Printable View
the graphics are pretty, they love to point this out....but what about the AI?
6 months till release<rumor> why no talk of the AI? :furious3:
getting annoyed with them talking up the graphics and animations and nothing about improved AI <which is really what any game is about> :wall:
Mainly because the mass-market seems to be more interested in games looking great instead of playing great. CA also have the problem of having to balance the game so people new to it or people with very little knowledge of tactics (which I'm betting is the vast majority) won't be completely over-run by the AI. Unfortunately this means the game is less challenging and often more frustrating for the more seasoned players who expect AI improvements in every new iteration of the game.
word
I think games producers also implement the AI right at the end, at the minute they are simply making the game work properly and looking snazzy
The TW series are strategy games, not some FPS, in order to put the graphics above all. I can wait longer than 6 months, because I want to see a whole new game, not RTW with better graphics and the same poor AI. CA must not rush the release of Medieval 2 only for the marketing strategy. The expectations coming from the TW community are are very big.
they were also big for RTW, and look what we got - certainly not something the overall TW vet appreciatedQuote:
The expectations coming from the TW community are are very big.
From the first things I heard and saw of MTW2 I had a good feeling about the game, but after noticing they didn't even fix those rediculous run speeds I just lost all hope. This will be "RTW: The Middle Ages", not MTW with awesome graphics.
Well, we dont know about the speeds of the units, after all, it may just be to cram as much action into a small video clip as possible.
They have mentioned the AI quite a few times.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Read the previews.
Also they have stated that the game is pretty much complete and all that is left is the AI which is what they are doing now.
I'm one of those people who believe that it's virtually impossible to make a tactical AI that will really be challenging. Not that the TW AI couldn't be improved, but that it will never be as challenging (deceptive, cunning, imaginative) as a human. What I find strange about CA is that they dont seem to include large groups of beta testers to pretest game concepts. Maybe thats a misconception on my part but it seems that way to me (and I've helped out on other (non-CA) games. For example, I cant believe many experienced game players were positive about the running/fighting speeds of RTW.
They could at least try.
The reason they aren't talking about the AI is because they very rarely have, infact if you read most previews they won't talk about the AI too often other than the obvious "if fired at with arrows they take cover in woods" for example, this kind of AI discussion is usually presented.
They will not talk to you about fighting and running speeds, this is not something that concerns the mass market but I can pretty much garuntee that CA will have read comments about it all and will be taking it into consideration, they just won't be making press releases about it as it doesn't concern the majority buyer of the TW product nowadays, in a sense TW is a victim of its own sucess in that it has to adapt to survive scrutiny from the casual gamer. If you took away the history experts and TW vets I garuntee there'd still be plenty of sales, we are hardly the largest consumer group here.
Because its gona be poor and not there main selling point, they are looking for people who just love the look of the games and not they gameplay itself im afraid.
yeah the "TW vet" might be a small part of the customers group, but who said STW/MTW style gameplay would make them LOSE customers ? I can't believe they turned RTW into a clickfest without any reason. Graphics were RTW's main attraction and selling point, not the uber fast gameplay. In fact no one knew about this uber fast gameplay until the game was released, and most of us were disappointed. So what is the reason for this change ? I thought there was a saying "if it isn't broken, don't fix it".
the fact that v1.0 of the game crashed when more then 30 players joined the MP lobby clearly proves they didn't test much. If you read developer diaries from Ensemble Studios (makers of AoE series) you hear them taking about excessive (MP) testing sessions and teams, and how they find and deal with balance problems. I doubt these kind of test(team)s exist in the TW game's development.Quote:
What I find strange about CA is that they dont seem to include large groups of beta testers to pretest game concepts. Maybe thats a misconception on my part but it seems that way to me (and I've helped out on other (non-CA) games. For example, I cant believe many experienced game players were positive about the running/fighting speeds of RTW.
Yeah the community only gets involved when CA is making a patch. We did MP testing for 1.2 patch but mainly for connection/out of sync problems.
Of course for M2TW one player is involved in testing AFAIK.
CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
funny...i read through the whole faq and all of the sticky threads on tw.com and previews from major game sites and havent found anything but the usual dopey things like someone said "if you shoot them with arrows they will move to trees"
so from what your saying they are doing a LAST MINUTE job on the AI, if its going to be dropped in 6 months that means they have what? maybe 4 months to work on it? its not like they have some great foundation to work with.
and i dont see why it would be so hard to make a better ai, how about one that doesnt move around behind walls eating arrows, one that stays in formation, doesnt send generals to a quick death, doesnt send slingers charging into my front lines as shock troops, builds better units for its armies and knows how to tech up its buildings :idea2:
but who needs AI when you have.....drumroll.....CANNON ELEPHANTS ~:grouphug:
How bout we just wait and see how the AI actually works before sticking a criticism pole up it's wazoo. Movement speeds and such aren't a big deal at all as they are very easily changed. There are more important assets of the AI to worry about that can't be changed by modders. Hopefully those more major areas will be improved upon and the minor nitpicks can be modded as always.
