplayable, then there would logically be no-one playing it, which is patently not the case (or the posters on the various forums must have very vivid imaginations).

I had played several campaigns (starting last September) before the community realised that there was a problem. By definition the game certainly was not unplayable for me during those campaigns.

Ignorance is bliss.

By the same token,
I was also un aware of any bug, But stoped playing the game,

The battles were pale in comparison to Stw, So There was no real insentive for me to play custom or historical battles,

So i focused my efforts on the campaign,
The bugs Did make it unplayable, people lifiting seiges, after you saved,
and Factions that were at war with you would now accept alliance proposals,

This in turn made the campaing mode pointless, So seeing as i already owned a better game of the same style "STW"
I Did discontinue playing rome,

So i guess for Some pleople this game is unplayable,
I know this Becous i am 1 of those people

red comyn

04-14-2005, 00:29

Sorry shellshock my mistake for all my posts read unplayable as made so easy as for there to be no point in playing. I can see how people could enjoy it in the very short term, as they looked at the pretty things but surly as you settle into it you notice the flaws. If anyone really found playing with this feature I can post a link for a great fish shooting game - Small barrel II, this time you use a shotgun!

Bel

04-14-2005, 02:29

If one only has time to play the game in 1-2 turn spurts, this game is completely pointless to play. Anyone who says otherwise has never tried it.

Bel

04-14-2005, 03:01

MikeB's latest thoughts:

"Mongoose - this issue was never dismissed as a feature. I've just checked the Shogun's wording to make sure.

There's been an awful lot of stirring the pot on this one, I'm afraid, with people reading what they wanted to read into the Shogun's announcements rather than what was there. "

slackker

04-14-2005, 03:30

i'm actually tempted to go over and read the responses but i guess it will boil over to here ;) the title can be renamed: CA staff responses :book:

AggonyKing

04-14-2005, 03:41

fill me in, what patch campain?

Mouzafphaerre

04-14-2005, 03:44

-
Shogun does have valid points and not so valid ones. He has every right to defend all of them. However, as a forum "admin and CA staff", the arrogance in his style is unacceptible, which would still be tolerated were he a commoner.
The guerrilla tactics... individuals who are set on damaging the TW series (no matter how good their declared intentions)... on a board that we pay to keep running?No single person who sells a good or service can speak in this tone. The natural response of the customer starts with refusing to buy, ascends to as serious sanctions as boycoting and can reach the extremes at agitated overreactions. "...on a board that we pay..." You pay for that board, Shogun san, because hundreds of thousands have already paid you. Cheap semantics like this won't lead the devs or the community anywhere.

I'm sure that Shogun was having hard time controling his emotions at the time his post was made. That may sound like clearing his false style but I hope it won't repeat. This very individual writing this message has very recently taken one whole week off the ORG not to reply to a silly post at the Watchtower in a way that would do much more harm than good. People with key responsibilities like Shogun san should behave with much intenser attention than a bare forum regular in similar cases.

(Just to set everything straight, let me repeat my resident belief on game developpers' intentions of always making their games good. They are artists before all and their products are artistic creations. They never intentionally make bad or broken stuff.)

:bow:
-

Quietus

04-14-2005, 03:56

-
Shogun does have valid points and not so valid ones. He has every right to defend all of them. However, as a forum "admin and CA staff", the arrogance in his style is unacceptible, which would still be tolerated were he a commoner.No single person who sells a good or service can speak in this tone. The natural response of the customer starts with refusing to buy, ascends to as serious sanctions as boycoting and can reach the extremes at agitated overreactions. "...on a board that we pay..." You pay for that board, Shogun san, because hundreds of thousands have already paid you. Cheap semantics like this won't lead the devs or the community anywhere.

I'm sure that Shogun was having hard time controling his emotions at the time his post was made. That may sound like clearing his false style but I hope it won't repeat. This very individual writing this message has very recently taken one whole week off the ORG not to reply to a silly post at the Watchtower in a way that would do much more harm than good. People with key responsibilities like Shogun san should behave with much intenser attention than a bare forum regular in similar cases.

(Just to set everything straight, let me repeat my resident belief on game developpers' intentions of always making their games good. They are artists before all and their products are artistic creations. They never intentionally make bad or broken stuff.)

:bow:
-
Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

Kraxis

04-14-2005, 04:03

Morat

04-14-2005, 04:06

Sabotage is an awfully strong word to use. I've read many of the reviews and most of them explicitly say the reason for their rating. Admittedly not many will read this but still. I would also say that it is fair to take into account the support the product is given when giving a rating. CA have told us that they can only give us one real patch. That's not particularly good support. Even believing that the AI reassessment is in fact intentional rather than a flaw there are plenty of other bugs in the game that require fixing. Yet they cannot fix them. Until they do is it treacherous or destructive to say that the product is currently defective and the only way to get a will be able to get a faultless game is to purchase the expansion? I suggest not. If any actions are to be described in these terms it is CA and Activision's.

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 05:55

GAH!

If you read the reviews on Amazon, they are actually quite clear rather than foaming at the mouth rants. There are a couple of goofy ones, but overall you get the picture as a prospective buyer: lots of potential, flawed product, no support coming to fix the major remaining problems, wait for it to hit the bargain bin. Hmmm, that's short and sweet, I should write an actual review...

CA spurned its community, and some of the community are using what little leverage they have to fight back. If CA considers getting the word out "sabotage" then they have bigger problems. CA had plenty of opportunity to respond in a more positive manner on the major remaining problems. They didn't. Blaming the consumer isn't going to get them anywhere.

And those 5 star ratings at this point are absolute BS anyway. I rated it a 1 after reading some on the inane 5 star comments. I was going to give a 3, but I had an allergic reaction to some of the 5's.

And in closing... GAH!

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 06:00

Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

And it is posts like this that really irk me. Even if this were true (and calling it sabotage and blackmail is not accurate) if the campaign worked we should all be happy. Those of us dense enough to still have an interest in the game would benefit from a proper patch. The irritation should be with the developer, not the consumer.

nokhor

04-14-2005, 06:06

i also think the amazon reviews i've read have been pretty fair. they've been specific and reasoned and well written. i didn't come across too many "rtw sucks!!!!!" people have been writing about their problems with the game and have been explaining reasonably well, why they were giving it a rating that they were. it just so happens that its an organized campaign of how a lot feel about the game, instead of a haphazard one of separate individuals but its not like they are slandering it or adding untruths in their reviews. so i think its been a perfectly valid strategy so far.

Quietus

04-14-2005, 07:39

.Spartan

04-14-2005, 07:47

Not counting the plethora errors and bugs with the VnV & TnT systems or the multitude of graphic files error let simply look at the following list (I forgot who drafted it) of well know issues shall we?? (Blackmail - hardly...)

A. BATTLEMAP

(1) Tactical AI:

· Suicidal generals: persistent reports of generals charging entire enemy armies without support.

· Tactical AI still fails to take adequate measures in avoiding missile fire.

· AI-controlled infantry sometimes maneuver like cavalry units when engaged; repeatedly charging/disengaging and running in circular paths through loose formations. If a feature, implemented poorly with units that have poor charge attributes.

· AI-controlled units guarding the town centre sometimes fail to turn and face approaching enemy units.

· AI siege attackers: AI-controlled reinforcements continue to pursue enemy units that have retreated behind city walls; AI siege armies do not always retreat after their siege equipment is lost.

· AI-controlled units sometimes remain idle while being issued repeated movement orders; "move" or "move out" orders can be heard in an almost continuous loop. Occurs most commonly with AI formations preparing to attack over bridges.

(2) Unit movement/path-finding:

· Generally poor unit navigation in cities and around bridges: individual soldiers often break formation and become lost in streets/alleyways; soldiers still run into the water and drown during bridge maneuvers; bugged path-finding around Egyptian arches.

· Scenery interaction: units often become stuck in narrow passages, between rocks/trees, in siege towers, and amongst massed formations; rare reports of soldiers walking through walls and closed gates; soldiers in siege towers and on ladders occasionally fall through solid wood.

· "Ford" river crossings are sometimes impassable.

(3) Unit functionality:

· Horse-archers: reports from some players that bow-armed cavalry fail to fire on the run when skirmish mode is engaged. Possibly related to bugged animation cycles; units go through the motions of firing arrows but arrows are not (or rarely) released. Cantabrian circle still functions fully. Javelin-armed cavalry are unaffected.

