Provide a link please
CBR
Printable View
Provide a link please
CBR
To contradict the title of this thread, MP ( with regards TW ) is history. Nothing can convince me that CA will ever make a decent MP experience out of this game. Too transfixed on graphics they were and lost the plot along the way. Sp00n said it all in one of his posts....STW was the best and probably a fluke because they have never reproduced it. MP battles do not require stunning 3D graphics, nor do SP battles for that matter, it is of no use except for viewing replays ( and we all know what CA forgot )
I also agree with Sp00n when he says CA needs competition, something to kick their complacent butts into improving their product and I have long since touted trade descriptions! My hands are tied all shapes regarding my company and what I can and can't say or do by law, regarding our customers and quite frankly I find it amusing that games can be released in such an unfinished state! It's hilarious!
Yes Sp00n, imagine buying a Porsche 911 with no engine.......would we all complain? I think so.
As for this game? It's tat CA and I really hope some serious competitor arrives soon
.......Orda
Amen to that Orda !
Companies mostly think that online MP is the future and many invested heavily on it but the actual numbers is that SP still rules. Games like the Sims, GTA, etc. all don't have multiplayer but are ruling the sales charts. I used to play multiplayer a lot but have stopped and haven't played one in a long time. I may get back to it someday with the right game but currently, SP is way more enjoyable.
There's just too many jerks online to make it a pleasant experience for most people. I've read many stories about how people try out online MP for a while then go back to SP or LAN MP or single console MP because of the people they play with. Fact is, people only want to play with or against people they know or trust. There's too many cheaters, sore losers, poor winners, etc. online. It's just not a pleasant experience.
The reason MP is more popular in countries like Taiwan and South Korea is PC bangs. You can play MP with other people and still be close enough to beat the crap out of them if they cheat or just plain act like an ass. You can't do that in online MP and until they figure out a way to allow you to clock your annoying opponent, online MP won't take off to the degree you think it will.
Blizzard makes polished MP games but the amount of whining on their forums is even worse than the ones in this forum. For most companies, it's just not worth it to invest heavily in MP, from both a financial, professional and personal perspective. 50% of the abuse for 1% of the sales is an understatement. For even successful companies like Blizzard, it's around 10% of the sales and more than 95% of the abuse. Terrell Owens, Ron Artest and Bobby Knight are saints and paragons of virtue compared to many MP players.
What are PC Bangs?
I know everyone keeps throwing these numbers around but ... I just don't get it. Every single person I know through work and school ... every single gamer I know ... loves the MP experience, and actively seeks games with great MP. I wonder if these numbers account for LAN parties or LAN gaming at work?
I don't get it. I don't know where the other 99% are who are buying games but not playing them online.
And don't let the horrible RTW lobby fool you -- there are much better alternatives where smacktards can me blocked/kicked/banned what not.
Think "internet cafe for games." One big place with lots of networked PCs where players pay to play on an hourly basis. I believe that is a good description, from my understanding, but I may be incorrect since I have never been inside a PC bang.
The reason the old STW and MTW lobbies were so civil was the private chat rooms for STW and the ban, kick, ignore features for MTW. RTW has no such features and thus it is like all the other RTS servers out there: Wild and Unruly. Even the WarHammer chat lobby, which I find fairly well done, is full of bad-mouthed children who know they can get away with cursing and rabble-rousing online without any repercussions. THAT is what keeps a lot of people from playing MP: The bad language, the cheating, and the downright lack of anything remotely civil.
The previous TW lobbies were good because it allowed the community to police itself and ignore the troublemakers and ban them so they could not get into your games. It worked very well. Unfortunately, this is one of my biggest complaints about the MP chat lobby for RTW: No features to allow for any policing and organizing play between friends.
A little logical analysis.
If you build a game overwhelmingly concentrating on the single player aspect. Then advertise it, again concentrating on the single player market. What kind of numbers do you think you are going to get?
The multiplayer market for Total War products is virtually untouched. People only find out about them by accident. There is no plan to cultivate this resource, so the undeveloped multiplayer community waxes and wanes under it’s own power.
Even with the above handicap, I think the number of buyers who actually do try to participate in Total War multiplayer over the long haul life of a particular game, is probably closer to 10%. Maybe even higher? The statistics you get, depend enormously on the questions you ask.
Now! What if you built a game specifically for multiplayer. Advertised it with the intent to draw every potential multiplayer on the planet (multilingual), hyping it big time as the ultimate multiplayer experience. Designed it based on the top if the line servers, that you maintained yourself, to keep them “always” up. Programmed with a “never before” available spectator gallery for any game running. Provide all of the tools imaginable to help players on their path to master the games (multiple eras). Give them free web space to build Clan sites. Set up ladders, contest and massive inter Clan competitions with publicly streamed events, and valuable prizes. With all of the above monitored and supervised by dedicated personnel. Do you think you would get a better numbers?
If you would treat Total War multiplayer as the “global sport” it really is, I believe the results would be astounding!!!
