View Full Version : Creative Assembly No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms (update: Kingdoms patch announced)
Even though it has been said many times before I am still staggered that neither CA, nor SEGA have actually bothered to respond to this barrage of accusations!
Have you read this thread? CA staffers have posted several times about a patch for Kingdoms. As far as I can make out, the issue is still under consideration.
But if you are expecting a point by point response to every poster's pet hate, you will be disappointed. I suspect CA staff are wise enough to follow the maxim never wrestle a chimney sweep.
Goaswerfraiejen
11-16-2007, 19:30
Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.
On the other hand, there's a direct link between the money spent on graphics development and the money available for testing, patching, and AI improvement. Some areas of a game naturally have to be prioritized, and unfortunately I think that a great many of us feel that the wrong area has been given priority.
Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI.
You see the graphics immediately when you create them, but the strength of the AI isn't apparent until it's been extensively tested. One problem in the new engine is that the unit speeds are being determined by skeletons that CA is loath to change later due to the amount of work involved, but the unit's speeds directly affect playbalance on the battlefield. You can't possible get the tactical playbalance optimized if you aren't willing to go back later and adjust the unit speeds. CA has apparently concluded that the phantom majority doesn't care if the playbalance is not optimized.
They had a highly effective AI in the MTW/VI engine. You can prove it by playing the Samurai Warlords campaign on the normal difficulty setting. The strategic AI almost always attacks a province with enough force to win the battle. The tactical AI does a few things very well such as: it chooses advantageous matchups in melee with the combat situational factors properly taken into consideration, it only attacks when it has an advantage, it uses archers to shoot low armored units, it responds to ranged attack, it flanks with cavalry, it holds back its general. it does not attack piecemeal, it coordinates allied armies on the battlefield and in seige attacks it keeps the bulk of its army out of range until a breach is made in the castle wall. In Samurai Wars, the RPS system is strong like it was in STW. This is great for the AI since the AI is designed for such a system. There is no artillery which is good because the AI doesn't know enough to protect its artillery. The tactical AI is capable of handing your head to you in an even contest.
Contrast this with the RTW AI which intentionally underestimates the strength of the player's armies on the strategic map, charges weaker units into stronger units on the tactical map, suicides it's general, thinks it has all day to set up flanking maneuvers with infantry, attacks with units in piecemeal fashion, doesn't respond to ranged attack, doesn't know its units have shields, doesn't coordinate allied armies and places its army inside the range of castles. This is what Creative Assembly claimed was an improved AI. I don't see how the developer can really improve the AI when they are in a state of denial about the quality of the AI they are now producing. When you try to help them improve the game, the way you did in previous years, they turn around and tell you that the game is not intended for hardcore players. End of story. So you now have a game where all you have to do is make a very large number of mouse clicks and you win. Yay!
Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.
Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI. What I would like to see CA do, is bring strategy back to TW games. They've become a little too formulaic for my liking.
Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next. The problem is simple: SEGA/CA does not make gameplay a priority. It obviously ranks fairly low in the company's considerations for what their games should be nowadays. The same goes for quality of work and in general "finishing the job".
Note that this is not about the individual developers/employees who may or may not support their management's policy. Since I can't discern whether or not they do, this is merely a statement of my impression about the company's decision-making processes.
Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next.
No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.
lancelot
11-16-2007, 22:44
...As far as I can make out, the issue is still under consideration.
Well, given the response below that open this thread-
Originally Posted by Caliban (CA)
There are no plans for a patch at the moment.
- I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration...
Granted, CA was smart enough to add the caveat at the moment but when a game has a laundry list of known issues, for the developers to say 'no plans for a patch' at this relatively early stage, the writing seems to be on the wall- for me at least anyway.
No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for grpahics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.
Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too?
"Under Consideration" is just business speak for 'No, but it will stop them complaining for a little while'.
Me, I don't mind where the patch came from or who made it--for me, a good patch that works is a good patch. But better if the game or mod doesn't need an patch at all anymore.
Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too? yeah, the team with theme " hi guys we are working on smh so stay pacent because youll never see it :2thumbsup: ".
It's interesting that there won't be a team for quality assessment and/or playtesting, which is something that is sorely needed.
I was talking about programming teams, of course there's a QA team. And i didn't mention design or art teams either.
Well, given the response below that open this thread-
I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration
I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1716434&postcount=31
I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".
No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.
Will be? :laugh4:
A team for AI sounds promising though, I hope that all of these different teams which probably consist of one to three persons each will interact on a regular basis.
Zenicetus
11-17-2007, 19:36
I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1716434&postcount=31
I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".
They have said nothing at all about addressing the SecureRom issues in Kingdoms, either in that thread or anywhere else. And they've been asked directly about it, multiple times.
Will be? :laugh4:
As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.
Zenicetus
11-18-2007, 06:52
As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.
See what I mean? CA reps will talk about anything, except removing invasive software left behind, after you've uninstalled the game. That sends a clear message, and we get the message.
Unless i'm posting under the CA badge, i'm not a CA rep.
Slug For A Butt
11-18-2007, 16:40
Unless i'm posting under the CA badge, i'm not a CA rep.
Cop out? :inquisitive:
You cannot speak with authority on the subject and then claim that because you are posting on your old account it shouldn't be taken at face value, surely? Surely we are talking semantics here? :yes:
Cop out? :inquisitive:
You cannot speak with authority on the subject and then claim that because you are posting on your old account it shouldn't be taken at face value, surely? Surely we are talking semantics here? :yes:
Basically, if i was posting under my official account it would be to do make an official post on the subject of this thread, whereas i am using my other account to answer some questions not directly relating to the topic at hand(programmer teams) as if i posted under my official account it would not be very fair to you guys as it would not contain an answer to the topic at hand.
We have not forgotten about this issue, it is not being sidelined, and when there is an official answer, i'll put on my official account and post in this thread.
Slug For A Butt
11-18-2007, 17:23
We have not forgotten about this issue, it is not being sidelined, .
Shouldn't that first part of your post have been on your CA account? :inquisitive:
I know I'm probably being pedantic, but this is the problem when you try and wear two hats.
I know I'm probably being pedantic, but this is the problem when you try and wear two hats.
