Just for Laughs - the "Time" Magazine "Review"

Now, when I look at many posts made over the last year, I cannot help myself thinking that it seems rather fashionable to bash Rome: Total War at every possible instance, never mind how “thin” the reasons for that bashing are. It seems to be simply “in”; if you want to be “up to date”, “dandy” and, this one is particularly laughable to me, want to leave an impression of a subtle, intellectual gaming gourmet, then bash Rome.

I have stopped caring about it sometime ago.

Though I personally have been amused about the rather naive depiction of Rome, I perfectly understand its reasoning and think that all the fans of Total war should rather feel flattered that their favorite (?) game has made it to “Time” - I suppose there is no need pointing out the distinction between the time and the local gaming magazine, isn’t it?


Anyway, I can hardly wait to lay my hands on that marvelous game, and do sincerely hope that it will sell in millions copies, so CA will get the money and the possibility to continue their impressive and, as far as I, an ignorant and dumb mainstream buyer am concerned, most appreciated work.

I can't believe how skeptical and scathing you guys are.

So there are some things about the demo that you don't like. Give it a chance and stop bashing CA.

We just want the best game possible. We're not bashing CA, just don't like some (a lot) of their descisions.

As far as the Time Magazine article goes, CA is right: It will be great for business, period.

Now, regarding the criticism about the game the fact is that before the demo everyone was really excited about it, thinking it would be a fantastic game.

Personally I think the final game will be very good but the demo is VERY disapointing for a veteran player of MTW and STW. Either it was targeted for the newbies or it was rushed.

Still I think this discussions are great cause it gives CA some feedback.
Unlike most I think it is possible to make a game that appeals to both hardcore and casual players.

[]'s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

That would certainly be premature ~;)

---

Stop posting inbetween builds and go home, Jerome ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda

I hope you're not saying that Rome's multiplayer battles have been adversely affected by certain design decisions - before the game has come out and you've actually played any multiplayer battles.

---

I measured the unit speeds in the demo, and those measurements were independently confirmed by another player. I don't have to play multiplayer battles to understand the impact of these new speeds. They definitely preclude me from coordinating a full army, and I have no reason to expect that the speeds will be different in the full game. It's apparently one of the trade-offs that has been made to appeal to the new mainstream market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I measured the unit speeds in the demo, and those measurements were independently confirmed by another player. I don't have to play multiplayer battles to understand the impact of these new speeds. They definitely preclude me from coordinating a full army, and I have no reason to expect that the speeds will be different in the full game. It's apparently one of the trade-offs that has been made to appeal to the new mainstream market.

---

your sad, but unfortunately true words make me cry ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

That would certainly be premature ~;)

And to Maedhros: I suggested using the Silmarillion some years ago to the Powers that Be within CA, as it's actually much more suited to this type of game than LotR, but someone with deep pockets had already snaffled the rights, more's the pity.

---

So somebody tell me in a nutshell what silmarillon is?

As far as marketing look at some of the great art work on PC games. Then look at the quality of the game. Well for me I either buy a game out of word of mouth or I buy the first in its genre for 10 bucks. Its after playing the first in the series that may entice me to buy further into it.

If you've noticed in stores they are selling the battle collection(forget how its labeled) with both MTW and VI in it for 30 bucks. To me thats a bit of a steep price for a game that old but apparently its still pumping out sales. Of course they did this to even promote further sales of RTW. They buy it they love it and they want the sequal. They also might have recalled all of there other boxes out in the market so they could put even more RTW videos in it rather than just have that 1 video that is on the VI CD. So the people buying these get all of these videos in 1 shot rather than having to DL it, promoting the game even further.

At a base level, I nor anyone else should have a problem with a company trying to appeal to the mass market. However, it is when the game is simplified or dumbed down in a way that is negative. Simplifying the interface while keeping the tactical nuances of the game is not a bad thing it is a good thing. On the otherhand making the game with the intention of making everything -lite so that the laymen can get into it sit down for 10 minutes and have a good time is bad. To support this point of view I need only to direct you to xbox.

As many of you probably know two of the most recently beloved games thief and dues ex have released sequals on the xbox. These games are almost universally reviled for their total shallowness. When developers dumb down a game to this extent for the sole purpose of lining their pockets, in an attempt to appeal to the console crowd, they are not only doing a disservice to their fans and computer gaming, they are not thinking long term business wise.

