When did Creative Assembly become a symbol of evil?

[I looked around and wasn't entirely sure where something like this belonged, so I plopped it here.]

I'm kind of flabbergasted at some of the comments about them in the Securom thread and many other threads since Medieval 2 came out. I think many people are far too harsh on the developers. It's not as if they sit in their offices drinking martinis and smoking cigars, cackling with their evil laughs as they watch everyone suffer weak AI and bugs.

Hardly anyone believes they're doing it on purpose but I dare to say that it's not that they don't care either. I'm sure they do care about the community and the quality of their product. These guys started out as fringe developers who made a small but sweet game in 1999 with what I would imagine was a very small team. Since then they've been bought and sold by very large global publishing companies, undoubtedly have had to swell their ranks with green personnel, and the Total War series has reached a level of popularity I'm sure they never expected. I'm sure they try their absolute best.

Unless I'm mistaken, as their owners,
SEGA decides on whether or not to put Securom on titles
SEGA decides to greenlight patches or not
SEGA decides when the development process has ended and it's time to rush the game.

I have nothing but respect for Creative Assembly as they make awesome, deep and incredibly addictive games that I can play for years and years, and I do. Most of the stuff that people bash them for is out of their control. They deserve a measure of criticism like everyone else, sure, but not as harsh as they get IMO.

How much did they pay for posting this thread? :eyebrows: Just joking... You got a point.

Since I remember correctly they started run after another tw game from a very symbolic and critical patch 2.1 for viking invasion for witch community needed to wait whole 3 months. In mean time they anounced rtw and they explained this long wait by bein too busy working on rome.

You can't have an official site where everyone claps each other on the back and says how great things are. CA read this and we have right as consumers to make them aware of how we feel about the patches that never really fix our games and the copy protection we can never really uninstall .

Yeah, in fact I think I always wrote SEGA on the SecuROM thread, and not CA as I am very well aware of it.

However, CA definitely does have a say in it in my opinion, I don't believe SEGA just dictates them "use SecuROM or leave".

Anyways, I'm the last to unfairly criticize people and try to keep it constructive at all times (although I don't always manage to, but I'm only human). I always held the opinion that we have to tell the devs (and publishers) what we do and don't like or otherwise they'll just take it for granted that we're content with what they're doing and in that case they won't change anything ~;)
This sometimes includes shouting a bit because otherwise it can very well happen people don't listen to you.

Good idea for a thread nonetheless, it always helps to encourage your devs a bit. Most of the time they're doing a decent job :yes:

@ Gaius Terentius Varro:

I never said you didn't have that right...? Can you read past the first couple sentences.

Anyway yeah, that's the standard operating procedure for most games. Patch is released, you give feedback to the devs on their site. I'm speaking on what appears to be an outright vendetta some people have taken out against CA which really isn't warranted, since most of it is out of their hands, they try, and I'm pretty sure they don't hate the consumer and want to please their fans with a nice game.

This all reminds me of the Battlefield 2 community who basically believe DICE (the devs of that series) are devil worshiping pedophiles who gain sexual pleasure from releasing bad patches, when really it's partly their own fault because every idea is presented as a DICE-bashing rant which isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpaca

However, CA definitely does have a say in it in my opinion, I don't believe SEGA just dictates them "use SecuROM or leave".

---

I don't think they do have a say in that in any meaningful way. Sega owns them and publishes/distributes their games. CA's job is to make the game. The packaging, the disc manufacture (Securom), etc. is not their field. It would be comparable to a movie director demanding that his studio release the DVD without copy protection or that it can never be edited to air on TV. He really has no say in that decision.

Oh that wasn't personal at all i was addressing the topic which is a good one. However If you believe that the comunity is REALLY upset about this securom issue then you haven't seen us cheesed yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpaca

However, CA definitely does have a say in it in my opinion, I don't believe SEGA just dictates them "use SecuROM or leave".

---

Well, it depends or their specific contracts and agreements but it is more than likely that like many other publishers, SEGA controls the distribution, installation, packaging, manual , EULA and copy protection, among other things.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual software packaging, wrapping the game code with the installation software and integrating the 3rd party software like SecuROM is done by SEGA developers and not CA's themselves.

In any case, the final word is probably SEGA's and I don't imagine many game developers dropping their publisher for issues that not many consider fundamental (unlike distputes about money, artistic freedom or game design, for example) since copy protection at some level is considered de facto standard in the industry.


- barvaz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro

Oh that wasn't personal at all i was addressing the topic which is a good one. However If you believe that the comunity is REALLY upset about this securom issue then you haven't seen us cheesed yet

---

It's not completely about Securom.

I lost my internet connection in October '06. Before I went offline, I remembered the TW community being a very friendly, easy going lot who actually seemed to like the games.

I reconnect July '07, and I'm immediately struck by every other post is :furious3: DAMN AI IS HORRIBLE, CA SUCKS, I'M NEVER BUYING ANOTHER TOTAL WAR GAME EVER, BOYCOTT! :furious3:

While I was offline I played M2TW unpatched pretty much nonstop. Yeah the AI sucks, but I couldn't understand where all this rage was coming from. Mob mentality maybe? The Securom thread is just what put it over the top and motivated me to create this thread.

--- and barvaz, you put it much better than i did, ty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

It's not completely about Securom.

I lost my internet connection in October '06. Before I went offline, I remembered the TW community being a very friendly, easy going lot who actually seemed to like the games.