· Various problems associated with the use of multiple selected (ungrouped) units: aberrant maneuvers provoked on move command to several selected units; ignoring attack orders; incorrect processing of attack orders given to multiple unit selections comprising a mix of ammo-depleted and range-capable missile units (all engage in melee, despite the cursor highlight suggesting that ranged attack is available for some units).

· Various problems associated with the use of grouped units: unselected units comply with commands issued to other units in the same group; grouped cavalry does not run at the speed of the slowest unit, but at that of the quickest (eg. grouped cataphractoi and horse-archers will run at horse-archer speed).

· Phalanx mode: soldiers sometimes do not hold formation adequately in phalanx formation, when ordered to attack, soldiers shuffle around and break formation; phalanxes have trouble attacking uphill, even on gentle inclines.

· Canine unit (wardog/warhound) "formations" cannot be selected or attacked, even when their handlers are defeated or routed off the battlefield.

· Javelin infantry may become stuck and refuse further orders when ordered to launch missiles or change formation.

· Hiding in long grass is possible on snowy maps and in places where no long grass is visible.

· Bridge routs: occasional recurrences besides documented changes in v1.2.

· AI-controlled reinforcements are sometimes inappropriately flagged "not yet arrived on battlefield" and cannot be selected/attacked.

· Disappearing ladders: on rare occasions, siege ladders do not appear on the battle map if constructed in preparation for a siege assault.

· Fighting on city walls: soldiers deployed on walls sometimes shuffle around and fall to their death on pressing "start battle"; units deployed on walls "fight to the death" even if their adversary is on the ground below; units "fighting to the death" sometimes do not fight back when engaged in melee.

(4) Interface/graphics:

· Minimal UI: cut-scenes reset map and card visibility settings if they were originally toggled off; upper edge of screen blocked from cursor interaction when buttons are toggled off; message tiles often obscure the left-most unit card when toggling cards off and on with active messages; sluggish/unreliable response to time control hotkeys when MUI is active.

· Coastal tiles: frequent reports of large grey angular coastline tiles in the distance when fighting in coastal regions, relating to the presence of coastal structures such as ports/cities.

· Victory screen: rare reports of victory screen failing to appear after all enemy units are defeated/routed.

B. CAMPAIGN MAP

(1) Strategic AI:

· Unit construction: occasional reports of AI favoring mass construction of low quality troops early on in campaign games.

· Naval units: rare reports of the AI conducting single-turn blockades frequently and indiscriminately.

· AI incongruity on reload: reports that reloading a saved game "resets" AI priorities/flags provoking inconsistencies in diplomatic behavior and strategic planning. Refer to stickied thread on "Loadg ame issue".

(2) Diplomacy:

· Illogical AI behavior: requesting ceasefire with considerable concessions, only to attack next turn; refusing "unfair" diplomatic offers only to accept less advantageous agreements immediately afterwards.

· Labile diplomacy: occasional reports of AI factions frequently signing and breaking treaties.

· Protectorates: multiple problems related to protectorate system and status of ex-protectorates. Full assessment still pending. p223.ezboard.com/fshogunt...=1&stop=20

(3) Characters:

· Generals get checked twice for trait awards in manual battles.

· "Scarred" trait: over rapid trait progression with repeated battles (GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle works in one way for manual battles, and differently for autocalc; manual battles without engagement always trigger battle1/battle1r).

· Senate offices: ex-office trait is not registered following reappointment to a previously held office ((office)again triggers giving twice as needed).

· Coward trait: is not given if the general avoids combat in battle (GeneralFoughtinCombat always returns true, causing trigger battle4 to never go off; trigger needs revision as if it worked properly the coward trait could by gained simply if the enemy retreats).

· Rare reports of spies acquiring traits specific to generals.

· Isolated reports of family members who die in battle described to have "died peacefully" if they weren't generals during the final battle.

· Transferred retainers are sometimes not immediately deleted from the retinue of the donating character (corrected by closing and reopening the character description).

· Character portraits: continue to age after death; portrait images can sometimes be replaced by inappropriate/non-portrait pictures.

· Disappearing characters: issuing a move/attack command to selected units within a stack, then stopping them prior to reaching their intended destination (by pressing backspace) makes the general in the original stack disappear; losing the commanding general out of two (or more?) family members in a battle may lead to disappearance of the surviving character(s). In either situation the description for the disappeared character states "died peacefully".

(4) Economics:

· Paved roads sometimes do not provide the correct land trade bonuses.

· Colossus wonder does not provide the correct naval trade bonus that its description states

· Financial reports continue to calculate diplomatic tribute from ex-protectorates or when active protectorates are bankrupt and cannot provide the required diplomatic tribute (in either case no actual tribute is received for the turn).

(5) Land/naval warfare:

· Multiple-army sieges: only the attacking stack is represented in battlemap/autocalc during attacks on a settlement besieged by several stacks.

· Naval warfare: battle outcome summaries do not correctly register the number of ships sunk in a naval engagement.

· Elephants killed in battle by their riders are resurrected on returning to the campaign map.

· A distorted coast-line battle map is loaded when fighting on the road east of the port of Sidon (the depressed terrain one grid south of the small hill).

· Naval/land units sometimes become stuck at certain points in the map and cannot be selected (eg. fleets at the port of Corinth).

· Lost siege supplies: if an attempt is made to relieve a besieged AI army prior to its supply time limit, it is sometimes incorrectly flagged to be at the extent of its supply and will "fight to the death" as reinforcements in the subsequent battle. This also means that the siege succeeds automatically if the relieving army is defeated before the reinforcements arrive.

· Diplomats/spies/assassins are capable of blockading retreating armies.

· Gates of Syracuse: isolated reports of permanent damage refractory to repairs/upgrades if opened by a spy during a siege.

· If a rival faction enters a protectorate agreement under the player, any player-led sieges of that faction's settlements will be deactivated but the besieging armies will be unable to leave.

· Rare reports of entire stacks teleporting to distant parts of the map when disembarking from a fleet.

(6) Unit statistics/properties:

· Praetorian Cohorts are available prior to Marius reforms.

· Pharaoh's Guard flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.

· Egyptian Desert Axemen have high armour attributes contrary to unit models.

· Long-Shield Cavalry are not listed in the unit building files for Spain and Numidia.

· Seleucid Cataphract Elephants construction requirements should also include "resource elephants".

· Typing error in "descr_mercenaries.txt" variables for "unit merc horse archers" under "pool Armenia".

· Bedouin Archers flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.

· Illyrian Mercenaries have no bonus against chariots and elephants.

· Thracian Armoured General has the same statistics as the unarmoured form.

· Praetorian Cohorts are recruitable prior to Marius event.

· Thracian Phalanx Pikemen are no longer recruitable after a specific barracks level.

· Gallic Naked Fanatics can be recruited at a farming shrine.

· Silver Shield Legionaries can be trained prior to Marius event.

· Sarmatian Mercenaries do not suffer the "mount" penalty when facing elephants/camels.

· Rebel Archer Warbands have blue Chosen Swordsman as unit commander.

· Spain has blue generals.

· Royal Pikemen use spears (and should use spears) but their name indicates otherwise.

· Inconsistent mass values for certain units: Bastarnae Mercenaries, Bull Warriors, Silver Shield Legionaries and several other infantry units are assigned a mass value of "1" in contrast to comparable units (Bastarnae, Spartan warriors and various legionary units all have "1.3" in mass).

(7) Interface/graphics:

· Dysfunctional construction menu scroll-bar.

· Game transit: reloading screen disappears for a few seconds when loading/exiting a battle; when playing in 16-bit mode, campaign map occasionally resets colours incorrectly when returning from battlemap.

· Movement range highlights: some players report loss of the green terrain highlight indicators for unit movement after patching to 1.2.

· Snowy winter bug: some players report experiencing the snowy winter effect in all regions (including equatorial zones).

· Settlement details window: if the building/unit information screen (on the right side) is closed while the settlement details summary is open, the latter resets automatically to a "default" settlement.

Quietus

04-14-2005, 08:09

That list is nary a justification for 1.0 star (it only illustrates the complexity of RTW). .Spartan, if you really are convinced that RTW is 1.0 star, then please, fill in the blanks:

* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???

Keep in mind 1-star is 20%, 2-stars is 40%, 3-stars is 60%, 4-stars is 80%, and 5-stars is 100%, meaning the last is 5-times superior to the first.

(edit: about the paved roads. There seem to be a special limit to road bonuses. Look at my Guide+therother's comment and the Ludus Magna thread: Effects of Road).

hoom

04-14-2005, 08:49

* = RTW 1.0
*** = RTW 1.2
***** = Shogun/Medieval
********** = RTW if problems are properly fixed

Matters of legal obligation are irrelevant.
Matters of who is to blame are irrelevant.
Matters of whether or not its a good idea to publicly campaign for a patch/against CA are irrelevant.