There has always been the console market and the computer market and there always should be. There is a very simple reason why, consol games while having a broader mass appeal can never be as complex as rich or deep as computer game. By flooding the computer game market with console titles, and developing computer titles for consoles you are hitting on one demographic but completely ignoring another. Computer gamers have consoles to play console games, they have computers to play computer games. The computer gaming scene in my opinion is only just recently making a comeback to high quality games. The last VERY good games were in the early/mid 90's with a few gems released since. Games have been by and large all eye candy and nothing else and only recently have people started to see past JUST eye candy and demand more from the game. Now we have the console revolution which stands to set back computer gaming even further than 3d graphics initially did.

So while im happy for you and your newfound mass market appeal, I sure as shit hope this isnt another dues ex 2 where you're laughing all the way to the bank while we are all left with a pretty game. Oh and by the way, the demo DOES play too fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I measured the unit speeds in the demo, and those measurements were independently confirmed by another player. I don't have to play multiplayer battles to understand the impact of these new speeds. They definitely preclude me from coordinating a full army, and I have no reason to expect that the speeds will be different in the full game. It's apparently one of the trade-offs that has been made to appeal to the new mainstream market.

---

The impact of this being that the MP games will have a faster pace then they have had until now, I suppose. I never played Shogy or Medieval online, so I wouldn’t know precisely, and have never claimed to be an expert in this area of TW, so you may regard my words with a certain reserve. I do intend on playing a lot of Rome online, and I believe that, along with greater maps, this issue with speed will not fall negatively into light. MTW was slow as hell sometimes, the difference between walking/charging soldiers/cav was hardly noticeable, which bogged me a lot. Also, I always figured it to be the extreme and utter nonsense that infantry could run away from my cavalry, no matter how “rested” they are! ~:angry:

And as for the historically aware members, please recall that the warriors of the time were true masters of running, and endurance! :jumping:

It is good, imho of course, that the tactic pace in Rome will be faster then it has been so far. But making this claim before I actually played one single MP game would be… premature? ~;)

I know and perfectly understand the reasons why the article is written that way. And my response is just as much a response to the article as to Tamur's post, which I found really funny. Marketing as all about BS'ing and there are two kinds of it. The first is subtle BS'ing and the second looks like it was written by an undergrad doing some cramming.

In marketing, you highlight the things that your intended audience likes and omit the ones they aren't very interested about. The same product will be marketed to different market segments differently. Add a few industry jargon and some currently trendy catchphrases, stir and mix well. Talk about facts, units, etc. that you might not know anything about but the audience won't know better. If you overdo it, or somebody in the know reads it, however, it sounds really funny.

Rome: If you want to be Caesar, you have to think outside the box and leverage your faction's core competencies into sustainable competitive advantages in a fierce competitive environment. Do you focus on being a first-mover on innovative unit technologies or create a well-balanced and diversified portfolio of the various unit types? Will you employ a differentiation strategy using nonsubstitutable, unique units or optimize operations productivity using a unit count leadership strategy? On the way, you will look into negotiating complementary strategic alliances and other mutually beneficial treaties with your rivals. Be careful, however, as improper risk management and the obsolescence of core competencies into core rigidities can leave your faction suddenly in an uncompetitive position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

Now, when I look at many posts made over the last year, I cannot help myself thinking that it seems rather fashionable to bash Rome: Total War at every possible instance, never mind how “thin” the reasons for that bashing are. It seems to be simply “in”; if you want to be “up to date”, “dandy” and, this one is particularly laughable to me, want to leave an impression of a subtle, intellectual gaming gourmet, then bash Rome.

---

Wise words, lord Voigtkampf. I myself have been wondering for some time why people seemed so hostile to RTW. Every snipped of information CA released was researched with the outmost precision for 'historical incorrectness', and woe to CA if something was found to be wrong. For example, I have heard people complaining about the shield of the Cataphract cavalry. That's just typical because MTW's kataphraktoi were hardly 'historical correct': they don't have shields, they don't have bows, they don't have maces and it can be argued that they weren't really important any more after the battle of Manizkert.

I don't know what caused this hostility. I guess everyone expected a lot more of RTW than of MTW and thus created an impossibly high standard for CA to comply with. Off course CA couldn't reach this state of perfection (due to limited time or money, or whatever reason), and in reaction to this people started taking every detail apart to prove that the game was 'wrong'. While in fact it is no more 'wrong' than MTW.

Yes, there are issues which CA should take seriously. Game speed is one, historical accuracy (see my sig) is two. And I don't mean that every detail has to be correct, I just want the factions (Egyptians/barbarians) to resemble there real-life counterparts.

Oaty, the Silmarillion is a book of Tolkien, about the history of Middle Earth before the War of the Ring. It is not like 'The Lord of the Rings'; I have heard it being compared to the Old Testament, but it is a very good read if you like epic histories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

or somebody in the know reads it, however, it sounds really funny.