Tomi:
Result 1: Massive online crowd, dominance in the gaming market. ~:)
Result 2: The single player forum here at the .org would be copy pasting your last statement and people would blame YOU for the lack of a good single player experience! :charge:
Result 3: Many single players would threaten to leave the community, but since they do not venture online, the increase of snail mail at CA HQ would put them out of business after the Postman sued them for his hernia and bad back from carrying their excess mail. :dizzy2:
Result 4: We could then, have fun trolling the forums saying: You single player peeps are all whiners! ~:eek:
~:cheers:
You know, Tomi, I honestly believe it is just a matter of time. I don't think CA has it in them, for whatever reason, but they have shown the others the way.
It is just a matter of time before another company figures it out and gives it to us.
We aren't really asking for much, just gameplay really. A semi-realistic simulation of real-time battlefield tactics. MTW:VI was close to what we really wanted, except it was not accessible enough to the uninitiated. RTW even less so.
Look at the "graphics" in the game of chess. . .they are virtually non-existent, and yet it survives as one of the ultimate multiplayer games of history. Why?
Because of its tactical depth and accessibility.
The magic of the game is not in the packaging or the graphics-- its in the gameplay. Why so many software companies don't get that is beyond me. Flashy graphics and packaging might hook a few suckers initially, but they don't make for word of mouth sales or repeat customers.
Generalship is a world sport, whether it is being catered to or not. The sooner someone realises this and makes a suitable interface for the players--the sooner they get rich. It really is that simple. The key is to cater to the wargamers, and if you do it well enough, they will leave their painted figures and never go back.
So far that oyster has yet to concede its pearl, but it is sitting there for the taking.
i've been waiting 6 yrs for a game like TW to come out with a nice campaign and features like warcraft3. TW had the game play, but lack of support and features. warcraft3 had features and support, but not the gameplay i like. reason why i stuck with TW so long is cause of the nice battles in stw, it was simple and balanced. warcraft3 kept me around cause of it's features, but not nearly as long as TW. now TW's gameplay is so twisted it's not even worth sticking around unless they do something fast.
why they have it where the graphics only look sweet zoomed in is a mind buster for me. the 2d sprities in stw with the flags on the back of units when using a high resolution looked very nice, which made the game more enjoyable and easier to tell what was going on in battle - easier to tell apart units - . the graphics only look average now that i got a new system, but not everyone should need to have a high end system just to have good graphics and a good frame rate. the 3d campaign map is nice to have i'll give them that and how you move armies like in the old LOTR, which i wanted to see very much. if they wanted to go 3d with the units in battles you make sure the graphics look sweet when zoomed out!!! not just zoomed in!!! it just pisses me off how so many show screen shots for a new game all zoomed in except for like one... zzz give me a break
now they are talking about maybe a real time campaign which you can come and go as you please? you can't be serious, that's not the way to do it. they say it would take to long to finish a campaign... well yeah that's what we want.. lol. put the sp campaign into mp and allow people to save games and an option to play small parts of it for smaller campaigns, that's all we need.
i myself don't care much for historical accuracy in a game. i just like swords, cavalry, spears, and archers, that's all i need to be happy. and something that simple is much easier to balance and saves the whining of those complaining about inaccuracy in units and time periods etc.. but anyway all they needed to do was provide a LOTR type style game with better graphics, support like warcraft3 or atleast half as much, and new or improved features.
i know i'm not that smart, as you can tell by the way i type, but com'on how long do i have to wait for a decent RTS game with a nice campaign and good support. i'll be to old or have kids to worry about by the time one comes out and than i'll have NO TIME to play games or won't be interested!:-(
The two most profound statments I've seen on this thread yet (and there have been a lot of great comments).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
Well I have no idea on how much work it would take to make the campaign available for MP.. But as they already got the campaign with the factions and units made, it would be the easiest thing to do instead of making up something completely new.
We all know how good CA/Activision are at hyping up a game, so if they had MP campaign they should be able to hype it up even more ~;)
I know I wont be doing much playing but mods with smaller maps/provinces might be ok once in a while.
They would most likely have to change it to simultaneously movement so all players could work on their turn at the same time. I remember that was done for Civ.
CBR
rant on
one of my pet peeves is when people ascribe their particular reason for liking the TW series as being the main and only valid reason for liking it. what drew me to shoggy was the strategic aspect, and the tactical, and mp sides were more like fluff for me. but that doesn't make the mp side any less valid or less important in the game itself or why other people chose to get it. so when i see people type 'single player is the core of the game' or 'multiplayer campaign is where the focus should be' or 'the heart of the game is really mp' it irritates me. just because that aspect of it is what drew you in, doesn't make the other aspects that may have drawn another player in less valid.
rant off
that being said. i was shocked and surprised to discover that i had as much if not more fun playing mp as compared to sp. what i thought would be fluff turned out to be as satisfying as the other aspect for which i bought the game but in a different way. i loved mp intensely for many months whereas i liked the strategic aspect but over a longer period of time. again, that is my personal predilcition and i don't assume it to be valid for everyone. i tried medieval mp and the same issues that eventually drove me away from shogun mp [lag, some rude players, crashes] reared their head again. i quit after less than a week online. i haven't even attempted rome mp yet, and won't until at least patch 1.2 but from being on the org, i have a pretty good idea what to expect.