The single relevant factor is that a large number of the people who might buy future product are not happy and likely to refrain from further purchases.

If CA/SEGA/Activision have any business sense they will take action ASAP to remedy this situation.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

04-14-2005, 08:53

I know for sure companies that support their product 5 times better then CA.

Louis,

.Spartan

04-14-2005, 08:55

I do not believe it deserves one star. However to offset the skew created by less informed posters that rate something 5 stars mainly because it looks good and they themselves lack a technical insights into the game or just basic understanding of things work it is a reasonable course of action. The end result should be 2.5 - all things being equal.

-Spartan

screwtype

04-14-2005, 09:27

"Guerilla tactics" might be a strong term, but I find it pretty close ot the mark considering the intended targets of that statement were going all out at CA by deliberately lowering scores at sites and writing horrible reviews, and telling people to do the same on CA's board. They were intently trying to hurt CA, not by not buying their products but by scaring other people away. I see no reason why CA should allow that on their board, do you?

I don't agree with your description, I don't think people intentionally wrote "bad" reviews, they just stated the fact that there is a loadgame bug that can severely handicap the AI (which is already not that flash). Arguably you are correct that they deliberately marked the game down lower than they normally would to "sabotage" Amazon's rating, but I think it's also true that the average rating for the game on Amazon is much too high.

My own opinion is that people have a perfect right to express their views on sites like Amazon or to game mags or any other publication - and just because this is an organized campaign rather than a random occurrence does not make it less legitimate. Consumers have a right to organize.

On the other side of the coin though, I think it a bit unrealistic to expect CA to tolerate calls for such a campaign on its own website. But by banning discussion of the issue consumers are reminded that the com is, after all, not a truly independent site.

In a sense, the patch campaigners have had their victory at the com anyhow. The Shogun's own sticky on the issue effectively announces to every newcomer that there is some kind of issue with the game that hasn't been resolved which has left customers dissatisfied.

Colovion

04-14-2005, 09:31

I know for sure companies that support their product 5 times better then CA.

Louis,

Valve, for one. So far they've released at least two dozen patches since HL2 release. Not game-stopping bugs, as I never had any noticable problems; just tweaking and working out any bugs the community brings up. Hell, today they released a patch that fixed ONE problem - in Counterstrike: Source sometimes people's names would come up as duplicates in the game list.... nothing important really - but it was fixed within 3 days of it being apparent it was there.

Activision is a dinosaur.

aphex

04-14-2005, 10:04

...and weren't they still releasing patches to HalfLife1 SIX YEARS after its release?!!?

screwtype

04-14-2005, 10:07

Valve, for one. So far they've released at least two dozen patches since HL2 release. Not game-stopping bugs, as I never had any noticable problems; just tweaking and working out any bugs the community brings up. Hell, today they released a patch that fixed ONE problem - in Counterstrike: Source sometimes people's names would come up as duplicates in the game list.... nothing important really - but it was fixed within 3 days of it being apparent it was there.

Wow. Now that's what I call a patch policy!

Valve have obviously realized the benefits to be had from responding quickly to customer concerns. No crap about "it's got to be extensively tested by QA" - QA which turns out to be next to useless anyhow. Just patch it, put it out, and let the community find the next issue for you.

Yes, as you say, this is the right kind of policy for gaming in the 21st century. Most other companies - CA and Activision included - are still behaving as though the internet had never been invented.

HarunTaiwan

04-14-2005, 10:54

Hey, please folks go read reviews for other products.

You'll find them interesting indeed.

I've seen high star reviews for products that were broken, but the after sales service was so good, the reviewer did not feel bad at all.

Just imagine if Microsoft only allowed one patch to Windows. I guess we'd all be giving XP 4 stars even while the hackers and viruses are burning through minor exploits? NO. Even though the program "deserves" more than One Star.

Besides, anyone who reads the reviews will be much better informed about the product now. That is completely fair. I am also willing to edit my review upward later on if I decide it was too harsh.

and by the way, who's to say my review is too low, or too high, etc.? It's my opinion...and everyone's entitled to one of those!

Cendre

04-14-2005, 11:18

Ever heard the say the customer is always right? Well CA hasn't obviously...
I think the Amazon reviews reflect perfectly the state of the game, it was originally at 4.5 with lots of great reviews, it is now at 3.5 with mitigated reviews saying it could be a great game if they fixed it. And that reflects exactly how I feel about the game, when I started playing it I loved every bit of it but when I became more proficient in it I found the AI too flawed to take any enjoyment out of beating it, so I've now shelved the game until there is an XP fixing AI...
- Future customers are better off for those reviews as they can decide for themselves whether it's worth buying the game at this stage (unfortunately there wasn't such reviews when I bought it).
- Existing customers are better off as I believe CA is now well aware of the problems and would not release an XP that would not fix them
- CA is whinging at the moment but they will be better off in the long term when they realise QA is important, support is important and maintaining a recurrent client base is paramount to the long term future of a company.

Puzz3D

04-14-2005, 12:58

Existing customers are better off as I believe CA is now well aware of the problems and would not release an XP that would not fix them
CA has trouble just making the game so it doesn't CTD. Gameplay issues are lower on the scale of what's important. You're dealing with a company that doesn't see the loadgame issue as a problem. They actually believe that designing a strategy game in such a way that the AI needs two turns to re-establish it's strategy after loading a savegame is ok. They also think that the AI is good, so there isn't much chance of the add-on having a significantly better AI.

Mouzafphaerre

04-14-2005, 13:39

-

Ever heard the say the customer is always right?That essentially was my point. :yes:
-

.Spartan

04-14-2005, 13:42

Well I am currently laying the foundation for an organized global boycott of the X-Pack. The main thread is at the TWC. If any poster here wants to become point of contact for .org regarding this effort please contact me. I am also working on a list of international media groups as well as game industry related companies. I will make a banner soon for people to put in their signatures with a link back to the very long bug/issues list.

-Spartan

mishad

04-14-2005, 13:52

Harun: Actually, for the casual gamer, which is probably the majority of players of RTW, they wouldn't notice the scar problem, since they do not delve that deeply into the game to even check for general's bonuses.

Actually, I know a couple of casual gamers who certainly did notice the extreme scarring of Roman generals (which is the result of the combination of 3 bugs in vanilla 1.2 -- double traits for manual combat, double scarring chance for Romans and incorrect scarring trigger thresholds -- all now fixed by the community but not by CA).

They noticed despite not looking at the generals traits etc. in detail, because the game drew their attention to it by giving most of their generals scarring-related nicknames. Since this was clearly different to the 1.1 behaviour, it stood out a mile.

Of course, once they noticed, they paid more attention to the traits (and then also noticed that the combat traits were being accumulated much quicker than before). And were annoyed, because while many combat traits give bonuses (those from winning, at least -- and who gets any other sort after their first "try it out" campaign?), some of them have negative effects.

Luckily, I was able to provide the community patch for that problem (leaving only the "do I start a new campaign or keep these horribly scarred generals?" question).

Finding out about the load-game AI re-assessment wasn't much of a problem for them. One had already returned to MTW (NTW, actually) -- despite the, by comparison with RTW, terrible graphics. The other had decided TW games were just too boring before they even found out about the siege problem.

Actually, both tend to be 1-2 turns per session players, so both had been hit by the load-game re-assessment -- and once it was explained they said "yeah, I've seen that happen". But even without knowing the details of the issue, they had decided they'd had enough.

Turbo

04-14-2005, 15:04

Complain? yes, campagning to damage the company economically? hardly

Accept it, there won't be another patch whatever you do and the reason is simple: Activision can't win anything with it. Total War is now - since CA belongs to Sega now - a dead end for Activision. Why should they support it any further? CA and Activision are competitors now, they will fulfill existing contracts and nothing more.

It isn't exactly fair that you ban discussion of that campaign yet you continue to refer to it in a dark light. There is another side to this story, one that can't get posted here because of the rulings of various moderators on the ORG.

You also neglect to mention that Creative Assembly can issue a developers patch anytime they want at their cost. Activision will only fund 2 patches.

