-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I think you have a point, however it is unfortunately entirely muted by the way you present it. If I was a game designer I wouldn't even read a thread which has a title that contains the word stupid. By using words like "stupid" and "moron" you made sure that your posts cannot have the slightest effect on CA because such posts are principially filtered out as worthless. And rightfully so!
Your right of course, but I dont think that very much said on boards has an effect anyway.
Your gaming purchase does, and there in lies the power of this community. Dont crucify them, provide feedback and wants, and when the product comes out lets see the reviews and what it has and what it doesnt and what they achieved and what they did not.
And then purchase accordingly, the gaming industry is a business and businesses change when the customer withholds thier consumption of the product.
Thats what needs to happen with this release, if we all go off half cocked and preorder then we havent done CA or this gaming community any service at all. I commend guys like hellenes for yelling a little louder then necessary from time to time, it provides a forum by which a logical decuction can be made for the most effiecent way to affect a change.
Your consumption is your power
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
That statement by Captain Fishpants just goes to show that the offer from the EB team didn't get very far within CA.
Did you also not see that EB stated themselves that they never made a direct offer to CA as well then? Blinkers on?
EB simply provided information publically that COULD be used, it wasn't a direct offer to anybody at CA.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
(From the thread in question, just below Captain Fishpant's post...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
No one officially offered the information in a package to the CA offices - but simply having it posted here and having the game not include any of the material is rejection enough. Not direct rejection - true. IIRC the massive thread was stickied here in the Colloseum for months.
Seems quite clear to me...
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
Did you also not see that EB stated themselves that they never made a direct offer to CA as well then? Blinkers on?
EB simply provided information publically that COULD be used, it wasn't a direct offer to anybody at CA.
Then CA wasn't even aware of the publically provided information? Of course they were aware of it, but decided not to use it. Once in a while CA will incorporate a suggestion into the game, but most of the time they don't. I don't think you have any idea of the number of suggestions CA has rejected over the last 5 years. And, if you think Palmedes is going to have any great impact, you're dreaming.
I want to be able to properly evaluate MTW2 before I purchase it. It clear from the way RTW was marketed that you cannot do that by looking at magazine reviews, official interviews, official statements, official screenshots, official videos and the non-optimized, scripted demo.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
So the proposal of the EB team (which I am NOT part of) towards CA, EB which has historians and archeologists amongst its ranks, was worded in a way that insulted CA?
I'm talking about what you said. Here. Now.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Then CA wasn't even aware of the publically provided information? Of course they were aware of it, but decided not to use it. Once in a while CA will incorporate a suggestion into the game, but most of the time they don't. I don't think you have any idea of the number of suggestions CA has rejected over the last 5 years. And, if you think Palmedes is going to have any great impact, you're dreaming.
I want to be able to properly evaluate MTW2 before I purchase it. It clear from the way RTW was marketed that you cannot do that by looking at magazine reviews, official interviews, official statements, official screenshots, official videos and the non-optimized, scripted demo.
I'll say no more on the matter, because its clear people have chosen their camps and won't be moved.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Since many people get their history from movies, games, etc., you'd think the creative types would do their best to be accurate.
The ony reason I could see for them to ignore accuracy would be to save money by not using researchers or for game play reasons.
Then again, they know the game is moddable, so they do give the option of more realism...what I suggest is they work with EB next time to offer their mod as a downloadable program for a small fee. (Notice their Greek mod is being done like this.)
You know what's funny is if they made a Lord of the Rings Total War they would probably have to be MORE careful than with actual history as the fanboys would tear them apart if they messed up.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
I suspect historical accuracy is of minimal importance when it comes to TW sales. Most of us strategy gamers are very uniformed about ancient and medieval combat. We would not have known if a EB triarii is more historical than a RTR or a RTW one. Probably because we've never even heard of a triarii. We probably think Romans in chainmail (or even worse, those dinky little square armour things over the hastati's hearts) look daft, whereas lorca segmenta looks historical and cool. Egyptians are expected to look like those of the Pharoahs etc. One reason I love TW games - ironically, especially the derided RTW - is because they are great history lessons. Just seeing a map with the factions laid out is very informative, even if some of the factions and starting positions are a little out. Finding out who exactly the Seleucids were, how close in time Alexander was to the rise of Rome etc has been a revelation for me. But I doubt many other people buy them for that reason.