my heart goes out to the players that are primarily mp'ers because i've known what it feels like when your last ally has been routed and you're scrambled up on the hill and the your two remaining opponents begin to turn their bedraggled armies towards you...its an amazing gaming experience that i've never felt in any other game and i don't think i'm likely to for a while. that is what is so disappointing because, for me at least, shogun touched on it for a while and then it got worse in medieval and now even worse in rome. i think the tw community is losing an important part of its core constituents, not the only part, not necessarily the biggest in terms of numbers, but a very critical part nonetheless, and i strongly feel that the single player aspect of the game [the part i care about the most] will suffer because of us losing the mp community. i can already see it, because while there are some aspects of the new game that are amazing, such as campaign map, siege options, there are other aspects that have stoodstill or are regressing such as suicidal generals, ai pathfinding.
i had been playing populous the begining mp for 3 yrs about before i went to stw. i've played the sp for PTB only once will full version and once with the expansion, but after that it was just to boring to play again vs the ai, so i moved onto mp, which kept me for yrs, but had crap support and very little features, but kept me going cause the gameplay was great. i think there still is today a small crowd playing it using there own made up servers, which would make that for some of them playing it for 6 - 7 yrs! i seriously doubt that they would be playing it, if it only had sp...
when i played the stw demo i was figuring it would be only an average game online and have an alright sp. well when i got the full version i played the sp for a week got bored of the ai and moved to mp. i ended up playing stw mp for 3yrs as well! mtw online didn't last as long cause very few features were added and the balance wasn't as great. now rtw mp isn't even worth playing it's such a mess. rtw even with the nice campaign is already getting boring vs the ai.
stepping into mp for the 1st time with a new game maybe tough at 1st, but you'll find some people you connect with sooner or later. i met lots of good people online, even had a friend i met in PTB build me my 1st pc! if i were playing only sp i would be missing out on a lot. sure it's a matter of taste and if you can hack it online or not, but it's well worth the enjoyment once you made yourself a home in mp.
i can't play a sp for yrs, maybe there are lot's that could play rtw sp for yrs? now if it has a great mp i can play it for yrs as you can see. if TW only had sp i would just download it online or buy a copy of the game and copy the cds and send them back. cause i'm not getting my moneys worth out of it when i'm only playing it for under a yr.. just a few months or less.
nokhor wrote: "...because i've known what it feels like when your last ally has been routed and you're scrambled up on the hill and the your two remaining opponents begin to turn their bedraggled armies towards you...its an amazing gaming experience that i've never felt in any other game ..."
Man, you took my breath away with that. It made me remember, vividly, standing on a winter-windswept hillside in Shogun...alone, facing the remnants of 2 remaining opponents. They kicked my butt - but I loved it.
I had forgotten the thrill. I haven't MP'd since the early MTW days. Thanks for that memory-jogger.~:cheers:
You know I would be happy with SP if the AI was better.
Multiplayer has dominated wargaming for 1000's of years, the present dominance of SP is, too my mind an aberration based on a market full of powerful PC's, but still in late infancy on Broadband. I just cant beleive that, say, in 20 years time, single player mode will be anything other than a training tool.
The real issue becomes whether Total War becomes the platform?
It is easy to forget that we do now in 40 mins what used to take me a weekend. It is also easy to forget that the computer is a fair referee of the rules, so many games I recall were wrecked by the simple question 'How long is an inch?'
I love the graphics, but I want an engine that makes for a good game. Otherwise we all end up 'gaming' the many bugs. It would also be nice to maintain some historical accuracy.
anyways.. great thread.
Yes, a great thread!
After if finished checking in on it this morning, and had already turn off my computer and was getting ready for work, it hit me!
“The Clan Wars Competition can sponsor a Rome Total War Campaign.”
With in seconds all of the pieces started to fall into place and I could see how it would all work out. I took a few minutes to scribble a few notes, and am now going to work up a rough draft to present to the CWC Administration Council to see if they think it could be a reality also.
Of course everything rides on the patchability of the game, and it won’t do anything for individual multiplayers who want a campaign. But I believe it can be done for Clans, and if it can (and not just in my head), then I am here by committed to do it!
For those who have been around for a while, yes I know that this has been tried before in STW. But the CWC has the extra experience of almost two years of pitting Clan against Clan. And we have a base of now 45 registered Clans, 33 of which are veterans of our style of contest, some entering teams in as many as 5 of our championships. If it can be done, it will be done...
:toff:
I think it is the flashy graphics that sells the game. There are more people playing RTW multiplayer right now than played any of the previous titles, and the MP battle doesn't even stay in sync. The SP game has something like 100 bugs, and it still got a 90% or better rating in every review except one which was 89%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
Total War is a commercial endevour, and the majority of the sales occur within a short time of initial release. The developer isn't trying to make the best gameplay or the longest life game, and given the good graphics in RTW the gameplay doesn't have to be as good as the previous titles. So, we get things like suicide generals and then a closeup cut sceen of him getting killed. That feature isn't an accident.
The title of this thread has the reason MP isn't the focus of Total War games. Multiplayer is the "future". It isn't the present. With CA now pursuing the mass market, that market determines what the game will be like.
I only tried R:TW MP three times. The first time was before the patch, so I couldn't log on. The second time I logged on got into a game with no idea what the settings were (great feature!) and found out that it was 100K for a 1vs1. I immediately left and didn't bother to spend more time finding a proper game. The third time, I forgot to disconnect the router so I couldn't join games. With this thread in mind and all the other bugs I had already lost my appetite.