I fully understand what you mean, and my own fault really for trying to wear two hats. And yes that last bit should probably have been posted under my other account, but i'd rather wait until i have something more substantial to say than that.
I fully understand what you mean, and my own fault really for trying to wear two hats. And yes that last bit should probably have been posted under my other account, but i'd rather wait until i have something more substantial to say than that.
To be honest I think it's a good idea for you to have two accounts. You are making personal, modding-related or semi-inofficial comments using your old account which means they'll have to be taken at least with a grain of salt and CA shouldn't be held responsible for anything you say using it (unless you specifically say so maybe) and use the new account for official statements.
It's better to say something inofficial than not to say anything at all :yes:
Surely we are talking semantics here? :yes:
Yes, you are absolutely correct Slugbutt.
I'm sorry Lusted, but that's the case, no matter what you may say. While we understand that CA may have some special company policies about interacting with the public that may specifically include the Org, you are a CA employee now. Whether or not your post under your "CA" account or your "personal" account, you represent CA to us, "on the clock" or "off". It doesn't really matter if you state something as a personal opinion, as a CA employee you opinions and image are a part of the larger whole and as such represent, to us, an aspect of CA. Thus if you are polite and have real meaningful dialogue with us even "off the clock", it will reflect well on your employer. The opposite, meaningless statements and arrogant comments, will obviously have the opposite effect. As such I'd state that you will never be "off the clock" again to most of us.
I apologize for not being able to put this very concisely, but I think the point is there. You've crossed a threshold from which you can't return (unless you quit your job or are fired, which I doubt anyone here would wish on you). I also know that I don't represent all of the Org with these statements, but I do feel 100% safe stating that this applies to the vast majority of those who post in the Citadel (and probably at the TWcenter forums), simply because we know who you are and what your past is. As such you'll need to tread carefully around us, but then again I'm sure you already know better than most of us what a hornet's nest it is here.
TheLastPrivate
11-19-2007, 07:14
Back to original topic, it's still inexcusable to not patch kingdoms where we have major gamebreaking bugs like the kalmar union bug...
abdecken5
11-21-2007, 01:39
anyone get the feeling there is a patch comming and its name is Empires:TW?
Slug For A Butt
11-21-2007, 02:20
EDIT: I posted without understanding your post... sorry.
I see what you mean now.
Good luck to the people that buy ETW, and see what even worse, half assed state the future TW games appear in if they know that people will pay more money to have their original purchase work properly. Hell, why even release the game half finished? Release it in stages and make people pay for every improvement until after spending $200 you get the final working game...
Why can't we just get what we pay for in the first place? And I'm not interested in people telling me that "software is different to every other industry", the software industry has created this myth by being substandard all round, so that people expect sub standard products. Well thats fine but I pay with my hard earned cash, but not to CA any more. I refuse out of principle.
abdecken5
11-21-2007, 03:23
I know how you feel, but I just except being exploited for money, thats the nature of buisness. Its not like the FPS market that is very competative, so standards are higher and you get less buggy games released and more support.
you could always beg, borrow or steal a copy before you decide if you wanted to purchase it yourself
Slug For A Butt
11-21-2007, 03:54
I don't accept this state of affairs, and I will probably buy these games when they are in the bargain bucket for £4.99 (invasive software excepted).
CA have seen the last of me spending £35 for the gane on release and £300 a time upgrading my PC to play them. Their attitude has alienated me in the same way that buying a motorbike for £8000 and then being told I have to spend £400 for the brakes to work, another £800 to make the suspension work properly and £500 for another ECU to make the fuel injection work smoothly would alienate me. Now if I wanted to improve the features then I could choose to spend the cash or not, but if I have to spend this extra cash to make the bike meet the minimum I expect then I would feel cheated.
Same deal.
Their attitude has alienated me in the same way that buying a motorbike for £8000 and then being told I have to spend £400 for the brakes to work, another £800 to make the suspension work properly and £500 for another ECU to make the fuel injection work smoothly would kill me.
Fixed that one for ya mate.
And it does sadden me to see the rolling over responses. "Oh I can't do anything about it so I'll just deal with it." "We won't make any difference so what's the use." "This is the only option available so you have to accept it." "I love CA and would buy poop on a stick if they packaged it up and sold it!" Ok so maybe not the last one, but some of the posts have been pretty close. :shrug: :grin:
abdecken5
11-21-2007, 05:23
the overall goal of a commercial company is to make profit. if CA could make more money selling poop on sticks it probably would, if there was a market for it.
infact that is, metaphorically, what CA are doing.
they will ride this series into the ground by dumbing it down even further to appeal to largest majority of casual players, who dont care about or notice bugs and all the other short comings or cry out for patches and support. they will hide behind the old excuse that their fan base is actually growing because sales increase but the real fans are already going elsewhere. I think regretably you are kidding yourself if you think they will put the fan communities concerns first. they had a chance to do that with M2TW and they blew it big time.
too bad then ive abandoned ship before the seires even got to have naval battles...
AussieGiant
11-21-2007, 07:26
All I'll say is that I have been purchasing CA games since the beginning and have purchased all expansion between the main releases.....
.....until now.
I didn't buy Kingdoms and I wont.
If the same types of issues rear their heads in Empires as they have here...then I'd have to say CA is not improving over time, or have their focus too much on the visuals and not enough on the content.
lancelot
11-22-2007, 01:52
anyone get the feeling there is a patch comming and its name is Empires:TW?
:laugh4: Well said.
Although it will probably be Empires:TW Beta...
Slug For A Butt
11-22-2007, 04:28
Fixed that one for ya mate.
And it does sadden me to see the rolling over responses. "Oh I can't do anything about it so I'll just deal with it." "We won't make any difference so what's the use." "This is the only option available so you have to accept it." "I love CA and would buy poop on a stick if they packaged it up and sold it!" Ok so maybe not the last one, but some of the posts have been pretty close. :shrug: :grin:
Well said. It's the "I didn't vote because what difference does one vote make?" during an election attitude. Sad really. My attitude is that if you don't vote in an election you have no right to complain about the government that is elected, and I think I'd apply the same principle here.