---

Second that. And in reply to voigt's post, I don't think the original intention of this thread was to bash CA or RTW. I'm about to preorder from Amazon as I type.

But the mainstream marketing seems funny to us because it's just that: mainstream marketing. I mean, all the advertising we need here at the Org is 'Yeah, Rome's coming out late September, preorder here' - and a link. So it seems strange when we see 'Command mighty 3D armies in real-time battles' etc - because we know we're going to be able to do that. We're interested in 'With Rome, we're adding a mod-pack that makes it really easy to mod the game, say by changing unit graphics or numbers per unit to make the game more interesting. So if you like light cavalry armies, you can mod more men into that Parthian horse archer unit' and such. And CA are telling us that stuff as well as the mainstream stuff for the mainstream. It's just that when we see the simplified 'Cut 3D heads off!' style advertising, it seems funny.

remeber in viking invasion?
when the viking on the box had a helmet with horns?

i dont remember any vikings with horns in the actual game other than joms vikings (which are semi-imaginary anyway)

VI turned out to be entertaining and good

however, as a proponent of historical realism in games - due to the fact that i have HEARD that EA/CA is running away from its responsibility to its long time fansthe day it comes out but will wait until a sizeable portion of THIS community gives me the ok or at least says it attempts to follow the suite of its predecessors

i cant be spending money on every gladiator: the videogame that comes out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda

Some of you really do seem to have a problem with some of the Rome marketing... and since a lot of the marketing palpably isn't aimed at you, you should maybe chill out some :)

---

Yes, assinine units like Head Hurlers and Screeching Women are an issue for me.

Don't you find it a bit ironic that 90% of the units in the game are - err - "historically based" - and the dip-shit reviewer focuses exclusivly on those that are not?

You're pretty clear on why CA is going in the "pop" direction with RTW. But you seem to be in denial regarding the effect these decisions have on your hard core fan base. You really can't have it both ways - and you've already dumbed your product down (ugly green arrow-heads, TOTALLY un-realistic unit speeds, annoyingly large red/green pointers, to say nothing of questionable units) to the point where a 10 year old can play it .

Oh sure we can and will mod - but your direction is clear. So you'll get my $$ for R:TW - and probably the expansion pack too (since these hew pretty close to their "parents"). But my future with your franchise is cloudy indeed.

Barkhorn - Arrogant Grognard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

Now, when I look at many posts made over the last year, I cannot help myself thinking that it seems rather fashionable to bash Rome: Total War at every possible instance, never mind how “thin” the reasons for that bashing are. It seems to be simply “in”; if you want to be “up to date”, “dandy” and, this one is particularly laughable to me, want to leave an impression of a subtle, intellectual gaming gourmet, then bash Rome.

---

...I bash where appropriate IMO. And this Time mag. snippet is an ironic example of the sad state of knowledge regarding ancient history among the general public and the "new" direction that CA is taking with their franchise.

If you find my comments arrogant and elitist, then so be it. I'll live.
~;p

Barkhorn - Arrogant Grognard.

Well, firsr of all it is good to have a thread where CA still actively replies and responds to our comments. There has indeed been a lot of "hostility" towards RTW on these forums and I am glad they are not just shrugging us off as an "impossible to please crowd of hardcore gamers and historians".

Quote:

---

I don't know what caused this hostility. I guess everyone expected a lot more of RTW than of MTW and thus created an impossibly high standard

---

I guess that's got a lot to do with it. Expectations of the vets were very high.
And everyone had very precise ideas of what RTW should be. A certain disappointment would be inevitable.


Now I don't like the green arrows or fantasy units anymore than anyone else here. But CA are doing a difficult balancing act of moving into the mass market (which they may have to do for business reasons) and pleasing (or avoiding to disappoint) their old fans. The good thing is, they have no problems giving us options.

The green arrows and large unit flags can be turned off. The flaming pigs and screeming women are probably more of a marketing gag than that they will be of real significance in the game. The one thing that for me crystallizes out as still beeing a real issue is game speed.

I know Puss3D's comments have been called "premature", but I have learned to trust his judgement and, seeing it as a forecast of what is to come, I believe his words should be taken seriously. The thing to do, again, would be to give people the option to set their own gamespeed. Could be a slider bar, or a line in the preferences.txt, something like "gamespeed=100" where players could change it to a smaller number to adjust to their liking and which, in Multi Player, would be that the host's setting will be the one for the other players as well.