One of those videos shows AI slightly better than in RTW, at least right after deployment. Hopefully with a bunch of months left they'll still be working on the AI solidly.
yes, but mods generally dont help much in the mp department...and most of the ai problems have long and dusty roots, as far back as STW...thats why i'm annoyed....all the power of todays systems and the AI has not developed :dizzy2:
i'm not bashing...i have bought EVERY TW product thats been released and <except for stw> the day it is released....and i'll buy mtw2...but that doesnt change the fact i am concerned about its development.
to the guy below me, he mentioned MODDING the game speed....and the RTW run speed IS a problem for MP and its hard to get everyone to use the same mod...or in some instances even the same patch
But... AI problems don't hinder MP because there is no AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Most interesting fact here is, none of us know what CA are doing right now. I heard somebody was concerned with the time CA left to "dedicate to the AI". Put it this way, 4 months of 5/6 working days is PLENTY of time for a skilled group of programmers such as CA to get together and work hard on the AI and sort it out.
The changing of the AI I am pretty certain was to try and cater to the wider market CA were bringing in after TWs sucess, this wider market are the types of gamers who get annoyed when they don't win easily and will drop a game if they think its hard, or takes ages, hence the dumbing down of the AI and the speeding up of the units. I imagine, however, CA have surveyed the communities opinions of RTW and are probably looking at making a much finer balance between the two markets who buy this game.
I think some people need to start having a bit of faith in CA, they created two very good games in STW and MTW and one has suddenly turned them inept in some peoples eyes. I remember playing Metal Gear Solid, the first was amazing but the second was absolutely terrible imo, MGS 3 however was fantastic, what I'm saying is ONE weak link in a fantastic series is no reason to doubt the abilities of the latest release been fantastic.
If mtw2 is as retarded as rtw turned out to be. Ill permantly turn away from the TW games.
If people want a dumbed down game then they should play on easy...thats why its there , for the game noobs who have practically no micro-management skills (like my little brother for instance). I always play on vh/vh, and in rtw it was never much of a challenge (mtw did present some challenges).
Well, for a game producer, to be honest they care about sales more than anything, i mean, who doesnt?
So, logically, for them, CA are gonna present beautiful pics rather than talking about the AI, more people will buy a beautiful looking game than one for its difficulty. The visuals are what lure the buyer in, so thats what they are concentrating on.
The ideal situation would be essentially two game modes, which are actually different, unlike in RTW; arcade and sim. Of course arcade being for those who, as Nagatsuka mentioned, shy away from "hard" games and prefer an RTW type experience. The sim mode would be for those of us who like more realistic games and such.
Failing that, I think at least the difficulty settings should do more than give the AI better moral and more attack and defense points. Sheesh. I imagine actual better AI could be incorporated into the different difficulty settings instead of arbitrary bonuses.
They are not 'easily changed'. They're fixed by the animations (AFAIK). All that can be done is to modify the terrain effect to slow all units proportionally (rather than, for example, preventing the warbands from running for 2 miles at the speed of an olympic sprinter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderland
The guy at the .com who was at CA's stall in the Sega section of E3 said that CA has 2 guys working on the AI, 1 for campagin map AI the other for battlefield AI. But to be fair the kind of coding work that making AI is would really only be a 1 man job. But if AI is all they are both doing then that's several hundred hours for the development of both.Quote:
Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
yes you can only modify the animations, like you said by changing the terrain values, and if its like rtw it would be easy enough but would probably make the treadmill effect even more noticable due to the improved graphics and animations<if its done the same way>...like i said before its hard to import this to the MP arena as there is hardly ever agreement over which mod is best ~:(Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
yet, really all i want is the difficulty to translate better, like Wonderland said... the ai acts pretty much the same on all levels....upping the difficulty seems to only pad the AI's stats, let the nubsauce players use the easy difficulty
i just get annoyed that they seem to be disregarding and neglecting the player base that has supported them over the years, we all put up with the GOD-AWFUL multiplyer/gamespy issues...and franky i didnt mind the ctd, unable to connect, games dropping to the lobby mid fight and the horrible performance "TTTTTTTTT"....cuz the game was so damn good when u could actually play, especially cuz of all u classy euros ~:wave:
i dont think RTW was a bad game either...just the mp...i modded the unit animations to slow em down and added morale values to all the units and BAM the game is harder...i dont mind them taking creative liberty with history and the goofy head hurlers and roman ninjas...i kinda like them :hide:
With the berserker type AI from BI. ( fire and forget ) The new feature of units gaining or losing momentum while in melee. ( less predictable out come of battles ) Flanks gaurded by terrain, battle map features. ( much harder to flank ) Not to mention, made in Australia.
One thing is for sure. That is we are all goin to be in for a nice surprise, battles and the battle AI will be like nothing ever seen before in a TW game.
-IceTorque
I gotta say... I'm feeling optimistic about M2TW. According to them, it's been in the works for 7 years now... meaning RTW was kind of like a "tune-up" for M2TW, a beta in a different historical setting. It sure felt like that. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I do have a feeling M2TW will be a lot better, a lot better than RTW.