Oh, and thanks for fixing that mate. :2thumbsup:
EDIT: And when you mention "poop on a stick" do you mean the consistency of a liquid poop after a spicy meal or the firm poop of a healthy diet? I'd never buy the former as it runs down the stick on to your hands. Apparantly...
Mouzafphaerre
11-24-2007, 23:23
.
:dancinglock: per Kingdoms Update?
.
.
:dancinglock: per Kingdoms Update?
.
Why close a perfectly useful thread, we could have it renamed and continue talking :P
Actually that announcement just backs up what was said in the two posts before yours: If you want to have an impact, you have to make an effort. Without the outraged posts of quite a few members of this and other communities in such threads I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have even got a chance for another patch. To make game companies react you have to be sure to hammer it into their head that they're about to lose a lot of money or at least prestige.
So, let's continue bitching around constructively about ETW and maybe we'll get a half-decent game on launch... although the chance is slim.
Slug For A Butt
11-25-2007, 19:22
.
:dancinglock: per Kingdoms Update?
.
Well, thanks for a useful post.
Mouzafphaerre
11-25-2007, 22:18
.
...and thanks for your nasty sarcasm Slugg. :bow:
Before biting, why don't you look again, maybe more closely? There's a question mark at the end. It's there to denote that this is a suggestion. People would have points to keep the thread open and, like Alpaca, they can make them.
I suggested a closure to carry the discussions on to the new thread and to prevent potential less careful posters from continuing to post as if a patch were not announced. It happened before and it's likely to happen again. I, for instance, don't read anything in these MiNO sections, except the patch and Securom threads, which I custom-stickied. I did miss the announcement. Others may too.
I'm OK eitherwhere. :shrug:
.
I'll edit the title, and the first post, to reflect that and limit confusion :bow:
Mouzafphaerre
11-26-2007, 14:02
.
Thanks. :bow:
.
So a patch is forthcoming. Read the sticky on the kingdoms update and for the most part it seems users are pleased.
I think given the circumstances it would behoove everyone to cut CA some slack. They are doing a patch. The most important lesson here is that as a consumer you should reward companies after the game meets your expectations.
Given the detail the web provides on games (this thread as a shining example) there is no excuse for users to feel ripped off, exploited or used.
Empires is next, have you preordered?
If you do your part of the problem, wait until these patches come out that fix components of the game before you purchase. Dont buy first then bitch later. :logic:
So a patch is forthcoming. Read the sticky on the kingdoms update and for the most part it seems users are pleased.
I think given the circumstances it would behoove everyone to cut CA some slack. They are doing a patch. The most important lesson here is that as a consumer you should reward companies after the game meets your expectations.
Given the detail the web provides on games (this thread as a shining example) there is no excuse for users to feel ripped off, exploited or used.
Empires is next, have you preordered?
If you do your part of the problem, wait until these patches come out that fix components of the game before you purchase. Dont buy first then bitch later. :logic:
Cut them some slack? Interesting terminology, I shall remember it :laugh4:
I'm pleased that SEGA/CA is at least not mad enough to lose hundreds of potential customers because they don't want to pay a dev or two to fix a few issues, but as for "cutting some slack": I won't, because I don't even have kingdoms. And if I had, I'd be waiting to see what state the patch (which is going to take a few months at the very least btw) will leave the game in to make a decision about whether or not to praise CA.
I hail any CA or SEGA employees who fought behind the scenes for a patch though. Thanks guys.
And for your personal information: I believe quite a lot of people have been convinced by M2TW to wait some time before buying new games in the future.
I'm pleased that SEGA/CA is at least not mad enough to lose hundreds of potential customers because they don't want to pay a dev or two to fix a few issues, but as for "cutting some slack":
Thats the problem, none of us should be customers until the product is to our satisfaction. Assuming the hundreds of posts in this thread are genuine, one can assume that the customers were satisfied, or fooled.
Eitherway the cat is now officially out of the bag. The whinning seems to have worked, precious few stood up and took responsibility for thier choice to buy a product that was not to thier satisfaction.
And for your personal information: I believe quite a lot of people have been convinced by M2TW to wait some time before buying new games in the future.
And for your personal information, your sentiment will be proven wrong again. I will wager just about whatever you like that come empires there will be another thread of consumers whinning about a patch, for a game they chose to purchase.
History has a funny way of repeating itself dosent it? Remember once upon a time the 56 year old king dying bug?
Yet here we are again, 2 titles 2 expansions later same tired arguments, and no repsonsibility taken. There's no excuse anymore, the web is chock filled with sites like this with buglists, wish lists, and fan mods to correct problems.
The same thing will happen on the next title, and the one after that, company after company, game after game. Its all right here, one dosent have to look far to find it.
Pach for Kingdoms is good news, but not for me, since I do not own Kingdoms. Now, if Kingdoms is patched, the patch is good, the patch retroactively applies to the vanilla game, *and* the rootkit issue has been addressed, I will consider getting Kingdoms. Until then, no soup for SEGA/CA.
Goaswerfraiejen
11-26-2007, 22:17
Odin, you're both right and wrong. You're right that there's a point at which our lust for a new game simply reinforces the developers' bad practices, but you're dead wrong when you say that the consumer is 100% responsible because s/he had access to all of the information prior to purchasing the product. Consider, for one thing, that these bug threads and so on require people to buy the game and notice the bugs before they go up: that's already a large handful of people who didn't have all of this information going in. Consider that it's taken over a year to get the bug threads, complaints, etc. articulated to their current point, and consider that very little had been done about any of it. Consider features promised in advertising (such as Krak des Chevaliers or Russian War Wagons) that were simply never included. We don't have all of the information when we're buying the game, and you can't expect anyone to.
That being said, the craze to buy Kingdoms was ridiculous. At that point, we knew exactly what had happened with M2TW and we knew that most of the problems were--at best--on hold. Buying Kingdoms was, in my opinion, a fully-informed mistake. The SecuRom fiasco was just icing. Odin is right in one respect, and that's that we all fall prey to the gambler's fallacy every time a new game is announced: "oh, THIS time I'll get lucky--I've lost 5 straight, but my luck's going to turn!" Exact same mentality. It's really shameful, at that point, when people get high and mighty and righteous in their complaints about disappointed expectations.