Kraxis

04-14-2005, 16:57

It isn't exactly fair that you ban discussion of that campaign yet you continue to refer to it in a dark light.
To CA it is quite dark, so it is their right to do so. To them it is in fact people going out of their way to hurt the company. I don't know about you but that is pretty dark. Fair has nothing to do with it.
Just because Saddam has no way to speak about it, doesn't make it unfair of us to claim that he was a rather dictatorial leader right? Just putting a light on it.
It is all about how the action has an impact on you, and the impact is very different for you and CA.

player1

04-14-2005, 17:11

You also neglect to mention that Creative Assembly can issue a developers patch anytime they want at their cost. Activision will only fund 2 patches.

You expect from them to do this for their own money, which would delay, or make more buggy expansion they are working on, while Activison would get all money from sold copies, not CA.

Developer patches are very rare thing. Only big companies have maony and staff for them.

Satyr

04-14-2005, 17:35

With the sales that CA have gotten of RTW they ARE a big developer now and should be patching the game. They have to fix these issues for the XP anyway so at some point they should release a patch. If they do it right they will sell way more XPs anyway so in reality they can count on future sales to fund this round of patches. If they continue along their current path and don't provide a patch well that will affect their future sales too, although not in a good way. It's up to them what they want their future to look like!

Old Celt

04-14-2005, 17:43

I agree, Satyr.

The bottom line of all this is that CA controls their own destiny. If they act to make happy customers, they will reap those rewards with the X pack. If they continue to stonewall, they will reap something different. Whether there is a "campaign" against them or not, is irrelevant. They have the means and the motive to make this go either way, and only CA has that power.

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 18:00

And it is posts like this that really irk me. Even if this were true (and calling it sabotage and blackmail is not accurate) if the campaign worked we should all be happy. Those of us dense enough to still have an interest in the game would benefit from a proper patch. The irritation should be with the developer, not the consumer.

Having read this post a comment comes to mind.

The first is regarding the good point by Red Harvest;

any action taken by a group of consumers to spread negative or lower values on review sites or magazines is perfectly legal and CA should realise that political lobbying is conducted this way daily in the halls of power throughout the world.

Going head to head with people on this topic is dangerous only because when you "ignore or deal badly with a vocal minority” then you are running the risk of paying a price. That is what defines consumer power. If any one is unsure then the Americans on this board can attest to the effectiveness of “lobby groups” on their political system as example "A" of this concept.

If CA wish to conduct themselves in the manner they choose through their representatives on the official message board then they better hope they don’t annoy a member of the public that is motivated and has plenty of cash or has connections.

For example I could be the Marketing Director of FIFA.

FIFA just signed a huge deal with Sony…who make play stations…which platform does Sega make the most running on?? Who owns CA now?

All of a sudden it becomes very relevant and what I have found is that you never know what is around the corner in big business. Now of course I am nothing of what I mentioned above, but my final point is…if anyone feels motivated enough to organise themselves to conduct a campaign like the one mentioned over the last month…then good luck to them.

And to be perfectly honest. If CA doesn`t like it then stiff shiet!! I hope they get nailed in the Xpack sales.

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 18:10

And something that is really bothering me is a major aspect of this "feature" and how it is initiated.

What seems to be missed by CA is, we are talking about SAVING and LOADING a file!!!

Now if saving and loading files was a "New" piece of functionality in applications then I might see their point.

Given Saving and Loading could easily be argued in a tribunal hearing as "Critical Application Functionality" in any piece of software made in the last 15 years, then the attitude is a little baffling.

Let me give you an example.

While saving or loading a word document, you lose all your spelling and grammar corrections from the last save.

Now while it is not a show stoppper, it is pretty god damn fundamental to the correct running of the application. You could just write the whole document out correctly the first time and then the problem doesn`t exist. However you are writing a thesis...then what do you do?? More importantly, saving and loading word documents has been a "Must Have" piece of funtionality since its creation. This is the same with any application that must provide continuity to be an affective program. Obivously games...AND especially strategy games fall within this category.

It is not a perfect analogy but it is pretty god damn good if I do say so myself. How CA can say that the Saving and Loading of a game should, or is designed to affect the application so drastically and so obviously is nearly indefensible!!!

Old Celt

04-14-2005, 18:19

How CA can say that the Saving and Loading of a game should, or is designed to affect the application so drastically and so obviously is nearly indefensible!!!

It's totally indefensible. Someone severely screwed the pooch on this one, and they all know it. Since they've been discovered, there have been the tactics of obfuscation (it's not a bug, it's WAD) and silence in the hopes of waiting the storm out.

I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.

Shambles

04-14-2005, 18:31

I say give every 1 the game for free it aint worth the money i had to pay for it,
So Every 1 els should get it for free,

Just so they can See what a load of junk it really is,
Doubt it would even break any copy right's either becous every 1 would probably just uninstall any way,

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 18:31

It's totally indefensible. Someone severely screwed the pooch on this one, and they all know it. Since they've been discovered, there have been the tactics of obfuscation (it's not a bug, it's WAD) and silence in the hopes of waiting the storm out.

I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.

I think you are dead right Old Celt. In a certain way their own initial genius could very well bite them on the ass big time. They have clearly attracted a section of highly motivated, very well educated and connected individuals. Those individuals could represent 10s of thousands.

And I tell you one thing...disseminating information in this day and age is as easy as ever!! They seem to think the internet doesn`t exist or something.

Just think of the "Lurking" numbers on the 3 main boards combined...that is a lot of people just reading a watching.

Slyspy

04-14-2005, 18:34

I would like to point out that a number of those issues listed also cropped up in the previous Total War games (suicidal generals and pathfinding being two of them). Some were fixed then, some were not. Either way CA were incompetent enough to either fail yet again to fix them or let them slip anew into RTW. Shoddy. I shall not buy the expansion, though I may reinstall Shogun after uninstalling RTW.

.Spartan

04-14-2005, 18:41

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 19:10

@Aussie - that is why they have gone and banned anyone that shows any faltering in the "party line" at the .com. If you think otherwise just put: "-Spartan" in your signature on any post at the .com and see if you account still works a day later.

Sadly for them I was the wrong person to piss-off. Hell I wish for them to send me a threat as I will tell them what to do with it and publish it in this community as well as many others. I have money as well as business contacts and I never back down from anything.

-Spartan

@Spartan

You are literally my example in point. I decided not to join the circus over at the .Com coming here was a no brainer in the end.

By banning can`t they see the damage they are doing. The whole thing has been handled badly and what they really need is a PR company to come in and repair the damage, put communications back on the agenda and get things sorted out before someone like yourself goes "nuclear" on their asses.

Having said that, there is nothing like learning from your mistakes. As you have mentioned you are connected, have money and are motivated. Us mature types are the ones they seem to think don`t exist.

Isn`t it just a laugh, just how geeky some of us turn out to be. Their own brilliance has attracted people they have simply no idea about.

Good luck and I hope you get some bang for your buck.

A.Saturnus

04-14-2005, 19:24

For example I could be the Marketing Director of FIFA.

FIFA just signed a huge deal with Sony…who make play stations…which platform does Sega make the most running on?? Who owns CA now?

If the fact that you get pissed off by what a developer of CA says to you on a public forum affects your economical decisions, then you probably wouldn't be marketing director of anything very long.

CA will probably not take any legal steps against anyone campagning against them, but it is only natural that they call them saboteurs and don't welcome them on their forum.
CA can do on their forum whatever they want, if you don't like it, don't go there.

It would be Activision's responsibility to finance another patch, but it is obvious that they won't do that. CA is bound by contracts that dictate where they have to put their resources. I assume they could make a developers' patch, but whether it's worth it is a difficult economical question nobody of us can answer.
Sega could finance a patch too, but it might be difficult to explain to their investors why they are paying for a product of a competitor.

I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.

Actually, the Ludus Magna has not reached a conclusion on how severe the problem actually is yet.

Old Celt

04-14-2005, 19:45

Quote:
I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.

"Actually, the Ludus Magna has not reached a conclusion on how severe the problem actually is yet." - A. Saturnus

Point taken, sir, but what I was alluding to was that no other site actually generates quantifiable results and offers real evidence the way the community members of this site do when the occasion calls for it.

My personal opinion is: If you play only 1 or 2 turns per session and save, the level of AI performance is comparable to playing chess against your toaster.

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 19:47

A.Saturnus,

You are absolutely correct. It seems clear the contractual obligations in place means there is no real direction for any of the groups to logically pursue. CA hands are tied for all intense and purposes and that is the end of the topic in all reality and was the case many moons ago. It is my hope that these contractual problems have been ironed out in the new agreement between CA and Sega with regards to the future.

Their handling of the situation is what I am specifically referring to.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the fact that you get pissed off by what a developer of CA says to you on a public forum affects your economical decisions, then you probably wouldn't be marketing director of anything very long.

