Was Medieval 2 rushed? [Archive]

IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer

12-07-2006, 06:29

M2TW was rushed, and nobody can legitimately argue otherwise. Seriously, no responsible developer willing to take their time would have let so many glaring, GAPING flaws slip into their product and still feel content to publish it. Umm, Passive AI anyone? They even acknowledged that it was present in the game BEFORE it was released!

How about the inability for gunpowder infantry to reform properly after a loss?

How about the fact that many units are clearly not as effective as they were intended to be? Varangian Guard are paraded as the byzantine main unit, yet they lose against everything. Something like the attack speed bug could not have slipped past a playtest. You'd think ONE of the beta testers would have noticed, "Hey. My varangians just got gothmetalled on by some Peasants. That seems not normal."

How about the stats system being misleading to the point of obsolescence?

Blah blah...you've heard or experienced it all. Granted, it's a much better game than RTW, and I'm not denying that it is a good game, but it's by no means an amazing or fantastic game. CA seems to be making each new game with less and less care and attention. The TW series is not synonymous with horribly buggy gameplay. CA can't keep leaving so many gaping, obvious bugs in their future games and then just hope to write it off with that clever little rhetorical device - "oops!" Eventually, people are going to get sick and tired. I already am.

M2 is a good game with a very limited scope that is further limited by bugs on top of bugs. The game just doesn't live up to its epic scope anymore.

RussianWinter

12-07-2006, 07:27

At this point I'd blame things more on sloppy code-base/ code management then being rushed. My guess is that the source code required to fix problems like bad AI just isn't robust enough to handle alterations this far down the line.

This is what, game #4 from this engine?? They've had years to get stuff right, I don't think pushing release back farther would have fixed this stuff.

TheFluff

12-07-2006, 07:45

I dont think MTW2 was rushed at all.

CA is like a music artist, sega is the record company

Gamespot, IGN and such are like MTV and VH1

A Demo is like a single (track)

CA is like a pouplar artist, allready has a few hits, sega is the new boss but still, the arist might have a great album and single but still might want more time to work on some tracks, but sega just wants the finished productand doesnt care if the artist is off temo or what ever (like a bug).

so yes, dispite my complacted analogy, i think the game wasent rushed but sega dident let CA work on the finishing touches, just like when someone rushes out a report and doesnt bother to double check it to hard. they wanted results and they dident want to loose fan intrest or have to dish out more money to promote it. So i dont blame CA, i think its just the industry is like this now and you'll just have to get used to buying subpar games and hopeing after you pay them they will patch it up and fix it.

Fisherking

12-07-2006, 08:01

Good analogy Fluff

I don't think it was actually rushed. They may have missed or overlooked a few things but this is actually much better than most new released games...just shows you how bad most are:laugh4: What have we sunk to!

The manual and lack of tech trees, maps etc is the greatest deficit, IMO.

Would we like changes? Sure but is it as buggy as RTW? NO WAY. This is much above average...I can't help that average still sucks.

peri

12-07-2006, 08:03

So i dont blame CA, i think its just the industry is like this now and you'll just have to get used to buying subpar games and hopeing after you pay them they will patch it up and fix it.

Why should we? If I but anything else that is sub standard I take it back. But it is not possible with a game. Passive AI is a major flaw acknowledged by everyone. It is because people accept this standard that companies can continue to produce games that are not finished. The civilization series has had 4 incarnations and countles expansions. That only gets better. I feel that we are no further forward here. Only the mods made RTW a truly great experience. Do we have to rely on enthusiasts' goodwill this time as well?

Warluster

12-07-2006, 08:23

Wait, no one knows the real time length it took !?!:speechless: Well guess what...

It took 7 years! Hard work, and very good, stop complaining everyone, its a great game better than R:TW (in my opinion, and pretty good!

econ21

12-07-2006, 08:23

I don't think we really resolved if Rome was rushed out the door, although it seems to have been.

It's been a while, but I don't recall ever thinking Rome was rushed out the door. I remember at the time, a CA staffer posted here that they were told to take an extra year developing it because some high-ups (at Activision?) got excited. They had seen early work on the engine and thought it was going to be bigger than the rather modest follow-up to MTW that CA planned, so they wanted CA really go to town on it. I inferred this was largely in terms of polishing the game so it was very much on the leading edge in terms of graphics (and there they succeeded, IMO). We certainly did seem to have to wait quite a while for RTW, even watching it being put through its paces on a TV program (Time Commanders) before we could get our sweaty hands on it. So CA had plenty of time to tweak a pretty polished working version of it.

At this point, some Orgahs are probably going to show up and give their "100 reasons why I think STW/MTW is better than RTW" speech again. :coffeenews: But I don't think most of those reasons are to do with bugs or simply a rushed product. Some features from the earlier games may have been lost, but I don't think there is any evidence that this was due to "rushing". Rather it was more like early coal-fired ships lacking some of the features of the later sailing ships.

...Medieval 2 was rushed...

I remember being shocked to hear, just before Heroes of Might and Magic V came out, that the AI of HommV was only being worked on a couple of months before release. However, it seems standard practice to put all the elements together and then give attention to the AI. I guess it makes some sense - you can't see how a car runs until you have put the wheels on and installed the engine etc.

From the developer blogs, M2TWs AI seems to have been given a lot more attention than HommVs - perhaps because with RTW already existing, they could get earlier builds which they could tinker with. But I still get the feeling that the shortcomings of M2TW have some analogies the HommV AI story. Most of the bugs that people have identified are not missing wheels or an engine that won't run. They are components that don't quite mesh together; things that need a slight adjustment to get them running smoothly.

If I compare M2TW with one (great) game that we know was rushed - Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2 (KOTOR2), there's no comparison. KOTOR2 was just incomplete - whole parts of the game that were planned had not been added due to lack of time - and the whole thing just feels clunky. By contrast, M2TW still strikes me as a fairly polished complete product - as much as any TW in the past. It certainly feels as if it has hard more tender loving care lavished on it than BI (which is a game I like). It just needs some tinkering through a few patches.