Then, logic kicks in - marketing, mainstream consumer wants, money, whole lotta BS, and boom, right back to realistic pessimism. Ah, if only I could be the optimistic unrealist.
That paragraph sums it up where the AI needs the most improvement. To top it off the A.I. can have superior firepower behind thier walls and as soon as you counter-fire, the A.I.'s missile troops will start running around. If they had just stood there returning fire the effect would be devastating.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Anyways all games that I have played always had a loophole somewhere in the A.I. The main concern is to fix the worst of the problems, where the A.I. just sends lambs to the slaughter.
Ptogramming an A.I. to a human level is no way near the future.
What I'd like to see most is AI armies acting in a co-ordinated manner instead of each unit acting completely independently of the rest. It makes it so easy to beat the AI piecemeal. And there's no sense of a controlling enemy intelligence at all. RTW AI armies basically behaved in a totally random fashion.
All they would really need to do is to program the AI to have half a dozen different battle plans for each of the main situations, ie field attack, field defence, siege attack, siege defence etc., and you would have a game that was entertaining, unpredictable, and challenging. But what are chances we will get something like this?
As far as speculations about M2TW AI, I was initially quite hopeful we were going to see significant improvement in this game. However, the movies we have seen so far are not terribly encouraging. Units still seem to be moving too fast, kill rates still too fast, not much evidence of AI smarts. So I'm beginning to grow cynical again and to think we are going to get RTW with prettier graphics.
However, I'm trying to suspend judgement until I've played the demo.
Most likely the demo will be dumbed down for nooby players.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Yeah, I remember people saying the same thing about the RTW demo as well. They turned out to be wrong.
Apart from the fact that the RTW demo was scripted, it gave a pretty good indication of what the actual game was like. I expect it will be much the same for M2TW.
But I probably won't just rely on the demo. I'll wait to see what the consensus about the game is from experienced TW'ers.
It's very difficult to program much of the AI before finishing most of the graphics engine, so it's natural that graphics are presented first. I'd guess they've made most of the AI by now, but it's probably not yet in a finished state. As it's the last thing done before testing and tweaking, it'll probably be finished around 3 months before release or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
good argument...unit stats etc etc must be tested and such, but couldnt ai be developed fairly independently? i just feel like it should be something constantly worked on from concept to actual design...ai has become a major focus point for game designers, look at for example many fps games when stw launched now we have halo...and many other games that have ai miles away from 4 years ago
yet this type of game does not have the market fps have...so i have and will cut them some slack...i have a powerful system i want the best
but you do have a good point regardless
EDIT
and before anybody crucifies me, saying its easier to do ai for a fps: as TW is dealing with thousands of units....its just really 10 as its just a big blob of animations...not that its easy to do this :)
1. after graphics have been planned and implemented enough it's possible to implement AI. But sometimes when graphics are extended it might affect ai. Probably they could start working on AI after getting the basics of the grahpics engine ready. After all it's necessary to be able to preview how the AI looks in practise to be able to program much of it. But yes, it's possible to do it independently to some extent, but preferable for the developers to do after all graphics are doneQuote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
2. yes, if the developer has made the same type of game several times, they can learn what dependencies there are between graphics engine and AI, i.e. what organization they need for the data from a fast graphics perspective. Due to the high framerate requirements it's often necessary to adapt data structures to graphics. Therefore if graphics are upgraded a lot, like from RTW to MTW2, there might still be problems figuring out AI before making most graphics features.
I have a feeling who this 1 man is, and though I trust in his abilities, I would appreciate it if he shared his design problems with the STW/MTW veterans, to see if they can find solutions. They can't be purely programming problems, ie there must be some puzzles to which we can perhaps supply answers.Quote:
The guy at the .com who was at CA's stall in the Sega section of E3 said that CA has 2 guys working on the AI, 1 for campagin map AI the other for battlefield AI. But to be fair the kind of coding work that making AI is would really only be a 1 man job. But if AI is all they are both doing then that's several hundred hours for the development of both.
No, not random. And the AI armies do tend to stay together before engaging. Not talking about the three way battles of course, or players deliberately tempting the AI army to split up (which is of course, only natural). On a unit level, the unit AI seems dominant. What it needs is indeed higher level command, that can synthesize ALL situations and provide answers in ALL situations.Quote:
What I'd like to see most is AI armies acting in a co-ordinated manner instead of each unit acting completely independently of the rest. It makes it so easy to beat the AI piecemeal. And there's no sense of a controlling enemy intelligence at all. RTW AI armies basically behaved in a totally random fashion.
Though the AI was designed from the ground up to allow such higher level decision making, the time needed for tweaking this was no longer there, and patches have already begun as far as i can see to add what i call "formations before engagement".
I remember everything that has ever been said about the AI because CA isn't going into details about it (copyright and stuff), but I don't have the links anymore to prove what i've said. Safe to say that there's a lot more to the AI than you may think. A game has to be finished, anyway, before any AI can be written. That kind of puts a stop on new ideas (and Thank God).
