View Full Version : What about the Next TW games Graphics?
Marius Dynamite
11-05-2006, 01:48
Sorry if there is already a Topic for this.
Looking back at when RTW first arrived, did anyone consider what the graphics in the next TW game would be like? Or was everyone still amazed at the 3D Units?
I was thinking about and looking at the M2:TW graphics and they are amazing. But then I stop and think, what will we see in the next TW. I mean, Graphics will undoubtedly Improve once again, but at this point its not very easy to see how.
So here's what I think.
1. Units fighting each other will be further improved. The actual 'thrusting of a sword through the belly to kill' and the 'blocking a swing with shield' will all look much better.
2. Soldiers in a unit won't all look the same when looking for their next target. They will finish the opponent then look much more human-like when they look for their next target. Perhaps they will ready themselves, perhaps they will look slightly reluctant. Body language in general will look much better.
3. Graphics in General will be better.
4. Soldiers might team up to kill an opponent. Perhaps if a soldier is engaging an enemy soldier, a Third soldier will finish his own opponent and turn kill the enemy soldier which is already occupied. (Not sure if this is already in the game, though I doubt it. I think it is something which will be considered for the next TW.)
5. Elite units would be able to interact and kill 2 enemy soldiers in one flawless killing action. It seems the logical step up from units actually hitting each other and blocking etc. Again, this could already be in the game though I don't think so. If it is it will be done to a higher level of detail. In the Overview movie with the Demo, it looks like a soldier has killed one soldier, then swings his axe over and down into the shoulder of another enemy who is behind him. This is probably a specially made clip or it could be in the game. Not sure.
6. More than 20 units under a players control, more soldier on the field. Those would be nice I think. (I guess thats not graphical but.. so)
7. Individual Face Responses. - Faces will show expression and react to the battlefield.
8. Naval graphics. - Naval combat will be included in the next TW.
9. Graphics based on Physics. - The Havok physics engine proved one of the most lauded features in Age of Empires III. Rather than having stereotyped animations of buildings caving in, they would burst apart in a manner dictated by what was impacting them, and would affect the world around them (a large piece might collapse a tree, which in turn keels over and knocks down several other trees). Ageia and other companies are offering and improving "physics cards", which are intended to take the load off the CPU of calculating the complex equations, allowing real physics in gameplay without sacrificing performance. In the future, we may see horsemen blasted off their horses by guns, or wall towers collapse backwards and flatten homes and soldiers.
10. More "active graphical responses" - M2TW gives us bloodied soldiers and scuffed armor. But what if shields, when impacted with a mighty warhammer, are smashed into splinters before your eyes? Or a pikemen thrusts his spear at the opposition's head, ripping off his helmet crest?
11. Improved campaign map - Campaign map graphics will be enhanced again.
Thats all I can really think of/remember. Anyone else got any Ideas of the next steps up in graphics for TW?
Please note Im not bashing M2:TW or saying they should have done these things. I am just trying to Imagine the next Improvements. (Which is very hard since M2:TW seems to have it all.)
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-05-2006, 05:14
Graphics in a game isn't everything. They Should work on The Gameplay, not the EyeCandy IMO. I do argee with you on a few points,even still though..
Comrade Alexeo
11-05-2006, 05:56
Graphics in a game isn't everything. They Should work on The Gameplay, not the EyeCandy IMO. I do argee with you on a few points,even still though..
Oy vey, people are already complaining about the gameplay and we've only seen 3 scripted demo battles... :juggle2:
I agree with your points on graphics; in fact, I was about to post my own similar topic :inquisitive:
Here are some other things I've conceived besides yours mentioned:
1. Graphics will begin to approach first-person shooter (FPS) quality
There is no doubt that M2TW looks extremely impressive, especially on the highest levels. However, it is also nowhere near the photorealism of the upcoming shooter Crysis. Though likely not present yet, it is likely that technology will develop that can allow the scale of the TW games with FPS-quality graphics. Indeed, it is possible that CA, which is already working on the next "revolutionary" TW game (STW, RTW = revolutionary; MTW, M2TW = evolutionary), may be investigating this.