Maybe game design schedules should allow a longer period for tweaking etc. But I guess you have to stop sometime and the biggest bug with M2TW in my opinion - the "passive AI bug" - seems to have been introduced after tweaking (much like the "kings die at 56" MTW bug).

The civilization series has had 4 incarnations and countles expansions. That only gets better. I feel that we are no further forward here.

Interesting analogy. Looking for comparators, it did strike me that Civ 4 was released as more a polished product than M2TW. But it also seems a less ambitious one. I suspect programming a Civ AI is easier than programming BOTH a TW campaign AI AND a battle AI, the latter with all the animations, wide open spaces etc.

Personally, I think M2TW stands in relation to RTW as Civ4 does to Civ3. Both of the later games are much further forward, and better, than their immediate predecessors. They are also arguably better than MTW and Civ2, although there the gains are less dramatic.

Whacker

12-07-2006, 08:53

Stuff about RTW

You know, I was just reading your comments and I realized... I don't really remember how RTW was in vers 1.0 and 1.1. I remember having a few corrupted savegames, but that was it. In all honestly, I think my favorite patch level was 1.2, it just felt like for all the stuff they fixed in 1.3 and 1.5, they broke something else pretty bad. /shrug I the end I still say I am satisfied with the ultimate resulting product, it makes for great fun and replayability.

At this point, some Orgahs are probably going to show up and give their "100 reasons why I think STW/MTW is better than RTW" speech again. :coffeenews:

LOL!!! I'm waiting for it too. For the record, I don't really like to compare too much, even though I often do for the purposes of providing background to my positions/arguments/suggestions. Each game was cool in it's own right, and they each had their strong points and weaknesses. M2TW looks to be no exception to that rule.

If I compare M2TW with one (great) game that we know was rushed - Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2 (KOTOR2), there's no comparison. KOTOR2 was just incomplete - whole parts of the game that were planned had not been added due to lack of time - and the whole thing just feels clunky. By contrast, M2TW still strikes me as a fairly polished complete product - as much as any TW in the past. It certainly feels as if it has hard more tender loving care lavished on it than BI (which is a game I like). It just needs some tinkering through a few patches.

Mmrrr.... That's a tough one and a great point on KOTOR2, I had to think about that for a bit. My gut reaction was to disagree with you on some of the nuances, but I can see how you got to that conclusion and would be inclined to agree on some points. KOTOR2 was/is the poster child of mis-managing a game's release. If you actually tear into the files and read some stuff from the web boards, quite a bit of the bugs and inconsistency can be directly traced to the huge amounts of content that was axed in trying to force a scheduled release, and even then they overshot xmas by 2 months. I guess the part that I disagree with you on is perhaps your wording about "stuff that was planned but not added", though I'm trying not to read into it. Almost everything IS there, it's tucked away in the game files, just not used. Team Gizka is nearing completion on their restoration project, if you're interesting go take a look and browse around their website. You'll get an idea how much stuff really IS there, it just got "cut" but left in the game for the fans to discover. This is also the ongoing raging "discussion" on who's to blame for it being in the state it's in, I think by and large you'll find people blame Lucasarts. They haven't exactly had the best track record over the past few years, so one can somewhat see how that came about. There's a few who point the finger at Obsidian, and a few others who blame both. Personally I don't really care, trying to place blame is counterproductive and it's not really going to solve anything, hence why I made some comments to that effect in the now-locked latest "STOP WHINING!!" thread.

Bottom line, meh, I guess I'm inclined to agree at this point on K2. BOTH KOTOR1 and 2 were shoved out the door early, trying to force schedules and releases for holiday sales. The main difference to me is KOTOR1 was eventually 99% fixed, KOTOR2 was patched once and kinda left as a wounded animal.

RE: M2TW being polished... Again, my own personal opinion... I just can't agree. I think that it should have stayed in the oven for at least a few more weeks to iron the kinks out. Like I said, I'm enjoying the game for the most part, but the first impression just left some bad tastes in my mouth. I have no doubts CA will patch and fix this over time... I still refuse to move off of my "I demand good quality upfront" position, just because it's a principle that I choose to adhere to. I also challenge anyone who thinks this, to show me where I've been bashing CA or the game, as I've repeatedly made my positions known. I've been a good CA customer since the beginning, as I stated I bought each game (twice actually) within a week of release, expansions included. I may not be a highly respected .orgah vet, or even known at all in the community, but I do believe that as a loyal customer I've earned my right to participate, voice my positions and opinions, just like everyone else does. Those comments are directed at NOONE in particular for the record, it's just me thinking outloud.

Personally, I think M2TW stands in relation to RTW as Civ4 does to Civ3. Both of the later games are much further forward, and better, than their immediate predecessors. They are also arguably better than MTW and Civ2, although there the gains are less dramatic.

Inclined to agree here, though I am making some assumptions about what the "final" product will look like. CA has, in my opinion, done a good job of ensuring that each new iteration of their games have made some good solid strides forward.

We now return you to normal programming.
Cheers!:balloon2:

RZST

12-07-2006, 09:31

it seems rushing games has become part of the industry as of late. kotor 2 being one of the best examples i can think of atm.
nwn2 also felt rushed and if not for the newest patch it would still be crappy (but playable mind you, just that the patch made it sooo much better)

mtw2...well...it feels alot like rtw. i guess its because of the engine =P. i do miss a couple of things mtw had that mtw2 didnt but im still enjoying the game as is.

Quickening

12-07-2006, 09:47

RE: M2TW being polished... Again, my own personal opinion... I just can't agree. I think that it should have stayed in the oven for at least a few more weeks to iron the kinks out. Like I said, I'm enjoying the game for the most part, but the first impression just left some bad tastes in my mouth. I have no doubts CA will patch and fix this over time... I still refuse to move off of my "I demand good quality upfront" position, just because it's a principle that I choose to adhere to. I also challenge anyone who thinks this, to show me where I've been bashing CA or the game, as I've repeatedly made my positions known. I've been a good CA customer since the beginning, as I stated I bought each game (twice actually) within a week of release, expansions included. I may not be a highly respected .orgah vet, or even known at all in the community, but I do believe that as a loyal customer I've earned my right to participate, voice my positions and opinions, just like everyone else does. Those comments are directed at NOONE in particular for the record, it's just me thinking outloud.