With regards to M2TW itself, however, I think that we all have a right to complain. I love(d) Rome a great deal, actually, and never had cause to complain about it. With that positive experience in mind, I bought M2TW and, as I've said elsewhere, was supremely disappointed (it's not that everything was bad, just that the bad overshadowed the good--better diplomacy was one major positive factor for me, although I did wish it had been changed even more radically). I couldn't even play the game due to one of the bugs, which was a gigantic frustration--what made it worse was that the patch fixing it came out something like half a year later. Due to this horrible experience, I've not bought Kingdoms, and I'll not be buying Empire--at least not until these issues are resolved and I feel like I've bought more than just eye candy.
While we can hold ourselves responsible to a certain extent, that should not be used as a pretext for washing the developers of their own share of the blame. We should definitely smarten up, but so should the games we're being offered. The responsibility is shared, not personal.
[QUOTE]Odin, you're both right and wrong. You're right that there's a point at which our lust for a new game simply reinforces the developers' bad practices, but you're dead wrong when you say that the consumer is 100% responsible because s/he had access to all of the information prior to purchasing the product.
No your dead wrong, if your going to ascribe something to someone on the fourms at least quote them, but your new so maybe you didnt think of it?
The whinning seems to have worked, precious few stood up and took responsibility for thier choice to buy a product that was not to thier satisfaction.
Customers are 100% responsible for how they spend thier money. Unless you want to suggest that CA, sega or some other company controls gamers money? Nope, enough free passes for gamers have been doled out. We all know how games are released buggy and patched later, some people claim its support, others say its additional features.
Either way this is a reality of the gaming industry, unless your 13 and buying on a whim there arent excuses. This very thread
Re: No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms has been on the front page of the MTW2 forum for better then a month.
Consider, for one thing, that these bug threads and so on require people to buy the game and notice the bugs before they go up: that's already a large handful of people who didn't have all of this information going in.
I'd be willing to make a concession here if MTW2 was the first release of the product line. IT isnt, CA its releases, patches and add ons are well documented. It would take someone 10-15 minutes tops to find "total war bugs" through google....
Consider that it's taken over a year to get the bug threads, complaints, etc. articulated to their current point, and consider that very little had been done about any of it. Consider features promised in advertising (such as Krak des Chevaliers or Russian War Wagons) that were simply never included. We don't have all of the information when we're buying the game, and you can't expect anyone to.
History, and a honest assessment of the gaming industry should suffice for anyone buying a game. That and the old saying "cavaet emptor". Maybe I'm just frugal or cynical but when I see a game that piques my intrest I investigate it and the dev online before the purchase. There was enough history of the CA titles to make a safe assessment that this expansion would have issues.
At the very least, something that should be held off on until its out there...
That being said, the craze to buy Kingdoms was ridiculous. At that point, we knew exactly what had happened with M2TW and we knew that most of the problems were--at best--on hold. Buying Kingdoms was, in my opinion, a fully-informed mistake.
So this procludes the customers repsonsibilty how? If we knew and still bought isnt that our fault? On top of that, any future purchase at release would be ridiculous as well given the current circumstance.
Or one of these blokes could have observed the patch 1.2 dibacle and made a very informed decision at that point as well.
While we can hold ourselves responsible to a certain extent, that should not be used as a pretext for washing the developers of their own share of the blame. We should definitely smarten up, but so should the games we're being offered. The responsibility is shared, not personal.
The developers/producers are using a tried and true business model that at its core relies on the consumers willingness to accept something less then then complete. You pick the company, with very few exceptions you will find the norm is that games are released with some features broken, not implemented and poor execution of other features (shield bug).
They rely on the pre order crowd to identify those bugs at fan sites they dont maintain. Yep they fix them, but you just did a beta test for them, in addition to that you get a few clever forum members who carry the fixes for free on thier own created web pages.
Those users are rewarded with titles, badges etc. Its a very good business model that allows for a dirth of games being pumped out. Its all right before our eyes too, but the discussion rarely comes down to "why am I supporting this" it comes down "why didnt they do this !"
old news mate, been going on for some time, have a look around other game devs, its a novelty when someone puts it on the consumers for supporting this business model. Stay tuned for empires, a similar if not identical themed thread will be here, chock full of free user fixes, free bug reports, on a free server.
Or am I just imagining all of this ? :rolleyes:
Nebuchadnezzar
11-27-2007, 02:30
You see, this right here is half the problem. When a product falls far short of peoples expectations or perhaps fails to qualify as a merchantable product heaven forbid! and consumers express their dissatisfaction they are for some bazaar reason categorized as whinners. Why is this?
Yet you throw pie in consumers faces by suggesting that its their fault for not jumping online to do some checking. When I want to buy a new kettle or iron I don't run to the nearest computer to check out samsungs consumer feedback forum lol. The store is usually my first and last stop and if it doesn't work right I take it back, but we all know thats not possible with games.
Why should I need to do some mysterious tango to avoid the throng of used car salesmen keen to peddle a half finished lemon.
Mouzafphaerre
11-27-2007, 02:49
.
When I want to buy a new kettle or iron I don't run to the nearest computer to check out samsungs consumer feedback forum lol.
But you should mate. ~:) We (bro and I, for the rest of the family) do it and save us from a lot of trouble in advance (not all indeed).
Marketing is dirty business. I know, I studied it. ~D The box text and what the salesperson is taught to tell you aren't there to reveal the weaknesses but to stress and exaggerate the upsides and -sad but true- to deceive you into buying it. Consumer communities on the internet are growing to become more useful. The point is in having the eye to differ fanboy halls and true consumer communities, such as here, the ORG.
.
Goaswerfraiejen
11-27-2007, 03:03
No your dead wrong, if your going to ascribe something to someone on the fourms at least quote them, but your new so maybe you didnt think of it?
1.) Do NOT patronise me. My being "new" to the totalwar forums (which I'm not) has nothing to do with anything, and it certainly says nothing at all about my internet forum experience.
2.) I did not quote anything specific because I was not responding to anything specific, just to the general position in your last two posts.