I suggested as much with a combination of MTW and RTW AI, giving initial starting formations to the AI, and different strategies for each one. But in RTW, if you give the AI a certain mix of units, it will always apply the same initial formation & strategy, no matter what. That has to change, well if i am to buy it anyway.Quote:
All they would really need to do is to program the AI to have half a dozen different battle plans for each of the main situations, ie field attack, field defence, siege attack, siege defence etc., and you would have a game that was entertaining, unpredictable, and challenging. But what are chances we will get something like this?
Yeah I just hope they turn down the kill speeds so we get to enjoy the effects more of what we do. This is the main point for me to buy MTW2 or not. Followed quickly by a cunning AI (better than RTW, although RTW is not THAT bad).Quote:
As far as speculations about M2TW AI, I was initially quite hopeful we were going to see significant improvement in this game. However, the movies we have seen so far are not terribly encouraging. Units still seem to be moving too fast, kill rates still too fast, not much evidence of AI smarts. So I'm beginning to grow cynical again and to think we are going to get RTW with prettier graphics.
ok i see your point, yet i still want to hear SOMETHING regarding AI concerns that have been around since stw....anything :help: they just keep upgrading the graphics...the mori <sp> clan randomly breaking my alliance was no different than when any other stupid rtw faction does it...same with units eating missles etc....all i want is them to throw me a frickin bone~:pissed:
Wait a minute, Rome had 11 programmers. Surely more than 1 could do & help with battlemap AI??
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...tech_info.html
While I understand your frustration level, and I know its shared by many, CA has a well established model for releases. Since STW, I dont recall the AI as being the seller of any of thier games.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
The graphics seem to drive the initial release/sale process and then, after the feedback from the masses a patch or two gets released, then an expansion with a last patch.
I dont forsee this changing, as its seemingly a successful formula for this developer, otherwise sales wouldnt justify the continuation of the series. You're best bet might be to hold off on preorder or purchase at release and let it hit the masses first, maybe wait for a patch to come out before leaping in.
"I dont forsee this changing, as its seemingly a successful formula for this developer, otherwise sales wouldnt justify the continuation of the series. You're best bet might be to hold off on preorder or purchase at release and let it hit the masses first, maybe wait for a patch to come out before leaping in."
I understand this, but there is a way around it and personally I really wish CA would make use of it. All they have to do is, once a game is released, licence the engine to other developers who can then work on making games with a new setting, whether it is ultra-accurate history or over-the-top fantasy, or on making powerful battlefield AI, or any other things that CA has not enough time for. People who want the most graphically dazzling TW game could get whatever CA makes itself, those who are prepared to accept less advanced graphics but with a setting that they like or with better AI or whatever could get second-party games. And I think alot of people would get both- any Total War is best seller.
One thing I wish and that is that game code would go public after a certain time. There are so many great old games, often from defunct companies, that could just do with a little tweak here and there to bring them up-to-date and make into perennial all-time classics.
It's such a shame to see all this code just go to waste. I wish somebody would pass a law to say that gaming code has to be preserved and released to the public domain after a certain time period, say, five years. Then all those brilliant old games could be revived and built upon by entreprising programmers.
In fact, I think I'm going to start a political movement with this as my central platform ~:)
I'd vote for that.
Same here.
In sentiment, I agree with you. In practice though, there is no need to get around anything. CA seems to be doing just fine with the current business model. What is there incentive to change their current practices? Like it or not the TW series has been a commercial success, and CA is a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Ideally it would be a more open source coding so the moding would be easier (AKA Paradox titles) this way, end users like you and I can actually tweek the AI and come up with mods free to the community. I dont know if CA would license the engine, an intriquing idea but not something I have heard a lot about.
Is there precident for this in the gaming industry? I honestly dont know, but again, reality suggests that CA has a proven business model going on the 4th title, I dont see it changing. The only thing that is a variable at this point, is the end user purchase.
If that changes, then thier development process will change.
Maybe we should all start a gamer's lobby group or something ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Already now, when 5 years have passed, most companies no longer pursue copyright infringement actively for certain titles. Reverse engineering them to create new titles however, always gets a response, especially if you stand to gain money from it.
While money is an important aspect, you can not totally alienate your original fanbase. You could, but some of us would eventually post a negative comment on Gamespot, hurting their sales & image.
On a human level, the programmers can identify themselves more with us than they can with WCIII players, though they do also have to cater to those or face their investors. They have Quality Assessment Groups, in which they test all new ideas on average gamers, and bug testing is thorough. Though we may not like Rome:TW, all intended ideas were implemented (not necessarily balanced) and the game is relatively crash free. I have yet to crash version 1.5...
The AI remains a tricky point. It cannot be marketed, so we hear nothing about it. Who wants to be smart instead of pretty? The latter sure sells...
But I am confident they will take their time this time, and if they don't, our judgement will be accordingly.
If you want to help, become a playtester (beta release) for Activision, and submit feedback on the AI, IF you get to play beta MTW2 (which isn't a sure thing).
That wouldn't help since CA are with SEGA now :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
oh yes. :stupido2: So help SEGA then. Do they even have playtesters? Oh dear...