Excellently said. Although I get the impression that the game bugs were more apparent to you than to myself as Ive actually enjoyed the game a lot. It is only the endless complaining on this forum that has tainted the experience for me, it's hard not to read it.
Like you, if I spend £30 on something, then I expect to get exactly what I pay for. Not an unfinished work that requires patches to bring it up to the standard. They say "vote with your wallet" but I don't believe that ever works. It would take one hell of a movement to convince gamers to boycott games companies until they release games that are actually finished. Sadly, I think it is something that is just going to keep happening.

Daevyll

12-07-2006, 09:54

Considering the fact that most players experienced the 'passive AI' bug within hours of installing the game, I think there is no question the game was rushed out.
There really is no reason why something as obvious (and with such an impact) could have been overlooked.

Still, the game is enjoyable enough, and I've promised myself a new campaign as soon as the patch is out (I have a problem finishing campaigns, always starting new ones.... so I'm forcing myself to stay with the current one in this way ;) )

Daveybaby

12-07-2006, 10:04

Was it rushed? No more than PRETTY MUCH EVERY GAME THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. :grin:

To anyone who thinks this game was rushed: take a step back and look at the depth of every other game out there compared to M2TW. Now tell me M2TW was a rush job again.

Considering the fact that most players experienced the 'passive AI' bug within hours of installing the game, I think there is no question the game was rushed out.
There really is no reason why something as obvious (and with such an impact) could have been overlooked.
Yes, really is a reason the passive AI bug was overlooked. There was a last minute tweak to the AI that broke something, and by the time it was noticed the game was in production.

I guess they could spend a month or two testing every last change before going gold. And then, when they find a bug, fix it then spend another month or two testing. In some industries (ones where if there is a bug, the worst case scenario isnt a forum full of whining petulant twelve year olds, its where EVERYBODY DIES), thats what happens.

I guess game developers could emulate that approach, but you would be waiting for another year for M2TW, and it would cost twice as much money. and CA would go bust, because theyre trying to compete with wafer thin RTS and MMORPG-by-numbers and crank the handle FPS, none of which have the complexity of TW and none of which require anything like the AI that TW has.

foop

12-07-2006, 10:43

As many people have already said, all games are rushed out of the door these days. Things are getting so complex that it would take forever to iron out all of the bugs (and the bugs created by the fixes and so on). In my (limited) experience of software development, these days you end up saying "Well, it doesn't actually kill the user, lets do a code freeze for release" at some stage.

Having said that, the fact that CA announced a "day zero" patch pretty much on release of the game suggests that they were forced to ship before they'd fixed everything to their satisfaction.

Musashi

12-07-2006, 10:56

Varangian Guard are paraded as the byzantine main unit, yet they lose against everything.
This is simply untrue. I labbed Varangians to see how they were performing before I decided how to address them, and they win against most units. They crush peasants, dismounted feudal knights, dismounted chivalric knights... I had to pit them against Zwei Handers before they actually lost.

However, I didn't think they were winning by enough, and losing to Zwei Handers seems odd considering the Varangians have significantly better stats, so I changed their animation and now they own everything in sight, which is simply a reflection of their amazing stats.

However, while you can say they don't live up to their stats in the stock game, they definitely don't "lose to everything" and they absolutely will not lose to peasants, ever.

FrauGloer

12-07-2006, 12:37

Personally, I regretfully have to say that yes, I think M2TW was rushed. I don't care whether or not it's CA's fault or SEGA's or whatever, I care that I spent 50 bucks of my hard-earned money on an obviously unfinished product. :furious3:

Apart from the already mentioned bugs (passive AI), what I find it extremely disturbing is how many things CA "fixed" that weren't necessarily broken in RTW, e.g. archers shooting vertically when on walls, units completely incapable of obeying orders to attack when on walls, UNIT COHESION, etc. All of these obvious bugs should have been detected on first play by even the most incompetent beta-tester, I can't fathom who CA hired for QA - chimpanzees? :laugh4:

On a similar note (and I know that some people here actually like it), the new charge system shouldn't have passed playabilty tests, either. Just yesterday I ordered a unit of Crusader Knights (60) to charge a unit of Town Militia (58). The knights were completely in formation, about 25 meters distant from the enemy. I right-clicked once on the enemy unit, but instead of lowering their lances to charge in... THEY FRIGGING WALKED!!!:wall: ... all the way to the enemy unit, losing 41 knights in the ensuing melee. You can't tell me that this would NOT be noticed by any beta-tester, it's happened to me countless times. Same goes for billmen - they don't kill anything, ever, after their first charge.

Don't get me wrong, I still like the game, but it is unfinished, and that's a fact. :thumbsdown:

Daevyll

12-07-2006, 13:02

Yes, really is a reason the passive AI bug was overlooked. There was a last minute tweak to the AI that broke something, and by the time it was noticed the game was in production.

Changing something, especially something so vital, then sending it to production without taking the time to properly test and adapt it, is a typical example of what I would call 'rushing'.

KristianSax

12-07-2006, 13:25

There was a nice analogy earlier ... here's another one.

Those of you who have had to take their time and write a university thesis or some other major paper know what I mean.

The fact is that a thesis/game (for many people at least) cannot be finetuned to perfection. Each time you look through it, you find something that you think can be improved, changed, added etc. But at some point you have to draw the line and hand in/publish your thesis/game. Undoubtedly the next time you open it, you fill find things that need changing but this process could last indefinitely.

Its the same with this game and many others ... you can't go on tweaking it indefinitely or you'll just go bankrupt or will at least have to drop the project. At one time or another you have to draw the line, especially if the community is screaming their hearts out for the release, and bring it out. Now its time for the community to voice their opinions about it, what they like about it and what they despise with some exceptional rotten apples that are overly constructive and label the game broken and unplayable.