I'm not really a fervent MP player, but that is mostly because I'm spending too much time modding. I have the hopes that the Sengoku Jidai mod will catch on good enough so that I can finally just play MP games and occasionally a SP. I have the hopes that the patch 1.2 will fix alot of bugs. If that isn't the case, then I there is a big chance I will forget R:TW since I'm not going to spend hours and hours modifying a game that isn't working properly. The mod may look good, but if the gameplay isn't good then it's just a waste of time (but apparently that is not a view held by all...).
This may have sounded off topic, but it's the MP and gameplay aspect that keeps me modding TW. If it isn't patched correctly then I'm outta here.
On the other side of the fence is BioWare's Neverwinter Nights. Five years of development created a game that tapped into a market that no one believed could exist. Explicitly designed to appeal to D&D players who wanted to bring the tabletop experience to the PC, NWN boasts ever-rising player numbers, with an average of 7500 players online at any given moment and 30,000 unique users logging on per day.
BioWare's gamble that a market for such a game exists and that independent content designers will deliver the goods paid off. Few, if any, other games permit end-users so much power over their own product. Many of the modules for Neverwinter Nights were better than the original campaign, and some rival the expansions in popular appeal and quality.
For revolutionizing multiplayer gaming, introducing multiplayer to RPGs and creating a new kind of community, Diablo and Neverwinter Nights share position Number 5 on FiringSquad's Top Multiplayer Games of All Time.
taken from firing squad website for best 10 pc games...
This could be a personal message to ca yet its just taken from the same site....
StarCraft
The game had staying power, because aside from the three uniquely balanced races, Blizzard actually took an interest in the game after release (what a concept!). They actively adjusted the game balance over a period of months and years after release and added enhancements and tweaks to the battle.net interface as well. It's amazing that many RTS games today still can't get matchmaking right, and it's five years after Blizzard provided the blueprint with Battle.net
hmm hmm
I dont see why multiplayer is a must? 20 years from now nobody is going to be playing R:TW online, but people will still be playing the single player.
Multiplayer should remain as it is, a side option for people who want to play it, not the main focus of the game. When a game's main focus is on multiplayer there's no real point in buying it, all you can do it play it online until everyone stops playing it and then it just gathers dust.
Also, you can only do so much in multiplayer design, single player still gives limitless options.
And please, dont use FiringSquad. They overhype like crazy..
"On the other side of the fence is BioWare's Neverwinter Nights. Five years of development created a game that tapped into a market that no one believed could exist. Explicitly designed to appeal to D&D players who wanted to bring the tabletop experience to the PC, NWN boasts ever-rising player numbers, with an average of 7500 players online at any given moment and 30,000 unique users logging on per day."
It didnt bring any tabletop experience to the PC, it brought a shallow crappy game with a few (and mostly changed/broken) D&D rules slapped on. Not to mention all traces of a RPG missing.
"BioWare's gamble that a market for such a game exists and that independent content designers will deliver the goods paid off. Few, if any, other games permit end-users so much power over their own product. Many of the modules for Neverwinter Nights were better than the original campaign, and some rival the expansions in popular appeal and quality."
The original campaign was terrible and extremely dull and linear, taking a dump in the toliet can make something better than NWN's original campaign. There is probably a few good player made modules, but the engine is still total crap. Real time with horrible rule implementation still make the game suck. Can you say no cleric domains?
"For revolutionizing multiplayer gaming, introducing multiplayer to RPGs and creating a new kind of community, Diablo and Neverwinter Nights share position Number 5 on FiringSquad's Top Multiplayer Games of All Time."
Funny how neither is an RPG...
The only thing that you have to do is to go at the .COM (or even here) and see how many people are complaining about the RETARD "AI"...With a MP campaign youre getting a FREE Deep Blue as an opponent!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrudvang
While i understand the difficulty to change ones views his concepts and principles ANY company should work on the line of COMPETITION!!!
Do you actually know how MANY copies of RTW have been downloaded from emule/sold illegally? Why should a casual cutomer pay $50 for a game that will get BORING and there is NO MP? Does the CD key actually WORTH anything? And the whole "it cant be done its too complicated/none has done it before/too risky" makes me think: if all the people were thinking like that would i be typing this post in my pc? would my pc exist? Electricity?
All things aside the ACTUAL merge of RTS and RPG genres will lead imo into a tottaly new definition of the pc games market and will be copied/studied and even set as a paradigm...
Hellenes
Is Multiplayer the future?
I think it's a great part of the future.
I came to Total War because I wanted strategy and tactics. I've always been a strategy gamer and actually bought Shogun because I knew the board game Shogun where you also had to conquer Japan on a province map. It's very similar.