2. Individual facial responses
The one thing sorely lacking from the M2TW soldiers is that their faces are unresponsive. Armor may dent and blood may pour, or an enemy's arm may be triumphantly cut off - either way, the soldier's face remains the same. Imagine if this was different; imagine if, when elephants charge your ranks, a look of terror appears on your infantry - or a bloodlustful cry of war shows on the faces of your cavalry as they charge forward into battle.
3. Naval graphics
Enough said, basically. I'm 99% sure that naval combat will be featured in the next TW game as one of the big new features.
4. Graphics based on physics
The Havok physics engine proved one of the most lauded features in Age of Empires III. Rather than having stereotyped animations of buildings caving in, they would burst apart in a manner dictated by what was impacting them, and would affect the world around them (a large piece might collapse a tree, which in turn keels over and knocks down several other trees). Ageia and other companies are offering and improving "physics cards", which are intended to take the load off the CPU of calculating the complex equations, allowing real physics in gameplay without sacrificing performance. In the future, we may see horsemen blasted off their horses by guns, or wall towers collapse backwards and flatten homes and soldiers.
5. More "active graphical responses"
M2TW gives us bloodied soldiers and scuffed armor. But what if shields, when impacted with a mighty warhammer, are smashed into splinters before your eyes? Or a pikemen thrusts his spear at the opposition's head, ripping off his helmet crest?
That's all I can think of for now. Now, I'm not saying all of these are plausible or even possible now, but hey - who knows where the TW series may take us next?
Furious Mental
11-05-2006, 06:47
Personally what I'd like is for them to massively increase the number of soldiers on the battlefield rather than making them more detailed.
1. Units fighting each other will be further improved. The actual 'thrusting of a sword through the belly to kill'
I'm hoping the soldiers will thrusting bayonets, not swords :juggle2:
Furious Mental
11-05-2006, 11:33
CA has said it doesn't like that era so don't get your hopes up.
Phalaxar
11-05-2006, 11:51
In addition to all the battlefield stuff that's been mentioned, I'm really looking forward to an improved campaign map. That's what made RTW far more fun for me than MTW - the campaign map just worked much better. I can't wait to see how they'll improve it again.
cannon_fodder
11-05-2006, 12:54
CA has said it doesn't like that era so don't get your hopes up.
Haha! My respect for CA just went even higher. I also don't like the period, and would be extremely disappointed if it was the basis of a TW game.
I, like Furious, would rather see the focus switch to large units. The way Shogun's mechanics feel, it is as if the units displayed and in statistics are representational of something much larger. In RTW, the pace of combat seems pretty realistic to me, but it falls down in the grand scheme of things. It's a convincing depiction of little more than a minor skirmish. I may be wrong, but wasn't an army of a 2,000-5,000 thousand men very small by the standards of the period?
I want to see at least 10,000 men under your control in a large battle, even if it means increasing the average size of a unit.
Phalaxar
11-05-2006, 13:01
Haha! My respect for CA just went even higher. I also don't like the period, and would be extremely disappointed if it was the basis of a TW game.
I, like Furious, would rather see the focus switch to large units. The way Shogun's mechanics feel, it is as if the units displayed and in statistics are representational of something much larger. In RTW, the pace of combat seems pretty realistic to me, but it falls down in the grand scheme of things. It's a convincing depiction of little more than a minor skirmish. I may be wrong, but wasn't an army of a 2,000-5,000 thousand men very small by the standards of the period?
I want to see at least 10,000 men under your control in a large battle, even if it means increasing the average size of a unit.
I don't think it was very small by the standards of that period. :inquisitive:
I'd like to see a novel area that's not usually touched upon by such games. I've little or no idea of the possibilities here, but I think that India (and the surrounding countries) should be pretty interesting. Anyone know of any other historically/militarily cool areas that are almost never considered?