Of course it's great that R:TW is mentioned in Time magazine, which is, after all, quite prestigious. However, the quality of the review leaves much to be desired, by focussing a lot on the screeching women and flaming pigs. I mean, RTW has much better things to offer than that, like excellent diplomacy, real historical units and immersive gameplay. I think these things will appeal far more to the average Time magazine reader than screeching women. And I still think the pighurling catapults are hysterically funny! Oh dear, I think I feel a poem coming up! :p

The Fall of Dumnorix

Dumnorix was a Celtic king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Great Alps and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his bright mustache afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's lair
were mirrored in his dandruff'd hair.

But long ago he fell in battle
when he crush'd a legion with great mettle
For he was dancing a victory jig
when he got hit by a burning pig

The song goes on for another 350 verses, most of them dealing with pork chops. :) Tis a sad song really and one of the finest examples of Celtic poetry. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Witch-King

Of course it's great that R:TW is mentioned in Time magazine, which is, after all, quite prestigious. However, the quality of the review leaves much to be desired, by focussing a lot on the screeching women and flaming pigs. I mean, RTW has much better things to offer than that, like excellent diplomacy, real historical units and immersive gameplay. I think these things will appeal far more to the average Time magazine reader than screeching women. And I still think the pighurling catapults are hysterically funny! Oh dear, I think I feel a poem coming up! :p

The Fall of Dumnorix

Dumnorix was a Celtic king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Great Alps and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his bright mustache afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's lair
were mirrored in his dandruff'd hair.

But long ago he fell in battle
when he crush'd a legion with great mettle
For he was dancing a victory jig
when he got hit by a burning pig

The song goes on for another 350 verses, most of them dealing with pork chops. :) Tis a sad song really and one of the finest examples of Celtic poetry. :)

---

LOL! What LotR poem are you parodying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

The impact of this being that the MP games will have a faster pace then they have had until now, I suppose. I never played Shogy or Medieval online, so I wouldn’t know precisely, and have never claimed to be an expert in this area of TW, so you may regard my words with a certain reserve. I do intend on playing a lot of Rome online, and I believe that, along with greater maps, this issue with speed will not fall negatively into light. MTW was slow as hell sometimes, the difference between walking/charging soldiers/cav was hardly noticeable, which bogged me a lot. Also, I always figured it to be the extreme and utter nonsense that infantry could run away from my cavalry, no matter how “rested” they are! ~:angry:

And as for the historically aware members, please recall that the warriors of the time were true masters of running, and endurance! :jumping:

It is good, imho of course, that the tactic pace in Rome will be faster then it has been so far. But making this claim before I actually played one single MP game would be… premature? ~;)

---

I'd recommand you play MTW online, with existing MTW control that you already know and are used to, and with the slower MTW speed. It is very likely you'll be overwhelmed by the the speed of the game and frustrated by how difficult it is to command an army in the very limited time that is available to you. Reminder, there is no pause.
All new players have been there, and many new players find that difficult.
If you want, as an alternative; play a 4v4 custom game with no pause.
Higher RTW speed is only going to make the game tougher to play and control, and players are likely to adapt by using less elaborate tactic (they take more time to implement, all the more difficult with more time pressure).

Louis,

Quote:

---

Higher RTW speed is only going to make the game tougher to play and control, and players are likely to adapt by using less elaborate tactic.

---

Indeed! The feedback from the players will be that the games is too hard and mainstream gamers probably want even more simplistic gameplay, just like in their RTS games. CA can then do one of the following:
1. bring back the slower movement
2. make it more simple, since they need the mainstream market.
3. do nothing.

And this is not bashing premature. We have played with the game, and it's hard. I'm not that quick with the mouse and I don't have the time to practice 2 hours every day. So for me this wonderfull 3D game is reduced to a slideshow of pretty pictures. And if I dare to play it in MP I should probably stick to equivalents of Chivalric Men-at-Arms, or other click-and-forget units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by son of spam

LOL! What LotR poem are you parodying?

---

Gil-galad was an Elven king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Mountains and the Sea.
His sword was long,
his lance was keen,
His shinning helm affar was seen,
the countless stars of heavens field,
were mirrored on his silver shield,
but long ago he rode away,
and where he dweleth none can say,
for into darkness fell his star,
in Mordor, where the shadows are.

Ah the Silmarillion... it would undoubtedly be an awesome setting for a Total War title. I read it in my final year at school (near on 12 years ago now) and absolutely loved it, especially the vivid chapters where the Anur created and shaped Middle-earth with their songs.

As to whom has the big pockets, I'd hedge an educated guess that EA have the rights to the Tolkien franchise - what with the imminent release of their Battle For Middle-Earth RTS and all their previous movie-based titles...