CA will probably not take any legal steps against anyone campagning against them, but it is only natural that they call them saboteurs and don't welcome them on their forum.
CA can do on their forum whatever they want, if you don't like it, don't go there."
------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment seems to a be a bit out of kilter with the rest of your post.

I`m not "pissed off" as you describe. He (The CA rep) didn`t speak to me specifically as I am not a member of the forum over there. As for alluding to my future employment, then you are speaking of things beyond what you are aware of. Surely you can see that. For one you are assuming my example is the 100% the truth.

What is 100% true is the deal between Sony and FIFA and the relationship is now a signed deal.

Given how things change, I`m simply pointing out that deals and pressure can be exerted in a variety of ways in international business and what is totally beyond CA`s control is who ends up playing this game and who these people are in "Real" life. By conducting themselves the way they are then ignoring this possibility is at their own peril. This is sound advise and something I have experienced on more than one occasion.

Of course CA does not sponsor a Board for the sole purpose of hearing complaints. But if handled correctly it is an asset, not a excersice in banning and sensoring. Surely you can see the difference between the way yourself and other Mod here handle things and what is happening over there.

That is what is mind blowing to me A.Saturnus

A.Saturnus

04-14-2005, 20:14

I`m not "pissed off" as you describe. He (The CA rep) didn`t speak to me specifically as I am not a member of the forum over there. As for alluding to my future employment, then you are speaking of things beyond what you are aware of. Surely you can see that. For one you are assuming my example is the 100% the truth.

What is 100% true is the deal between Sony and FIFA and the relationship is now a signed deal.

Given how things change, I`m simply pointing out that deals and pressure can be exerted in a variety of ways in international business and what is totally beyond CA`s control is who ends up playing this game and who these people are in "Real" life. By conducting themselves the way they are then ignoring this possibility is at their own peril. This is sound advise and something I have experienced on more than one occasion.

I think what I wanted to say didn't come over very well. I didn't assume that you're pissed or that you're actually a marketing director. I wanted to say that whoever is marketing director of FIFA, whatever a dev says to him hardly will affect his managment decisions. The contract between FIFA and Sony is surely worth many many millions of dollars. Irritable marketing directors are expandable in the light of that.

Of course CA does not sponsor a Board for the sole purpose of hearing complaints. But if handled correctly it is an asset, not a excersice in banning and sensoring. Surely you can see the difference between the way yourself and other Mod here handle things and what is happening over there.

To be honest, I don't follow very closely what happens on the Com. If they are really trying to quelsh complains, even those that are brought forward in a civil manner, then that is of course wrong.

AussieGiant

04-14-2005, 20:26

Ok no problem about the interpretation of what has been written between us.

I also assume the contract is worth a whole lot of cash. In my experience you never know if someone in a position like that may in fact be an avid gamer in their private life and think it is worth asking the question regarding patching or on going support to the Sony GM. That leads to a query to Sega and there you have a very strong link. That one conversation could do more than years of lobbying.

Then if I think of the aggressive marketing types, then it is entirely possible that some marketing director/maniac could make it a social topic at any or all board room meetings. You just never know A.Saturnus.

It is a chance...but certainly possible.

I think following the .COM board is probably bad for your health, so that is sound advise.

Have a good day.

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 20:42

The 1.0 scores were pre-determined. The review itself was an afterthought. Hence, it is bogus and fraudulent. The intent and goal of the "campaign" was to lower the score all along (hence sabotage), with people at another forum saying we won't stop until the game is patched (hence blackmail).

If you don't want me to call it blackmail and sabotage then don't do it, simple as that. ( I know my vocabulary, if you don't, then use a dictionary).

Under the amazing scale of RTW as 1.0 star,

* = RTW
**= ???
***= ???
**** = ????
***** = ???

then it follows that there are 5-star games that are 5-times better than RTW. You would be hardpressed to find games that are 2 times better than it, much less 5-times.

Perhaps you should try reading that dictionary some time because your vocabulary doesn't match the definitions. Sabotage is not used as an implement of improving something...it is used to destroy or otherwise hamper an organization. It's specific root is the use of the worker's wooden shoe, "sabot," to destroy manufacturing equipment in the early industrial age.

Blackmail also carries the connotation of extracting something undeserved from someone else with no benefit to the victim. A campaign to get a patch would hardly fit that criteria, since proper patching and support is of benefit to both parties. However, there is also the defined aspect of exposing some serious embarrassment or improper behaviour or criminal act of the victim--something unflattering that the victim wants to be kept secret. So you can take half credit and a very Pyrrhic victory since you and CA don't want CA's questionable support or the actual state of the game exposed to the general public.

Funny that you are trying to quantify the scale to suit your own needs. If you want to use a relative scale, then anything better than it would drop it from 5 star, making all the 5 star ratings bogus. As I said, I would have given it a 3, but I saw enouth BS 5 star ratings, that I added "weighting" to my score, much as many of the 5 stars seem to have done in the other direction. It is called "fighting fire with fire." There is nothing to prevent others from going in and putting in 5 star rankings... And many of the ratings on Amazon are 2 or 3 star, rather than 1. Your perspective is porked.

POWER TO THE CONSUMER!

screwtype

04-14-2005, 21:03

My personal opinion is: If you play only 1 or 2 turns per session and save, the level of AI performance is comparable to playing chess against your toaster.

I think too much is made of this loadgame bug, mainly because I consider the performance of the campaign AI to be approximately at the level of my toaster anyhow! :laugh4:

Old Celt

04-14-2005, 21:13

But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!

Catiline

04-14-2005, 21:40

the rebel AI is the bargain toaster - pops up at random all over the place

Turbo

04-14-2005, 21:49

To CA it is quite dark, so it is their right to do so. To them it is in fact people going out of their way to hurt the company. I don't know about you but that is pretty dark. Fair has nothing to do with it.
Just because Saddam has no way to speak about it, doesn't make it unfair of us to claim that he was a rather dictatorial leader right? Just putting a light on it.
It is all about how the action has an impact on you, and the impact is very different for you and CA.

Kraxis,

That post is directed toward one of the moderators of .ORG, not the .COM, not CA. You are right about one thing, fair has nothing to do about it.

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 21:55

Old Celt,

I really like the analogy of the load game AI problem being equivalent to playing chess against the toaster. However, my toaster was not as amused and has demanded an apology. ~:cheers:

Turbo

04-14-2005, 21:57

Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

How is it sabotaging Amazon's rating by writing a negative review if you are an Amazon customer or registered there? If you are disatisfied with the product or customer service it is your right to go on there and write a negative review. Go in and post a 5 star rating there if you want, you won't see me whinning about it.

Puzz3D

04-14-2005, 22:02

But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!
The AI can only be as good as the people designing it. Regardless of how much the loadgame issue hobbles the AI, the fact that CA thinks this is proper game design boggles the mind. At $35 usd, the RTW add-on is the price of a good toaster, but one that's going to burn the toast anyway.

Turbo

04-14-2005, 22:06

You expect from them to do this for their own money, which would delay, or make more buggy expansion they are working on, while Activison would get all money from sold copies, not CA.

Developer patches are very rare thing. Only big companies have maony and staff for them.

Absolutely! I expect them to support their product and to support their customers. CA's problems with Activision are their problems. As the customer I am only interested in resolution not excuses.

Developer patches are not rare, they are actually quite common. Take for example Battlecrusier.

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 22:07

At $35 usd, the RTW add-on is the price of a good toaster, but one that's going to burn the toast anyway.

That is unfair...after all, burning the toast is a *feature* not a bug. It was decided the the toaster should periodically reset and reevaluate, starting on the "Incinerate" setting (or for the XPack on the new "Ash" setting.)

~D

starkhorn

04-14-2005, 22:21

Developer patches are not rare, they are actually quite common. Take for example Battlecrusier.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember STW having a developers patch released ?

Anyone still here from that time to confirm or deny ?

Quietus

04-14-2005, 22:42

Perhaps you should try reading that dictionary some time because your vocabulary doesn't match the definitions. Sabotage is not used as an implement of improving something...it is used to destroy or otherwise hamper an organization. It's specific root is the use of the worker's wooden shoe, "sabot," to destroy manufacturing equipment in the early industrial age.