What about ragdoll physics?~D
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-05-2006, 13:21
Oy vey, people are already complaining about the gameplay and we've only seen 3 scripted demo battles... :juggle2:
The complaint is legitimate. They improved the eye candy extremely. But we get less gameplay depth on the battlefield than in MTW Vi. Where are the new features? Eye candy is nice for 5 minutes. But new game play features are interesting for years.
satchef1
11-05-2006, 13:29
Personally what I'd like is for them to massively increase the number of soldiers on the battlefield rather than making them more detailed.
Me too, im not fussed about the graphics. The battle is going on in my head, the computer is just away to control that battle.
Kids these days, no imagination :laugh4:
What about ragdoll physics?~Dhttp://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif
Yeah I was so disappointed when I realised the we will prbably have smaler average armies in this game than in the last one, even when on huge (legionary cohorts 160 men, phalanx's 240 (for some)), that meant the you would easily get over 5 grand total with two full stack armies, on this units are smaller (80,100,150 for most units only peasants and a few other basic units are 240), and the better units are way smaller. This is really annoying, next time I to have 15000 on the field at once (7500 each side). I mean for gods sake in RTW you couldn't simulate a Roman legion and they drop the unit sizes.
I would happily go back to RTW graphics if I could have 15000 man battles.
That was the same with MTW -> RTW, I couldn't get as many men on screen in RTW as i did in MTW.
I think the graphics are fine, sure, it's a bit demanding on your hardware, but, you can't stop progress. I'm pretty sure that, when they would have had the gameplay back to what it was during MTW:VI, only better, with only minimally updated graphics compared to RTW, everyone would be whining about how the graphics don't look good.
As for the next TW game, I think (and hope) They'll keep the current graphics engine, though that depends on when the next game is slated for release.
Phalaxar
11-05-2006, 14:51
I think the graphics are fine, sure, it's a bit demanding on your hardware, but, you can't stop progress. I'm pretty sure that, when they would have had the gameplay back to what it was during MTW:VI, only better, with only minimally updated graphics compared to RTW, everyone would be whining about how the graphics don't look good.
As for the next TW game, I think (and hope) They'll keep the current graphics engine, though that depends on when the next game is slated for release.
Fair point. Something's always not like the fans expect.
No, I'm pretty sure they'll not just rewrite it but start from scratch. I know they said they rewrote almost everything for MTWII, but that's the trend, isn't it? Shogun written, modified (heavily) for MTW; Rome written, modified heavily for MTWII - another game engine written, modified heavily for MTW III?
CA has said it doesn't like that era so don't get your hopes up.
Who told you that? It requires a more complex engine, what with cannon balls, the need for real naval battles.
Shogun period is not popular enough nor is 3 kingdoms. They won't do med3 and I seriously hope they don't do Rome 2. Aside from fantasy, which will lose their entire history enthusiast side of their fan base, theres much to do :whip:
Phalaxar
11-05-2006, 15:31
Shogun period is not popular enough nor is 3 kingdoms. They won't do med3 and I seriously hope they don't do Rome 2.
Aside from fantasy, which will lose their entire history enthusiast side of their fan base, theres much to do :whip:
Who told you all that? I haven't heard it.
MTW III sounds likely to me as the game after next, the "evolution" on top of the next "revolution". And there are a lot of unexplored eras & places for them, not just Europe post 1500.
redriver
11-05-2006, 15:38
who gives a rat's tail 'bout graphics after we've seen RTW? I don't wanna spend hundreds of hard earned dollars to buy myself a state of the art system just so I can play a game on maximum graphics... this ain't FPS game.
I'm zoomed out in the tactical view MOST of the time durin' MOST of my battles. the graphics are always secondary if not lesser importance in this type of games... that said I think it's gonna be a tough conandrum for CA to come up with a new and unique title to release next.. we don't want sequels. we want somethin' new like Rome and what there left isn't much really. maybe another era or 2 and that's it..
M2TW might as well be their last TW product for all we know... :wall:
Furious Mental
11-05-2006, 15:55
"Who told you that? It requires a more complex engine, what with cannon balls, the need for real naval battles."
No one in particular. It's just a matter of general knowledge in the TW community I believe. You never know- everyone might be wrong. I personally would like a game from the era although it would be a radical departure from what we're used to. However my personal preference for a TW game is another Medieval, but this time covering the area from Persia to Asia.