At that time, my only MP experience was connected to 1on1 Console games, Lan-compatible games like UT or AoE and the like. When I started playing Shogun I couldn't play the 3D part because of my machines specs. It took a while until I could play this part of the game and it really became something new. But I didn't play MP until Medieval came out. It had again to do with my machine. When it was finally capable of running a 4vs4 custom I logged in to Shogun MP. This may sound silly but the atmosphere of Shogun, its whole Samurai-theme made it more attractive to me. Once logged in on a Monday evening I met people like ShinGaijin, Mimesaka, Kansuke and a lot of others who gave me the feeling to be really welcome, although I was a really bad player at that moment. But it gave me confidence to try Medieval MP, too. Well I have mixed feelings about Medieval, the Lobby was crowded with idiots, insulting each other and spamming the lobby into unreadability. I did some nice games, won some lost some but it didn't really catch me. The limited number of different armies and the almost impossibility to win with Turkish forces put an end to it. I returned to play some Nap Mod games, which was fun, but again not that good. It's also a question of time. I would often join the lobby to find a decent game and had to wait for an hour for the game while people dropped out of it, didn't join, took ages to build armies etc. In that time I could've played a few campaign battles.
BUT, after a while it's just no real challenge anymore. Well sometimes the AI could surprise you, but most of the time you would rule the field. So, the real challenge lies in MP and people want to be challenged. It's no fun if you can't loose and the ultimate fun is to compete against another human that you know nothing about except his nickname. You don't know what to expect.
The point I want to make is, that the SP part has to function properly and provide a challenging AI with tactical brains. All you really need for the MP part is a set of balanced playing pieces/ i.e. units. Like in chess. I may agree that it is up to the players community to develop the best settings for a balanced play but the rudimentary engine should provide the best start possible.
If you look at the development of computer games you can see that when computers started to communicate they started to play against each other. This development led to the idea of world-wide competition and rankings. Some console games do a very good job in this respect and I dare to say that any game that wants to be a classic has to be part of this development. Rome needs a good MP part to compete with other games. Even if the SP part would be perfect there would be the urgent wish to compete against other human players.
R'as
Play RTW SP for 20 years? I don't think so, and I doubt the game will even run on the hardware people will be using in 10 years. Multiplayer does have a limited lifespan for as long as the matchmaking server is available, but the multiplayer community is willing to move on to the each next game in the series as long as the quality of the gameplay is maintained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrudvang
We can talk about the desireability of adding a multiplayer campaign, but right now we are talking to a company that can't even maintain the quality of the battles only multiplayer. RTW has enough problems in both SP and MP that it could negatively impact sales of the add-on as well as the next game in the series.
MP wil foreverl last longer than SP. The main reason being that another human player will be a better opponent than the AI. Of course, that is IF the game is good enough, and not get tossed into the bin a few weeks after the player gets bored.
However, the MP side is not the profitable side of things. Maintaining multiplayer games require tech personnel, servers band bandwidth. All that is an ongoing cost. If the initial profits go to the dev of the game, what is to pay for the support of the multiplayers?
Starcraft is a very good example. I can imagine few would play for SP, but MP is still very much ongoing, even long after the release of WC3. Starcraft on BNet is bleeding money from Blizzard. It can hardly expect much current sales of such an old game, even when sold at rock bottom prices in bargain bins. Most of the profits come from the initial sales years ago. Tens of thousands are still playing it online. Seriously, many have really gotten their money's worth in that sense.
So basically, MP, if it truely becomes popular, reduces the profits. What they want are people to be suckered in to buy the game, play for a short while and ditch it for the next new release. So basically, flashiness is part of the business, because it suckers people to buy it. All that hype about the graphics. Wow, I can see glint from the armour! Whats that if the AI is stupid and the gameplay sucks?
Personally I am a believer of the KISS principle and also, if it aint broke, dont fix it.
Prior to the release of RTW, I had great respect for 3 companies: Blizzard, Valve and CA. Now it has gone down to 2.
CA might as well move off to the console market and sell its games there. No multiplayer to worry about.
Is a small thing called e-mule bleeding the companies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
CD copying?
$5 for a *cough* ill-legal *cough* copy?
Why Blizzard focuses on MP?
Cause they are mazochists and want to lose money?
Who is more successful CA or Blizzard?
The answers are up to you...
Hellenes
Thruddvang Neverwinter nights is not the crap game you suggest, its sales and the amount of people playing it account for that. Neverwinter nights is the best rpg ive EVER played, i get the feeling you havent played it online.
Ill use whatever websites i like to take quotes from these werent reviews of the games and were reflections on the best multiplayer games there have been and looking at the figures id tend to agree with them.
Neverwinter nights is a shining light imo, you can have a community of hundreds on a server with NO subscription fee, and the engine imo is perfect for an rpg. the engine and game are so flexible you could have a shogun server for the totalwar community setup within months lol, the quality of the games depends on the imagination and the ability to mod of the servers admins and dms. Also the game is constantly getting new patches and new features added for FREE both by the community and bioware.
To further clarify my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
I can guess the angle where CA is coming from.
Multiplayer serves well to maintain a "hardcore" community of players. Those will be the ones who will not download games. They will be the ones who can be counted to promote the game among their friends and relatives. They will publicise the game.
However, in order to maintain that customer relationship, it costs the gaming company. An ongoing cost that can overshadow the profits. It requires an absolute commitment to the multiplayer community to maintain it, just like Blizzard did and still do.
CA feels that this multiplayer section of the consumers is not worth the investment.
I come from a country and region where piracy is rampant. Pirated games that can be found on sale and sometimes openly! The more tech savvy ones (like my fellow undergraduates) would download them. They have no intention to play online. They will play the SP, finish it, and delete. The reason that they do so is because it isnt worth paying 50-60 bucks for. After a short while, the single player side of things is easily figured out and things arent interesting anymore.