I reconnect July '07, and I'm immediately struck by every other post is :furious3: DAMN AI IS HORRIBLE, CA SUCKS, I'M NEVER BUYING ANOTHER TOTAL WAR GAME EVER, BOYCOTT! :furious3:

While I was offline I played M2TW unpatched pretty much nonstop. Yeah the AI sucks, but I couldn't understand where all this rage was coming from. Mob mentality maybe? The Securom thread is just what put it over the top and motivated me to create this thread.

--- and barvaz, you put it much better than i did, ty.

---

It's probably a self-sustaining system. However I think that the people who rant (including myself sometimes) just "yell louder". I'd say most or all of us still like the games, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

It's just that I'm a bit tired of defending CA in the Citadel, defending Microsoft in the Hard- and Software forum, defending Bush in the Backroo....oh wait, I don't do that last one. ~;)

Anyway, we could assume that the people who like the game are busy playing it while all the others are simply bored and come here to talk about it.
That said, I do think some criticisms are a bit harsh, these games keep me playing for quite a long time usually which is something other more polished games do not achieve.

Concerning SecuROM, I'm not too worried since there is no activation limit or anything and format c: usually uninstalls most software quite reliably.:2thumbsup:

I could care less about SecuRom software if it doesn't jack up my system. Considering I played Kingdoms all weekend and only noticed / found out about this today, I'd say it qualifies as something I can continue to ignore. It's a non-issue.

Great expansion, CA. End of the story for me. :)

It seems funny that the basis of this thread is "don't bash CA - instead bash SEGA".

SEGA have everty right to try and protect their property (note this is NOT an excuse for Securom or whatever) and they have a right to try and make money off their games.

Thus they pressure CA to get a job done and as none of us are in the loop we have no idea if it is SEGA giving impossible deadlines or CA draggin feet in getting a quality product out. Who knows.

All I know is there would not be a "SecuROM" issue if the Kingdoms expansion was terrible. No one would buy it. End of problem.

In the same way if SEGA/CA waited untill the product was totally bug free (impossible?) before release then it would probably go bankrupt.

As for gameplay... if you think the AI sucks then go play "Battles of Rome" game. That sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpaca

It's probably a self-sustaining system. However I think that the people who rant (including myself sometimes) just "yell louder". I'd say most or all of us still like the games, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

---

:yes:

Ranting about the game - on a forum for that game - indicates that you stop far short of hatred :grin2:

That said, we do have to take the polarising effect of forums into account (people are driven to enunciate more extreme positions than they would in a face to face conversation)

as a long time lurker, i'm with the OP. on the other hand, the reason i'm now posting at the org is because it definitely has less childish posturing and more constructive criticism than the other TW forums.

sorry i didnt read the whole thread but just wanted to point out that even on the securom thread noone is blaming CA i think its a problem with the industry as whole and and most probably due with accountants and bigwigs who have no idea how games are used.

edit: ok read whole thread now, aout the ranting it tends to get a bit childish when games are just released and the forum is full of teenages who seem to disapear in a month or 2. but everytime a new game/exp is announced/released it happens again.

although game developers have a right to protect ther revenue stream from piracy putting unecessary software into legitimate copies of the game is not going to help specially if the software has the POTENTIAL to cause problems for the end user in other ways. hopefully protection software will get standardised and less problematic in the future but it still makes no sense restricting paid cutomers use of software. as long as i cant copy the disk i should be ale to install it on all my computers. and if am not using it i should be ble to give to my mates or whoever.

I agree crpcarrot - most of the discussion on there is about DRM and copy protection in general. Anyone on there who is blaming CA frankly doesnt have a clue what theyre talking about.

Well as far as I am concerned the SecuRom issue lies firmly on SEGA's doorstep. They own CA and they decided to jump on the SecuRom bandwagon.

However, its worth noting that were any legal action to arise from this issue then as your contract was with the retailer who sold you the game, neither CA, nor SEGA will be involved in the case, unless the retailer decides to join them as third parties. This caused a lot of confusion in the Blizzcon case where customers thought they could actually sue Blizzard, and wasted a lot of time and effort trying to do so. In my case any legal action will have to be taken against Play.com for selling me software without warning me that it contained invasive software.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeutonicKnight

I could care less about SecuRom software if it doesn't jack up my system. Considering I played Kingdoms all weekend and only noticed / found out about this today, I'd say it qualifies as something I can continue to ignore. It's a non-issue.

Great expansion, CA. End of the story for me. :)

---

Your are right, it will not jack up your system now, but it's a potential security risk that someone won't like to take.

Yesterday night I was trying to fight them infidel Christian Knights in a bridge battle with two steep roads running down a hill on each side...I am saying "trying" b/c all my soldiers were not able to move at all…stuck…on the edge of the valley ...battle lost.

That is usually the point when I think something like “Yeah, great….Why can’t the developers take more care about bugs like this?” You know this happens every now and then. NOT very often.

On the other hand: CA developed a game series which puts out great history related strategy games that caught my attention for years now, not to talk about these fantastic mods. TW games consume about 95% of my playing time…well I do not play more than 4 hrs. a week these days….A lot of EB…spiced up with some Vanilla M2tW…oh why not re-launch a RTR platinum and the new Kingdoms is out? Time for some anti-crusading as the Turks.

Maybe some people take the whole issue of sell- out, early releases etc. a bit too serious. It is a game and I guess every game has it’s flaws.

