Re: "A darker vision of war"
If they can release that publically, they could at least release some freaking screenshots for us with a disclaimer that it is pre-alpha! We get that it is not polished, we just want to see something!
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vuk
If they can release that publically, they could at least release some freaking screenshots for us with a disclaimer that it is pre-alpha! We get that it is not polished, we just want to see something!
Yeah I'm a bit screen/footage hungry too. I guess they might just want to slowly build up curiosity and interest. They know their marketing without doubt.
Some more on the historical stuff about RTWII:
Quote:
"There's a constant group that push us towards more and more historical accuracy," he said, no doubt alluding to the theatrics of Shogun 2, which weren't to everybody's taste.
"We have a fight between our internal geekiness and the desire to put together a Hollywood spectacle, so those two ends of the spectrum fight against each other and we end up,
hopefully, with a happy medium somewhere in between."
(from the other Eurogame article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...-2-information)
Re: "A darker vision of war"
"Our aim," said Russell, "is for Rome 2 to deliver some of the most spectacular sights you've ever seen in a video game, and I really believe that we can deliver that - I'm not being hyperbolic there."
Russell outlined some of the other goals of Rome 2 - "The game our player base really wants us to make, and the game we want to make."
Isn't he arguing against himself here?
The PLAYERS, as far as I have heard and seen all over, would beg CA to care less about "spectacular sights" and primarily focus on AI, sorting bugs, and maybe... just MAYBE... just possibly maybe perhaps... Have the game enjoyable already on release instead of launching full priced alpha/beta versions. Surprise us all, you know.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
I agree. I don't play games for eye candy.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
feelotraveller
I agree. I don't play games for eye candy.
The rabble at the .com and TWC tend to disagree with you.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
quadalpha
The rabble at the .com and TWC tend to disagree with you.
Yes, and unfortunately, they tend to outnumber us... :(
Re: "A darker vision of war"
lets burn the place down!
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Stranger
lets burn the place down!
By "the" place I hope you don't mean "this" place; rather "their" place which would mean "that" place?
Re: "A darker vision of war"
i meant your place! :evil:
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Ugh, I hate it when lead designers read what the marketing guys write and then actually start to believe it.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
By "darker" I fear they mean that literally.
I never bought the DLC for Shogun 2, but I did get the update to the engine. The result is, I literally have a darker game; tweaking the brightness does nothing. So they took a game I was happy with and made it a chore to play. Given that we cannot refuse the updates (because they really are good for us) why would I buy another game that they can simply wreck at their discretion? Pass.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Total War: Rome 2 will deliver "a darker vision of war", lead designer Jamie Russell told a packed Rezzed audience this afternoon in Brighton.
"Close-up, we want the men to feel more human," he said. "We've got facial animations, emotional interactions between men, so that if the guy next to me gets hit by an arrow, I'll react to that.
"It's all about a darker vision of war. We want the combat to feel more brutal, more visceral. "
How many people play so closely zoomed in enough for such things to matter? Also game designers should be banned from saying visceral.
Oh well.
CR
Re: "A darker vision of war"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
How many people play so closely zoomed in enough for such things to matter? Also game designers should be banned from saying visceral.
Oh well.
CR
I know what you mean. Just like a 1v1 zoom, who needs it. You worry about a battle not single combat.
But I guess some people would say it is immersive… yea, and some would like the whole game voice acted in dead languages… who needs it.
So far it seems like the focus is a bit off but it is very early information. Hope they say some more soon.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
CA could either go all out with cinematic effects, roman ninjas and all those other things that the average American teenager would wish on his christmast list to santa...
Or... CA could make a deeply historical strategy game, where you build up a culture in a very interesting period of time, as many snowed in historians or strategists would like.
Problem is, that CA has a history of trying to adhere to both sides, to fail at it all. Being several years and updates of the concept after any other major player in the same market when it came to multiplayer didn't help much either.
I absolutely LOVED Shogun (CA were, like, market leading with their concept then), MTW was absolutely brilliant, Rome was the greatest so far... But then it all went downhill.
Medieval 2 was released with a COMPLETELY passive AI. The enemy army would just stand there, and you could walk cannons up all around it and open fire. I think that CA still, as of today, has not been able to fix even the game breaking bugs of that game. They just bit of way more than they could chew when it came to programming.
Empire was a joke. By then, all other studios had surpassed CA in skill and tech. I could go on about how bad this game was for its time, but sales and loyal supporter... Well... Lack of loyal supporters, speak a clear language.
Shogun 2 was an OK game, had it been released a few years earlier. It basically was what Empire should have been, but way too late.
However, with Shogun 2, CA at least showed that they were heading in the right direction when it comes to SP. When it comes to multiplaying however, I am afraid that I completely gave up on any hope of CA ever being a serious player on the arena. They had a chance to get it started with Rome, as they were only slightly behind technically. But they dropped the ball, and then spat on it with subsequent titles.
I actually hope CA will be bought by someone else. I love the concept of the game, the first titles held up, but after that it became clear that they did the wrong choices and lost touch with the market.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
I am hoping for both darker [less rainbow colors in units etc] and a more historically accurate game.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
They would be better served if they took the game design approach of Sid Meir and focused on making it as fun to play as possible. In the end, that's what they are in the business to do, make games that entertain.
And their margin for error this time out is not that great, in a global economy still struggling to get it's feet under they are financially backed by a company that is frankly not fundamentally sound.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
The brownish colours of the screens has apparantly to do with the Location, Carthage. Battle 'athmospheres' will apparently differ from location to location.
Re: "A darker vision of war"
I like it that they decided to make the game darker, I always found the graphics of Rome 1 too colorful. But graphics alone dont make the game darker, I hope they will expand the dark theme to the characters and their interactions.