However, there are those who do buy games, often games that have fantastic multiplayer like Halflife/Counter-strike, Starcraft and WC 3.
A friend of mine (who knows that I am/was mad about TW games, especially Shogun) told me that he saw a booth for RTW in a local computer exhibition and asked whether I was getting the game anytime soon. I told him no. What I hear about it on these forums and those of .com are enough to put me off buying, at least until they decide to fix up the MP. However, by then, it would be too late for me to join in the MP. So why bother to buy the game, just for the SP? For a good strategic map game, I can always return to SMAC, so why play RTW SP? For tactical battles against the AI I can always fire up MTW or STW, so why play RTW SP?
Not to crack on you Thrud, but I see that you joined the org just this year. How many times did you play MTW as a multiplayer, did you ever play STW as a multiplayer? The reason I ask is that your comment appears to come from someone who has never played multi more than a few times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrudvang
I bought STW for the SP. Loved it. But after a time the AI just got tired and repettative. I was never an MP guy, but tried it out on a whim. It blew me away, it was amazing. It was like play Uber-chess. The challenge was unbelievable. Then I started playing team games and the strategy kicked up another notch.
I can't even play SP anymore. The AI is horrible. I win anything close to an even battle in SP. The only way the computer can hope to win is to have either overwhelming numbers and/or units that have super morale/armor/weapon upgrades -- i.e. not fair fights. In short, it is just boring.
I'd never have continued playing STW/MI/MTW for the last 4 years if it was just an SP game -- the challenge of playing "uber-chess" versus creative and surprising human opponants is what has given the game longevity.
As testament, this is the only "chat board" for a game I have ever visited, and not coincentally it is the only game I play as MP. Beacuse of MP there is a community -- I've spent many hours playing with and against the peeps that are here.
----------
Bachus is correct, poor MP numbers and lack of emphasis on MP are self-fullfiling prophecies -- if there is no committment or belief that MP can build and become a vital aspect to game sales & series longevity, then it never will be. But, yes there is $ risk involved in putting in the time. I do think though, that if that earlier suggestion (I think by Tomi?) for aggressive MP support with all those fantastic ideas for tourneys, etc would build up the MP numbers. If that was done from the start of STW and servers were always merged and tweaks/fixes/improvements were carried over from each version of TW to the next, I'm certain that the MP#'s would have steadily increased for each release. 2%, 4%, 6% perhaps more? I also think it is an exponential/critical mass type thing -- the more peeps that do it the bigger and faster it grows. But all this pre-supposes a committment to try to build the business that way.
------
I fell off my chair laughing with Yuuk's Elmo slam --- Elm that was too damn funny and came out of nowhere. Elm, you're not the only one who has perfected their rout technique -- I thought my run style was quite accomplished. ~D Some day I will go to the derby (I got a friend that goes yearly) and will share a jug with you Elm. ~:cheers:
Thrudvang is correct when he says "20 years from now nobody is going to be playing R:TW online" Its more likely 20 months and for some of us 20 minutes ~;)
CBR
Well, as for my 2 cents…
I’ve been playing Rome online for the last two weeks, but I found time to play only 6-7 games. All in all, the experience wasn’t as horrible as one might think, but it isn’t great either. I’ll play more matches before I go to make statements on balance issues of the armies et cetera, but as of now, the “can’t join host” for some peculiar reason, poor info on the games, inability to toggle off the full games (why in the world would I won’t to see dozens and dozens of games that are full and where I can’t join!?!), the rampant and fervent fashion in which new games are being pushed into the list so I can never focus on one title, since its gone from my sight in half a second…
I will keep playing Rome MP - not very surprisingly, I have grown tired a bit from the SP, it’s not the tenth times as interesting as the Medieval or Shogun have been - and I will keep hoping that the further patches will improve the things somewhat. Judging by the speed the 1.1 has appeared, I believe that the CA knows that they must act fast if they don’t want to lose a lot of community members, perhaps for good. I chose hope.
1.1 was only rushed because they had no choice, before its release only 30 people could get in the lobby at a time.
Sadly the statement "multiplayer is the future" was not made by CA, I say this because the gameplay of the 3d battles (MP) has not improved and the campaign has been improved 1000% (SP)
This is clearly a reflection on CA's marketing strategy. Perhaps we think that "multiplayer is the future" but CA has certainly got a lot out of SP in the mean time!
You know, there's a lot of talk about various MP games out there... The various *craft games, FPSs, etc. But can anyone point to a single TBS game that has a large, vibrant MP community?
I enjoy playing games with other people. But, in general, I can't stand playing games over the internet. It just isn't worth the effort. You get everything from teamstacking in FPS, to droppers in RTS, to cheaters in general... I mean, can you imagine? Putting in 2 hours to play a MP campaign of RTW only to have the other person say "I had a crappy start, I'm out", and leave? And why wouldn't they? How many people would sit around and continue to play with 1 city left and no money?
The fact is, campaign mode is not a good MP system for anyone other than friends. I'd be happy to play a LAN game with some buddies, who I could rely on to play fairly and well. But random people on the internet? That can work for FPS, because there are lots of people playing. That can work for RTS, because you don't spend that long on a single map. That can even work in RPGs, because you can have a "join at any time" system. But it wouldn't work for TBS.
