Printable View
That has actually been done previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
There was a group of players of StarCraft that thought it wasn't good enough and so they made their own game. They found out that it was much harder than anticipated and the endresult in bought games (very cheap intenet bought) was very low. Not even the people that had pushed hema long bought the game... It was huge letdown for the developers.
So it has been done, which is good to know. But we shouldn't sell it by any means, hell no!
Make something we ourselves will enjoy playing for years. What's there to lose?
I don't know, Red. CA have been hinting that they are going to make substantial changes to the design in the XP, along the lines of the criticisms that have been made about RTW on the boards. Although they haven't revealed specific details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I think they've got to have been a little concerned about the reception the game has received, especially in relation to stuff like fast kill speeds and quick routing (in fact now that I mention it, I think I recall Jerome Grasdyke saying they were reviewing some of these issues). So I'm hopeful that we *will* see substantial improvements in the XP. After all, it seems to me they've done most of the work now - they've got the game out the door and made it reasonably stable, from this point on is where they get a chance to really improve things.
On the other hand, like you I'm still sceptical that much will be changed, because RTW clearly represents not just a new 3D engine but a change in game philosophy towards a simpler, more accessible product. It remains to be seen whether the game's mixed reception amongst the established fanbase will be enough to persuade them to recant and move back to a more complex model.
Also as someone else said, one has to wonder whether CA has not simply overreached itself in creating this game, and will be unable to do more than fiddle around the edges.
But the bottom line for me is that just fixing a few more glitches like horse archers or disrupted sieges is not going to revive my interest anyway, so why bother? The only thing that will get me back to playing is if substantial changes are made, which would surely require more work on CA's part than could be justified in a free patch. So roll on the XP.
A lot of time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
The game they made was brilliant in terms of balance and tactics (attacking the rear gave bonus and terrain gave bonusses as well to both speed and stats), but it was simply not that well made, looked desidedly rough and it was heavy to play (very bad for an MP game). These guys had used more than 2 years on it and they couldn't get it to be good enough. And that was with borrowing the StarCraft engine and a significantly less complex gamesystem. They were not few and they were not bad at this.
What I learned from it was that good modders aren't always good developers.
There are quite a few game engines for sale. Lite versions cost around 100$. If you can find some good artists, modellers and most of all good programmers then that step isn't that farfetched. 2 example game engines:Quote:
All TW modders should unite and create a game on their own, and freely publish it via internet.
http://www.powerrender.com/
http://www.garagegames.com/
A group that developed its own engine and is spreading source and game for free:
http://www.glest.org/eng/
However it is a much more difficult project than a modding project. But if you can find the talent than there is no one stopping you.
Because the interest of some other people might get rekindled?Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
The message being sent that way is basically "do whatever you want, we'll swallow it because we won't be bothered about the thing we bought after a few weeks anyway". Fine, you don't care about the game any more. However, do you think that expressions of complacency now will in fact help to improve the things for, say, some future edition when you might care again? Like when you decide to spend more money on the next installment? After all, wouldn't you rather see without a doubt that these things are in fact fixed *before* you buy the next game which may or may not rekindle your interest?
I would so much wish for a patch 1. 3.
(1) I didn´t really think of v. 1.1. as more than a bugfix
(2) Patch 1.2. really screwed difficulty levels, they should at least adjust that
(3) They owe it to a community of fans of the Total war series, some of which have played on from Shogun to Rome, spending a hundred Dollars or more into those games (I' am one of them). This point is far beyond any contractual obligation.
If you look at Rome Total war and see what it could be made...well then I take two thoughts into account:
(1) Why don't they give us the damn support for it (just like HOI2 or other games mentioned in this thread have)
(2) If they really don't, we'd have to manage this all by ourselves, but as far as I'm informed, the AI ist hardcoded and difficult to change. h
In fact I like the game and it's graphics, but I found more fun in MTW than in Rome. The problem in turning back is the graphics of Rome, which are quite impressing (though not at the same level as in the trailers).
Activision...do your job!