This, however, is where the analogy ends ... you can never patch a thesis that has been handed in :)

With the release of every game there will be people screaming bloody murder ... that is unfortunate albeit inevitable. Of course CA may partially also be blamed for this ... the three previous games were too good and the public expected them to something so much more thus leaving them in bitter disappointment. I think if you create illusions and get your hopes up too high, you can be disappointed in almost everything ... a new car, a concert, a game, a movie etc.

econ21

12-07-2006, 13:28

However, I didn't think they were winning by enough, and losing to Zwei Handers seems odd considering the Varangians have significantly better stats, so I changed their animation and now they own everything in sight, which is simply a reflection of their amazing stats.

(Bold font added:) Wow! :2thumbsup: Have you explained how to do this in one of the modding forums?

I remember Qwerty saying how much animations matter (above and beyond stats) when modding RTW for EB. What you've done starts me thinking of a player1 type bugfixer for M2TW. Assuming the worst case scenario of issues not being fixed in the patch, it would be good if the community could come up with something that addressed whatever can be addressed through modding. I'd want a pretty minimal set of changes, however, not a lot of personal preference (e.g. not "I think unit X should be uber so I raised their charge to 100...").

One positive point though - am I right in thinking player1's bugfixer is now pretty irrelevant for RTW? I noticed there was one for BI, but it seemed to only fix BI specific stuff. I inferred that CA eventually incorporated the bugfixer changes or made other changes that rendered them unnecessary. Or am I simply confused on this point?

econ21

12-07-2006, 13:34

This, however, is where the analogy ends ... you can never patch a thesis that has been handed in :)

Very good analogy. My thesis has a mistake on the first line - I got the year wrong! D'oh!

Another analogy that strikes me is with typing/wordprocessing and with computing. In days gone by, you had to be very accurate in writing because it was time consuming to re-type something. Similarly, in computer programming, there was a premium on accuracy, because a program might take a day to run and so errors would set you back a long way. However, with word processing, we probably write more sloppily because we can correct it. And in computing, a PC can run basic programmes so fast, a bug does not set you back so much. Patching may just be like the wordprocessor or powerful PC - it makes it easier to correct errors, so companies are more likely to be willing to release a product they know has an error.

[EDIT: Apologies for double posting! Bad moderator! :shame: :whip: ]

Dexter

12-07-2006, 13:39

.. rushed as all games ... despite the fact that it has sys requirements that the majority of players can not get .. i`m 23 and i have bought my pc *P4* only recently *september* ... had P* whit 733 Mhz .. good old machine still have it ... money is money after all ..
Remember Shogun ??? in the video options it had software and harware .. guess what i playd it for 2 years on a p 166 whit 4mb video and 64 ram ,... still whit good grafics .. now whit Rome+BI+Alaexander and Medieval 2 ... dont bother putting everything to high ... forget highest ... only if you have a video card like 256 Mb .. some 1Gb rad * its speed at least 400 MHz * but the higher the better ... sad ...
and most of the Games the "new" ones are rushed and bugged ... i guess i schould take out my 2.86 whit its 13 MHz and play Dangerous Dave ...
okok ... nostalgy is not to good ... at least the Graph if u have the system is worth the money ... to a point ...

KristianSax

12-07-2006, 13:58

Aaaah ... the good ol' days when the grass was greener, the sky was bluer and when the youth was not so spoiled.

You should keep in mind that when things (games among them) become more complicated, they are more prone to mistakes, bugs and errors. Most of us are spoiled by the development the games have gone through in such a short time.

I remember being so content with Digger, Alley Cat, Larry 1 etc. From every new game we expect so much more - for it to be more realistic and more fun - and when they don't deliver we are disappointed (I'm repeating myself, aren't I).

Carl

12-07-2006, 14:02

ll of these obvious bugs should have been detected on first play by even the most incompetent beta-tester, I can't fathom who CA hired for QA - chimpanzees?

I may be wrong here, so don't take this as 100% fact. But i've seen at least 1 post here saying they had been told that no beta testing actually took place, so even though these bugs should have been caught, they wern't becuase their was no bug cathcing phase.

Just yesterday I ordered a unit of Crusader Knights (60) to charge a unit of Town Militia (58). The knights were completely in formation, about 25 meters distant from the enemy. I right-clicked once on the enemy unit, but instead of lowering their lances to charge in... THEY FRIGGING WALKED!!! ... all the way to the enemy unit, losing 41 knights in the ensuing melee.

You need to double click, or hit (R) if you want them to charge. My way of making good charges in the demo is to march them at the enemy then when they are right on top of them right click and tap (R). They baerly slow down and seem to hit at full power. allthough I can't be sure TBH.

Lorenzo_H

12-07-2006, 14:12

I wouldn't call it rushed. Just because it has a few bugs doesn't mean it was rushed and should be tossed aside.

When have you seen a game that didn't need a patch or two after it was released?

Musashi

12-07-2006, 14:33

(Bold font added:) Wow! :2thumbsup: Have you explained how to do this in one of the modding forums?

I remember Qwerty saying how much animations matter (above and beyond stats) when modding RTW for EB. What you've done starts me thinking of a player1 type bugfixer for M2TW. Assuming the worst case scenario of issues not being fixed in the patch, it would be good if the community could come up with something that addressed whatever can be addressed through modding. I'd want a pretty minimal set of changes, however, not a lot of personal preference (e.g. not "I think unit X should be uber so I raised their charge to 100...").

One positive point though - am I right in thinking player1's bugfixer is now pretty irrelevant for RTW? I noticed there was one for BI, but it seemed to only fix BI specific stuff. I inferred that CA eventually incorporated the bugfixer changes or made other changes that rendered them unnecessary. Or am I simply confused on this point?
It's all in the "Secret of Janissary Heavy Infantry" thread here in the Citadel... Someone else figured out the method, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who went through and switched the animations for all the bugged troops.