I am glad CA still develops new games…even with gunpowder :laugh4: …Imagine the fuzz if they would stop with the TW series….”Oh, that sucks!” is what I would say….. :2cents:

It all comes down to money. Game titles make very little money nowadays. Its more quantity than quality. Given the high costs to develop in Europe also. They would be better outsourcing the next title to the far east.
Maybe then someone might listen as the support call centre would be right next door :)

As best as I can tell, it was sometime after the Viking Invasion XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

[I looked around and wasn't entirely sure where something like this belonged, so I plopped it here.]

I'm kind of flabbergasted at some of the comments about them in the Securom thread and many other threads since Medieval 2 came out. I think many people are far too harsh on the developers. It's not as if they sit in their offices drinking martinis and smoking cigars, cackling with their evil laughs as they watch everyone suffer weak AI and bugs.

Hardly anyone believes they're doing it on purpose but I dare to say that it's not that they don't care either. I'm sure they do care about the community and the quality of their product. These guys started out as fringe developers who made a small but sweet game in 1999 with what I would imagine was a very small team. Since then they've been bought and sold by very large global publishing companies, undoubtedly have had to swell their ranks with green personnel, and the Total War series has reached a level of popularity I'm sure they never expected. I'm sure they try their absolute best.

Unless I'm mistaken, as their owners,
SEGA decides on whether or not to put Securom on titles
SEGA decides to greenlight patches or not
SEGA decides when the development process has ended and it's time to rush the game.

I have nothing but respect for Creative Assembly as they make awesome, deep and incredibly addictive games that I can play for years and years, and I do. Most of the stuff that people bash them for is out of their control. They deserve a measure of criticism like everyone else, sure, but not as harsh as they get IMO.

---

Good post.

To be frank, history has pretty much repeated itself since MTW in three consecutive titles. Everything has it's limits, specially where my money, and most importantly my time is involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barvaz

Well, it depends or their specific contracts and agreements but it is more than likely that like many other publishers, SEGA controls the distribution, installation, packaging, manual , EULA and copy protection, among other things.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual software packaging, wrapping the game code with the installation software and integrating the 3rd party software like SecuROM is done by SEGA developers and not CA's themselves.

In any case, the final word is probably SEGA's and I don't imagine many game developers dropping their publisher for issues that not many consider fundamental (unlike distputes about money, artistic freedom or game design, for example) since copy protection at some level is considered de facto standard in the industry.


- barvaz

---

Ok I guess I have to back you here then. Had a chat with both Caliban and Palamedes today and neither of the two even knew that SecuROM was used in Kingdoms...

Anyways I'm a bit stumped at the total lack of comment from SEGA and CA on the issue. Maybe we should take it to the .com

Hmmm. Perhaps i should delve back into my starting forum, the Citadel.

If Palamedes and Caliban didn't know, that makes me suspicious.

After defending CA so much before M2TW came out, I gave myself a break. About to hook back into it for ETW.

In regards to CA, i agree with: the op, Husar and alpaca.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpaca

Ok I guess I have to back you here then. Had a chat with both Caliban and Palamedes today and neither of the two even knew that SecuROM was used in Kingdoms...

Anyways I'm a bit stumped at the total lack of comment from SEGA and CA on the issue. Maybe we should take it to the .com

---

Or give them a slight prod that the worst thing they could do now is to stay silent? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

I have nothing but respect for Creative Assembly as they make awesome, deep and incredibly addictive games that I can play for years and years, and I do. Most of the stuff that people bash them for is out of their control. They deserve a measure of criticism like everyone else, sure, but not as harsh as they get IMO.

---

Well said mate. I've had the same feelings for several weeks. The hyperbolic ranting that goes on in games forums is pretty depressing. It really puts me off bothering being part of a community when the slightest problem is a 'gamebreaker', and the slightest sign of enthusiasm is subject to a gruelling browbeating.

I think the most depressing is the seeming lack of ability to appreciate what it takes to produce a game like M2TW. In all my 30 years of video gaming (I began on the Atari 2600 VCS, hence the screen name) I've seen a lot of advances. Games then were smaller in data size than your average WP document today (though they still had bugs :laugh4: ).

If only people could appreciate that with the levels of complexity we have now, that there are inevitably going to be glitches. Pointing them out, being a bit irritated by and/or suggesting work arounds to the community - fine. But piling the pressure on an already hard-pressed developer with rants of 'gamebreaker, blah-blah...' and 'my hard-earned cash, blah-blah...', seems tant amount to bullying. Who would ever bother to be a game developer again?

There seem to be too many people on these kinds of forums with a wildly distorted view of what it is to produce a game.

I went out and brought Kingdoms after saying that i wouldn't bother due to the upheavals of problems i had with Medieval II. It works quite well and as of yet apart from a CTD after first installing mainly due to me not restarting my PC its been running fine and I'm quite happy with it :yes:

But i do disagree with people saying basically that its hard for developers to make games bug free and this and that, Then why sell them to the general public for high prices as they are "Kingdoms was £19.99 for me". Thats alot of money for me to pay out, But it was worth it. I didnt think the £29.99 i paid for MTWII was worth it though, It made me very angry that i had to change my hole PC make up just to suit one game :smash:

For those of us that money is hard to come by, I feel we have a right to complain and kick our feet and punch doors when spending alot of cash on games that are full of bugs!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ataribaby

Well said mate. I've had the same feelings for several weeks. The hyperbolic ranting that goes on in games forums is pretty depressing. It really puts me off bothering being part of a community when the slightest problem is a 'gamebreaker', and the slightest sign of enthusiasm is subject to a gruelling browbeating.

