Something to be said for simplicity?
First, I am going to buy MTW 2 and I've heard CA has been responsive to some of what has been said about RTW.
But I hope CA realizes what few other RTS companies seem to: it's not all about how many features there are and how flashy everything looks. That sells in the short term but balanced gameplay and simplicity go a long way.
There must be a reason why many still love Shogun other than nostalgia. We can't all be stodgy old men and women harkening back to the nonexistent halcyon days...
I think there is something to be said for the simplicity of the Shogun campaign. You started in a corner of Japan, fought your way out and built a buffer zone, made a few ninjas and geishas, trained some cool and meaningfully diverse units... and then the focus was on military strategy both on the map and the battlefield. I never had to micromanage my economy constantly - I don't know, I never saw the Total War franchise as being about micromanaging the economy... I had the most fun dreaming up plans to use on the battlefield - every unit seemed to fulfill a role perfectly, from the battle ninjas to the no-dachis and warrior monks to the cavalry.
I played the campaign on hardest with each faction and it never got old.
With RTW, as I've said before, it's a good game, CA clearly put a lot of effort into it and I thank them for that... I will continue to be a fan of their work as long as I believe they sincerely care. It's difficult for me to pinpoint what exactly is "wrong" with RTW because I don't know that there is anything specifically "wrong" about it - just less "right."
I confess that my best rationale for not being as engaged with MTW or RTW is their lack of focus on troop deployment strategy both on the map and on the battlefield. For some reason I feel like I spent more time in Shogun on the battlefield than on the map, and more of the time i spent on the map was planning how to create the best situation for myself on the battlefield. I'm sure there are other reasons, but they are difficult to pinpoint.
I have great hopes for MTW 2, and if there is a Shogun sequel I would appreciate if it could keep the atmosphere and simplicity of its predecessor.
Am I the only one who feels that there is a certain magic to Shogun that waned from Shogun to MTW to Rome? Is there a significant share of the TW market that feels similarly? Or are we no longer a great enough force to hold any sway?
If so, maybe we can make up a loose list/discussion of the sorts of things that we loved in the orginal Shogun, from the general (e.g. unit balance, faction balance) to the specific (time slider or something). Apologies if this isn't the best forum for this, feel free to move it about, I just thought it was the most forward-looking of the forums so it would make most sense here.
Re: Something to be said for simplicity?
Some people only play the game for the stategy element, as in on the map.
RTW's new "living map" and horrible battlefield AI increased the number of people who really cared about what goes on on the strategy map and lessened the number of people who cared about battlefield balance and performance.
For most people in RTW, it wasnt a matter of if you were going to win the battles or not, it was a matter of managing your money so that you could afford the troops to conquer.
MTW, in my opinion, had the best balance of both mindsets.
Re: Something to be said for simplicity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asherba2
Am I the only one who feels that there is a certain magic to Shogun that waned from Shogun to MTW to Rome?
No you're not. There are a number of fans who think Shogun was the best game in the series and I'm one of them.
CA has tried to argue that this is just nostalgia at work, seeing an old game through rose coloured glasses, but it just ain't so since I'll still fire up a game of Shogun now and then and I won't touch either MTW or RTW.
I find it highly ironic that the TW games have only gotten worse as time has gone on, instead of better. The series has simply never lived up to the promise of the original title.
Of course, we're all hoping that M2TW will be better than its predecessors, but quite frankly I'm not that optimistic. I'm sure it will be better than RTW but not so sure it will be better than the others, and from what I've read so far that seems to be the case.
One of the problems seems to be that the games get rushed out too quickly. It seems quite apparent that Palemedes and friends were working frantically on the AI for M2 right up until the last moment, so much so that their last build wasn't even ready when the game went gold. We can only speculate on how much the game could have benefited from another month of AI development, but now we will never know. But it bothers me a lot that so much time is spent on fancy graphics and that the AI is the poor sister, tacked on almost as an afterthought.
The other problem IMO is that the franchise has become too much game and not enough simulation, especially in regards to the campaign element. It's beer 'n' pretzels stuff, and not very well thought out beer 'n' pretzels at that. I'm afraid they froze what they regarded as a winning formula too early in the piece, which has deprived us all of the development in other departments that the original battle engine deserved.
But, this really isn't the time to raise all these old issues on the cusp of a new release, so I think I'd better shut up now ~:)
Re: Something to be said for simplicity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I find it highly ironic that the TW games have only gotten worse as time has gone on, instead of better. The series has simply never lived up to the promise of the original title.
Tastes differ. The majority opinion in polls on this site tend to rate MTW higher than STW, a consensus which I agree with. However, I know STW has its vocal fans here - often I think they seem to really like the simplicity and balance of the multiplayer. For a SP game, STW for me was kind of a novelty game - fun but a rather narrow focus and repetitive experience. By contrast, MTW (and indeed RTW) provided a vast sandbox with much more variety and freedom. So in that sense, I am not so keen on simplicity. As for RTW, that for me was redeemed by the mods. IMO, RTR and EB actually exceed the promise of the original title. Back then, I could not imagine simulations of that depth and beauty.
Re: Something to be said for simplicity?
Well I'm glad there are others who found the living map more of an annoyance than a boon to the playing experience. MTW is certainly a good balance and I did enjoy playing MTW, but RTW made me spend too much time on the map, looking around at the busy and cluttered landscape, instead of the focus being on strategy. Yes, the living map is definitely a source of my discontent now that I think of it... maybe if there were a way to toggle it on and off in campaign mode... although that doesn't really seem possible as it completely modifies the gameplay.