I gave the JHI animation to all the two handed axe troops (Who, to be fair aren't "bugged", just slow as molasses) and the Halberd Militia animation to some like Dismounted English Knights and such that have pointy weapons that are meant to be good against cavalry (Because the Halberd Militia animation when fighting cavalry is mucho efficient) and so on.

gardibolt

12-07-2006, 16:40

"Well, it doesn't actually kill the user, lets do a code freeze for release"

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm not sure they're actually quite THAT considerate....:smash: If they could kill the user, they probably would.

darsalon

12-07-2006, 18:07

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm not sure they're actually quite THAT considerate....:smash: If they could kill the user, they probably would.

With some of the customers I've got to look after at my place I willingly would :laugh4:

Anyway, onto the topic. How I look on it is that you are never going to get a perfect product out of the door and you simply make the best of things in making sure that the real glaring bugs don't slip through. Inevitably though they do. Customers are essentially advanced beta testers in that respect in finding the bugs. It's not necessarily right I acknowledge but, it's the best compromise in order to get a product out the door to make money for your company without having too much of a time lag in paying out for development costs without that money being brought back in from the customers.

In Medieval's case I certainly noticed the screwed up Billmen not attacking cavalry. Bit annoying as in the original Medieval an heroic Billman won the Battle of Agincourt for me once taking out the French commander in the first 30 seconds of the combat (morale being calculated as it was back then I then just had the herd the french off the map). The passive AI one I've noticed to a lesser degree. For gameplay purposes I've found these things annoying but not game killing so I'm prepared to put up with them.

Same with most people, as long as the bugs are fixed without adding any more bad bugs then I'll be fine with it. Sure we all want the perfect product but given the fact it's a complicated beast I can accept, to a degree, if there are flaws in it.

So yes, I'm a real sit on the fence type ~:)

lars573

12-07-2006, 18:21

Personally, I regretfully have to say that yes, I think M2TW was rushed. I don't care whether or not it's CA's fault or SEGA's or whatever, I care that I spent 50 bucks of my hard-earned money on an obviously unfinished product. :furious3:

Apart from the already mentioned bugs (passive AI), what I find it extremely disturbing is how many things CA "fixed" that weren't necessarily broken in RTW, e.g. archers shooting vertically when on walls, units completely incapable of obeying orders to attack when on walls, UNIT COHESION, etc. All of these obvious bugs should have been detected on first play by even the most incompetent beta-tester, I can't fathom who CA hired for QA - chimpanzees? :laugh4:
I think that the problem here is that most people, like you, have an incredibly over inflated view of what a beta tester job is. It's not "Hey the AI army won't attack till I shoot them some, needs looking into." It's "Hey every time I try to shoot something the game looks-up." Or "The Horse models are fugged, the knights are riding on the horses belly while it floats a meter off the ground upsidedown."

Their priority is to catch the big things that make the product unusable. Little things, like passive AI and some half functional animations, can be patched after release. I konw you don't consider them little things, but they are. As they don't impede the games overall functionality. Most of the issues I've seen fall into the category of post release play balancing.

Gorm

12-07-2006, 18:26

I came across analogy that compares computer programming to bridge building. With a bridge, if there is a flaw, you can usually pinpoint it to one area of the bridge and can usually see it. With a program, flaws on line 20052 can afffect line 100034523 but you often cannot see the relationship between theses lines as well as you can see a physical object.

Code today is often of the same complexity of a Boeing 757, but we can't often see that a flaw in the cockpit can affect the toilets or the baggage compartment (which is how programming can affect seemingly unrelated items).

And because of the complexity, it is often more apparent when things get published that the thousands (or even millions) of users become de facto "gamma testers". Look at all the updates for Microsoft products!!

I am enjoying this game inspite of the flaws. They may be annoying, but I am confident that most will eventually be addressed. This is by far the most addictive game I have played in a great while. And sometimes those flaws are actually features of the game that reveal the true nature of the Middle Ages (like alliances are not forever, and sometimes a mad king ascends the throne).

Let us all be patient as the developers fix the known bugs and give them credit for a wonderful game. I would rather have a flawed product than no product at all.

Barry Fitzgerald

12-07-2006, 18:42

Most agree MTW2 needed more time in develpment..

But the real issue is that it is the least advancing Tw game of the series so far..and the only one to re-visit medieval ere..again. Sure MTW was great...it just ever so slightly dampens things when you have a re-hash..albiet looking real good.

I think what bothers most is that 2 years on from RTW..and using pretty much the same mechanics..there are so many issues..which shouldnt be there at all.

So yes in a way it was rushed...

rc5924

12-07-2006, 19:13

I think the game was rushed. I believe it is primarily SEGAs fault as well. I remember when I played Rome, it was freaking awesome. The immersion, having primarily to do with the opening cinema, was GREAT. I felt like I was the leader of a family with aspirations to become the emperor of Rome and therefore the ruler of the known world.

Then Barbarian invasion came along, and I learned it was about the last years of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Barbarians (Saxons and the Germans for instance) and the continuation of Byzantium, or the Eastern Roman Empire. So I was like this is connected to Rome, it has to be great. So I go and buy it, I notice the big SEGA when I start it up, click on the Eastern Roman Empire, and nothing, THERE IS NOTHING. There were no opening cinemas in that game, and when I won there is just a bunch of what looks like ghost soldiers with whatever color banner you were playing as, all generic, all unexciting. For whatever reason I had to uninstall Rome, and I never touched Barbarian Invasion again, I played through my first campaign, and started a few more without finishing. Needless to say I was dissapointed, I felt like I was playing Rome with different colors, hell, the RTR mod was better than BI IMO, and it was FREE.

