It's now up on their website here:
http://www.pczone.co.uk/
We've already discussed it here in detail I know, but there may be someone somewhere who hasn't yet read it!
Edit - thanks for sorting out my dodgy title spelling, mods!
Printable View
It's now up on their website here:
http://www.pczone.co.uk/
We've already discussed it here in detail I know, but there may be someone somewhere who hasn't yet read it!
Edit - thanks for sorting out my dodgy title spelling, mods!
And what a sickeningly sycophantic rant it is.
Was there a point to that comment? It may not have added anything new, but at least the team is engaging in pr...
I have to actually agree with that. By now its old news... and in our world of fast cars, and internet; repitition is quickly ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Sapi, do you know what sycophantic means?Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
It means servile self-seeking flattery.
I am not referring to CA, I am referring to the guy who wrote the article. He sounded as though he's about to have an orgasm. And he ain't even seen the game yet!
I stupidly wasted £5 on the damn mag :shame:
I should have known that PC Zone only get aroused by eye candy
"Robert 'I ratted out Mel Gibson' the Bruce" - PC Zone Staff
What a slanderous statement, and there is no evidence backing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Menteith
Puzz, you should know better than to apply historically accurate standards to Mel "I hate the English" Gibson ~;)
When you strip the 'article' of the author's blathering, these statements from CA are what's left:
On graphics (that just look pretty…)
"The period is renowned for huge castles, lots of armor, colorful flags and heraldry. We're raising the bar right across the board from the campaign map to the historical and multiplayer battles. The overall structure and gameplay will be similar to Rome's, but it'll also incorporate some elements from the original Medieval such as the Pope and the Crusades."
"The amount of detail in some of the textures is amazing, right down to the names of programmers inscribed on gravestones in the churchyard. We've stripped down and fully refurbished large chunks of the Rome engine. The methods for building and rendering cities and units is completely new, and the combat animation system has been heavily revised."
"In Medieval 2, we're removing the armies of clones that have been evident in the Total War series and many other RTS titles, and are introducing some individuality to the soldiers, in order to make battles more realistic and immersive. In Medieval 2, units are made up of soldiers that are individuals. Each model is now made with several heads, bodies and limbs. The engine combines these together to make each man far more individual. On top of this, there are also multiple variants for shields and weapons, so each soldier has character and each unit of men looks and behaves like a realistic group of soldiers."
"The combat is far more intense than in Rome, with the men realistically swinging, blocking and throwing combo moves. More than that, fallen foes may even be dispatched with a devastating finishing move. For example, a swordsman might swing to the left, then to the right, before following up with a stab to the stomach that'll knock his opponent down. He might then spin around and deliver a merciless finishing strike to the enemy while he's lying helpless on the ground. You'll see these kind of moves being executed all over the battlefield and as soldiers fall, you'll see those still standing continually scanning their surroundings for their next kill. Touches like these make the huge battles so much more realistic and immersing, whether you're zoomed in on the front line or looking on from a distance."
On graphics (that affect battle-map tactics…)
"In general, there'll be more terrain on the battlefield, with impassable cliffs and banks, walls and hedges and more buildings. The wise commander will be able to use these features to great advantage to protect his flanks and front, as well as to disrupt enemy maneuvers. Mud could also be a problem for heavily-armored troops, cavalry and infantry, so we'll be reflecting this in the game, too."
"Not only will these night battles be glorious spectacles, there'll also be tactical nuances to consider. The ability to fight night battles is a character trait, and Generals without the trait will be at a disadvantage. Artillery is also less effective under a blanket of darkness."
On gameplay (finally…)
"The campaign map will be busier, with several new types of agent, including merchants, princesses and priests. These will afford more opportunities for non-military interaction with the other factions.” Please note: agents like princesses and priests are not new. They were in MTW, they were not in RTW, but they’re certainly not new to the TW series, nor to MTW.
“[T]here's a new recruitment system and castles will require less management than cities. As such, you'll face a fundamental choice with each settlement. You can develop it as a castle and emphasize the military, or as a city and emphasize the economy. As the game develops, cities will become more important but re-developing castles will be costly, so the transition will need to be carefully managed."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just so you know, the following is something the author said. I just wanted to let you know what you’re not missing…
“Like a prom queen covered in jam and swimming in a vat of money, Medieval 2 looks almost too good to be true..."
Actually, on re-reading that, I see something I missed:
That sounds to me like the choice won't actually be a fixed "either-or" choice for provinces. Rather, you'll be able to change a castle province to a city province, but at a cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Servius1234
So the essential concept seems to be more along the lines of, say, establishing a castle when first capturing a province or when the province is still hotly contested, and converting it to a centre of commerce and population later in the game.
That makes some sense to me, I think I can accept that as a game mechanic.