3.) You violated your own call for specificity by saying "No YOU'RE dead wrong". WHAT am I dead wrong about? Your position? Or my belief that you're both right and wrong?
Customers are 100% responsible for how they spend thier money. Unless you want to suggest that CA, sega or some other company controls gamers money? Nope, enough free passes for gamers have been doled out. We all know how games are released buggy and patched later, some people claim its support, others say its additional features.
You're quoting someone other than me (yourself, in fact). Why? Does this not violate the very same criterion of specificity that you imposed on me a moment ago?
Straw man. Obviously we're responsible for where our money goes--we are not, however, responsible for buying products whose descriptions are grossly inaccurate, or when there's no way for us to know about their defects. If you were happy with the previous titles in the Total War series, what reason did you have to suspect that M2TW would be any worse?
Besides, the fact that you're responsible for buying the game that you bought still does not mean that the game SHOULD be as half-assed as it is. The fact that I CAN get away with murder does not give me the moral and legal basis to go out and do it. Similarly, developers MUST be held accountable for their own failings. The consumer can only be held accountable for his or her own consumption, which may in some instances (such as with Kingdoms) reinforce bad behaviour.
Again, we're not saying anything too different: I agree that we must shoulder our own share of the responsibility for giving in and buying Kingdoms and soon Empire, but I disagree that it's all up to us to stop buying so that change will happen. I also disagree that, as consumers, we have no right to complain. That is bull, and not at all constructive. It has to be a team effort between consumers and developers: we can stop buying, but we have to be aware that it's the developers that have to get their act together in the first place.
Either way this is a reality of the gaming industry, unless your 13 and buying on a whim there arent excuses. This very thread has been on the front page of the MTW2 forum for better then a month.
You're quoting either yourself or people other than me--again. What does the fact that this thread has been up for a month have to do with anything that I have said? This thread was not up a year ago when M2TW was released (which is when I bought it, I might add), and so the information contained herein was not available to us at the time. Had it been, I doubt I would have bothered to buy the game.
I'd be willing to make a concession here if MTW2 was the first release of the product line. IT isnt, CA its releases, patches and add ons are well documented. It would take someone 10-15 minutes tops to find "total war bugs" through google....
It doesn't matter if M2TW was first or not. What matters is whether or not you (the individual consumer) were happy with what came before. I was, and so therefore I had no reason to expect any less from this instalment. Yes, there were bugs in the past--guess what? They weren't nearly as problematic. None ever prevented me from actually playing the game until M2TW, and few were ever noticeable for an untrained eye like mine. Likewise, previous Total War games felt much more "finished" than M2TW did. In retrospect, it's easy to point to a number of indications of a downward spiral--but again, as long as we were satisfied with what came before, there was no reason for suspicion. It's a lot harder to justify buying Kingdoms (for those of you who did), given the amount of trouble that we had with M2TW itself.
History, and a honest assessment of the gaming industry should suffice for anyone buying a game. That and the old saying "cavaet emptor". Maybe I'm just frugal or cynical but when I see a game that piques my intrest I investigate it and the dev online before the purchase. There was enough history of the CA titles to make a safe assessment that this expansion would have issues.
Issues, sure. Nothing nearly as serious as what it had, though. And that's the point. Many bugs are small and relatively unimportant--some, however, are gigantic. Witness the shield bug, the two-handed bug, and the one that made battles go at about one frame every six minutes (was that a shield bug? I don't even remember). These were significant and game-breaking bugs (like I said, I myself was completely unable to conduct battles personally) that weren't dealt with for many, many months. There was no way to predict anything so bad.
So this procludes the customers repsonsibilty how? If we knew and still bought isnt that our fault? On top of that, any future purchase at release would be ridiculous as well given the current circumstance.
Please re-read what you quoted, because what you say makes no sense. I was saying that while we can be excused our purchase of M2TW, we cannot do the same for Kingdoms. As far as Kingdoms is concerned, our situation was VERY different, and we had much more information. Hell, we also knew that the vanilla game was out for the count as far as CA was concerned. That alone should have been enough of a concern.
Or one of these blokes could have observed the patch 1.2 dibacle and made a very informed decision at that point as well.
Again, I fail to see what you're arguing against. As far as Kingdoms is concerned, we seem to agree. I just finished saying that the 1.2 debacle should have tipped people off...
The developers/producers are using a tried and true business model that at its core relies on the consumers willingness to accept something less then then complete. You pick the company, with very few exceptions you will find the norm is that games are released with some features broken, not implemented and poor execution of other features (shield bug).
And how exactly does that make it right? We're talking about moral responsibility here, and the majority of it lies with the developers since it is they, after all, who create games and rush them out to the public.
They rely on the pre order crowd to identify those bugs at fan sites they dont maintain. Yep they fix them, but you just did a beta test for them, in addition to that you get a few clever forum members who carry the fixes for free on thier own created web pages.
Those users are rewarded with titles, badges etc. Its a very good business model that allows for a dirth of games being pumped out. Its all right before our eyes too, but the discussion rarely comes down to "why am I supporting this" it comes down "why didnt they do this !"
I'm not denying any of this. What you're doing is describing what happens. What I'm doing is assigning responsibility. Description of reality is not a counter-argument.
old news mate, been going on for some time, have a look around other game devs, its a novelty when someone puts it on the consumers for supporting this business model. Stay tuned for empires, a similar if not identical themed thread will be here, chock full of free user fixes, free bug reports, on a free server.
Once more, I fail to see what you're arguing against: we both agree that, as consumers, we need to stop buying products before they're adequate. You seem to disagree, however, when I say that CA and SEGA have a very real (and moral) responsibility to improve the quality of their games. Abstention from the market alone will accomplish little because we will never succeed in crashing that market. Instead, abstention has to be mixed with, on the developers' side, a feeling of responsibility for the products that they churn out. Consequently, belittling those who fell for the trap does nothing to help us get higher-quality games. All it does it feed our egos.
Nebuchadnezzar
11-27-2007, 04:00
.
But you should mate. ~:) We (bro and I, for the rest of the family) do it and save us from a lot of trouble in advance (not all indeed).