So I get Medieval 2, after months of waiting, boot it up, and the openers are okaaaaay, at least they SAY something different for each faction, but I dont like how generic they are, and what happened to the unit descriptions? To the building descriptions? Theyre not half as long as those in Rome, and the building descriptions are pretty close to carbon copies regardless of what faction youre playing. What happened to the Immersion? To the historical references? I dont think I need to mention the bugs, alot of people have already done that, and at least I hear attempts are being made to fix these, but I dont think theyre going to release a patch that includes new opening cinemas, or building or unit descriptions that include more depth, like saying something else for a Catholic than Orthodox church. I dont know, perhaps Rome spoiled me, but I expected an upgrade in this department from that game, not a downgrade, perhaps I should have taken my hint from the bright blue letters and the experience of barbarian invasion.

unknown_user

12-07-2006, 19:34

If you want to see a game that was really rushed, check out Black and White 2. A game that had such potential, and enemy AI was essentially non-existant. They were struggling to get it working, and EA forced it to release, so they had to give the enemy all scripted reactions, instead of a decent AI.

That was definitely reason for the community to be upset. This? No. They recognised that there were a few bugs that need to be fixed, let us know, and promptly fix it with a patch. Yeah, maybe they were rushed on a few things, but it's pretty much par for the course by now.

Xaziv

12-07-2006, 19:40

All EA games are rushed, so yeah...

Aenlic

12-07-2006, 20:11

One of the drawbacks to being an oldtime computer gamer, beginning way back with my first Altair, is that I remember when computer games were released bug free. I remember when beta testing was used to find bugs prior to release. In the area of online games, beta testing is just an advertising tool these days, and people willingly pay monthly fees to play "released" MMORPG's games while the programmers work out the bugs. We pay, in effect, to beta test. It's not so bad with the non-MMO's, because with most of them we get free patches and eventually the worst bugs are handled. It is perhaps even better with a game developer like CA which supports an active modding community.

Still, it's a shame that the days of relatively bug-free game releases are dead and gone. It's not likely to change. EA is the worst offender; but they all do it. We have to face the fact that once people started making considerable amounts of money on computer games, the corporate accounting leeches got involved and they now run the show. Add in the deleterious influence of the even more money-driven console game market and we're pretty much guaranteed to get bug-filled products now. Some are just in a beta status and can be fixed with a couple of patches. Others are in worse shape and would have been considered alpha status in the good ol' days of a few years ago. In the end, the corporate suits would rather release a bad product, knowing we'll still buy it, then risk their excessive salaries getting the product right before release. :no:

All things considered, CA is the least offender in system which promotes the release of bugged products. At least the encourage our modding and listen to the community. They aren't perfect; but compared to other developers, it could be much worse.

Xaziv

12-07-2006, 20:16

Yeah, compared to other companies CA isn't that bad.

What makes EA so bad is... Not only do they horribly rush games, but there is a 90% chance they will never patch or fix any of the bugs in the rushed game.

There are only a couple series where they release patches, like Battlefield series, but all the rest are usually not patched at all and rushed.

There aren't many good game companies out there. All the good ones seem to be deteriorating... or they are small market game developers... CA, Bethesda, arguably Blizzard... and im probably missing out some others... are all relatively reliable... but all of them seem to be making a turn for the worst... with Bethesda abandoning the roleplay elements that made MW great, with Blizzard being stuck on p2p mmorpgs... with CA improving mostly graphics instead of content...

But yeah, it's not that bad. It could be a lot worse. If this were an EA game, it'd be released with 50% more bugs, and it'd never be patched.

Be greatful we are getting a patch.

econ21

12-07-2006, 20:45

For whatever reason I had to uninstall Rome, and I never touched Barbarian Invasion again, ..., hell, the RTR mod was better than BI IMO, and it was FREE.

Not sure about the "hell". If you are into the historical wargaming side of TW, then to say RTR is better than game X is rather like saying Muhammed Ali was better than boxer Y. EB and RTR are both superb mods that knock the spots off most commercial games. However, they would of course, be nothing - literally nothing - without RTW.

Off-topic - if you like RTR, I'd encourage you to try Goth's All factions mod for BI. It does an RTR-style makeover on BI. It's superb and really does justice to a compelling time period.

rc5924

12-08-2006, 09:24

Not sure about the "hell". If you are into the historical wargaming side of TW, then to say RTR is better than game X is rather like saying Muhammed Ali was better than boxer Y. EB and RTR are both superb mods that knock the spots off most commercial games. However, they would of course, be nothing - literally nothing - without RTW.

Off-topic - if you like RTR, I'd encourage you to try Goth's All factions mod for BI. It does an RTR-style makeover on BI. It's superb and really does justice to a compelling time period.

I would have liked to have gone out and bought RTR then BI, just because BI had no immersion, and lost the historical background than the original Rome had. Like when I read a unit description it was really a description, of how they fought, where they originated, and how they were used in a famous battle (possibly all this information) but when I played BI, that seemed to have lost its importance, and the same with M2, its just not as in depth as Rome was, and im not the kind of player that will play a game for hours if the game doesnt draw me into it, I play games to have fun doing the things I will never be able to do, like commanding a faction in medieval times, or fighting in WWII. Im not going to spend days upon weeks just doing stuff in a game because its there, I want to BE there!

Barry Fitzgerald

12-08-2006, 11:53

I agree with B.I. Never really did grab me that much. Maybe I just never gave it the chance...but then like you say if it doesnt pull you in enough...you dont bother so much.

I think it was ok for an expansion pack...but since V.I. well...that was the best one...for exp packs anyway.

Back to MTW 2....hmm going to wait until the patch comes out before I pass final judgement..but having finished one long campaign I am left kind of empty in a way...hard to say even if the balance issues and bugs are sorted if I will really get into the game.

Even the long campaign doesnt seem as long as Rome's one...I liked some points....but lots of issues stop you from enjoying it...esp dodgy cavaly control...and the AI issues are appaling at times. It didnt kick in until turn 150! lol

Lord Leonard

12-08-2006, 12:45

Warluster

12-09-2006, 08:14

I totally agree Lord Leonard, there just a bunch of complainers:yes: :laugh4:

Barry Fitzgerald

12-09-2006, 12:48

I don't see anything wrong with complaining if you have spent your money on a game and it doesnt work properly...If you bought a s/h car and it broke down the same day would you be pleased?