Does Creative Assembly endorse with this kind of bias? I was dressed down by MikeB a year and a half ago for quoting an Ian Roxburgh interview where Ian said that RTW was like the movies Gladiator and Braverheart. Now we are seeing the same kind of thing again with MTW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
From what I can see in the breakdown, CA are making an effort to address some of the issues we have been posting about. I would guess the Mediaeval period is a favourite of the programmers and I suspect they will be trying to produce something special. As usual during the transition period, this place is full of negativity, are there no optimists? I think it is way too soon to rubbish the game, or CA for that matter
.......Orda
I was optimistic when RTW was first announced. I was very impressed with STW and MTW, and I'm a big Roman history fan, so I was very excited. If MTW2 was being made by the same crew that made MTW, I'd be optimistic.
As things are now, I have no idea what to expect from the aussies making MTW2, since I don't know anything about their previous work (or even if they have previous work). My opinion of the corporate bosses (not just CA admin, but Sony, stock holders, etc.) is that they only care about the bottom line. I'm also affraid that pretty but shallow games are more cost-effective to make, or at the very least, that that's the prevailing corporate opinion.
I also know that gaming execs operate in a world where game "critics" say stuff like: “Like a prom queen covered in jam and swimming in a vat of money, Medieval 2 looks almost too good to be true..."
But like I've said elsewhere, the team making MTW2 is not the team that made RTW, which was not the team that made MTW. So, MTW2 could be as different (for better or worse) from RTW as RTW was different from MTW. Time will tell, there's only screenshots to speculate on so far.
They can't balance what they have now, and they are adding more units and more factions? Plus, with 20 units to control + high speed + delay to orders you have less control. I don't see any indication that control will be increased, and I don't see how less control represents improved gameplay. The game is also lacking a "squeezed too tight" penalty and "range calculation per man" for shooters which were in the previous battle engine used in STW and MTW.
How do you know there will be "less control"? And how do you know there won't be a "squeezed too tight" or "range calculation per man"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Seems to me you are just engaging in idle speculation.
What I *would* like to hear though is some indication that the programmers are slowing down the battle speed - or at least that we're going to get an option for different speeds. That was one of the major complaints about RTW, but we've heard very little from CA which indicates they have taken this criticism onboard.
Well that explains the map and Aztecs then...Quote:
SAME DIFFERENCE
One of the pitfalls of making a sequel to a game as comprehensive as Medieval is the prospect of making the two games' campaign maps too similar, but CA Australia is clearly doing an admirable job of avoiding a prevailing sense of déjà vu in this follow-up. Medieval's hugely expansive campaign map, which encompassed Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor, will now be even more impressive thanks to the addition of South America to Medieval 2.
Initially, these far-western lands will be hidden from you and the squares of the Atlantic Ocean will be impassable. However, later in the game, you'll be able to develop the technology to cross the ocean, discover America and battle with the Aztecs. You have to watch your back though - what the Aztecs lack in military technology they more than make up for in bravery and sheer numbers. So, while the Americas are there to be conquered, the Aztecs aren't likely to welcome unwanted visitors.
There is far too much of this going on. Has anyone read or heard more than the rest of us? NOBODY knows for certain what CA are going to implement but one thing that is seriously being overlooked is the fact that they may be striving to IMPROVE on RTW. Nothing in that article tells me that MTW II is exactly like RTWQuote:
Seems to me you are just engaging in idle speculation.
..........Orda
Orda, you're absolutely right. We don't know. I'm pretty sure everyone here would love to hear a bit more about planned improvements to the AI, gameplay, etc. Unfortunately, practically all CA seems to talk about is graphics...
It's still early though, that could change.
I think there are at least three grounds for optimism about M2TW.
One is if you compare STW and MTW. When companies have the luxury of using the same game engine, they can spend more time on the content and gameplay. I personally think MTW was a pretty big step up from STW, especially in the strategic layer (at the strategic level, STW was a slugfest, whereas MTW allowed so much variety in starting positions and freedom in grand strategy).
Another is that BI was quite an improvement on RTW, IMO. CA rebalanced the combat so that now it is not that far from some of the "realism" mods like RTR and EB (i.e. missiles are weaker, combat lasts longers because defence stats are higher, cavalry is less uber, command stars are harder to get, the AI comes at you with bigger starting armies etc).
Finally, as has already been noted in this thread, CA have said they are working on the campaign and battle AI.
We'll have to wait and see. Personally, I suspect the die hard RTW bashers will dislike M2TW. Whereas those of us who value RTW - for example, because we play mods such as RTR or EB - will get a lot out of it. (And of course people who play RTR or EB but still bash RTW just don't which side their bread is buttered.)