And as far as the armies in Rome go- yes they are small. Five thousand soldiers is less than one full stength Roman legion from the late Republican period.
Marius Dynamite
11-05-2006, 16:05
I like the graphics in M2:TW. If the next 2 TW games were not improved on M2:TW graphics and gameplay was improved dramatically, I would be the happiest here.
Stop coming to this topic to complain that you don't care about graphics. This topic is to think how CA will improve graphics in the next TW, which they probably will.
I can see why they would improve graphics continously. If they don't, others might catch up.
Ok I'll add edit my post to add some of the other theories. :2thumbsup:
doc_bean
11-05-2006, 16:25
I hope things will look better when zoomed out. In RTW men at a distance were rendered as sprites, or at least not fullt rendered, this was often noticable, it's alos in M2TW.
I'd also like realistic physics and terrain damage.
Dave1984
11-05-2006, 16:59
I think, whatever people say, that graphics ARE extremely important. Of course, you can't play a game that looks beautiful but stinks elsewhere, but on the other hand, where is the immersion in a game that looks terrible?
I can't and won't condone any game that places it's visuals as top priority, but then I can't get into a game that eschews graphics entirely. There needs to be a decent balance. I think, bearing in mind the advances in technology between now and the next TW game (after M2TW!), that there has to be another jump in graphics and animation because publishers will always be looking for units to shift, and there's nothing better to do that than a nice glossy new graphics engine.
That said I'm totally a tactical realism whore, but I'd prefer my whoredom to look nice.
Burakius
11-05-2006, 17:09
the next step is that you can even SMELL the battlefield :P
or even see if your men have taken care of their nails. ! :)
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-05-2006, 18:33
I like the graphics in M2:TW. If the next 2 TW games were not improved on M2:TW graphics and gameplay was improved dramatically, I would be the happiest here.
Stop coming to this topic to complain that you don't care about graphics.
But that is on topic. The graphics is crap. I need more overview, if I zoom out. My wish for the next version is less eye candy and more Overview on the battlefield.
Zenicetus
11-05-2006, 19:22
But that is on topic. The graphics is crap. I need more overview, if I zoom out. My wish for the next version is less eye candy and more Overview on the battlefield.
I don't think the graphics are "crap," but I agree the UI could be a lot better when you're zoomed out and trying to control the battle.
Units in the M2TW demo battles are harder to recognize at a distance than they were in RTW. The UI is still unnecessarily cluttered (in both modes) and the radar/map doesn't provide enough information. I'd like to see a hot key that would expand the radar/map to full screen as long as the key was held down, then pop back to the smaller size when released. In full screen mode, the radar/map would show unit ID's instead of those blue triangles, and you could click to issue movement commands. This would provide a quick tactical overview when the 3D battle view starts to get too confusing (units obscured by trees, or buildings in cities, etc.). Yeah, I know real generals didn't have that kind of help, but real generals had units with a survival sense, that could think on their feet. Not the dumb robots you command in the TW game. I don't think we can ever get too much help in visualizing what's happening on the battlefield, and the 3D camera isn't always the best tool for that job.
This probably isn't the type of graphics advance that the OP was talking about for this thread, but right now I don't see much to complain about in the closeup battle views. I don't personally care about more detailed graphics and animations at the individual soldier level -- facial expressions, additional "finishing moves" or whatever. It's fun to zoom in tight once in a while and watch the action, but I spend most of my time zoomed out at tactical level, watching the battle develop as a whole. That's where the game still feels a bit clumsy and undeveloped to me, in terms of the overall look and the controls.
If I was going to request any eye candy-type features, I guess it would be more weather effects like heavy rain (including visual and movement-altering effects like plowed fields turning to mud), heavy sandstorms, snowfall, fog banks and so on. That stuff shouldn't appear in every battle or it could get frustrating, but it would be nice, once in a while, to actually have to plan the battle around the weather.
Phalaxar
11-05-2006, 19:58
"Who told you that? It requires a more complex engine, what with cannon balls, the need for real naval battles."