Blackmail also carries the connotation of extracting something undeserved from someone else with no benefit to the victim. A campaign to get a patch would hardly fit that criteria, since proper patching and support is of benefit to both parties. However, there is also the defined aspect of exposing some serious embarrassment or improper behaviour or criminal act of the victim--something unflattering that the victim wants to be kept secret. So you can take half credit and a very Pyrrhic victory since you and CA don't want CA's questionable support or the actual state of the game exposed to the general public.
Dictionary: Blackmail - "To coerce (into doing something) as by threats". The campaigners are trying to coerce CA into releasing a patch under threats of sabotaging the Amazon.com rating.
Dictionary: Sabotage - "The deliberate obstruction of or damage to any cause, movement, activity, effort, etc." Campaigners unfairly damaged the Amazon.com rating which function as the will of the collective reviewers NOT the will of the few (who gave RTW unreasonably low ratings for the purpose of blackmail).

Funny that you are trying to quantify the scale to suit your own needs. If you want to use a relative scale, then anything better than it would drop it from 5 star, making all the 5 star ratings bogus. As I said, I would have given it a 3, but I saw enouth BS 5 star ratings, that I added "weighting" to my score, much as many of the 5 stars seem to have done in the other direction. It is called "fighting fire with fire." There is nothing to prevent others from going in and putting in 5 star rankings... And many of the ratings on Amazon are 2 or 3 star, rather than 1. Your perspective is porked.

POWER TO THE CONSUMER!

I do not believe it deserves one star. However to offset the skew created by less informed posters that rate something 5 stars mainly because it looks good and they themselves lack a technical insights into the game or just basic understanding of things work it is a reasonable course of action. The end result should be 2.5 - all things being equal.
It is not for anyone to attenuate other people's reviews. Here's why:

Point#1: Reviewer X1 gives RTW 5 stars. Reviewer X1 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer X1's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.:thumbsup:
Point#2: Reviewer X2 gives RTW 4 stars. Reviewer X2 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer X2's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.:thumbsup:
Point#3: Reviewer Y gives RTW 1 star. Reviewer Y will NOT review other games cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer Y's impetus/intention is impure = unfair assessment = rating system tampered.:thumbsdown:
Point#4: Reviewer Z gives RTW 2 stars. Reviewer Z's reasoning is to attenuate the impact of Reviewer X1's rating. Is Reviewer Z going to TRACK DOWN all the reviews of Reviewer X1 and attenuate all of them?? NO. NO. NO.
Result = rating system for RTW is tampered.

When you do a review, you DON'T do it to attenuate other people's review. You DON'T do it to sabotage the rating as well. You do a fair assessment for potential buyers.

If you FEEL that RTW is rightfully 3-star not 5-star, then give it a 3-star rating, but not 1-star. The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.

Lastly, again, nobody can justify this amazing scale:
* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???

Quietus

04-14-2005, 22:49

How is it sabotaging Amazon's rating by writing a negative review if you are an Amazon customer or registered there? If you are disatisfied with the product or customer service it is your right to go on there and write a negative review. Go in and post a 5 star rating there if you want, you won't see me whinning about it.
The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

Pericles

04-14-2005, 22:56

The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.

This is simply incorrect.

It is well known that many game companies will spike a review with 10/10s and 5/5s through their employees/fanboys to give a game an inflated and favourable review, whether or not the game actually deserves it.

Rarely, if ever, does a game deserve a 10/10 or 5-stars under any reviewing system.

So in this case the bias is to give the game high ratings which is NOT pure intentions, since it over-looks or hides problems with a game, thus deceiving the consumer into believing the game is a better product than it actually is.

player1

04-14-2005, 23:04

Well said Quietus.

player1

04-14-2005, 23:06

Well, I haven't seen anyone give deliberatbly good ratings to prima strategy guides.

Probably beacuse they do suck, even without need of campaign to "fix the scores".

Red Harvest

04-14-2005, 23:27

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

There is nothing "unfair" about their motives. You might not like their tactics, but they have just as much right to put a 1 star score as you do to put up a 5. They are using the only tools CA has left them with.

Those reviews don't read at all like an "afterthought." You can try to slander them all you like, but their reviews are far more accurate than what I've seen of yours.

As for blackmail, my dictionaries say, "extortion by threats" rather than "coerce" Since there is no money going to the campaigners, extortion is out of the question. There is a clear implication of money, since the origin of the word is in "black rent." Ahh, I see how you are manipulating this now, you are using the verb definition, rather than the noun. You should work for CA...

And with sabotage, it is the same thing. Your skewed view doesn't match the connotation at all. This is an effort to actually improve the game, not damage it. That is clearly NOT SABOTAGE. You can call it that all you want, it won't make it so.

I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.

Gregoshi

04-15-2005, 00:20

I think the Org Community Game Ranking (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46087) shows quite well Quietus' point. The poll is a good measure of "pure intentions" because no one is trying to influence Amazon.com sales through it. In that poll, ratings 1-4 seem to equate well with a 1 star rating on Amazon.com. Only about 16% of the responders rated RTW with a 1-4. Why doesn't there Org Community rankings have a higher percentage of patrons rating RTW with a 1-4 rating? Maybe because Quietus has a point about sabotage?

On another point: I don't think you can equate a patch for a game like Half Life with a patch for RTW. Your toaster could put out a patch for Half Life (relatively speaking of course ~:) ).

BTW, when people start suggesting that another look up a word in the dictionary:book:, that is a good sign the discussion has just about run its course.

Second verse, same as the first...

player1

04-15-2005, 00:23

I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.

Interesting. It was for me just the opposite.
I was neutral until someone said it's OK giving 1star, even if he personaly thinks it's worth more, since it's only way to lower averge score.

I call that a campaign to deliberatly lower average score.

ElmarkOFear

04-15-2005, 00:53

Starkhorn: There were, if I remember correctly: 3 patches:

1. For STW by the developers and tested by a group of players from the community.
2. For STW/MI aka. WE by the developers and also using a group of players from the community.
3. A 2nd unofficial patch for STW/MI aka. WE, made solely by a group of players to fix the remaining problem with musketeer units and a few other small issues.

Puzz3D, CBR, or TosaInu could answer this question in a more precise way since I was only involved in one of those patch groups while they were in all 3.

Bhruic

04-15-2005, 00:53

How exactly does that make it a "campaign"? In order for it to be a "campaign", then there has to be a concerted effort to get people to do it. I haven't seen any such effort. I've seen it suggested, and I'm sure some people have done it. But I'm also sure that others have gone and given it a 5/5. Are we calling that a "fanboy campaign"?

Bh

player1

04-15-2005, 01:02

Well, I haven't see any fanboy campaign around. There are some good ratings, but they are dispersed over great lenght of time. So they are spontanius, not initiated from somewere.

On the other hand, bunch of 1-2star reviews, are all from April or later, highly concentrated (never seen so many new reviews in few weeks), and there are threads on several forums with links to amazon, and let's give them bad review comments.

Yes, it looks like campaign to me.

Bhruic

04-15-2005, 01:06

Red Harvest

04-15-2005, 01:09

Interesting. It was for me just the opposite.
I was neutral until someone said it's OK giving 1star, even if he personaly thinks it's worth more, since it's only way to lower averge score.

I call that a campaign to deliberatly lower average score.

I can count on you to be counter to whatever position I take, player1. You always seem to be devil's advocate. And that is why I lost any interest in the unit stats threads.

player1

04-15-2005, 01:17

I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?

Bh

I think only few posters said that they think RTW is more worth then they voted.

But still, even "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing" is campaign. Why deny it. Without ideas on the forums, you won't be seeing buch of low star rating on the amazon.

player1

04-15-2005, 01:20

I can count on you to be counter to whatever position I take, player1. You always seem to be devil's advocate. And that is why I lost any interest in the unit stats threads.

You sound like it's personal.
It's not.

Kraxis

04-15-2005, 01:21

Red do you really think that it is fair for a reviewer to give a 1 to make the average more like what he/she wants it to be? That is effectively the same as giving people the chance of actually using several votes in election. If they want their vote to be representative they will only use the single vote they should, but if they want the result to reflect their opinion then they should use the several vote system. That way we could screw over the honest people and make cetain we would get anything but a representative election.
That is what is wrong with too low votes.

I don't know .Spartan yet, but he has given me the impression that he feels personally insulted (the comment about him wanting them to send a threat to him was an obvious statement to that) and is now out for blood. He is the only one to have been so strong about it directly, but I have gotten the feeling others are in the same state of mind right now.

I would never give RTW a 5 now, it is more like a 3.5 for me. It can be great fun to me at times, and I love to test out my recent changes to it. But at the same time I hate the flaws and feel that they are very much detracting from the experience. So if I were to give it stars at a site that had nothing but 5 star reviews should I then give it a 1 star? Or should I try to give it a 3 or 4 star?