Marketing is dirty business. I know, I studied it. ~D The box text and what the salesperson is taught to tell you aren't there to reveal the weaknesses but to stress and exaggerate the upsides and -sad but true- to deceive you into buying it. Consumer communities on the internet are growing to become more useful. The point is in having the eye to differ fanboy halls and true consumer communities, such as here, the ORG.
.
Marketing need not be dirty business. Marketing is using the strengths of a product and making it appeal to the soft underbelly of consumers. Regardless, most consumers are rather satisfied with their purchases.
Where I live deceptive marketing and sale by deception is very much in breach of our consumer laws and trade practices act.
Mouzafphaerre
11-27-2007, 05:23
.
Where I live deceptive marketing and sale by deception is very much in breach of our consumer laws and trade practices act.
Where I live, too, should you successfully prove deception, hence the breach.
I used the term in a rather broad meaning. "The best solution for your X needs" is, probably, always a deception but most customers would just buy that and nobody can really prove "it's not the best" since it's incalculable, unmeasurable and not quantitative.
But I digress. :wacko:
.
You see, this right here is half the problem. When a product falls far short of peoples expectations or perhaps fails to qualify as a merchantable product heaven forbid! and consumers express their dissatisfaction they are for some bazaar reason categorized as whinners. Why is this?
Because consumers are the ones responsible for thier purchases, not the manufacture. Also, as stated previously the market condition for games is not a secret. Of course one of the brave could step up and say "gee, maybe I should have held off until I saw a patch come out" but few have said that mate, hence the whinning.
Everyone is a victim I suppose :rolleyes:
Yet you throw pie in consumers faces by suggesting that its their fault for not jumping online to do some checking. When I want to buy a new kettle or iron I don't run to the nearest computer to check out samsungs consumer feedback forum lol.
Ah, but if this was the 4th model of kettle and the prior 4 had problems wouldnt you take a second look? Again, this isnt the 1st total war title with similar issues, so laugh it up
The store is usually my first and last stop and if it doesn't work right I take it back, but we all know thats not possible with games.
So if you know that going in, why wouldnt you check to see if its up to snuff first? Sounds a bit contradictory to me.
Why should I need to do some mysterious tango to avoid the throng of used car salesmen keen to peddle a half finished lemon.
Why should you? because its your money ! Again, this isnt the 1st product from them with issues. Whats the mysterious tango? Is a PC game needing another patch a new condition of the market?
Hardly... :thumbsdown:
[QUOTE]1.) Do NOT patronise me. My being "new" to the totalwar forums (which I'm not) has nothing to do with anything, and it certainly says nothing at all about my internet forum experience.
1. I will say what I want, when I want and how I want. If you dont like what you see, you can put me on ignore, report it to a mod or respond in kind. Since your an expirenced internet user you ought to know these options are avalible to you.
Use them, you wouldnt be the 1st.
2.) I did not quote anything specific because I was not responding to anything specific, just to the general position in your last two posts.
Odin, you're both right and wrong.
You specifically reponded to me, thats how your post started off.
3.) You violated your own call for specificity by saying "No YOU'RE dead wrong". WHAT am I dead wrong about? Your position? Or my belief that you're both right and wrong?
Quote me on my "call for specificity, or are you making this up as you go?
Straw man. Obviously we're responsible for where our money goes--we are not, however, responsible for buying products whose descriptions are grossly inaccurate, or when there's no way for us to know about their defects.
So are you responsible for where your money goes or are you not? the whole paragraph is a contradiction.
Besides, the fact that you're responsible for buying the game that you bought still does not mean that the game SHOULD be as half-assed as it is.
Thats a different point of argument IMHO.
The fact that I CAN get away with murder does not give me the moral and legal basis to go out and do it. Similarly, developers MUST be held accountable for their own failings. The consumer can only be held accountable for his or her own consumption, which may in some instances (such as with Kingdoms) reinforce bad behaviour.
Yes accountability starts at the point of purchase, you dont make the purchase no one is accountable to you.
Again, we're not saying anything too different: I agree that we must shoulder our own share of the responsibility for giving in and buying Kingdoms and soon Empire, but I disagree that it's all up to us to stop buying so that change will happen.
Yep, we disagree then.
I also disagree that, as consumers, we have no right to complain. That is bull, and not at all constructive.
Quote me where I said consumers dont have the right to complain. You can complain all you want, but doing so without accepting fair share of the blame detracts from credability. My point isnt an assault on you personally, its for the many who whine away about a patch but never buck up and at least hint at the notion that maybe they should have known better given the history of the titles.
It has to be a team effort between consumers and developers: we can stop buying, but we have to be aware that it's the developers that have to get their act together in the first place.
It already is a team effort. Look back through the thread, how many consumers have links to free game fixes in thier sig? How many mods are there? Bug lists? Wish lists?
You're quoting either yourself or people other than me--again. What does the fact that this thread has been up for a month have to do with anything that I have said?
I responded to you with an example, I assure you my everyword in response to you isnt about your particular situation. Since your expirenced in message boards/webs you know that posts can often refer to a larger issue other then the individual.
This thread was not up a year ago when M2TW was released (which is when I bought it, I might add), and so the information contained herein was not available to us at the time. Had it been, I doubt I would have bothered to buy the game.
This thread isnt about MTW2, its about an expansion for MTW2. If you had been here a year ago you would have seen posts about a 2 handed bug, a shield bug and assorted other goodies.
I did, and I didnt buy it until a fix was available.
It doesn't matter if M2TW was first or not. What matters is whether or not you (the individual consumer) were happy with what came before. I was, and so therefore I had no reason to expect any less from this instalment. Yes, there were bugs in the past--guess what? They weren't nearly as problematic.
fine you were happy then you should buy it, but you knew then that the series did have problems in the past. So at a minimum you had fore knowledge of a prior negative situation with the developer and you chose to buy, not very savvy IMHO, that dosent mean that I am right of course.
Issues, sure. Nothing nearly as serious as what it had, though. And that's the point. Many bugs are small and relatively unimportant--some, however, are gigantic. Witness the shield bug, the two-handed bug, and the one that made battles go at about one frame every six minutes (was that a shield bug? I don't even remember). These were significant and game-breaking bugs (like I said, I myself was completely unable to conduct battles personally) that weren't dealt with for many, many months. There was no way to predict anything so bad.