I think the most depressing is the seeming lack of ability to appreciate what it takes to produce a game like M2TW. In all my 30 years of video gaming (I began on the Atari 2600 VCS, hence the screen name) I've seen a lot of advances. Games then were smaller in data size than your average WP document today (though they still had bugs :laugh4: ).

If only people could appreciate that with the levels of complexity we have now, that there are inevitably going to be glitches. Pointing them out, being a bit irritated by and/or suggesting work arounds to the community - fine. But piling the pressure on an already hard-pressed developer with rants of 'gamebreaker, blah-blah...' and 'my hard-earned cash, blah-blah...', seems tant amount to bullying. Who would ever bother to be a game developer again?

There seem to be too many people on these kinds of forums with a wildly distorted view of what it is to produce a game.

---

Nicely put. Agree 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasper The Builder

I didnt think the £29.99 i paid for MTWII was worth it though, It made me very angry that i had to change my hole PC make up just to suit one game :smash:

---

I was running M2TW on my previous machine at 1.0, just barely, BARELY, meeting the minimum specs, and I didn't have to change anything about my PC settings or hardware. Are you sure you met the system requirements or didn't have some huge problem on your end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ataribaby

Well said mate. I've had the same feelings for several weeks. The hyperbolic ranting that goes on in games forums is pretty depressing. It really puts me off bothering being part of a community when the slightest problem is a 'gamebreaker', and the slightest sign of enthusiasm is subject to a gruelling browbeating.

I think the most depressing is the seeming lack of ability to appreciate what it takes to produce a game like M2TW. In all my 30 years of video gaming (I began on the Atari 2600 VCS, hence the screen name) I've seen a lot of advances. Games then were smaller in data size than your average WP document today (though they still had bugs :laugh4: ).

If only people could appreciate that with the levels of complexity we have now, that there are inevitably going to be glitches. Pointing them out, being a bit irritated by and/or suggesting work arounds to the community - fine. But piling the pressure on an already hard-pressed developer with rants of 'gamebreaker, blah-blah...' and 'my hard-earned cash, blah-blah...', seems tant amount to bullying. Who would ever bother to be a game developer again?

There seem to be too many people on these kinds of forums with a wildly distorted view of what it is to produce a game.

---

I dont know about anyone else, but I dont give a crap what effort it takes to make a game. It's irrelevant. I'm here to voice my disappointment with M2TW in the hope that CA will make a game that I can enjoy. I have no false hope that it will have any effect though; CA didnt appear to take notice of us during and after RTW.


BTW, I would gladly pay more for new TW games if thats what it took for CA to develop games that weren't "RTS in fancy dress". On the other hand though, I wont pay for any more like RTW and M2TW. In fact if I could get my money back for M2TW I'd gladly send it back.

Quite frankly, the anger was even more intense after Rome was released. There was even a campaign to smear RTW on Amazon. The problem is that the same problems exist in the game 2 years later so someone has made a decision that decent AI is NOT important in the Total War games. I am sure that it is a monetary decision and comes down to the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands (millions yet?) that buy the game, only a few are serious enough about the game to care. The average noob only spends a few weeks/months playing and just wants to win so a crappy AI is an asset.

I have only encountered 2 strategic game developers that really care about their AI and they are Firaxis (Civ4) and Stardock (Galactic Civ2). CA just isn't one of those companies that puts the time and resources into creating a challenging game. They were when they started, but they haven't been in a long time. When you realize this, and that they probably have valid monetary reasons, you will realize that it is time to move onto other company's games if an AI is actually important to you. I know I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

I have no false hope that it will have any effect though; CA didnt appear to take notice of us during and after RTW.

---

Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

---

You must be joking right?

If you read the forums for STW/MTW, you'll find that TW fans were extremely hopeful, dedicated and made tons of suggestions for CA essentially playtesting and correcting their games for them. Some people even put forth guides for the SP and MP games spreading the word for TW long before the fanbase got swarmed with (RTW) veterans, in the period that these games were sold neither on appearances nor prestige, but on the fascination and immersiveness they offered and good gameplay.

The "thank you" from the part of CA was full fledged ignorance in the knowledge that their newer games were succesful commercially and that whoever doesn't like them may criticise all they want now as it changes nill.

I'm sorry to say though that for me this attitude doesn't make their newer games any better than the low gameplay standard and unfinished state they are released.

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

The "thank you" from the part of CA was full fledged ignorance in the knowledge that their newer games were succesful commercially and that whoever doesn't like them may criticise all they want now as it changes nill.

---

This is exactly what I was talking about with the very title of this thread. How would you know their attitude or motives?

You honestly believe they're swimming around in piles of cash, commenting to one another "haha, those fools, we got them! we can just make good graphics and sell thirty times as much! forget strategy! as much as I love all this money, it wouldn't be worth it if we didn't get all the fans to suggest stuff and waste all their time! *reads fan suggestions - evil cackle* Oh, and those angry posts! Simply smashing!"

Some of you are so blinded by your rage to even consider the possibility that they might have been rushed, lost key development team members, or just suck at writing A.I. that needs to be infinitely more complex than the AI for 2D games like STW and MTW. No, they have to say to each other at an official meeting "Ok, it's agreed then? F*** the fans and make money? OK, meeting adjourned!"

