Printable View
I am not saying it's the communities fault; what I tried to explain was why CA might be disinclined to balance the game to the level the hardcore community demands. I know of the problems with the engine and I don't like them either. However, it is going to take more than a realism-switch or a second set of stats to solve them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
This is off the other site.
A Hungarian preview apparently.
http://www.gamestar.hu/downloads.php3?op=visit&lid=5688
You have to download it.
Puzz, screwtype,
How are those movement rates looking!! ?? :laugh4:
It's well beyond that. They actually took stuff out of the engine which makes it impossible for the hardcore community to get kind of balance they could get before. I've seen them refuse to impliment suggestions simply because they were deemed hardcore and not because anybody disagreed with the suggestion. Who would disagreed with seeing the right unit stats when you mouse over an upgraded unit in the army purchase screen? Also during MTW, LongJohn posted that he thought balanced to about 25% was good enough which right there hurts multiplayer. So, it's been clear for a long time that the degree to which CA balances the game is related to what they percieve will satisfy the average player. Now we have a new statement saying the game isn't aimed at hardcore players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I now believe that "squeezed to tight penalty", "range calculation for individual men" and "reduced accuracy for deep formations" were removed from the battle engine to increase framerate.
Is it just me, or did the speed look decent? I don't get what happened when it suddenly cut to the close-ups of the units at one point, looks like before battle. In any case, I love those damn units, I have a good feeling about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Probably 1.0 X :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Playable? Puzz I think you just made the biggest compliment so far ~:)Quote:
That one infantry unit that was running looked like it was faster than realistic, but playable. We don't know the speed modifier for that terrain.
Actually, those speeds did remind me a bit of MTW speeds, so that should bode well. Together with podcast no. 5 it is safe to say CA is taking our whinging quite seriously, and would love to get us back as fans.
Who knows, they might get lucky :laugh4:
I also think the speed looked about right. Call me crazy!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
And Puzz...don't go all crazy on me now and start giving back handed compliments!! The world might tilt if you do that...:2thumbsup:
The speeds looked good to me!
Not wishing to be pessimistic, just pointing out the "facts". Agincourt is known for its mud that slowed down the French. In the video you can see the units standing on ploughed fields. I wouldn't be surprised if that slowed the units down by a factor (0.8 or whatever).
Speeds looked fine, but it is hard to believe it is the same engine as RTW. The last part of the video, reviewing the stationary knights was extraordinarily good visuals - the way the horses moved their heads, I could almost believe I was watching a film.
So, in normal terrain conditions game is gonna be faster than Agincourt then... We are very curios and pessimistic people :laugh4: My mental balance broken because of MTW 2.
Hear us CA staff, please say something about overall speed and balance or we'll gather in a sacrifiacial ceremony under the rule of High Priest Puzz 3D and sacrifice one of your staff to the gods or worst something. :spider:
As CA said two years ago, it's their game and they make the gameplay the way they like it. Within the past two years they also said that historical accuracy and realism are not their focus, and that Total War is not a history lesson. It's also not intended for hardcore (serious) gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Legioner
It's also apparently not designed to be a good game. I'm no hardcore gamer spending hours of his day making polygons die in a hundred different ways, but I am serious about game quality. RTW lacked that in far too many ways, and that became apparent more and more as you played it longer.
They're trying to cater to most gamers, while hopefully providing enough moddability for those who feel it should be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Thank god for that, both can be extremely boring.Quote:
Within the past two years they also said that historical accuracy and realism are not their focus, and that Total War is not a history lesson.
This I do not agree with, look at the mods, who do they cater for? Exactly, the hardcore gamers & history nuts. Would that have been possible without the moddability? No.Quote:
It's also not intended for hardcore (serious) gamers.
Now there is a line between realistic and unrealistic, but gameplay comes first. Your argument shouldn't be that RTW speeds are unrealistic (even if they are), your argument should be that it detracts from your gameplay. Warcraft-boys may disagree but you are a loyal fan. They're not insensitive to hardcore gamers, but their communications to us are filtered, managed & sometimes twisted by people who do not understand what we understand. Could they talk to us directly I am sure they could take any doubt you have away, but they would draw the same line for History and Realism that I am drawing: Gameplay comes first.
They went a little overboard giving RTW an arcade feeling, but it's not too late. And despite these recent positive sounds, the hardcore gamers will "punish" them if they insist on maintaining the arcade feeling in MTW2. If I want some cool graphics I'll buy Oblivion.