All of which happened prior to kingdoms, therefore the purchase of kingdoms would be prudent why?
Please re-read what you quoted, because what you say makes no sense.
Then why are you commenting? How were you able to fathom its content if it didnt make sense? A reply with this preface is contradictory.
And how exactly does that make it right? We're talking about moral responsibility here, and the majority of it lies with the developers since it is they, after all, who create games and rush them out to the public.
Moral responsibility? Okay so we agree that MTW2 was issued with problems. By your logic thats a violation of moral responsibility, yet we have consumers buying Kingdoms. Did the moral compass change? Apparantly not, so dosent the consumer bare some responsibility in that case? I say yes.
Consequently, belittling those who fell for the trap does nothing to help us get higher-quality games. All it does it feed our egos.
Its done nothing for my ego, I feel somewhat saddened by those who dont choose to take responsibility for thier actions when there is overwhelming evidence to make a better more educated decision.
Mori Gabriel Syme
11-27-2007, 16:47
You two can yell at each other in private messages and leave this thread to deal with it's supposed subject.
Please refrain from using personal attacks. The AM moderator tools are very limited and my only options will be to remove your posts entirely, lock the thread, or call in the G(reen)-Men. All of those options will annoy me. Please don't annoy me.
Please refrain from using personal attacks. The AM moderator tools are very limited and my only options will be to remove your posts entirely, lock the thread, or call in the G(reen)-Men. All of those options will annoy me. Please don't annoy me.
Yeah please don't annoy him :laugh4:
You never know what he's up to when he's annoyed :creep:
Yeah please don't annoy him :laugh4:
You never know what he's up to when he's annoyed :creep:
Heck your the one I was hoping to annoy alpaca :flowers:
Please refrain from using personal attacks. The AM moderator tools are very limited and my only options will be to remove your posts entirely, lock the thread, or call in the G(reen)-Men. All of those options will annoy me. Please don't annoy me.
Ah well, my intention wasnt to personally attack anyone. I dont think I did, if I did I appologize sincerely. Although it might be cute to tick you off TinCow, since you dont have enough to do. :wiseguy:
I've been around long enough to know when a hand is played.
:medievalcheers:
Heck your the one I was hoping to annoy alpaca :flowers:
Ach! I'm not so easily annoyed. And especially not about some jerk on an internet forum :laugh4:
However, :focus:
I'm actually wondering when the patch will be released, because if they only start working on it now (and without a lot of capacity), it's going to take quite a lot of time with "all the testing" they will have to conclude. So what does everyone think? Before or after July '08?
Grombeard
11-27-2007, 23:06
I'm actually wondering when the patch will be released, because if they only start working on it now (and without a lot of capacity), it's going to take quite a lot of time with "all the testing" they will have to conclude. So what does everyone think? Before or after July '08?
SenseiTW said the following: "CA Oz has opened up a good sized window running into early next year to produce this update for you", so i hope for February or something near that... :yes:
Daveybaby
11-28-2007, 11:58
Good news on the patch. Hopefully it will include some fixes to the vanilla campaign to make it provide some kind of challenge on the 'Very Hard' difficulty level.
This might convince me to buy empires. What would make that a dead cert for me would be if CA/Sega were to adopt a more pro-active approach to patching than they've displayed during the M2TW dev cycle.
A lot of companies manage to produce incremental patches on a regular basis (e.g. stardock, valve, firaxis, blizzard etc) and i think this approach is essential to games as complex as the TW series. How do these companies manage to keep supporting their games with dozens of patches and yet CA/Sega can't afford to? It's not as if theyre not selling well or anything. What exactly is it that you guys are doing wrong that inhibits this level of support for your games? Why on earth was has it taken you this long to even decide whether to patch the game or not?
A plea to CA/Sega: Youre NOT producing wafer thin console driving and beat-em-up games here. Despite your best efforts there WILL be bugs in Empires and it WILL need REPEATED patches (this is not a criticism, it's just a fact of life with software this big and complex). Even if there are no bugs as such you will still need patches for balance purposes and AI enhancements, once thousands of players find exploits you could never have caught even if you'd tested it for years. So for the love of god PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE plan in advance to provide some long term support for empires.
Old Geezer
11-28-2007, 18:38
So when is the first patch for Empires scheduled? I can't wait forever!
So when is the first patch for Empires scheduled? I can't wait forever!
Probably gonna be a "day-0" patch again :shocked2:
A lot of companies manage to produce incremental patches on a regular basis (e.g. stardock, valve, firaxis, blizzard etc) and i think this approach is essential to games as complex as the TW series. How do these companies manage to keep supporting their games with dozens of patches and yet CA/Sega can't afford to? It's not as if theyre not selling well or anything. What exactly is it that you guys are doing wrong that inhibits this level of support for your games? Why on earth was has it taken you this long to even decide whether to patch the game or not?
OK, I'll prefix this by stating this is NOT a personal attack Davey, but this is a "come on..." response. Haven't you said several times that you're in the software development business? You above other should know better. Games are unique the regard that developers/publishers frequently release them halfarsed and then essentially leave them that way. Not only do that they do that, but they get away with it all the time and still continue to make games and sell them by the thousands. And THEN on top of that, you get the 'placebo effect', where CA finally announces another patch, and they act like it's a friggin favor to us, and there are more than a few gamers who treat it like it's a favor! "Oh thank you CA, you're so kind!" when they don't realize that CA owes them this much. Man I wish I could find some product or service where I could abuse my customers like this, and have them keep coming back for more, all the time deluding themselves with whatever thoughts they have (it's the only one of it's kind, the alternative is they go out of business, etc etc).
A plea to CA/Sega: Youre NOT producing wafer thin console driving and beat-em-up games here. Despite your best efforts there WILL be bugs in Empires and it WILL need REPEATED patches (this is not a criticism, it's just a fact of life with software this big and complex). Even if there are no bugs as such you will still need patches for balance purposes and AI enhancements, once thousands of players find exploits you could never have caught even if you'd tested it for years. So for the love of god PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE plan in advance to provide some long term support for empires.