No one in particular. It's just a matter of general knowledge in the TW community I believe. You never know- everyone might be wrong. I personally would like a game from the era although it would be a radical departure from what we're used to. However my personal preference for a TW game is another Medieval, but this time covering the area from Persia to Asia.
And as far as the armies in Rome go- yes they are small. Five thousand soldiers is less than one full stength Roman legion from the late Republican period.
Indeed, everyone might be wrong. Nothing spreads like hype.
I just wouldn't accept it myself unless I saw a source. :juggle2:
Aye, but I don't think that the majority of battles involved whole legions.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-06-2006, 10:09
Units in the M2TW demo battles are harder to recognize at a distance than they were in RTW.
You have to compare with MTW Vi. RTW is the same crappy graphics engine. In MTW Vi I can regonize the units of my team neighbour, that is furthermost. In RTW/M2TW I cannot recognize my own units. And I don't need Uber Graphics. I want to have new gameplay. New tactical features. RTW was enough eye candy lol. In my case eye pain.
The UI is still unnecessarily cluttered (in both modes) and the radar/map doesn't provide enough information.
Why should I all the time watch on the minimap If I could see it on the battlefield? Otherwise I can play Hearts of Iron II. Other 3D games strategic games you can also recognize the units. Why not in M2TW?? They forget their objects. No new Game features, but alots of eye candy, that destroy the game.
It's fun to zoom in tight once in a while and watch the action, but I spend most of my time zoomed out at tactical level, watching the battle develop as a whole.
I have only time to zoom in, if I play against new or advanced player. Against equal/better Enemies, I haven't any time to zoom in. I could life with it, if they would lock the zoom in, if the performance would be much better.
If I was going to request any eye candy-type features, I guess it would be more weather effects like heavy rain (including visual and movement-altering effects like plowed fields turning to mud), heavy sandstorms, snowfall, fog banks and so on.
There is no sandstorm and snowfall? :laugh4: Play MTW Vi. There are such things.
I have only time to zoom in, if I play against new or advanced player. Against equal/better Enemies, I haven't any time to zoom in. I could life with it, if they would lock the zoom in, if the performance would be much better.
You either forget that the other player has the same problem or you are rating yourself too high.~;)
Burakius
11-06-2006, 11:42
What I notice when playing ( especially otumba) I have no time to zoom in. Also the camera really just.. sucks at some moments. But I wont wine. I dont see how they could make it better lol
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-06-2006, 13:01
You either forget that the other player has the same problem or you are rating yourself too high.~;)
Maybe I shoudn't do this, but :smash: :
Orda Khan
11-06-2006, 16:54
I am not considering the graphics of the next game....if the series continues. I can only think of one title that would interest me. Apart from that, the only option I can see is more modern and if that is the case I will definitely not be considering it
........Orda
shifty157
11-06-2006, 17:37
To be frank i couldnt really care less about minute graphical details like facial expressions. In my opinion those are just dead weight that eat up my CPU/GPU power which i could have otherwise used to increase the size of the battles or something else thatd be infitinitely more desirable than some guy scowling.
Really i find MTW2's graphics to be more than adequate.
And by the way. A battle of 5000 men is really very small. Especially for the ancient time period. Battles were fought in the tens of thousands per army with some armies breaking even 100,000 men. So yes when you compare it to RTW, 5000 man battles seem more like minor skirmishes. As other people have said, I wouldnt mind if CA kept the same MTW2 graphics engine and dramatically increased unit sizes (say double or if you want to push it triple). Of course this means much larger battlefields to accomodate the armies but I think such huge armies would be much more impressive and cinematic than simply increasing the graphics again even though you can really only see them when youre fully zoomed in.
Minute details are meaningless to me. They can make the graphic detail a bit poorer and I won't notice one bit.
I'd like for them to take advantage of the graphical power by greatly increasing unit sizes. Make 300 soldiers or so the norm for one unit instead of 60, maybe even more. That would make the gameplay better, especially for infantry. The way CA programmed spear units doesn't seem to work well with 60-120 unit sizes. They lose their cohesion way too quickly with a few casualties only.