I rarely get angry and especially for such a matter (my hobby) that is entirely out of my control; much less to feel "rage" and even less express it in a posting board.

By "CA" i mean whoever is taking decisions in them or for them; the decision makers have beyond any doubt by simply choosing to emphasise on certain aspects of the game ignore people that play it with expectations in the tactical and strategic department. The AI has worsen with every release past VI, bugs that were solved returned and testing and balancing the units and gameplay is almost non-existent and has been broadly accepted as "normal" due to small development times, despite the fact that interferes with game playability upon release.

I also dislike the colourful expressions you use to bring out the absurd, as they are a trick to support your argument and not an argument themselves. That's your choice though.

In any case the TW community has been among the most dedicated and optimistic ever since STW came out and i don't know how long have you been following the various forums dedicated to it or read their past posts but the stance of CA at various incidents has been pretty much as i describe above; hence the incident with the rejection of the mp petition that was signed by a significant number of known and full fledged members of the .org for RTW and many others that i do not wish to speak about. Are you aware of these episodes?

M2 was released with the shield bug and the two-hand bug that essentially ruined gameplay as they made it counter-intuitive. Does that bring flowers and praise out of you? Or the fact that you were playing so long without knowing their existance made everything ok?

Noir

edit = I doubt very much that the AI needs to be an inch more complex because the men became 3D polygonic, but even if that is the case, CA shouldn't have moved on till it had it working, or at least make it work 4 years on with the same engine. Unfortunately for those that are buying their games neither happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Did you ever think that's because the majority of the criticism, like your post, was hyperbolic rantings and ravings full of exaggerations, insults, and threats? Do you honestly expect anyone to take that seriously?

---

My post was filled with hyperbolic rantings? Feel free to point them out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satyr

Quite frankly, the anger was even more intense after Rome was released. There was even a campaign to smear RTW on Amazon. The problem is that the same problems exist in the game 2 years later so someone has made a decision that decent AI is NOT important in the Total War games. I am sure that it is a monetary decision and comes down to the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands (millions yet?) that buy the game, only a few are serious enough about the game to care. The average noob only spends a few weeks/months playing and just wants to win so a crappy AI is an asset.

I have only encountered 2 strategic game developers that really care about their AI and they are Firaxis (Civ4) and Stardock (Galactic Civ2). CA just isn't one of those companies that puts the time and resources into creating a challenging game. They were when they started, but they haven't been in a long time. When you realize this, and that they probably have valid monetary reasons, you will realize that it is time to move onto other company's games if an AI is actually important to you. I know I have.

---

Just to be clear to those who werent here. It wasnt a smear campaign. We have every right to put our opinions onto amazon about the items listed there. I actually bought RTW at Amazon and felt quite OK about posting my opinions of it. Certain CA members here did get a little "miffed" though.

Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

The lack of an effective AI is a core design failing.

I find myself being reluctantly forced to agree with those who argue that CA is not giving enough attention to making AI improvements. in core areas.

Before I go on and possibly get accused of being a malcontent ranter, allow me two points:

1. I've been a supporter of CA, more patient than many and maybe most. I've said before that I've consider the new, "free movement" map to be a very impressive feature but one that also imposes great burdens on designing an effective strategic AI. The programing used to have to decide on where to move one stack with a very limited range of options, sort of like tic-tack-toe. Now it has any number of stacks with any one of thousands of possible destination points every move. I am not willing to go back to a "Risk-style" map, however, which would be simplistic and a big step backwards.

2. We're not talking about one AI here, or at least not one thing the AI has to do. We're talking about at least four with considerable overlap and conflict: The resource management AI, the tactical AI; the diplomacy and agent AI and the military strategic movement and maneuver AI.

Resource management AI is notably better in Kingdoms, at least in the Teutonic campaign. I base that upon finding fewer stacks filled with useless, low-tier units. Danish stacks in my current campaigns have much better balanced armies with Viking Raiders, some archers and Huscarls instead of militia spearmen and a general, and in good quantities. Their cities have good upgrades, too.

Tactical AI is weak. I understand the core logic of trying to concentrate on a small reinforcement and crush it before a larger force. But to ignore the larger (human controlled) force? To turn every back in your army upon it and let it attack you from behind? To not even leave some archers as skirmishers to slow the bigger force down? To finally react by having your general charge the whole force? I could cite other examples of self-destructive behavior.

The diplomatic and agent management is OK, and I base that on clear signs of a will to live and to make concessions to accomplish that, at least in the Teutonic campaign.

The strategic maneuver and movement AI, however, is simply not up to the job. I could understand that in RTW, with the new free-movement map. However, we've been through BI, the Alexander expansion, MTW2 and now Kingdoms. While I consider MTW2 clearly superior to RTW in a number of important ways, the AI still falls short. Let me give just one example:

It eases into war by dipping its toe in the pool and not by jumping in. It will blockade a port or send one unit to besiege a town almost every time. It will, eventually, send a big army, but it keeps firing these warning shots. I can understand getting warnings about a barbarian horde coming your way or a Crusade being launched, but I never get a massive surprise attack from a rival out of the blue.

Here's an example from my latest campaign. The Danes were allied to me and they backstabbed me -- blockading a port. I moved an army all the way from central Russia to the Estonian border in the time it took them to move. I wiped their biggest army out. Their attack had no reasonable chance because their intention to attack was announced with fleabites.