Thanks for the clarification DJ. I had read snippets about that here and there but was unsure of whether this was actually the case. I'll take your word for it that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
One patch for a game like this is a crime. It really irks me that that CA would ink a deal that limits them to one patch for a game like this. Statistically speaking when dealing with a game of this complexity things are bound to slip through the cracks even with an army of testers on the case. This has happened twice with the discovery of the secondary weapon bug pre 1.2 patch and the mounted archer bug post 1.2.
I must assume that either CA placed too much confidence in Activision's testing dept. or they hoped the one patch would catch all the major bugs and issues and and treated the expansion pack as a secondary patch of sorts. As with Medieval anyone who doesn't purchase the expansion pack is denied any further bug fixes and tweaks.
Okay, I was going to reply to you earlier but didn't get around to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
Look, I think you have every right to continue to lobby CA for another patch if that's what you want. I'm obviously just speaking from my own POV. But I sincerely doubt that fixing horse archers is going to have people flocking back to the game in droves.
Also I think it would require a major effort to get CA to change its two patch policy, after which they might decide they've bent over backwards to accommodate us already and don't owe us anything more.
Might be so, but wouldn't you rather have a more tangible testimony that this bug is going to be fixed in the XP, as opposed to a mere presumtion (though I'm more concerned about ones we cannot fix ourselves)? As in, a patch for RTW that you can download and see for yourself, and not just thinking that surely they'll get around to do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
But wouldn't that change of policy be a great change for all of us in the long term?Quote:
Also I think it would require a major effort to get CA to change its two patch policy, after which they might decide they've bent over backwards to accommodate us already and don't owe us anything more.
I'm not delusional as to think that my dissenting voice will change much, but I am certain however that forgiving, forgetting and being generally complacent will not bring any change whatsoever.
ps.
Btw, I hope you're not taking this a wrong way - I'm not attacking you or anything.
Cheers,
Having almost completed my second imperial campaign - this time as the carthagians. I have noticed a couple of things for the worse from patch 1.2 compared to 1.1
Firstly there is the quicksave/seige breaker - which to my thinking is a very serious bug - almost a game ruiner
Second I notice (and this may be related to the first) that none of the AI empires have expanded or taken a single land other than barabarian land - I just encountered the egyptians and they have been stagnant, the Jullii and Gaul make ceasefires every turn, and neither has taken a land. Wait a sec no the macedonians were wiped out early, so there mustve been some action by the greeks I think - they mustve taken it during one session of gaming before I loaded and the AI forgot what it was doing.
on the up side of 1.2 I fought a battle for Alexandria in front of the great lighthouse, and the egyptians had elite pharoh body guards and archers, totally amped.
on the down side the general is the first to fall still ~:handball:
so Im thinking real hard about going back to 1.1
Id like your opinions - weighing up the pros and cons do you think Id be happier playing 1.1 or 1.2
the whole 2 patches thing is complete short sighted rubbish - how do they know they wont create a bug with one of the patches that needs fixing - its an insult - so what too bad if we wreck the game with the patch we aint fixing it! Its like activision selling us a three wheeled car and then saying ok you get one service - the car comes back from the service and now its got two wheels - they say sorry we have a one service policy
corporations that hide from their consumers behind policy and doing the absolute minimum are COWARDS - FIX YOUR PRODUCT ACTIVISION
I'd certainly like to see more communication from CA about what they're up to and what they intend to do. But for reasons best known to themselves, they choose not to operate this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
I don't know. We've just had a patch that fixed some old problems and introduced some new ones - in spite of supposed QA. What guarantee is there that the next patch might not introduce some even worse problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
I think if CA put one or two programmers working fulltime on patches, which could be released to the community as is, without any QA which seems to be useless anyhow, but just a warning to install at your own risk, that might be a great way of involving the community in an ongoing exchange. But it's hard to see how CA would make any money that way, unless they charged a subscription or something, so realistically I don't think it's going to happen.
I don't see myself as complacent at all! On the contrary, what I want to see is radical surgery rather than cosmetic makeovers. My main concern with the idea of ongoing patches is that all the resources will end up going into incremental servicing instead of the major overhaul that I'd like to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
Not that I really think I'll get what I want in the XP either, but I do think it gives them the opportunity to tackle at least some of the bigger issues which would be hard to address in a patch.