Phalaxar
11-07-2006, 02:10
You realise that superior graphics and more minute details are inevitable? They have to keep selling, and the mainstream market for this game is not on this forum. This forum is for the diehard fans (or diehard cynics, as the case may be); no matter how many people here care only for the strategic aspects, the number crunching with basic visuals overlaid, it won't happen.
I think the extra graphical detail's great, just for the added immersion. It's a lot more fun to command soldiers in MTW II than in RTW or MTW, just because they're not meaningless blanks - they're a little unique.
CaesarAugustus
11-07-2006, 02:30
For added effects, how about seeing faces getting bashed in, decapitition, severed limbs, and finally blood, blood, and more blood.
Either they'd go back and remake Rome with better unit graphics and a landscape to rival oblivion. Or do a fantasy where spells, flying units and such would be all over the battlefield. That would make a more graphical game.
You realise that superior graphics and more minute details are inevitable? They have to keep selling, and the mainstream market for this game is not on this forum. This forum is for the diehard fans (or diehard cynics, as the case may be); no matter how many people here care only for the strategic aspects, the number crunching with basic visuals overlaid, it won't happen.
I think the extra graphical detail's great, just for the added immersion. It's a lot more fun to command soldiers in MTW II than in RTW or MTW, just because they're not meaningless blanks - they're a little unique.
There comes a point where only the most art-savvy technophiles would even spot the difference and I think we're coming close to that right now. More minute details mean somebody's zooming all the way in and I don't think many people do that. In any case, being able to zoom all the way in won't be a big draw since you can't play the game at that level of zoom anyway.
Colovion
11-07-2006, 04:21
There's only a few things I care about within the graphical realm (which likely would be attributed to gameplay and Unit AI more than anything) are the way the units move, react and reassemble.
Presently I still notice a few times when a dozen or so out of a full stack of soldiers will begin to charge at the enemy and then halt, wait for the rest of the unit, and then all at once they'll charge.
The fluidity of movements of troops is of greatest concern. I believe there should be a slight delay between giving the order and the actual charge - but I think it should be assumed (depending on the faction of course) that the entire unit would move as one, and charge as one; even within the midst of a battlefield when half the unit is engaged with another enemy army.
The ability to partially split units in flanking and feinting maneuvers would be amazing as well - only when the Units could be actively divided and readjusted pro actively could these things come to bear :2thumbsup:
Ignoramus
11-07-2006, 06:20
Gameplay over graphics. While graphics are nice, they have caused the battles to become less complex. In Medieval, you could easily have 10,000 men on the battlefield.
Phalaxar
11-07-2006, 08:29
There comes a point where only the most art-savvy technophiles would even spot the difference and I think we're coming close to that right now. More minute details mean somebody's zooming all the way in and I don't think many people do that. In any case, being able to zoom all the way in won't be a big draw since you can't play the game at that level of zoom anyway.
Sorry, I don't understand - what difference are you talking about? :dizzy2:
Meh, it's just a guess, but if they didn't have this level of graphics and just had little static models floating about, randomly disappearing off the map when they meet, I think just as many people would be complaining. :yes:
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-07-2006, 11:12
You realise that superior graphics and more minute details are inevitable? They have to keep selling, and the mainstream market for this game is not on this forum. This forum is for the diehard fans (or diehard cynics, as the case may be); no matter how many people here care only for the strategic aspects, the number crunching with basic visuals overlaid, it won't happen.
I don't want to build up a fan club. Yesterday I played online MTW Vi. We discussed about the new game. My opinion is the opinion of the most, who still play MTW Vi. CA should know, that not all are happy with the new game. RTW player, that started to play the Total War series with RTW, cannot discuss the same way as old MTW players can.
I think the extra graphical detail's great, just for the added immersion. It's a lot more fun to command soldiers in MTW II than in RTW or MTW, just because they're not meaningless blanks - they're a little unique.