Red Harvest

04-15-2005, 01:23

I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?

Bh

The latter.

Most people rate something early on when it is new. So waiting until after the final patch is a rather interesting approach. There is nothing to prevent others from rating it higher. The difference is mainly that people were reminded that they could send a clear message with their ratings and reviews (since the .com had been shut down to them.) And they did so.

Morat

04-15-2005, 01:33

Quietus: I have to say I agree with Red Harvest. Words like "sabotage" and "blackmail" taken within their context in this thread (and in more general usage) are strongly negative. The balanced and reasonable spin (or sugar-coating) you now put on them is disingenuous to say the least. I think it is just as bad to dismiss the many reviews as "afterthoughts" when many are clearly well thought out and intentioned.

People have a right to express their opinions. Amazon gives them that right. It also gives other customers the right to appraise those opinions. Mark them down if you don't like them and write a review of you own. Stop bashing your fellow members of this board.

I think the Org Community Game Ranking (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46087) shows quite well Quietus' point. The poll is a good measure of "pure intentions" because no one is trying to influence Amazon.com sales through it. In that poll, ratings 1-4 seem to equate well with a 1 star rating on Amazon.com. Only about 16% of the responders rated RTW with a 1-4. Why doesn't there Org Community rankings have a higher percentage of patrons rating RTW with a 1-4 rating? Maybe because Quietus has a point about sabotage? Yet you look at the numbers who voted in Amazon it's hardly a 1 star whitewash. Some customers have obviously taken into account their disgust at the support of the product and rated it down. That is okay in my book. If Ford produce a car that is almost a classic but has a great number of obvious faults and does not intend to put them right, I would expect people to mark the car down.

Rome: Total War is in its final incarnation. What you buy at the shop is what you'll get. Yet there are three major issues with the game: the bizarre reload reassessment behaviour, the battle difficulty bug and the double combat traits bug. All of these are major issues and the last two are pretty noticeable. There are also numerous smaller issues with the game. Jerome Grasdkye admitted three of the smaller bugs on these very forums today. We can have some pointless debate over who carries the can for this very unfortunate state of affairs but that is the facts. Rome is a faulty product. It does not deserve 5 stars IMO. It deserves 3. Two marks are deducted for the errors and the lousy support. If we want to force software companies to support their product we can't just lie back and say it's okay to leave the game in this state! It was well be playable but it's not nearly as enjoyable as it should be.

BTW, when people start suggesting that another look up a word in the dictionary:book:, that is a good sign the discussion has just about run its course.
I think it means that we've reached the end of the civil discussion when someone refers to a dictionary. I also note which member it was who first mentioned it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=745708&postcount=83

What more can one say?

As for people who believe that the game deserves 3 but vote 1 to bring down the average, well I do not agree with them. But I understand their view. They are tactically voting for the reasons most state in their reviews. It is not as if they are deceiving anyone here. The majority tell people exactly why they have given the game a 1 star rating. Usually in a lot more detail than those who have given it 5.

Kraxis

04-15-2005, 01:41

Ah but if you take a single look at the Amazon reviews you will notice at least one case of a person reviewing twice, and even with the very same text. I chage you to take a look at it.
Of course if you are a member with two accounts that is possible, but that defeats the entire point of reviewing, but it makes for a great personal agenda don't you agree. If one person can impact the entire franchise then that person has gotten his will at the expense of other who might have liked it.

I might agree with that person, but that doesn't make it right. That is indeed a "lets hurt 'em".

Quietus

04-15-2005, 02:40

HarunTaiwan

04-15-2005, 02:53

Quietus

04-15-2005, 03:40

Yeah, a link to amazon.com is just awful sabotage.

And no, there was never a single sentence in the original post saying go post 1 star. I merely mentioned that you could go post a review.

Good, bad, or ugly. Up to you.

Also, I don't see anyone here saying that all the 5-star reviews are obviously trying to re-weight the average up. If you think the game is "objectively" worth 3 1/2 stars, then you should also have issue with those people...especially later reviews.

Finally, you are allowed to review a product based on customer service alone. It happens all the time. I can't quote the thread that is deleted, but for purpose of clarification I can quote others.
4/06/05 on "Post here if you're unhappy with Ca support" thread:

Might I also recommend offering some BAD REVIEW ON AMAZON?

I think ';ll go there soon and leave one.
You wouldn't know it from the title, but the Your Homework for Today thread actually contains a very good idea on this issue IMHO. Post a review of RTW on Amazon, now that you know about the load bug and CA's response to it. Maybe CA marketing will start to wonder why the average rating for their product took a nosedive and exert pressure on the devs to actually run the tests we asked for and see the bug for themselves. Also go to the "Heart of the Matter...." thread. I went to Amazon.com site after seeing the "Your Homework For Today" thread and saw about 10 new reviews (all one-star; with the exception of one which I think is 2 or 3 stars).

Red Harvest

04-15-2005, 03:47

Kraxis,

I still only get 1 vote. It was after direct discussions with some putting up 5 stars that I had enough. 5 star at this point *while knowing the problems* is assinine at best, and certainly disingenuous. So I elected to send a message to counter what I consider fraudulent voting. The reviews I've read certainly aren't a 1 star white wash. (That double post might have been in error, I had that happen to me once on a hardware review--the review didn't appear for quite awhile so I thought it got lost in cyberspace, so I reposted it. Then both of them appeared next to one another in just a few seconds. Groan, thwarted by technology.)

Another issue is that most folks rate things within a few days of purchase if at all. So when it is all shiney and new, and the patches are still on the horizon, optimism tends to prevail (and that is good.) Now we are on the other side of that. I don't think many of us would rate it as highly now as we would have before. (Which is a real problem for me with 5 star reviews.) To me that is where the genius was in rating the game now. Incidentally, it would make just as much sense to do so with a game that greatly improved through patches after a shakey start.

I am amused by all of Quietus collusion, sabotage, and blackmail theories. As a side note, sabotage is usually in reference to an "inside job," again making it an incorrect usage. So using it for this is quite sensational and quite wrong.

Marcus Maxentius

04-15-2005, 04:33

Sabotage doesn't have to be an inside job. It doesn't matter who does damage a disgruntled employee, a rival, a spy, or a terrorist. It's still sabotage. It doesn't matter whether the thing damaged is inside or outside. Even Abstract concepts like ratings can have their meanings damaged. I read game reviews with a pound of salt. I discount extremely favorable reviews like 5's or 10's and extremely low reviews such as 1's. These reviews I see as very suspect, a personal agenda as some have said or a troll who thinks he's cool.
With this issue in particular, It doesn't matter how well written they are. Their intent is not primarily to review the game for customers, but as another venue to cry out to CA for a patch.

Bhruic

04-15-2005, 04:39

Perhaps you should say that it is your perception of their intent. As you weren't there when they wrote it, so you can't really say why "they" chose to do so.

Bh

Marcus Maxentius

04-15-2005, 04:39

Marcus Maxentius

04-15-2005, 04:40

good point.

Bhruic

04-15-2005, 04:42

While were on semantics, please correct me if I misread something somewhere. But blackmail and extortion only involve money? Anything of value can be threatened by hurting something else of value to the victim. It can be a promotion, "companionship", plane ticket out of the country, freeing of "wrongly imprisioned compatriots. In this case, the thing of value wanted is a patch for a video game. Threats can be like do this or I'll kill your family or blow up this shopping mall. In this case, it's lost sales.

Sorry, can't give you that one. Blackmail is basically saying "give me this, or I'll do this". There is no "or I'll do this" here, because people already are writing their reviews. Also, blackmail can only be done to someone. People arranging the so-called "campaign" here, or on other forums isn't doing it to CA. People would have to be emailing CA and saying "give us a patch or we'll go write bad reviews on Amazon". Which would be a ridiculous email to send.

Bh

Marcus Maxentius

04-15-2005, 04:44

I'm not focusing on this as much as other people. But every now and then I need to vent at the pointlessness of arguing on the internet

Bhruic

04-15-2005, 04:47

It's no skin off my nose either way. I haven't written a review on Amazon (or anywhere else), nor do I intend to. And while I personally find CA's (and Activision's) lack of support distasteful, I'll simply be "voting" with my wallet.

But I do find it annoying (and somewhat hypocritical) when people suggest that people shouldn't be writing the reviews if they feel it's warranted. Write your own if you want. But leave it to others to decide what review they wish to write, and what score they wish to give.