Forget the AI. WHy aren't they talking about what advertisement flyers they're going to put in the box with the game.:laugh4:
"In practice though, there is no need to get around anything. CA seems to be doing just fine with the current business model."
I was referring to the fact that the reason invariably given for the underdone AI and bugs is that they have know no time therefore no one can make a Total War game with computer players who were not dropped on their heads as babies. That is what they are supposed to be "getting around". As far as incentives go, well I would have thought the opportunity to make even more money licencing the engine to other studios would be an ample incentive. In the FPS development business it is commonplace. Of course it's entirely up to them. But the fact is that their engine will not maintain a virtual monopoly in this field forever, unless they licence it. If they don't eventually someone will develop a credible rival.
True enough, but after 3 titles, and expansions players keep purchasing the product, underdone AI and all. While the AI might not be up to par with our expectations, clearly, someone at CA (or whomever makes the publishing decisions) feels its adequate enough to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you. So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself. Unless that agreement cover the original developer, like I said I dont know.Quote:
As far as incentives go, well I would have thought the opportunity to make even more money licencing the engine to other studios would be an ample incentive.
Well that might be true, but here we are years later after STW and you would be hard pressed to find a "credible rival". If you know one please post a link, I would love to check out a new game. Im not suggesting CA has cornered the market, but they consistantly have used the same model of development, release, patch, expansion with a patch, new title.Quote:
Of course it's entirely up to them. But the fact is that their engine will not maintain a virtual monopoly in this field forever, unless they licence it. If they don't eventually someone will develop a credible rival
Seems to be working for them, and while I want an AI thats top notch as much as the next person, my faith in gaming companies is down the toilet. I'll wait on the sidelines see how the response is from the community, wait for a patch or two then make a purchase.
Sales of all TW products fall on or below the 1 million copies sold line, which does not consist of enough market for other companies to buy a license from SEGA, who would have to spend money first licensing it.Quote:
I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you. So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself. Unless that agreement cover the original developer, like I said I dont know.
My estimate, for total sales:
Shogun 200,000 sold
STW mongol invasion 100,000 sold
Medieval 300,000 sold
MTW viking invasion 150,000 sold
Rome 1,000,000 sold (eventually)
RTW barbarian invasion 300,000 sold (eventually)
These are quite optimistic numbers, I might add. Of those 700,000 new members to the TW community, only 1 in 10 registers with the fora, while almost 50% of the STW/MTW group is registerd. These are again my own personal estimates. A lot of the sales for Rome:TW have nothing to do with AI, but simply a sound commercial marketing strategy, and the fact that it's unique amongst strategy games.
It's nearly impossible to make an estimate of sales in my experience. They're bound to float around the web somewhere, if only we oculd find them (CA enlighten us !)Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
improving the ai should be an obligation over 6 + releases and expansions
what has really changed?...where is glorious achievments? seems we lose something everygame with minimal improvements besides the graphics engine. the more they dummy the game the more they throw themselves to an area where companies already have the market cornered. it might work, seems risky to me though. u know they wont be going anywhere in the mp department with gamespy as is :laugh4:
not many buy a game for the singleplayer experience if its not challenging and deep
and the clickfest rts mp gamers will laugh and laugh when CA tries to market to them with its awful 4 year record of MP, but maybe they can actually trick some into buying it....we'll see. Last night was in MP for 5 hours, actually managed 4 games 15 failed games <not from my end>:balloon2:
rome was as talked up as this, and the ai is worse than it was in mtw and they did nothing to the mp stability <if anything its worse> why will this be any different
"So unless you get a new or improved engine you have effectively killed that product line development for yourself."
Did you actually read what I typed? I said they should licence previous iterations of an engine after they have developed an improved one, e.g.licence the RTW engine sometimes between the release of RTW and MTW 2. Arguably if MTW 2 is such an improvement upon RTW that it merits another one hundred dollars they should have no problem in commercial terms with selling a licence to use the Rome engine to another development studio.
"I honestly dont know the numbers, however licencing the engine would allow someone else to develop the product line, maybe better then you."
How is it a rival product line if they're paying to use the engine? The terms of a contract can easily be written to preclude certain changes being made to an engine, such that if CA wants to ensure that its own games are always the most impressive in terms of graphics, numbers of troops etcetera all it has to is stick a stipulation in the agreement. If you actually look at the "competition" to Total War games it's pretty clear that it consists chiefly of developers and a market which either doesn't care for games on such a large and realistically rendered (in terms of graphics) scale or hasn't the skill to make them and would be interested chiefly in changing the setting and gameplay. Thus I find the idea that they could or would use a licenced Total War game to make a clone somewhat dubious. If/ when some studio pops up which has the skill and intention to create a genuine Total War rival themselves then they would make such a game whether they can use the Total War engine or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Yeah I read what you typed.