But the op was a question..and most have suggested it was rushed...course everyone can have their say...but spare us the "just a bunch of moaners" speech..it is getting old a tad. And valid points have been raised.

Daveybaby

12-09-2006, 14:43

but spare us the "just a bunch of moaners" speech..it is getting old a tad. And valid points have been raised.
The same "valid points" that get raised by the same people over and over at every opportunity. It's getting old a tad.

Barry Fitzgerald

12-09-2006, 15:12

Butcher

12-09-2006, 15:26

I've already played it more than I ever did RTW. Not MTW, but then it hasn't been out for 2 years yet :)

JFC

12-09-2006, 15:40

If the issues were not raised..then they would not be fixed in patches etc.

In general on this forum I have found the criticism constructive and positive mostly...with a view to improving/tweaking the game.

People are free to praise as they wish..but do not moan about moaners...people do that when they do not have any arguments themselves..and as I said..see ist line....

"Hey wow it looks cool....10/10!" is pretty shallow IMHO..

I totally agree. I refrain from writing any points that I have because of being classed a moaner and should just uninstall it. Cheers for that constructive advice.

Even if points do get repeated It is a Forum for 'Discussion' after all.

econ21 Sorry for going off topic.

Shahed

12-09-2006, 15:51

Constructive criticism and discussion, IS A REQUIREMENT for a good forum. Thankfully we have plenty of constructive criticism here. It's a right to express your view in a civillised, non confrontational manner, on this forum.

The intellectual fascism of the herd dictates that you have to conform to the herd, if you don't you're not ok. You get labelled this or that. Labels don't change one thing, your view and who you are.

lars573

12-09-2006, 16:07

I don't see anything wrong with complaining if you have spent your money on a game and it doesnt work properly...If you bought a s/h car and it broke down the same day would you be pleased?
Cars have warrenties so that when things that were damaged by manufacturing and transport break they can be fixed right away. Patching a game is the same thing. It just takes longer than replacing a sparlplug.

Cranky Hobbit

12-09-2006, 16:38

I really dont understand why some people are going to such pains to deny the obvious truth. Yes, the game was rushed. When the company acknowledges it was aware of the problems before the game is even available, this is clear proof it was rushed. As someone was has worked in software development, I am not unreasonable about bugs in software; however, the company was clearly aware of them before shipping the game and chose not to take the time to fix them in hopes of cashing in on the holiday season. There is simply no excuse for this.

lars573

12-09-2006, 17:22

Do you work in GAME development. Where release date deadlines are more important than bug fixing. Where it's the indutry practice (and indeed considered normal) to release a software with small bugs and fix them later. Sometimes even large bugs are left in to get the game out on schedule.

TheFluff

12-09-2006, 17:28

Maybe this thread should have been titled "would you still spend your money on M2TW now you know exactly what it is?" After playing the game for a month or so, who's stopped playing it? Whinge and whine all you like about the stuff in it, in fact if you despise it so much, Start, Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs is where you should be.

Unless you were born yesterday, you'd have to know that M2TW would not be perfect out of the box. When you buy any software these days, do you actually assume it will be perfect??? Are you that naive that you think it will be totally to your liking ... 100%? Come on guys! I suggest you don't buy anything Microsoft until SP2, and even then, you'll still spend half your life in a forum complaining about it.

So back to my change of thread title - "would you still spend your money on M2TW now you know exactly what it is?" I'll put in the first vote, yes I would. I really enjoy playing it, which is why I bought it. Do I love playing it like I did RTW, maybe not ... yet. I certainly get frustrated with impotent cavalry, passive AI, unit stat balancing, unit cohesion in battle, the lack of following orders, changing formations when moving as groups, bla, bla, the list goes on. But if I knew all of this and it was being released tomorrow, I'd still go buy it again.

At this point i wouldent buy MTW2 untill the patch has been released. Actually im not one to buy games straight out anyway and wait for the more honest reviews. And in all honesty im not sure what crappy games you've been playing that have been released with bugs, but Relic games and paradox games are most likely the BEST games on the market, relic makeing very polished non bugged games, and paradox createing very imerssive games and they actually make an attempt to patch bugs they find.

And like most smart people i dident start useing windows XP untill this year. 2000 is better as far as stabality and memory usuage and less buggy. I think that while subpar games are being released, and much more frequently paircy will contune to grow and game companys will spend less and less effort to put out good products and both sides end up being wrong. I mean MTW2 has had alot of probelms, like when it was supposed to be released, the lack of a 0 day patch, more bugs and non useable units... i mean there arent that many units in the game. Anyway unfortnetly like i said earler, i think its rushed but most games are and thats a shame.

Dunc

12-09-2006, 17:38

In my opinion it was rushed. In my experience with the game, the glitches and buggy AI behaviour are terrible, and could not have been missed with a reasonable amount of testing. They either didn't test it enough, or they did test it enough but didn't care enough to fix the issues.

Musashi

12-09-2006, 17:38

Yes I would still buy it.

Sure it has a few glitches, but the people saying it's "unplayable" are totally exaggerating a few small issues and making out like it's the end of the world.

Dunc

12-09-2006, 17:59

I should add that I still would buy the game like it is. It's still a really fun game. It would just be a lot funner if the issues were fixed. Right now it's so tedious though. Every other turn I'm having to defend Milan from a Milanese siege, and every fucking time there's a spy opening my gates, which means I just have to sit back and let the time limit run out.

dopp

12-09-2006, 18:21

And in all honesty im not sure what crappy games you've been playing that have been released with bugs, but Relic games and paradox games are most likely the BEST games on the market, relic makeing very polished non bugged games, and paradox createing very imerssive games and they actually make an attempt to patch bugs they find.