I must say I'm a bit suprised at the amount of negativity the announcement of this game has received. Hell's bells, we've only had the smallest bit of info about the game and it's many months from completion, and already half the people here seem to have written it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I was one of RTW's strongest critics but only AFTER the game came out and I got a chance to play it firsthand. But even though I did my fair share of bashing, I always had the feeling that with a little bit more work, particularly to the AI, it could have been an excellent game.
I personally have been quite excited to hear about the development of M2 and the new features it is going to incorporate. Sure, they're adding more eye candy - is that a bad thing? Eye candy DOES add a lot to immersion when its done well. And some of those new screenshots look pretty darned good!
I'm also excited to hear about the fact that many of the game's code components have been completely reworked. This suggests to me we are going to get a much more polished product this time around.
And of course, I'm VERY pleased to hear CA are working on improving both the battle and campaign AI. We all know how important that is to gameplay. Perhaps they haven't emphasized this as much we'd like, but if they just came out and said "we're doing a new game and putting all our effort into the AI", would the knockers be satisfied even then? Probably they'd say "why waste all your time on the one thing, everybody knows you can't create the perfect AI - how about some better graphics as well!"
I'm really not one to tell other people they don't have a right to express their opinions, but I am a bit suprised at the amount of gloom and doom I'm reading. Surely you guys must be a BIT excited that CA are developing a heavily revamped sequel to RTW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I have always placed the TW games strictly on the "Holywood Historical Action Movie" scale of things... It helps me accept... :2thumbsup:
And I agree with Orda, it is way to early to rubbish the game yet...
When CA doesn't say they are putting something in, there isn't much basis to assume they are putting it in. There is more basis to assume they aren't putting it in. Who would have guessed that the new "improved" engine would omit features like the "squeezed to tight" penalty. Well, we found out that CA doesn't say anything about features being omitted. You find out about it after you buy the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
They already tried to put the "squeezed too tight" penalty back into RTW because players complained that the engine was downgraded, and they couldn't do it with this engine design. It probably entails too much of a redesign. MTW2 isn't a completely new battle engine, so what's the basis for optimism that the feature will be implimented? It probably requites parameters that aren't tracked anymore. You do know that RTW was developed with a fast track design right? That isn't the most thorough way to write software, and the plethora of bugs in RTW v1.0 was a testament to that.
Also, if the engine doesn't do distance calculation for individual shooters, then you're unlikely to see a major revamp like that in the modified RTW engine that's going into MTW2. After all, how many 12 year olds are going to notice something like that? There have been improvements such as shooting on the move, secondary weapons and stamina, but features were lost as well. I remember CA saying that the terrain effects on combat were reduced because new players would not understand how to handle the combat. The combat is simplified so that inexperienced players aren't at as much of a disadvantage.
As far as control goes, RTW/BI already has less control than STW/MTW. CA already responded to a post I made at .com where a dev told me they were not going to slow down the running speeds in RTW. So, they want the game to be fast. Where has CA said that MTW2 won't be as fast as RTW? This is a high level decision that gets made way before the game nears completion because you can't change the movement speed after things like fighting speed, ranged unit effectiveness and fatigue rate and animations have been set without messing up the playbalance and slipping in the animations. They know right now whether or not movement speed and gameplay are being slowed down in MTW2.
When a game plays well it isn't some kind of fortuitous accident. It took over 3 months of playtesting by 10 veteran players to get the 14 units in STWmod for MTW/VI balanced to the degree necessary for multiplayer, and we already had a good starting point for those unit stats. If you have 100's units it's a lot harder to balance, and CA is light years away from putting in the effort required to balance it to anything more than a rudimentary degree.
As far as balance goes, I know that CA gives this a low priority. Also, longjohn said that he considers unit balance to about 25% to be good. I don't see how that can be considered good when multiplayers are quite able to exploit unit imbalances of as little as 10%. You have to get unit balance to more like 5% when you have a system where players can buy whatever they want in whatever quantity they want. There is no basis to assume CA will balance the game to this degree because they have never done it. The best balanced units were in STW, and it's been downhill ever since then. The tax on more than 4 of a single unit type in MTW was a hedge against unit imbalance. The biggest battle engine improvement in RTW with the BI add-on was the fixing of a bug in the charge effect which allowed spears to work the way they were supposed to work a year earlier. I think that's primarily the reason that BI battles play better.
CA doesn't have unlimited resources. I wonder how many resources went into making "finishing moves"? The state of multiplayer in RTW was attributed by CA to not having enough resources.
We may not always agree on CA's achievements, but here I am on your side. We barely know anything about the game so why is everyone complaining? CA knows of our issues: we have repeated them ad nauseam at the .com, the .org and the .net. I would like to think it is an allergic reaction to hyping MII:TW after the cold shower that was R:TW (for many fans, at least), but people were badmouthing R:TW before it was released also. What has CA done that they suddenly owe us the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
As for A.I. and balance, there things tend to be relatively fluid until late in a game's development. In other words: they are seldom adressed in anything but vague terms in early previews.