It's a strange flaw for a game that quotes Machiavelli saying that the plans most likely to succeed are the ones kept secret until they are ripe for execution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug-Thompson
Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

---

That's more true for the SP fans than the mp fans. The mp game is damaged greatly by bugs as the gameplay is altered with every released patch. However since TW is becoming almost exclusively concentated on SP, i guess that doesn't really matter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug-Thompson
The lack of an effective AI is a core design failing.

---

The other design failings are the lack of playtesting for gameplay balance in the campaign and more importantly the battlefield. Balancing attempts are now made in the expansion and the vanilla release is treated more and more as a huge "beta testing".

Experience suggests that buying TW games upon release nowdays constitutes a true expenditure of patience and a test of nerves; better to buy them 2 or three years later (if they still look attractive) to play with modifications and full patches.

That still doesn't solve the poor strategic and tactical AI.

I have been writing about my reservations about the tactical AI handling shooters for a number of posts now regarding EmpireTW. CA is making the naval battles, makes a new engine and has to tackle the land battles that have different tactics based on shooters whithin two years.

However it seems that ship screenshots are perfectly capable of "screening" the hour upon hour of frustration that M2 has given out in terms of gameplay and challenge. As for the bugs, well i am always interested to hear about the new ones :laugh4:

Noir

I'm more than willing to forgive the "teething problems" with the strategic AI. What has caused me to stop playing is the essense of the game, the tactical battles. What was the biggest complaint with the RTW demo? The units were unrealistically and unreasonably fast, there was no control. We talked about it and decieved ourselves that "it was just the demo, the real game will be different". But it wasnt. We talked, and asked, and demanded change. Then came M2TW.

When the M2TW demo came out and the details of the game emerged, we discussed important matters like whether cannon elephants would be in the game. After all, they couldnt be, since there is no historical evidence they existed and no possible way to fire anything that could be called "a cannon" from the back of a elephant. But there they are! Great! Remember the calls for dark elves and other authentic units.

Remember the excitement over a "speed control" and the possibility that the units would not run at olympic sprinter speeds. All for naught. Yeah we can speed up the game (Great!) but the units are as fast and less manageable in M2TW than in RTW. Just who decided that the front line of a unit would attack an enemy while the remaining 2/3 stood around? maybe they had watched lots of Gung fu movies and were impressed with the characters in the background of the big fight scenes.

Lets not get into how bowmen are now as effective as children with wands (just how was Agincourt and Poitiers won anyway - musta been the stakes) while ballistae can now knock down castle walls.

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges. One can match up units but the result of the melee seems to be decided by forces that are incomprehensible to the player.

Balancing the game seems difficult as the animations need to be implicitly included into the balancing - changing a stat doesn't seem capable of doing the job anymore.

Control over units and armies has indeed degraded due to the absolute and relative speeds and the game remained action oriented with, despite the fact that there were attempts to re-introduce a more tactical gameplay through the blobbing penalty, the absence of which ruined tactics in RTW and possibly made the RTW AI look way dumber than it really ever was.

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

My post was filled with hyperbolic rantings? Feel free to point them out fan boy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

I dont give a crap...It's irrelevant..."RTS in fancy dress"

---

You insulted the game, disregarded what the developers do to make a game, and had an angry disposition overall. Yeah, that'll get them to comply right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

In any case the TW community has been among the most dedicated and optimistic ever since STW came out and i don't know how long have you been following the various forums dedicated to it or read their past posts but the stance of CA at various incidents has been pretty much as i describe above; hence the incident with the rejection of the mp petition that was signed by a significant number of known and full fledged members of the .org for RTW and many others that i do not wish to speak about. Are you aware of these episodes?

M2 was released with the shield bug and the two-hand bug that essentially ruined gameplay as they made it counter-intuitive. Does that bring flowers and praise out of you? Or the fact that you were playing so long without knowing their existance made everything ok?

I doubt very much that the AI needs to be an inch more complex because the men became 3D polygonic, but even if that is the case, CA shouldn't have moved on till it had it working, or at least make it work 4 years on with the same engine. Unfortunately for those that are buying their games neither happened.

---

I don't recall this petition. What did it call for, was it pre or post release? Link? Whatever it was, you still seem to assume their decision was born out of arrogance, greed, or indifference. Did they specifically state "Sorry, couldn't care less"? I highly doubt that. Have you considered that they didn't have time to implement all the suggestions, that they didn't have the resources to do it, or couldn't get the thumbs up from their corporate overlords?

I noticed those bugs shortly after I started playing. They were annoying but it really didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game (ruined gameplay? now there's that hyperbole I've been talking about :yes:). I'd like you to point out a couple examples of games at 1.0 level that didn't have glaring bugs, you'll find that the vast majority, if not practically all of them, do. It's not unheard of. It's been patched since then so I'm not going to continue to hold a grudge against them.

I was specifically referring to the campaign map AI. MTW's map was just aesthetic, it could have played out exactly the same if it was just a bunch of staggered squares. It was actually incredibly simple. Move unit to adjacent square. Something happens that is randomly determined. End of AI. Now consider that compared to a 3D battlemap where walking distance, terrain, cities, farms, ports, and resources have to be considered, all while trying to position and outflank the adversary. You don't see how that's more complex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Bugs, though frustrating, are fixable.

...