Relic releases without serious bugs? Dawn of War had serious typos on release which resulted in some weapons doing zero damage against certain armor types, like the Defiler's autocannon doing no damage to unarmored troops. The Ork mob size bonuses were broken. Terminator heavy flamers hurt the firing unit rather than the enemy. Fire Dragons are still broken and prefer to melee vehicles rather than use their fusion guns. Tau Broadsides have targeting issues. Vespid have 0 production time. Tau flamers do massive damage instead of breaking enemy morale. Baneblade weapons were not aiming properly and its main gun still cannot penetrate armor. Relic releases can be quite buggy too. Playable and great fun, but still buggy.

Butcher

12-09-2006, 18:25

There's an ongoing joke on paradox forums that a game there isn't considered to be any good until version 1.3 at least :)

TheFluff

12-09-2006, 19:09

Relic releases without serious bugs? Dawn of War had serious typos on release which resulted in some weapons doing zero damage against certain armor types, like the Defiler's autocannon doing no damage to unarmored troops. The Ork mob size bonuses were broken. Terminator heavy flamers hurt the firing unit rather than the enemy. Fire Dragons are still broken and prefer to melee vehicles rather than use their fusion guns. Tau Broadsides have targeting issues. Vespid have 0 production time. Tau flamers do massive damage instead of breaking enemy morale. Baneblade weapons were not aiming properly and its main gun still cannot penetrate armor. Relic releases can be quite buggy too. Playable and great fun, but still buggy.

When was this? Relic has more titles then just DOW, Homeword 1/2, and company of heros are all great titles and have won awards. Dawn of war Dark Crusade was one of its best releases, and unlike MTW2, even though it used the same engine it was as much a stand alone game as it is an expansion. MTW2 "feels" like an expansion, not a stand alone. Also to clear up DC issues, there are very few and no game breaking bugs (some unit balance issues). SOme of the bugs included the power sword dident do enough damage compared to the defult weapons. Also Tau dont have any flame useing units, ork mob sizes have never been an issue and all factions are balanced being strong early mid or late games. Firedragons are not broken but there range is extreamly short and if you pit them against a walker it will go into CC because its being attacked. Anyway i dont want to get into this since im sure many people on this fourm have never played DC and i feel as if im being a tad rude. Howerver the point im makeing with relic games is that if there IS a problem, they do fix it, and they release both mini patches and BIG patches (like adding new upgrades/skills) and there games to me have never felt rushed even though they were just as hyped as MTW2 was.

There's an ongoing joke on paradox forums that a game there isn't considered to be any good until version 1.3 at least :)

Ah yes, this is very true, victoria and EU1/2 come to mind (DD was pretty good though). So your right, BUT when the imersion factior comes into play, very few games can boast such a claim as the paradox team with there indepth studying, research and listening to the fan base. They are a very fan orented company and arent afraid of being so. There products are buggy more beacuse they arent a really rich dev team to afford the time/man hours and the games they release dont cost alot. MTW cost anywhere from 40-50 dollars in the US and are run by "big shot" companys. Your supposed to pay for what you get. Although you cant really compare a paradox game (useing the more risk style aproch with alot more depth) the fact is i dont think a game that is going to cost full price is makeing abit of a statement in itsself. I

If MTW2 was a FPS game i think there would be alot more.:thumbsdown: going on. And again this is my opinion, but i have played few games where i looked more foward to playing the mods and not the actual game out the box, and thats not a complment.

Carl

12-09-2006, 19:15

Relic releases without serious bugs? Dawn of War had serious typos on release which resulted in some weapons doing zero damage against certain armour types, like the Defiler's Autocannon doing no damage to unarmored troops. The Ork mob size bonuses were broken. Terminator heavy flamers hurt the firing unit rather than the enemy. Fire Dragons are still broken and prefer to melee vehicles rather than use their fusion guns. Tau Broadsides have targeting issues. Vespid have 0 production time. Tau flamers do massive damage instead of breaking enemy morale. Baneblade weapons were not aiming properly and its main gun still cannot penetrate armour. Relic releases can be quite buggy too. Playable and great fun, but still buggy.

It's an interesting list but forgets a couple of factors:

1. Vespid Build time has been like that from the beginning and in the opinion of most sensible people it isn't a bug, it's what they intended. Weather it’s balanced or not dosen’t really matter. It’s only a bug if it’s not what they intended to happen.

2. The targeting bug was also intended as they couldn't fix it. I'm part of a group who developed a workaround to it though. We've passed it on to relic, but we won't know if they use it till the patch.

3. The Heavy Flamer bug would be down to the Friendly Fire (pardon the pun), being enabled I’d bet, (I wasn't around back then though, but as a DoW modder I’m fairly sure of what could cause this).

4. The Tau Flamer is obviously mucked up. however it's the opinion of a group of people (and I’m one of them), that Crisis suits where balanced around the bad flamer, and that’s why they're so weak without it.

5. The Baneblade was buggy, but it's actually quite a hard error to spot, and didn't actually make it ineffective so it's not like it matters anyway.

The rest where/are/sound like honest bugs. But his point was more that Relic releases games with few if any really major bugs, (Fire Dragon AI is the only game breaker I’m aware of).

Carl

12-09-2006, 19:20

@TheFluff: Tau Crisis Suiots have a Flamer option as does the Commander, allthough since no sane player uses Crisis Suits, it's easy to forget.

Slicendice

12-09-2006, 19:34

Rushed? Yes of course. The game isn't complete but it's on shelves before Christmas. That didn't happen on accident.

I used to get really ticked about developers releasing games that weren't finished and sometimes not even playable. Nowadays I'm older and wiser and it's easier to download patches which install themselves. Remember the good ole days with Windows 3.1 where you had to find the directory to install something after you downloaded Winzip to unpack it? Aaaah nostalgia!

Would I have liked the developers to have done more testing so as to present to it's loyal customer/fan base a completed polished product? --Of course.

Am I going to cry and moan and say nasty things about the developers because, they are money grubbing whores who were more interested in cashing in on Christmas game shoppers rather than make us wait a couple more months until they worked out all the bugs? Heck no!

I'm having fun right now and when they patch the game it will be refreshed again and I will play it some more.