Bh

Marcus Maxentius

04-15-2005, 04:53

Yep, it's all ridiculous what's going on. I think the mod was right about this thread getting ridiculous. First the dictionary and now philosophy.

HarunTaiwan

04-15-2005, 04:54

Gregoshi,

Unfortunately, your internet poll about RTW is not scientific and could not be used to compare to Amazon ratings to determine if the reviewers are "lying" or not. It's not a random sample and neither are the Amazon ratings.

Also, playing a flawed game is not the same as saying it deserves more stars. Again, if you bought a Jaguar and were not satisifed with the quality and service, would you say that the fact you still drive it to work means that "secretly" you are satisfied with the car?

I think you all need to let people's opinions stand and stop second guessing. Besides, the whole purpose of Amazon rating is to inform potential buyers. Are you actually saying that if you read the reviews that you wouldn't come out more informed? There are glowing reviews that explain the game, and poor reviews which explain some of the drawbacks..I guess we could retract all criticism - I mean, let's not be arbritrarily unfair to a company with an arbritrary 2 patch rule.

Red Harvest

04-15-2005, 06:07

It isn't sabotage to give your opinion of a game, and to warn others off. Calling reviews or ratings sabotage or blackmail because you disagree with them is nonsense. It clearly implies a serious wrong is being committed. That's nonsense and that's why this debate is continuing.

Another reason for giving it the lowest possible ranking: prospective buyers would do better to wait for the XPack and the typical "bundle." Why buy an unfinished product twice? It makes no sense at this point. Buyers would be wiser to wait for a bundle (and a patch) at any rate. It is certainly a better use of their playing time.

And just a reminder of why we are all here discussing this in the first place: The problem is not with the customer, it is with the developer. The developer is the only one that can rectify the situation.

Benny Moore

04-15-2005, 06:22

Some people try to justify Creative Assembly and portray them as being the victims by pointing out how it is Activision's fault that the game is shoddy.

It is not a lie. However, it is a half-truth. It may be Activision's fault that the game is shoddy, but it is not Activision's fault that Creative Assembly has chosen to lie, insult customers for pointing out errors in a civil manner, and forbid all discussion of a particular area of the game.

As far as I know, no discussion of the Amazon campaign has occurred on the official forums. Who would be stupid enough to post that thread? It is exactly like, as some of you have argued, loudly telling people not to shop at a certain store, while in the store. I would be amazed if anyone told me that they know of any discussion of the Amazon campaign at the official site.

No, Creative Assembly's knowledge of the Amazon campaign comes from this board. One of the developers posted in one of the deleted threads here. Therefore, Shogun's hidden meaning must mean that people who promote the Amazon campaign at this site will be banned from the official site.

That kills the argument which states that Creative Assembly are being perfectly fair in their threat to ban people who promote the Amazon campaign.

Quietus, your underhanded and slippery manipulation of this argument has made you stand out from among all others who take the same position as yours. The truth is not in you. You have lost one more man's respect by your word weaving.

screwtype

04-15-2005, 07:17

But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!

LOL.

Colovion

04-15-2005, 08:09

I'd really just like CA to come out of their caves and let us know their thoughts on the matter and actually inform us on the hows and whys of the situation.

Obviously a lot of people are... let's just say 'annoyed' to put it mildly and it is to do with a faulty product. Not one that has plans to be fixed like any other form of entertainment that doesn't perform as advertised - no, one who's creators have declared that they have washed their hands of the respected problems.

Well unless you want to buy the expansion pack.

hey guys, remember when we joked about this a long time ago that they wouldn't fix the problems but would make us buy the XP to fix them?

those buggers jumped the shark on this one, mooning us as they did it

Quietus

04-15-2005, 08:12

Quietus, your underhanded and slippery manipulation of this argument has made you stand out from among all others who take the same position as yours. The truth is not in you. I don't know what to say but disagree with this, especially when you didn't even mention the act of blackmail or sabotage as "underhanded". But you call someone crying "blackmail!" and "sabotage!" as underhanded. I'm fairly straightforward with my statements and still abide by them.

You have lost one more man's respect by your word weaving. No offense taken. In fact, I don't even believe you at all. I think you're just venting and I'm the closest man around.

Your statement is merely dictated by emotion not by reasoning - stemming out of the frustration that the game is not being patched by CA. Am I right? Thus, it's not admissable by my account.

Believe it or not, I lament CA's inaction in this matter. I test a LOT for my Guide and I save every single turn (while simultaneously playing the campaign). And I had the sinking feeling when Tai4ji2x first posted the siege bug thread here (because it instantly explains why the AI wasn't expanding in my game).

So there you go. :charge:

screwtype

04-15-2005, 08:16

My take on the semantics:

I think "sabotage" is probably a fair description of the one-star ratings on Amazon, given that they are designed to, well, sabotage the game's average rating there. ~:)

But, so what? The average rating was 5 before the campaign began - the highest possible rating which is clearly absurd. Vanilla RTW deserves a 3 at most, I personally would rate it at a 2. And arguably the "read our lips - no new patches" policy deserves a further downgrade, which would make it a 1. So the 1-star ratings are at least defensible.

As to "blackmail" and "extortion" though, I'm sorry, I don't regard a person exercising his legitimate right to post a review on Amazon as being tantamount to criminal activity.

In any case, I think anyone who reads the latest reviews on Amazon will get a very clear picture of the debate, since the issues have been thrashed out there in the various pro- and con- reviews as well. Readers will quickly realize that (a) there's a deliberate campaign in progress to bring the average rating down, and that (b) some gamers are very dissatisfied not only with the state of the game but also the lack of support from CA.

No-one is being misled. No-one is being tricked. There's just a very open public debate going on, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Oh and BTW, the reviews are probably helping to raise the org's profile since several reviewers have mentioned it by name. So people can come here, read the threads and be as well informed as anyone about the issues before making their choice about whether to go ahead and buy. And that can only be a positive IMO.

Browning

04-15-2005, 08:51

In order to make a proper decision, the customer must be provided with a proper information. Advertising is not such a proper information, it is a part of information at the best. Reviews in computer game magazines have been, possibly, a part of the advertising campaign for the product. The customer, seeking information, could turn to the internet fora like this one but it seldom happens. Moreover, the official forum displays only the part of the information of the product (its positive side) while hiding the other part (deleting the posts on bugs), thus it can be considered a part of the advertisement campaign.
Disillusioned users of the product, posting their angry reviews on Amazon and other sites dedicated to selling, do a good thing, since they provide a potential consumer with a valuable information he would not obtain otherwise.

HarunTaiwan

04-15-2005, 09:13

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

Colovion

04-15-2005, 09:31

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

/support

player1

04-15-2005, 09:42

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

Well, I think it would be great if there was a LAW (at least in US, all roads lead to US), which would order all gaming companies to have such declaration on thier boxes.

It would detail how long is guaranteed patch support (how many months).
And what is guaranteed number of patches.

That would be a campaign I would support.

Colovion

04-15-2005, 09:50

Well, I think it would be great if there was a LAW (at least in US, all roads lead to US), which would order all gaming companies to have such declaration on thier boxes.

It would detail how long is guaranteed patch support (how many months).
And what is guaranteed number of patches.

That would be a campaign I would support.

this is more like something to be thought of all across the internet, something which would be MUCH more supported by the gaming magazines - which would most likely support a campaign as far sweeping as this.

SpencerH

04-15-2005, 12:21

Its funny but I mentioned that the Amazon rating had fallen to 3.5 in another thread (as an interesting aside) and my comment was expunged by the mods, yet here y'all are discussing it.... hmmm.

Congratulations to whomever thought of expressing our views at Amazon. Brilliant!

"Sabotage", what drivel! CA have sabotaged this game with their behaviour much more effectively than a few patrons who gave the game 1 star. As far as I'm concerned, even if the 'campaign' does negatively impact the development of the TW series or even if CA calls it quits it may remind other developers and more importantly we (the consumers) of where the power truly lies. Its time that all game developers stop foisting buggy software on the public. What do we need to do, agitate in congress for a software lemon law?

Turbo

04-15-2005, 13:44

The latter.

Most people rate something early on when it is new. So waiting until after the final patch is a rather interesting approach. There is nothing to prevent others from rating it higher. The difference is mainly that people were reminded that they could send a clear message with their ratings and reviews (since the .com had been shut down to them.) And they did so.

Good point Red Harvest.

Turbo

04-15-2005, 14:01

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

The reviews are anything but an afterthought. You obviously haven't read the reviews.

Catiline

04-15-2005, 14:05

.org's views on the discussion of this campaign have been made clear. Thread closed.