Where I do agree with Hellenes is that a RTW with EB style units would have sold as well. But I think that's because many of EBs units are just gorgeous looking. If they were all pale and muddy, then however realistic, I doubt they would sell much. For example, EBs Polybian hastati, rorarii, levees etc would not attract many mass market gamers, although the EB triarii and equites would as they are stunning. Think about a Napoelonic TW: units in full dress would look splendid. Depicting them as they would look in a campaign, dirty, often shoeless, with ragged uniforms etc would be disasterous for sales. But by this criteria (graphics), RTW was head and shoulders over MTW. And M2TW seems to have caught up with EB and RTR in terms of nice looking units, even if they are less realistic.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
I'd rather have stick figures that work properly.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I'd rather have stick figures that work properly.
Yep
As I understand the issue, the fancy graphics (that do make for wonderful screenshots and a more immersive game sometimes) actually prevent us from correcting the bizarre individual unit movement speeds. All I'll need to see in any MTW2 demo is fully armoured foot troops running away from pursuing cav, and I'll not be a buyer.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
You said it yourself: "No one officially offered the information in a package to the CA offices..." There was no rejection of anything.
There is a big difference between that which is offered and that which is available to use. Holding up any mod as a saviour is quite wrong, simply because with no game there would be no mod. Unless that is, the modders would like to release their own game. I am all in favour of historical accuracy but for every pro there is a con. Yes, the game would sell equally well with EB unit skins. So what? It sold well enough without them and, dare I risk repeating myself, EB would have had nothing to work with without RTW being released.
I would have liked all the TW games to be accurate but they were not. I want MTW II to be accurate but I doubt it will be. What we should all be happy about is that the game IS moddable
......Orda
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
-
Sv: Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
That one hands down.~:cheers:
But on the other hand I always loved the headhurlers so maybe that wasn't a good comparison.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I read somewhere that there are legal reasons why they can't just incorporate stuff from modders, even with the modders' permission.
Yup... I presume that the situation is similar to authors and fans giving ideas for books. If you want your favourite author to write a book on something you have made up, the worst thing you can do it send the material to him. Then it will never happen.
But CA has used EB supplied info. I know that the text for the Night Raiders is more or less the same as one of the members wrote here (for a dev discussion), after which a dev said he would look into it, and apparently did pretty well.
So they are clearly selecting it.
Btw, what Captain Fishpants is, that not only has he, personally, not seen it, but that we are talking about specific info. Not a general announcement that they could receive free help.
If the EB people did send such an offer of help, then it is no suprirse that one of them would have to say "no, we didn't send you any specific info."
-
Re: Sv: Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
That one hands down.~:cheers:
But on the other hand I always loved the headhurlers so maybe that wasn't a good comparison.
I suspect most RTW buyers would agree with you. EB presents a guy in dull coloured clothing and a sword against RTWs David Beckham hurling a head. Beckham wins hands down in the mass market "coolness" factor.
And I think that is true with nearly all the ahistorical units/features that offended with vanilla RTW - the dogs, pigs, screeching women, the druids, the Imperial Romans arriving too early, the pharoah-type Egyptians, the flaming onagers of death, the scythed chariots (EB is thinking of pulling them), the machinegun archery, the uber leaping cavalry etc etc. I suspect they all added variety and spice to the mass market players. Those like myself who see TW as a historical wargame have to accept we are in a small (vocal) minority here.
I don't think the public are stupid - they are just not history buffs and don't place historical accuracy high up on the list when buying a strategy game.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Its not that Im as a history fan dislike fantasy...
Its just that I hate travesties of cheap bastadization between historicall accuracy and someones sick imagination that is attempted to pass as historically immersive.