I do think that CA could have focused a little more effort on the MP within RTW, as it is nothing but glorified RTS. But I would have been just as happy (well, happier, really) had they scrapped the MP components and focused that 10-20% programmer effort into fixing the SP component of the game.
Bh
nope, we can't cause no one has really focused on one as you can tell. when we ask for a mp campaign we don't mean taking out the option of just being able to play battles, we would like both. we would also like support for it as well and not put out half arsed. Sure you may come across those people that drop, quit, or cheat, i have many times, but eventually i found a group of people that i got a long with. it has happened with my 3 favorite RTS games over the 7yrs i've played online and i always found people that i got along with in each game i've played for yrs.Quote:
But can anyone point to a single TBS game that has a large, vibrant MP community?
for the most part you're right, but when you play online long enough sometimes it may take awhile or it could be the 1st day you log on that you make friends online. you do have clans that would love to have one as well. nothing would be more interesting than to have 3 or 4 of the top clans playing against each other in an online campaign. also in order to play against people that you don't know online in an mp campaign you need a good system that prevents people from cheating or those that like to drop out. you need to limit like 2 online nicks per person/cd key say 1 nick for clan/friendly battles and another nick for competitive battles. also you want to have it where they can't keep changing there nick anytime they please, there should be like a 2 week or 1 month waiting period before they can change there name again. those that are caught cheating or suspected of cheating you should be able to send a saved mp campaign or replay to the devs where they could check and ban there cdkey for like 2 months if they are cheating. as for those that don't want to stay around with like 1 city left in a game i can understand that, i wouldn't expect anyone to stay if they didn't want to, if they were for sure to lose. you also want people to be able to play in more than 1 campaign online at a time at once and be able to save campaigns to start them up again another day. you also want to allow players to play thier turns at the sametime and the battles when armies meet, but you are still keeping it turn based.Quote:
The fact is, campaign mode is not a good MP system for anyone other than friends.
i wanted to play an online campaign ever since i started playing online games. lot's of people out there want one, you just need the support for it and for it to be done right.
Same. I don't like Internet MP. I play every now and then but it isn't a pleasant experience most of the time. People in general are just as stupid as the AI, cheat more than the AI and do it with tons of foul language and an annoying attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
There's a reason Diablo2's Internet mp, according to a Blizzard employee, is only around 10% of its customers. Most people would rather play sp and LAN mp.
I've been playing for over three years with the same people. I anticipate playing another 3 more. Is that long enough to complete a campaign?
*scratches head*
I guess I havent played campaign mode since Shogun, so I wouldnt know.
Personally I just think its very sad that after all the years most of us have played Total War online, we are spending more time here talking about the state of the game due to its awful curent state.
CA appear not to care, they have only interests in thier profits, im all for sending the petition to every game mag possible in every country possible.
Am I moaning or is it just S**t Rome?
MizuSp00n
i think your right sp00n, while every review is saying this game is the dogs B****** CA have no need to change anything.
I haven't read many of the reviews, how many of them focus on MP? How many even mention it? I've read maybe 4-5 reviews, I can't recall any of them saying anything more detailed than "MP exists". The main part of the review always seemed to deal with the SP portion of the game.
While I have my issues with the AI (and battle AI specifically), I can't deny that the SP of the game is quite good. It certainly needs some patching, but I've reluctantly come to accept that most games do.
What it comes down to, I guess, is that RTW is a very good game, but it doesn't seem to be the one you were looking for. That's unfortunate, but, in the grand scheme of things, it is not CA's responsibility to make the game you want. They've chosen to make MP a minor priority at best. You can disagree with that choice, but it's still their choice to make.
Bh
I have even written one in this gaming magazine I write for - not my nr. 1 business occupation, but its fun as a side job from time to time. I gave the game a bashing 94 % and the editor has, on his own discretion, raised it to 95 %. Silly sod. I moaned the lacks of AI, the abysses of the MP part and much more, basically everything that is being complained about here at the Org… I left nothing out.
I still believe that the Rome has, compared to every other RTS currently on market, gotten a very well deserved review grade.
But for me personally, Medieval and Shogun were far better games. I liked them more, they had more atmosphere, they were more interesting… I hope that the Rome will at least improve only a little bit with the expansion and patches. And I regret I haven’t played M:TW and S:TW online before.
TW fans are simply gotten used and expect more, or at least the same quality as the parts that were released before.
Don't regret because improved versions barocca's STWmod for MTW/VI and CBR's Community mod for MTW/VI are on the way, and we will be promoting these by being available to play them online as much as possible. If they catch on it will be great and if not then too bad, but that's the wayt it goes. If players want take control of their multiplayer experience, they should take advantage of the mods for MTW which are possible because Creative Assembly built that capability into the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by voigtkampf
Creative Assembly made the game that brought this multiplayer community together. It's not the player community that gave up on it. Creative Assembly gave up on it when they made Rome Total War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
CA makes single player games, first and foremost. All of the TW games have been single player games. They included a MP component to those games for people to enjoy. But the focus of their efforts has always been in making a superior SP game. With RTW, it would appear that they decided to focus even more on the SP side of things and less on the MP side. You may be personally unhappy with that decision, but in no way is that CA "giving up" on anything.