I'm not one to criticise the marketing though - it's a tough, competitive world out there and the release of R:TW has, or is likely to, coincide with other BIG name titles including Doom 3, the aforementioned EA title and Half-Life 2! No easy feat given that many teenagers might only be able to initially afford one of these!

Also it's certainly a bit premature to be complaining about likely effects on MP based on a demo which doesn't even support MP. Whilst I don't necessarily disagree that the speed and killing rate might be a little too fast, bear in mind that the maps are substantially bigger in R:TW, and from a SP player perspective, I do remember getting bored with repetitive 30 min - 2 hour battles in M:TW.

Regards

Doc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Also it's certainly a bit premature to be complaining about likely effects on MP based on a demo which doesn't even support MP. Whilst I don't necessarily disagree that the speed and killing rate might be a little too fast, bear in mind that the maps are substantially bigger in R:TW, and from a SP player perspective, I do remember getting bored with repetitive 30 min - 2 hour battles in M:TW.

---

So the speed change is yet another concession to single player at the expense of multiplayer? Multiplayer is included simply to increase sales? Time Magazine forgot to mention that.

What makes long boring battle in SP?

The (not so) slow pace of running and fighting?

Or endless reinforcement?

Louis,

Hmmm, I think the Tokien Estate still has the rights to the Silmarillion, with Christopher Tolkien guarding them with his life. I don't think were gonna see an official 'Silmarillion: Total War' anytime soon. :(

In M:TW movement of troops once combat was inititated wasn't too slow and certainly not unrealistic. So no reason there to increase speed.

Movement could be considered slow in SP when you needed to cross a large map for only a 3 unit vs 3 unit fight. Or when reinforcements need to brought up from the opposite side. But in SP you have time-compression, so in my opinion the increased speeds adds nothing to SP gameplay. Well that is besides added confusion and an unrealistic feel because of hypercharged units. The confusion can be avoided by using the Pause button, but that greatly decreases the epic movie-like feel of the battles.

In MP, the time spend to cross a large map wasn't irritating in my eyes, it allowed you to make some manuevres and talk abit with your teammates.
The negative side of large maps was not the time spent, but the loss of fatigue. And Puzz3D (?) rightly said before that this was the thing needing to be adressed and not walking speed.

If CA really wanted avoid long times walking across the map to reach an enemy then they should have added the column formation or a similar "special ability" that increases the walking speed of the army. Walking in combat formation isn't that fast, so turning it off, like the Phalanxes can, would allow you to cover distances a bit quicker. And this in an entirely realistic way.

...hmm, perhaps I will be able to mod the "Turn off Phalanx" ability to all units. This way they will walk faster, but in combat formation they will walk/run slower and thus providing a more enjoyable battle. Sounds like the best of 2 worlds, unless the AI is unable to cope with it...

Quote:

---

[...] and from a SP player perspective, I do remember getting bored with repetitive 30 min - 2 hour battles in M:TW.

---

Then bear in mind that SP players are able to both compress time and pause the game so they should never be hindered/irritated by time. Although use of them does take away some immersion.
MP players doesn't have the option to use either of them.

Yuuki,
Yes, I would agree that, if the speed and killing rate do pose an issue, then this will all the more apparent in MP. One can always mod the SP. Having experienced major slow downs and stuttering (to 5fps) during a modded 2 vs 2 demo battle involving large sized armies, I have my doubts as the full potential of MP anyway.... at least for greater than 1 vs 1s.

My PC is:
ATI X800 Pro
Athlon XP 3200+
1 GB RAM

Louis,
I'd say a mixture of both - Endless reinforcements obviously lead to increased time, but so can marching across an entire map to meet an AI army halfway up a hill, or chasing routed troops... I found myself constantly using the timer at full-speed, which in itself tends to detract from the atmosphere and epic feeling of a battle.

Duke John,

MP a is completely different matter. I had no complaints regarding the speed and killing rate of MTW MP. The faults with MTW MP lied more with unit balance (i.e. no spears). The boredom of the long battles was always in SP mode.

Marching speed in RTW is the same as in MTW.

On a MTW map (medium size that is normally used in the campaign) it would take infantry about 8 minutes to walk from one mapedge to another. In RTW that takes about 18 minutes.

The running speed is really only used when fighting starts. And fighting never took long in MTW anyway.

The 50% increase in running speed we see in RTW wont effect the how long a battle last as most of the time is spent on marching and waiting for reinforcements to arrive. But it does effect our ability to control most of our units, especially with 25% more units.


CBR