---

See, the funny thing is I agree with much of your post, and the calm, cool, mature tone of it.

I seem to have to state this every couple posts but my point wasn't that no one's allowed to criticize the game or say anything bad about it or that it's perfect - quite the contrary. My whole point was that the bitterness and anger I see all the time is pointless, unproductive, and largely unwarranted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
I don't recall this petition. What did it call for, was it pre or post release? Link? Whatever it was, you still seem to assume their decision was born out of arrogance, greed, or indifference. Did they specifically state "Sorry, couldn't care less"? I highly doubt that. Have you considered that they didn't have time to implement all the suggestions, that they didn't have the resources to do it, or couldn't get the thumbs up from their corporate overlords?

---

That petition was the reason why CA banned petitions and essentially closed the door. It was in all intents and purposes a reasonable amalgam of suggestions from a large part of the MP community, members of which have been pioneering in finding how the game works and bugs and conversely making suggestions as to rid of the swipe bug for example that benefited the SP game too. There are other incidents too which i feel is prudent not to discuss.

It seems that you are predisposed to excuse CA, so i don't know what you might make of their response to that. My personal estimate is that their response wasn't really good for that episode and for a few others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
I noticed those bugs shortly after I started playing. They were annoying but it really didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game (ruined gameplay? now there's that hyperbole I've been talking about ).

---

It ruined gameplay since the match-ups were entirely distorted - if that's not ruining for you, then i arrest my case, sorry.

I guess you suggest that gameplay is fun when the player is not able to estimate what will happen in a melee because of the bugs present and does not have a trully decent anti-cavalry unit (making cavalry invincible and flanking maneuvers obsolete). I guess there are as many ways to have fun as there are people but talking about hyperboles? What else could be possibly wrong to mess up tactics for you, i wonder?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
I'd like you to point out a couple examples of games at 1.0 level that didn't have glaring bugs, you'll find that the vast majority, if not practically all of them, do. It's not unheard of.

---

I am sorry but this is irrelevant to me. It might be relevant for people that buy TW games, play them for a bit, leave them out and then play other games, but i play TW mostly.

On top of this older TW games were worked on by much smaller teams at about the same period of time and were having proportionally much less bugs. Ever since RTW, the number of bugs has increased probably ten-fold and most of them were interfering with the gameplay. Its a clear indication that the standard has droped and that deadlines and sales are taking over good gameplay and quality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
It's been patched since then so I'm not going to continue to hold a grudge against them.

---

Neither do i, since i don't play M2TW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
I was specifically referring to the campaign map AI. MTW's map was just aesthetic, it could have played out exactly the same if it was just a bunch of staggered squares. It was actually incredibly simple. Move unit to adjacent square. Something happens that is randomly determined. End of AI.

---

No it wasn't neither random neither simple. It was working well on the strategic level as it was well whithin the capabilities of the AI, that in all probability is the same (or very similar) as the one in the RTW/MTW engine.

CA IMO didn't move to the pseudo 3D map because it was more realistic or more complex or was giving better performance. It moved in all probability because this kind of representation (with the kiddy animated giants) was more familiar to the common RTS players and would attract younger SP players. CA staff have "hinted" clearly their aims to make the game "accessible" to 12 year olds and you can find the interviews for this in youtube.

CA succeded in their aim and the fanbase increase multifold since RTW came out despite the fact that there was a concensus among the community that the tactics were really degraded. The criticism for degrading the gameplay for exchange with visuals was ignored with an iron ear by CA during RTW - they denied even the obvious at several occasions (the obvious being that they had changed direction).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graphic
You don't see how that's more complex?

---

Yes i do - now please point that out to CA too, that insists on using this map despite the fact that the strategic AI can't handle it. Players praise the pseudo 3D map (see post above) despite the fact that it ruined the strategy in the game as the AI isn't tuned with it. Its called bad design - but people will still stick to the newer version because it flattered their eyes and now they can't go back.

You try to say that CA is sort of innocent and in a sense is true. If RTW has been slandered and ignored sales - wise then they would be singing a very different song, i'm sure. Now though, they know that their games will succeed as long as they aim at streamlining them (take the depth out), visualising them (improve appearances) make them accessible (not too complex, not too difficult) and generally aim for breadth instead of depth; so they'll keep on the same track. I agree with you: its not really their fault.

Noir

Read the manual (page 22)

Quote:

---

Special thanks
......
Also to all those fans that make the Org a thriving cummunity. ........ and all the modders that have helped build a thriving community!

---

They listen to us and thank us. Of course they are human beings making mistakes. I for my part like the game. I am spending hours every day playing it. I have my moments of banging my head against the wall after a CTD, after a stupid decision of the AI, After.... But I have done that with all the games that I have played including Civ I to IV.

I really like this game. I think that some people simply have to many expectations of what is possible and what is fixable and especially how soon it is possible. Most improvements will probably come to light in Empire.

personally I dont know CA so cant say I like or dislike them ...
I do however know I like the main titels they released

Fact that CA let Sega implement such an intrusive CP-system is no reason to start a flame-war, but than again I can also understand that people who bought their games, often at full price, can feel rather insulted by such actions.

I can tell you I have ~€200,- worth of games I bought full pice cause I wasnt aware of the possible implications of some CP-systems and like what those developers made before.
So I'm paying to get my perfectly fine running system molested??
Thats how CA/Sega treats all of us, fans, paying customers, comprimising our systems for their income ...