I want my historical game historical and my fantasy game fantasy.
I find it baffling how you cant see this guy with a HUGE double handed sword that has the place for that sword on his back (like samurai) as "cool" I find him much "cooler" than a cartoony blond boy that thows heads...
I have no problem with fantasy like:
https://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7996/00008qc.png
Hellenes
-
Re: Sv: Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
I wouldnt categorize myself as a "history buff", but if you're gonna make a game like TW with a historical setting then it should have more than a smidgen of reality. Without that gaming aspect, it's just another RTS and should be compared to games such as AoE (that can be fun but dont pretend to be "wargames" or wargame-like).
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
...
I want my historical game historical and my fantasy game fantasy......
Hellenes
Exactly. I have no problems with super fast elves and would be more likely to buy a fantasy TW than another unrealistic TW game that bugs me.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Just for the record, EB is not THE history, it is a version of history recreated from a particular perspective, which is what Khelvan himself said on a number of occasions. If CA adopted EB as THE historical source, then they would receive a lot of complaints on historical grounds, from many people, me foremost among them. As it is now, CA created a neutral platform, EB can create their thing there, other people can create theirs, and there's no protest.
I really couldn't care less if a border of a tunic on a soldier is wrong, and I'm not going froth at the mouth with fury at CA for being so horribly evil as to commit such an inexcusable historical mistake. People who do that... need to get out more. As long as I'm allowed to change things, all I want from CA is a beautiful immersive engine, and an exciting and challenging gameplay.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
Just for the record, EB is not THE history, it is a version of history recreated from a particular perspective, which is what Khelvan himself said on a number of occasions. If CA adopted EB as THE historical source, then they would receive a lot of complaints on historical grounds, from many people, me foremost among them. As it is now, CA created a neutral platform, EB can create their thing there, other people can create theirs, and there's no protest.
I really couldn't care less if a border of a tunic on a soldier is wrong, and I'm not going froth at the mouth with fury at CA for being so horribly evil as to commit such an inexcusable historical mistake. People who do that... need to get out more. As long as I'm allowed to change things, all I want from CA is a beautiful immersive engine, and an exciting and challenging gameplay.
Present those "complaints" with something called arguments and if they are strong enough I cant see any reason for them not changing it.
And please can you show some respect and stop telling other people what to do...
A fan is something completel different from a fanboy...
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Where I do agree with Hellenes is that a RTW with EB style units would have sold as well. But I think that's because many of EBs units are just gorgeous looking. If they were all pale and muddy, then however realistic, I doubt they would sell much. For example, EBs Polybian hastati, rorarii, levees etc would not attract many mass market gamers, although the EB triarii and equites would as they are stunning. Think about a Napoelonic TW: units in full dress would look splendid. Depicting them as they would look in a campaign, dirty, often shoeless, with ragged uniforms etc would be disasterous for sales. But by this criteria (graphics), RTW was head and shoulders over MTW. And M2TW seems to have caught up with EB and RTR in terms of nice looking units, even if they are less realistic.
I gotta' tell ya'... In all honesty, I'd be extatic if they made shoeless, muddy, raggedy-ass soldiers and I think a lot of others probably would too. They've already made strides in that direction with M2TW with mud and I think even blood somewhat accumulating on troops over the course of the battle.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
So the public IS STUPID?
Can you tell me ONE thing:
If Rome Total War was released and it had instead of its cartoony units, units from Europa Barbarorum and Im talking now PURE VISUAL, not the native names, not the scripts JUST the LOOK.
Would it NOT sell as good?
And on the crusifiction thing being fan is one thing but being a occultists is something completely different...
Hellenes
Is the public that stupid, its a rhetorical question of course, Hellenes; deep down you know the answer as well as do I and anyone else. Yes, the public is that stupid. EB is fantastic, played it, but have played RTR 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, in the end it's not the corps that care for what is correct in a historical game, it's the people who play, mod and research to make it better.:book:
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
stop crying and mod the game if you dont like it when it comes out hellenes.
oh, and i dont think that not being overly concerned with historical accuracy makes someone 'stupid'. also, you are a member of the public.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
"oh, and i dont think that not being overly concerned with historical accuracy makes someone 'stupid'. also, you are a member of the public."