Aaaah, valid points, but not quite exact, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
If you do recall badmouthing of Rome, you will remember that it was started by a few members who wanted historical accuracy above all else. That movement has grown rather strong with time, and they were always merely protesting about the historical inaccuracies in the game.
I have stated my position long time ago; although an avid reader of historical books from all periods, sort of a history-fanboy, I was ready to accept all the illogical features as long as they improved gameplay.
One thing nobody complained about is gameplay. Nobody complained about AI.
Nobody actually expected that the problems will lie therein. After Shogun and Medieval, our trust in CA was as firm as to be almost beyond of point of questioning them.
And then they delivered Rome; extraordinary game by the market standards, but in comparison to its precursors, it was rather heavily flawed.
Now, when people complain, they do not complain about historical inaccuracies anymore. People are now rightfully afraid that MTW2 will be merely recycled Rome. People are afraid that next to fancier maps and new features like finishing moves the AI will remain at the level of Rome…Or even worse… Hence, the gameplay would follow…
As I’ve said before, I have my doubts about the quality of the MTW2, but I would love to see me proven wrong. I would love it! But, now everything indicates that our concerns for the gameplay in the latest sequel of TW series is rather well justified.
Again, I would love to be proven wrong, and to see MTW2 becoming the best game of the series.
It's the battlefield obstacles that I don't like. I avoid siege battles because of the buggy pathfinding or collision detection or whatever the reason is that causes the awkward behaviour of the units. Now that bugginess is going to be in every battle, no more un-obstructed field battles. I would prefer simple improvements in terrain texturing so the units don't blend into the terrain. Perhaps a traversable dry creek bed or two would be good. But obstacles oh no tell me it is'nt true.
That's not true. Darkmoor Dragon and I complained extensively at .com and .org about gameplay when the RTW demo was released in August 2004. CBR measured fatigue rates and I measured movement rates, and we posted about how those rates affected the gameplay. Shortly before the game was released, a dev at .com responded that CA didn't see any problem with the gamespeed and wouldn't be changing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voigtkampf
I think the initial complaints about RTW before the release of the demo were about historical accuracy. I recall the EB mod being initiated a year or so ahead of the game because of disatisfaction with the way CA was approaching the barbarian factions.
The demo did lead to extreme complaints about the gameplay in RTW battles. Even I, a born-again RTW fan-boy, found the Trebia battle in the demo so disappointing. I did not think I would be attracted to the game at all. The action was far too fast and the battle over way too quick for my taste.
But in the end what put me off the vanilla game was not the move speed/kill rates etc that plagued the demo - with the pause button, you can adapt to that. But the killer for me was the lack of challenge at a more strategic level. After the first fun campaign, I found it just boring.
My faith was restored by the RTR and EB mods, and also by the BI add-on, which all improved the battle speeds and the campaign challenge IMO. I find the gameplay in this "second coming" of RTW at least as compelling as MTW.
The battles in MP are not as good because RTW is more of a rush game than MTW was. It might be a little less so because spears have been fixed in RTW/BI, but I don't see any large number of former STW/MTW MP players playing RTW/BI. Even MTW suffered some from this because of the weakness of spears, but at least you had fatigue, the overlap combat penalty and more time to react working against rush tactics. I don't think this is as noicable in SP because the AI doesn't really rush the way you see it done in MP. I don't use any slowdown mods or ever pause the game when fighting SP battles and I have enough time to make most of the tactical moves I want to, but in MP you have to use first strike tactics unless you are just going to corner camp. The battlefield upgrades were re-enabled in RTW/BI MP after being removed from MTW/VI MP which also hurts the playbalance as the battle progresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Models always were a pain, with units getting caught up, not responding etc. I made loads of maps for STW and MTW and on the odd occasion that I added a model to the map, it was in an obscure area so as to not disrupt the battle. I would like to see boggy ground and/or other natural terrain features added to the textures. Natural obstacles that impede units would be a good addition, they would just slow down progress but I do not want to see half a unit stuck around a rock or buildingQuote:
Originally Posted by IceTorque
.........Orda
I think this is an important point. I like to play without banners and find it extremely hard to see many units against the ground textures used in RTW when I zoom out. You have to zoom out in MP. So, I have to turn banners on so that I'm not at a considerable disadvantage, but even with banners on you can't always determine what kind of unit you're looking at when it blends into the ground texture.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceTorque
Related to this is the tendency for difficult viewing to produce headaches. If you get a headache playing a game, you won't want to play it much. RTW battles have a tendency to give me headaches, and I'm not normally bothered by headaches. This was never a problem for me in STW or MTW which I could play continuously for 8 hour MP sessions without getting a headache. I know banners were always on in STW and MTW, but also the men themselves were more easily distinguished against the ground textures.