G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Spot

...Fact that CA let Sega implement ...

---

That would be like me saying "...fact that you let Damon Wayans make another movie..." .
The only realistic way you could have stopped him would have involved breaking the law several times , though in that example it would be justifyed :yes: .

Developers almost never have any control over copy protection . If C.A. were to insist , they would probably not be able to get a big enough producer to compete in the current games market .

How the hell were they to stop Sega ? They weren't even informed according to Caliban and Pallamedies . Should they have hired spys {illegal , called industrial espionage} and even if they had and thus found out what Sega was planning , then what ? Hired mercenaries to force them {obviously even more illegal} ? Mafia thugs ? What ?!

The only one who had any real say in the copy protection software was Sega . Blame Sega .
If you want to stop games from being produced with harmful or needlessly intrusive "copy protection" then target the producers , not the developers . Targeting developers who have no real say in the matter is a waste of time .

Of course , if you just want to Kvetch and take shots at someone because it makes you feel good , then keep doing what you're doing .

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

---

Uh-oh, I see the water already retreating hundreds of yards from the shore :uhoh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges. One can match up units but the result of the melee seems to be decided by forces that are incomprehensible to the player.
Noir

---

But CA does listen to you!

They've specifically changed the stats for cav in Kingdoms. Cav is slaughtered by a frontal charge to spears or pikes.

But before you complain it's too weak they're still unmatchable as hammers, with HI anvils. Flank and rear, manouvering and tactics - they work.

Simply charging without thought = dead general.

I can now calmly have my cav flank the enemy an dleave none with my main army by just making sure I have some spears ready to charge to teh defence of my archers.

CA has rebalanced the entire nature of battles the way people asked - how is this saying "we hate you suckers and steal your money". I just don't get it at all....

Quote:

---

The worst for me appears to be that the battlefield gameplay isn't intuitive anymore due to the animations taking over from unit stats and that cavalry has almost no counter and can take on anything in frontal charges

---

I dunno man, everytime I send a frontal cavalry charge I usually end up with quite a bit of dead horses....Unless your playing SS mod in which cavalry has no counter at all...

Quote:

---

But CA does listen to you!

---

Not to mention they added a well-known TW modder onto the team.

For your information i gave already kudos sometime ago to the re-balancing team (Palamedes, lusted & Celtiberos clan) that worked in Kingdoms, which solves quite a few of the problems in the SP game:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89714

I don't take CA's word before i play; many promises were made over the years and they were either partially implemented or were simply forgotten altogether.

I am as happy to get good gameplay as anybody and rarely deny credits for when they are due.

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

---

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? ...

---

That is like saying "If you think that chicken tastes terrible , then why did you buy it ?"
Don't get it ? How would you know the chicken tastes like fried cardboard without eating it first , which in the real world requires you to purchase it , and the skin tastes good .

Game demos don't let you get a true feel for a full s.p. game {campaign in T.W.} nor do they give you a true idea of the M.P. experience .
Also , unlike Kentucky Fried Cardboard {I think they use artificial seagulls wrapped in chicken skin} , M2TW can be modded extensivly into something very different gameplay wise .

A few random thoughts on the whole fanboys vs whiners thing:

I always tend towards the fanboy camp - not specifically on TW but other games too; you always get the same arguments on game forums in my experience. Recently I've been wondering why I always tend to take that position.

I think it boils down to working in a customer facing environment. I'm always polite to people I buy things from, because I know what it's like to be them. If something goes wrong, I will work out what I consider a reasonable resolution and then insist on it politely. If I don't get it I'll either withdraw my future custom or take matters further depending on what my rights are and how much money is involved.

I guess I take that on to computer games. If there's a bug then if I can be bothered I'll point it out, or agree with others who have pointed it out. But I'm not going to flame the developers because I seriously doubt it's going to do any good.

If that has any effect at all it will just be to annoy someone, and I don't have any desire to annoy someone for its own sake over a computer game that cost me 30 quid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

---

I bought the game in the hope it had moved back to the fine tactical considerations that made the TW series great and away from the RTS-like focus that arrived with RTW. That is not the case, IMO. If anything, M2TW has moved further from the original games than RTW. It's hard to come to those conclusions without actually trying to play the game though.

I'm currently playing CIV4 BtS which I think is the best game since the original concept - even better than Alpha Centauri.

AoE, hmmm? Maybe it's not obvious but I'm not a fan of RTS (see above). I've played many but stopped when Shogun came out.

EU was Ok, just not my cup of tea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

I bought the game in the hope it had moved back to the fine tactical considerations that made the TW series great and away from the RTS-like focus that arrived with RTW. That is not the case, IMO. If anything, M2TW has moved further from the original games than RTW. It's hard to come to those conclusions without actually trying to play the game though.

I'm currently playing CIV4 BtS which I think is the best game since the original concept - even better than Alpha Centauri.

AoE, hmmm? Maybe it's not obvious but I'm not a fan of RTS (see above). I've played many but stopped when Shogun came out.

EU was Ok, just not my cup of tea.

---

If you were unsure you should have waited to see what other people said about it. No disrespect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

If you were unsure you should have waited to see what other people said about it. No disrespect.

---

It just doesnt work that way. I can get a feel about a game but I never really know whether I'll like it until I play it. Plus, most of the players who have had similar opinions to me about gameplay/unit/tactics dont seem to be here. Without knowing someones perspective, it's hard to evaluate their opinion.