Thats what you typed. No where did you mention:Quote:
All they have to do is, once a game is released, licence the engine to other developers who can then work on making games with a new setting, whether it is ultra-accurate history or over-the-top fantasy, or on making powerful battlefield AI, or any other things that CA has not enough time for. People who want the most graphically dazzling TW game could get whatever CA makes itself, those who are prepared to accept less advanced graphics but with a setting that they like or with better AI or whatever could get second-party games. And I think alot of people would get both- any Total War is best seller.
You state they could license the engine once its released, not after a new one is developed, if you meant to say that fine, but yeah pal I "actually read what you typed" maybe if you were a little more clear on what you meant it might make your point quicker and you wouldnt have to take 3 posts to do it.Quote:
I said they should licence previous iterations of an engine after they have developed an improved one, e.g.licence the RTW engine sometimes between the release of RTW and MTW
The fact that someone else is now devloping your engine, allows them to take it any direction they want. Thus direct competition with the liscensee unless they develop a new engine and liscense out the old one. So you develop a new total war engine, and you allow someone else to use the old one, well what are they going to use it for? To develop games?Quote:
How is it a rival product line if they're paying to use the engine?
Why the hell would anyone give someone else the means to compete directly against them with a product they developed, even if its an older version? Maybe it happens in some FPS or other joundra (sp?) of gaming but I havent seen it much in wargames that I have played.
In addition to that, I am sure there are people in the industry, and at CA who are far more intelligent about the gaming industry then you and I, and they havent done it yet. Why? My contention is very simple, there is no need to, gamers keep buying the product, no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway.
Odin, please let's keep exchanges in this forum friendly. ~:grouphug:
IF a company decided to make a historically accurate game of the order of EB, with the dramatically reduced audience for such a game then they would have to charge a lot more, say theres 10% of the market that there is for RTR, they would have to charge £250 just to make the same kinda profits as CA.
Maybee CA could be incouraged to allow mods to use their engine like UT2004 has, the main reason i brought it was because of all the cool mods there are for it, its like buying 6 games in one!
my goodness, is it THAT bad with the current youth?Quote:
with the dramatically reduced audience for such a game
I can't remember the term "historical accuracy" ever scaring me off
"Thus direct competition with the liscensee unless they develop a new engine and liscense out the old one. So you develop a new total war engine, and you allow someone else to use the old one, well what are they going to use it for? To develop games?"
Umm yeah. Are you going to tell me how that is dangerous competition any more than the existence of other Total War- like games is? It is in fact a way to make money from competition.
"I havent seen it much in wargames that I have played."
And? It is done. I can think of a few licenced engines off my head- AOE II, WoW, CnC, etc. Besides which the fact that it is more common in FPS games is essentially immaterial. Your reasoning seems to be "they don't do it therefore they shouldn't do it". Interesting.
"no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway."
First of all, I said, I think, more than twice even, that it is not just about the AI. Second of all, it's also not about "changing the formula" or "need". It is simply an obvious way to make cash by capitalising on the existence of old engines. It is hardly the only way to do it either. Another would be to expand the possibilities for modders and subcontract prominent mods to make retail add-ons, which has proved to be immensely successful in FPS games. The very fact that it has been under-exploited in the strategy genre means that it is big fat opportunity screaming to be seized. Yet another would be to expand the number of ancillary studios which are responsible for expansions, which eliminates the issue of competition completely.
Im 14 and I read books in class. Im not considered the most social person but im not a nerd. And well, most of the people in my grade say books are for idiots and "who cares about history". My english teacher told the class about the romans and it was genuinely their first time ever hearing about them. Hell, 90% of them have NEVER read a book just for fun.
I think the problem is, is that people dont know history. They cant really tell if a game is historically accurate or fiction. They dont know that cannons were too heavy to mount on elephants or where russia is (seriosly, alot of people in my classes cant even find britian on a map, I doubt they could find russia if they tried) and who the mongols were and what they did. If someone says its accurate, then they will beleive them.
:dizzy2:
If there is one thing I hate, it's bashers. The game hasn't even come out yet, and everybody is butchering the game! Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that. :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
THANK YOU. I can understand wanting the game to be as historically accurate as possible, but all the nitpicking that goes in is absolutely ridiculous. Every time there is a picture of a new unit, I read a post that complains about the color of a patch of clothing or something else that shouldn't really matter. These are little details and it should be OK if all of them aren't 100% accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaulgath
As for the AI, it isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, especially in mods such as RTR in RTW and XL mod in MTW. It would be a hell of a lot more challenging if the AI would just stop sending their units to the slaughter, especially the general suicide charges. Sure, the army composition could use work as well as a lot of other less than stellar tactics the AI uses, but I think that if the AI would stop letting its units get isolated or if it would have its general live through the first clash of the battle, then there would be a lot less whining. Just my .02.