Not at all! I like an exchange of ideas, that's part of why I come to these forums ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
I think this is what I was trying to say really. There is a lot of Activision bashing going on, but it's not really very constructive JUST to blame the publisher. CA wrote the game after all. And we know that development for RTW has been going on since the time MTW was being developed, so this is clearly a long and complicated project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
My eyes glazed over at all the stats you quoted, but what you said rings true (with me at least). There seems to have been a lot of stuff started and not finished, suggesting time and resource constraints. Whether Activision could have helped here is open to debate of course.
Re - major changes for the patch. I'd be surprised. We have a tactical game engine that (for a vocal section of the community) is far too fast. The fact that it was released that way and nothing was done about it in 5 months of pre-patch development time suggests to me that nothing will be done in time for the xpack. That's just me being pessimistic though, and if it turns out that they've been working on it for months and just needed some more tweaking and testing time to get it right then I will be delighted, and if someone could spread jam on my humble pie that would be great.
In the meantime, I (still) play the game as CA intended, and still love it.
Cheers,
Rob.
RJV,
I agree. I don't see any need to blame this on the publisher--and I have not seen any information direct to the community from the publisher (marketing does not count) so their voice is not represented in this. I have no idea what the actual contract is, nor do I know what was presented to each side. Activision would expect certain deliverables and pay for them. There would certainly be a limit as to how far they would be willing to pay for patching the game--leaving it open ended invites abuse by the developer (any developer, not trying to besmirch CA.) And it is unlikely that Activision would have direct control over the quality of the patch either. I suspect that if CA developed another patch (without additional compensation) and presented it to Activision it would be tested and accepted, but that is a guess. Activision would still incur some internal costs that way, so even that might not be accepted. And who knows, it could even pose some sort of legal/contractual problem for CA in effect admitting that previous patches were insufficient.
When I first got the game, I played it for as long as I could unmodded, trying to give it a chance to grow on me in vanilla form and to get as much feel for the innate balance as possible. However, I could only resist fixing a few things for a week or two.
I am glad you are enjoying the vanilla game. There is nothing wrong with that. We each have our own expectations.
yep me tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Boudicca
AND CAQuote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
*bump* ~:)
I think it's a great game overall, and obviously CA bit of more than it could chew.
I would suggest they provide some feedback to modders who are guessing at fixes so the modders can do a patch with confidence.
You know, the trait bugs, the horse archers, etc.
Clean it up.
For major changes like game speed, they need to have that in the XP.
That (developing a game by the users) has been done previously. I mean "Steal Panthers: World at War".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
The RTS players may not be familiar with that story, but there was a series of turn-based strategy (and later on, tactical) games placed in WW2 and after called "Steel Panthers", by SSI. After many people modded the games, SSI released the code. Based on this code, a group of fanatics created a completely new tactical game, just "SP:WaW". AFAIK, it was a major success. Last I checked it is available to download for free from www.matrixgames.com .
As I am also suffering from the "AI abandon all tasks" bug, having hardly longer than 1 hour for playing, I support the petition for the 1.3 patch.
Ah but that game had the same code as the original, we can't expect that. Hope perhaps but not expect. So until that happens I think people should shelf any ambitions towards creating their own game, it is not worth it.
I agree they should bring another patch
The first version of SP:WaW had large portions of the original SSI code, which were gradually replaced by the code written by the community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
You have the point, we can't expect that CA/Activision release the code.
I wholly agree with the community,
I think CA and/or Activision should at least bother to honour our requests.
Their flagrant disregard for their fanbase is aggravating and downright disrespectful considering that the majority of ppl on these forums are dedicated fans since MTW and STW.
:singer:
Personally, I just want accountability and an explanation for why things went so badly, any less and the end will be near for CA's fanbase. So let us e-picket :end:, let us protest, :director: we have a right to be angry :veryangry2:.
Whatever CA does, it cannot hide :hide: behind some nothing, two-faced ~:yin-yang: Activision consultant, no they cannot yell :oops:, say :stupid:
and wave a white flag, :surrender:
I say :hanged: whichever group of idiots who ruined the TW series.
I hope the community appreciates my smilies charged speech.