Deaf ears my friend. Why spend time and money doing something that the majority of the customer base would just accept anyway and they could get away with?
Good post Whacker ! One of many good posts. I really appreciate you posting all this, it saves me typing the same thing I've been saying forever, again and again. (no pun intended)
You should consider though that deaf ears are everywhere, right here.This is why I just quit trying to convince people.
I know some guys from CA are great guys. They do watch the forum and they do try to implement what they can. I also see that the company itself does not allow the programmers to do what they really want to do, they obviously do not have the time to do what they really want to do. There is hardly any quality control, at least that's what one would judge by looking at the 2H bug, shield bug etc. (just imagine!!!??!!)
Bravedude
11-29-2007, 07:13
It took 4 hours and 12 minutes but I finally finished reading this whole topic, lol. But I actually have a question though: The people with green names are they administrators or moderators or what?
Mouzafphaerre
11-29-2007, 08:07
.
Moderators. Admins have red names. Blood red. :skull:
.
Daveybaby
12-01-2007, 13:57
@Whacker,
Unlike some people here (not aiming that at you, not sure where you stand on this issue actually) i've always been understanding of the fact that games a extremely complex and yet need to be released to a schedule in order to have a chance of being profitable and that this means that it's inevitable that games are going to have bugs in them. That doesnt mean that there's any excuse for not patching the game until it's right. Maybe youre right and i'm living on cloud cuckoo land for taking this view.
Nevertheless there are companies out there that buck the trend, that continue to patch their games repeatedly to fix bugs, improve balance and AI, and generally continue to tweak the game long after the initial rush of sales has trailed off. The main ones that come to mind are Stardock (Galciv etc), Firaxis (Civ series) and Valve. Id software also come to mind for the number of patches they've produced to keep the online component of their shooters up to date. Oh, and Gas Powered Games (total annihilation, supreme commander). There are probably more. (Of course MMORPG developers also do this, but they have a completely different business model to 'normal' games, so i wont count those.)
For customers of these companies there is never any question that if a significant bug is found (or even not so significant) a patch will be produced. In some cases, patches even add new features as well as fix bugs. Amazing, eh? I know it sounds like something from a parallel universe, but it does happen.
The thing these companies have in common, as far as i can tell, is that they have established themselves to the point where theyre able to call the shots themselves, rather than having to rely on whether the publishers will allow them to produce a patch. I think there also may be a kind of chicken and egg scenario at play here, where part of what's got these companies where they are today is that theyre focussed on getting the game perfect at all costs.
I think the main cause of our problems are the publishers. They dont give a toss about games or gamers, just the bottom line. EA/Activision/Atari/Sega are all the same - short term profit get the next one out the door the customers are stupid enoough to keep buying dont put any long term repeat playability into the game we want the customers to get bored quickly so that they'll have to buy another game. Also, their stranglehold on the patch release process and the associated costs mean that we're never going to see long term support for games they publish. Yeah yeah they do the testing (and we all know what that's worth) but the main reason they they will never let CA release patches themselves is because they have to add their stupid bloody copy protection mechanisms before it's allowed out of the door.
Hey, wow, it's all connected. Who'd a thunk it?
CA and the total war series will never reach the 'all time classic' status of the above companies and their games, until they can get out of the rut that the publishers force them into. It's a catch-22 situation though innit?
Deaf ears my friend. Why spend time and money doing something that the majority of the customer base would just accept anyway and they could get away with?
Youre probably right. Still, we can either keep trying or give up and be totally negative and cynical. If we give up, then what's the point of visiting this forum at all? DONT LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN.
hellenes
12-01-2007, 18:44
@Whacker,
Unlike some people here (not aiming that at you, not sure where you stand on this issue actually) i've always been understanding of the fact that games a extremely complex and yet need to be released to a schedule in order to have a chance of being profitable and that this means that it's inevitable that games are going to have bugs in them. That doesnt mean that there's any excuse for not patching the game until it's right. Maybe youre right and i'm living on cloud cuckoo land for taking this view.
Nevertheless there are companies out there that buck the trend, that continue to patch their games repeatedly to fix bugs, improve balance and AI, and generally continue to tweak the game long after the initial rush of sales has trailed off. The main ones that come to mind are Stardock (Galciv etc), Firaxis (Civ series) and Valve. Id software also come to mind for the number of patches they've produced to keep the online component of their shooters up to date. Oh, and Gas Powered Games (total annihilation, supreme commander). There are probably more. (Of course MMORPG developers also do this, but they have a completely different business model to 'normal' games, so i wont count those.)
For customers of these companies there is never any question that if a significant bug is found (or even not so significant) a patch will be produced. In some cases, patches even add new features as well as fix bugs. Amazing, eh? I know it sounds like something from a parallel universe, but it does happen.
The thing these companies have in common, as far as i can tell, is that they have established themselves to the point where theyre able to call the shots themselves, rather than having to rely on whether the publishers will allow them to produce a patch. I think there also may be a kind of chicken and egg scenario at play here, where part of what's got these companies where they are today is that theyre focussed on getting the game perfect at all costs.
I think the main cause of our problems are the publishers. They dont give a toss about games or gamers, just the bottom line. EA/Activision/Atari/Sega are all the same - short term profit get the next one out the door the customers are stupid enoough to keep buying dont put any long term repeat playability into the game we want the customers to get bored quickly so that they'll have to buy another game. Also, their stranglehold on the patch release process and the associated costs mean that we're never going to see long term support for games they publish. Yeah yeah they do the testing (and we all know what that's worth) but the main reason they they will never let CA release patches themselves is because they have to add their stupid bloody copy protection mechanisms before it's allowed out of the door.
Hey, wow, it's all connected. Who'd a thunk it?
CA and the total war series will never reach the 'all time classic' status of the above companies and their games, until they can get out of the rut that the publishers force them into. It's a catch-22 situation though innit?
Youre probably right. Still, we can either keep trying or give up and be totally negative and cynical. If we give up, then what's the point of visiting this forum at all? DONT LET THE BASTARDS GRIND YOU DOWN.
CA has been sold out to SEGA...
Just a reality check...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.