how long have you played tw? the simple fact is they have not addressed problems and design flaws that have been around since the first release of STW. i also dont give a #$^* about historical accuracy, they do a good enough job of balance between whats real and what sells...the same AI from 4 years ago is a laugh...if anything it gets worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaulgath
remember all the RTW hype? remember how the history channel used the rtw graphics engine when it produced a series of shows? remember how groundbreaking it was supposed to be? it wasnt, MTW had sooo much more depth...they fluffed up the graphics at the expense of everything else
if i was a person who started playing at rtw i could understand you being bright eyed and bushy tailed, those of us who have played this series for 4 years seem to be a bit jaded by ca's neglecting its fan base and its rude bahavior on the official forums
with every release and expansion i couldnt wait to get my hands on it, now this time its more "eh i guess i'll get it" its like dragonlance novels...didnt like the way it was going but i bought em anyway...and thats all they want you to do, buy it...who cares if you like it
maybe you like a shallow game thats just pretty to look at, if so i expect you will get just this....i could be wrong...but i wont hold my breath, even if you might want me to :)
Well,
I hope they do reveal some details about the AI because this was one of the major problems in RTW: bad diplomacy system, bad campaign AI, horrible battlefield AI...
I have my doubts if they will look into it. The old fanbase that is asking for better AI is just a small consumergroup; That means we are of little importance for their sales...
But maybe there is hope. I've searched on the internet and discovered a game ' XIII Century: Sword & Honor' and it looks very promising. I have send a mail to the publisher to ask for more details and here is what they said about it:
Hello Pieter-
Sorry for the delay with the answer, but I was out of the office and unfortunately had no access to my e-mails.
I’ve asked the developers and they have provided me with the following information:
1. No. The campaigns in the game will be battle oriented. There will be only battles.
2. Battle AI is complicated and pretty hard to beat and we are currently working on it and making it possible for a human player to win a battle :) There is no diplomacy in the game except for the sword.
3. This game does not have any unit construction because we are oriented on historical accuracy and historically accurate battles. Castles are map objects and are not constructed during the game. But we plan to supply the game with an editor to allow players build their own battles and castles.
4. We plan to release the game in Q4 2006.
Sincerely yours,
Anatoly Subbotin
PR Manager
1C Company
suba@1c.ru, http://int.games.1c.ru/
I mean there is no campaign map but the AI sounds very promising and that is the most important part of the game for me. + maybe this could be a competitor for Activision in the future. I'm going to check this game out when it is released. Don't know about you?
Might as well plug this game too.
http://www.madminutegames.com/
The absolute best battle AI currently available. Take Command 2nd Manassas is the newest game from the site (set during the American Civil War), you can check out the demo and be blown away. AI is great, battles are great. You just need to try it to believe it basically. Huge maps, huge armies, couriers relaying messages between commanders, tactical battles and strategies, man it's amazing. Oh and a great community to boot. This recent discovery has made me a hell of a happy gamer, with some new found optimism and encouragement from the gaming world.
-edit-
Oh sweet Moses, that game Count Dracul mentioned looks spectacular. Those screens especially tickled me in ways I ought not be touched...
if the problems with RTW were caused by programming difficulties then they should fire a lot of people and get the old STW/MTW programmers back.Quote:
Why don't I sit you down in a chair and watch you program this? TW is MASSIVE, and not every little detail is going to be perfect.
But no, it's the new design approach that alienates the old fanbase.
And what do you want us to do, whine AFTER the game is released, when the 1% chance we have in having an influence on the gameplay has turned into 0% ?
If forgot to post the link to some screenshots of XIII Century: Sword & Honor
http://www.3dgamers.com/screenshots/games/xiiicentury/
I have also seen some screenshots where the lances (carried under the armpit: correct way) actually break off after a charge and they change to sword. But unfortunately I don't remember where I've seen it... If you look good It can be seen in this pic
http://unicorn-games.com/screenshots...-04-14.392.jpg
Hmm, i seem to have missed this discussion last time I checked the thread :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
So far CA is the ONLY company that has access to an engine like Rome's. In the fps scene there have been rival engines from the start, sure most weren't as impressive as ID's, but there was always a competition. Even so licenses don't happen that easily, ID almost always licenses to raven first, and probably makes a whole lot of money from those games to. Every company seems to make sure that no other games with 'their' tech are released around the same time. VTM: Bloodlines might be the big exception but then it was an entirely different game.
Which brings us to another point: fps engines are (considered) more versatile than an engine like the TW one, they make shooters RPGs, third person action games, MMO games and even strategy games with those engines. A TW engine is more limited in scope, although it could probably be expanded upon more to make it more versatile, that would require a serious investment however. The main point of the tw engine is that it can draw lots of people on screen, that isn't always what's needed in other games. CA tried to see what their tech could in other genres with Spartan i think (was it the rome engine ?) but that wasn't the most (commercially) successful attempt afaik.
These days it's all about making pretty close up screen shots, and the TW engine (certainly before MTW2) wasn't really up to that.
So in conclusion: they have a monopoly in a niche market right now, no need to share.
Just a note: mentioning other games in passing is ok, but extended discussion belongs in the Arena. There's already a fair bit there on Take Command 2nd Manassas recently. Not sure about XIII Century: Sword & Honour.
Sorry econ21, I knew it might be pushing it, but considering the nature of this thread and the people who post in it I really thought it'd be something of great value. Plus, I guess I'm still way too over excited about having discovered the damn game. I shall subdue my urges to introduce war gaming pleasure to the desiring masses. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
No worries, you make a relevant point - to identify other games that have realistic and/or challenging battlefield AI.