This melodrama acting as if CA personally went around and stabbed each and every MP player in the back is silly. If you think that MP RTW is inferior to MTW/STW, then keep playing them. If enough people agree with you, you won't be lacking for opponents. Maybe the forthcoming patch will resolve some of your RTW issues - maybe it won't. Regardless, CA put out a great game (albeit with flaws) that they can be proud of. If it's not the game for you, well, that's unfortunate, best of luck finding something better.
Bh
Although i agree with you on the SP focus there is also another aspect that needs to be clarified:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
The bugs aside the rest of the games "problems" are DESIGN desitions and are UNLIKELY to change!!!
Many of MTW and STW players (including myself) have heard statements like:
"TW maps are too big!!!The soldiers walk too slow!!!I cant rush!!!The game needs brain!!!" from the Starcrap/Age of Retard, 10 years old junkies...
Now since the above retarded morons are MORE than the TW tactical players and CA wanted to make money out of them we ended with tiny maps in SP the speed/kill speed on insane levels...With screaming bitches,dogs,pigs head head hurlers...wait and the MUMMY trannies....
Now the OBVIOUS problem that CA has is the "AI"...IMHO the ONLY SP solution to this is A TIME MACHINE!!!Yes youve read right if CA invents a time machine and gets a copy of Aritificial Intelligence from the year 2999 then the MP wont be necessary!!!
Now i just want to see how someone can distract a Warcrap3 junkie off the battlenet to play RTW SP!!!! ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
Hellenes
TW is mainly sp yet it still takes them a long time to get a patch for sp. there a few easy bugs in sp that could be spotted just by playing the game once or twice. still to this day the ai puts up no challange in the battles without boosting ai stats. it's like the only challange would be auto resolve.. zzz
we all know TW has always be mainly for sp. some of the old vets of mp like me been playing since stw times. but with each new edition it keeps getting worse and worse. now it's to the point where mp is unplayable.
anyway if the next patch dosn't do any good i will be joining the others that have already stopped playing. it's been fun ...
I would say they gave up or else had someone working on it who didn't know how to do it because MP doesn't even work! It's not up to the standard of the previous games. Out of sync 50% of the battles, no stat checking, fps performance 1/3 of the previous game, lacking controls, no info on the game you are joining. Just have fun in spite of those things? I place a value on my time, and RTW MP is a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
The SP AI is so bad they might as well drop that too and just make it a turnbased strategy game with all battles auto-resolved. That's how I play it, and it's more challenging. At least the strategy guys at CA got their part mosly right instead of the tactical guys who got their part mostly wrong.
MP was gutted, but included anyway to sell a few more games. I wish CA would stop jerking me and other multiplayers around to get our $50. It still says 8 player multiplayer on the official website. The price of the game has already dropped to $40 one month after release.
It is not a matter of taste, MP in it is current state is a half finished product. I have friends trying to play on MP but they cannot because of connection failures. MP is an advertised feature of RTW, all we ask is to make it work properly, nothing more nothing less. If it does not work then does not advertise it, if you advertise it then make sure it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
As for my taste, I am sure that RTW MP has a lot greater poitential than MTW had as far as gameplay concerned!!!
Archers are stronger than in MTW, horse archers work as they always should have, spear type units are match for swords, cavs are not overpowered, elephants are not overpowering either (!!!!), chariots add an interesting spin to the game, factions have markedly different strenght and weaknesses, overall IMHO a much greater potential for an enjoyable MP.
Given this potential it is crying shame how CA/Activision handled the MP part of RTW. All that they should have done is to put in a minimal investment to make sure that the basic functions/features work smoothly. IMHO CA/Activison missed a golden opportunity to increase MP share, I am sure that with a minimal amount of care they could have easily doubled or tripled (or even got higher) the size of MP community, firts because all the hype RTW got, second because RTW does have the potential to be a good MP game.
agree with Cheetah .. and i think RTW combat resolution engine may be much more complex and realistic in a sense.
anyhow i'll give rtw mp a chance.. i think the sync isnt a problem now? except for the lousy lobby/chat design, some real bugs during battle.. i can still bear with the new control mechanism and get up to speed with it.
There are still synch problems.
I find RTW enjoyable... when I play with people I know. Otherwise the crowd out there is a bit rougher than in MTW (and ignore is badly missed... when I think I did not need that command for a loooooong time)
Louis,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus9
I think you should have a look at CA again,you say you respect them?Yet you say the games are crap,shogun's no good!
Well,I'm not on the side of you people who hate CA and then say you like them,I'm on CA's side for this and they're not in my opininon corrupt.Thats why we dont hav e the CA people coming on any total war wensite to talk,becuase as soon he talks..he gets bombarded!
yeah.....I'm gonna sleep....
Did you noticed that this was 7 years old thread?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
I think the funniest part is that Takeda appears to be very emotional and passionate about his position on the subject. I'm guessing he was up waaay past his bedtime when he posted this and didn't even see how old this thread had become. Been there, done that. ;-)
Although I don't find much wrong with recycling threads instead of spamming via a new one, I must say that this may potentially be a record necro in the history of this website: almost exactly 6 years and 6 months.
Just saw the date......
*epic facepalm*
The point has been made, guys. Lay off of Takeda, please.