You're wasting your time, Wandarah. These people are convinced that anyone who doesn't share their highly specific interests and knowledge is a Neanderthal.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandarah
stop crying and mod the game if you dont like it when it comes out hellenes.
oh, and i dont think that not being overly concerned with historical accuracy makes someone 'stupid'. also, you are a member of the public.
What harm would then the historical accurate LOOK of units would do? Do they have to be product of someones poor imagination?
How "cool" does this look?
https://img349.imageshack.us/img349/...tryinfo8nt.png
Compared to this:
https://img349.imageshack.us/img349/...maninfo5ur.gif
I never said that the public was stupid because it doesnt know anything about history, if it doesnt know anything about it why should it be kept in darkness?
Should all others bow to that ignorance and preserve it?
And its not only ignorance its also the preservation of FALSE beliefs, I hear everywhere:"What one sees in Hollywood movies/games/TV isnt history"
But the truth is that people take these false images as FACTS and then expect the same ignorant trend to be followed by everyone...
We all know that fantasy sells in the gaming industry, but its getting kinda old everyone catering to the same unimaginative, poorly conicieved "fast-food" fantasy like the "Egyptians" in RTS...
As I said before I want my fantasy game fantasy and my historical game historical...
Hellenes
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Don't make this personal, lads.
-
Sv: Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Hmmm tough choice on that one.
The pink I always thought fit the eastern spearmans quite nicely and think they look cool on the battlefield as well.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Now, now, Hellenes, historical accuracy is not everything. I imagine that I am as thoroughly disgusted by the Egyptians as you do (and probably will with the Aztecs *shudders*) but my problem would be different than yours. I presume you're angry that the Ptolemaics are brushed aside in favor of the affectionately-called "mummies," and the unhistorical side of it. For me its the shame of seeing such an unbalanced game with Rome trouncing everybody left and right, Pharaonic Egypt trouncing everybody left and right, while the real superpowers are unbalanced and weak.
The key word here is balance. In other words, gameplay. Medieval Total-War was quite well balanced; a few flaws, like the Spanish-Almohad massive empires, do not hinder the fun. Roman-Egyptian domination of the map hinders the fun.
CA has limited time. Let them do their job, which is create the best gameplay possible to build on, and let them garner their sales, which is by the gritty battles and cool units. I expect great things from M2TW but I do not expect historical accuracy. My only demand is a fun game. And I trust them.
We here obviously have a talented modding community--and mods, if the developer supports them, can do wonders. Just look at Morrowind. Look at the vanilla game, then a modded game. You will see why it is such a popular game.
Historical can be fun, but the excruciating process of research, debate, continuous historical revisions, compromise, and others of such nature will only suck up valuable time. CA's goal is to break into the mainstream, unlike, say, Paradox, which caters to the historical folk.
And yes, the public is ignorant of history. Stupid? Maybe. Doesn't matter.
-
Re: Is the public THAT stupid?
Dear Antiochus,
I would have 0 demands from CA if the said making up, designing and allocation of resources on pointless poor fantasy stuff didnt harm gameplay design.
Why should the company pay for the working hours on the mummies design when this can be allocated to MP coding or even better on "AI" code?
By aligning to the dominant FALSE beliefs CA and any company admits its role in PRESERVING the ignorance and the darkness that the Hollywood has put the general masses.
Should the masses be kept in their imaginary ignorant world? What would happen if RTW was historically accurate in LOOKS? Wouldnt people buy it?
I seriously doubt that...
PS As I said before I dont deter fantasy, I adore LOTR and Wlesmanas LOTRTW mod never left my HDD, Ive even combined METW and LOTRTW to play the campaign earlier.
But LOTR is inspired and quality fantasy, not some poor excuse of design...