Hmm. But with this opinion you cannot win a multiplayer game. The first, that counts, is the team, the second your army. A single unit counts (except for your general) nothing and a single soldier doesn't exists :laugh4:
I expect from the graphics, that it pays attention to the priorities.
Phalaxar
11-07-2006, 23:05
I don't want to build up a fan club. Yesterday I played online MTW Vi. We discussed about the new game. My opinion is the opinion of the most, who still play MTW Vi. CA should know, that not all are happy with the new game. RTW player, that started to play the Total War series with RTW, cannot discuss the same way as old MTW players can.
Yeah, but how many people still play Vi? No matter how many, it's not going to be their largest demographic. This is exactly what I said just in the previous post: the die-hards aren't representative. And your voice is no more important to CA than the next newb's who's only starting with MTW II and, gasp, owns an X Box or even Gamecube. Your voice counts exactly as much as the next guy's who has $50.
CA do know, but it's their choice and it's obviously going to be for the larger section of the community. Which is fair enough; if they didn't they wouldn't be around long.
You may say that, but I disagree; in any case, I started with STW, moved right onto MTW and still managed to enjoy RTW.
Hmm. But with this opinion you cannot win a multiplayer game. The first, that counts, is the team, the second your army. A single unit counts (except for your general) nothing and a single soldier doesn't exists :laugh4:
That's great, but totally irrelevant. It's a complete strawman argument.
I expect from the graphics, that it pays attention to the priorities.
Everybody does, but, like I said previously ... CA aren't going to pay attention to diehards' priorities - they'll always go for the biggest market, good for them.
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard
11-08-2006, 11:54
Phalaxar, a last answer: don't forget you don't know anything about me and my MTW history. I don't need a discussion on your level. That's all I still want to say.
Faenaris
11-08-2006, 13:53
I have to agree with |Heerbann|_Di3Hard. While RTW for all rights and purposes was a wonderful game in its own right, when compared to MTW, it rapidly shrinks away. This becomes more prevalent in the multiplayer section: RTW in MP is more for "kids" (no offence intended at all to anyone). So many rules and mechanics from MTW were missing that it became tragic. Heck, a whole army of cataphracts is the killer-army? What the hell? In MTW, a combined arm approach was mandatory in my opinion. Unless you knew what you were doing (ambush tactic, "cannae army", etc ...) you were better prepared to deal with a random opponent if you army was equipped to fight any threat.
While I absolutely love the nice graphics, I rather prefer more mechanics and more "realism" than shiny armour. Call me an elitist, but I want the game to be die-hard. But then again, that is only my opinion and I'm only one buyer, so ...
Maybe M2TW will bring back those good old times from MTW to a certain extent. I'll find out once I have M2TW on my drive.
And your voice is no more important to CA than the next newb's who's only starting with MTW II and, gasp, owns an X Box or even Gamecube.
I'll have you know that I own a PS1, an x-box, a psp and two x-box 360s butI have still been playing total war games since shogun! (except alexander) Leave the consoles alone!
Phalaxar
11-08-2006, 18:15
Phalaxar, a last answer: don't forget you don't know anything about me and my MTW history. I don't need a discussion on your level. That's all I still want to say.
Heh, you don't want to continue but you need the last word? Tough. If you don't want to continue, stop debating (even about the debate itself).
I don't know much about yours, but you know as little about mine. Your condescending arrogance is charmingly misplaced.
If you cannot debate properly, ie. either showing why my points are wrong or answering them, it's a really rather antisocial strategy to just pretend you're better than to answer.
Aye, fair enough Faenaris. The more mechanisms, the closer it gets to reality, the better for sure. I understand (not in depth, but at least the general reasons, I reckon) for CA's decision, even if I don't like it that much.
Marius Dynamite
11-08-2006, 19:21
Seems we have went off topic ever so slightly. :smash:
P.S.
CA should know, that not all are happy with the new game. RTW player, that started to play the Total War series with RTW, cannot discuss the same way as old MTW players can.
I am 100% certain that CA know that not all are happy with the new game. Even though the game isn't out yet.
I am 1,000,000 % sure that CA also know, they can't please everyone.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.