I haven't tried Take Command 2nd Manassa myself. Most computer wargames I've played (1990s vintage) did not have noticeably better AI than TW games. An exception may be Sid Meier's Gettysburg. But that game lacked the excitement of Total War battles, as well the strategic layer, and so never grabbed me.
I'm just saying the Arena exists if people want to discuss other titles in detail.
I doubt that we can expect a better AI for Medieval Total War II. If they are using Rome's engine, then I would say that they can only do as much as the Mods have done.
its not so difficult, we have amazing recourses with todays systems. its about priority, mtw had a far better AI than rtw, to say it cant be done is nonsense, it was better and it could be amazing if they actually made it anything but an afterthought...spare me the stuff about how hard it is and precedent...ca has failed the LOYAL fanbase that has supported it it for 4 years, it has forsaken it to sales....but hey thats capitalism :skull:
rtw is fun and i'm sure mtw will be too, but they have regressed instead of looking forward and separating themselves from the rest of games, conformity over progress, any dope company can make a pretty game
Though I share your dissappointment over R:TW, I think you are being unfair to CA here. They did make an effort to improve things. They released five patches which all improved the A.I. (except for 1.1) and, what is more, they kept R:TW supported after they released BI. This is more than they did for either M:TW or S:TW. Failed? Perhaps, but not forsaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
We should indeed give the CA a little more credit. It just turns out that the AI is the heart of a game. Making a game beautiful, and giving it 20 extra dimensions and ideas, also complicates the game. So writing a good AI will take even more time than before.
Time is something you have lots of when you are unknown & small, like before Shogun:TW. But then all of sudden, the marketing people start barging in, the managers want to have a say and make sure this product is sold in the way they want to. These people don't listen to "what about the AI?". These people don't care. I doubt they even know what a game is. The CA does know what a game is, but it's hard to keep everybody pleased.
I just hope the people of the CA have the strength to ignore marketing goals and simply focus on what's right: making a good and intelligent game.
look, i understand it isnt easy to make a game, but the ai needs to build up and get good units...facing scrubs every battle gets old, secondly it needs to form a cohesive battle line...it has been sending units 1 at a time to die since stw...mtw was better slightly. maybe a prioritized unit selection for ranged to fucus fire on units
and on a side note dispose of gamespy, its horrible and has been for 4 years, we deserve better than the mp we have
That group of people has already lost. They didn't have the strength to resist the gameplay damaging ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
That was because they were new. They're not new this time, in fact a lot less "New Ideas" have to be implemented in MTW2, leaving more time for AI. Remember how CA treated new ideas? They wined them, dined them, took them back home and then jumped them? Remember those developer diaries? It's not as black & white as you think. They simply may not yet have had the time to do things you would like them to. They sure can. They hooked you to Shogun, didn't they? They can hook you to MTW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Its immaterial? Wasnt that the point of reference you made initially as a justification for lisceneing the engine, and further in this post when you state its beenQuote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
? Your talking in circles then.Quote:
immensely succesful in FPS games
My justification is rather simple, why would they change something if they dont need to? I've heard all the arguments for better AI a thousand times on multiple games, but it rarely gets addressed, and why is that? Because gamers still buy the games. While your ideas have merit and seem logical, there is no expliantion as to why they would do it.
What old engine? Please be specific, because it seems to me your talking about a what if scenario. And again, why give technology to someone else to develop? You think its lucrative? Well okay, maybe it is, I dont know but other then the FPS games (which you reference, but claim is immaterial) I havent seen a precendent for this. I own an avarage amount of strat/wargames and have had an avarage amount of expirence with them and I havent seen many liscenses go out to others, if you have, then I defer to your expirence.Quote:
"no need to change the current formula based on a few hundred complaints about AI, of which about half of those people will buy the game anyway." First of all, I said, I think, more than twice even, that it is not just about the AI. Second of all, it's also not about "changing the formula" or "need". It is simply an obvious way to make cash by capitalising on the existence of old engines.
Perhaps your right, I honestly dont know, however there is one very simple and direct way to inpact the development of games. That is the power of consumption, if CA thought that thier AI, graphics, or whatever were not good enough for the consumer they would change the formula.Quote:
Another would be to expand the possibilities for modders and subcontract prominent mods to make retail add-ons, which has proved to be immensely successful in FPS games. The very fact that it has been under-exploited in the strategy genre means that it is big fat opportunity screaming to be seized. Yet another would be to expand the number of ancillary studios which are responsible for expansions, which eliminates the issue of competition completely
I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that is the case. Gamers will buy this title and justify its development with thier purchase. No matter how its developed, or by whom, if it sells these companies will put it on the shelf.
Suppose for a minute MTW2 does crap for sales, what do you think will happen? The process by which the game was developed will be reviewed and enhanced. Who knows, maybe you're prediction of ancillary studios will be the solution, but up till now, that isnt a reality because MTW2 looks to be on course like every other game in the total war series.