Printable View
This game really doesn't look great.Only 10 playable factions:wall: :dizzy2: I see that CA is so proud because they have sea battles:laugh4: what a big deal, they should have included them in M2TW.The graphics dont look so great.I have seen many better games.
If u want to see the best graphics in a game, play Assassin Creed or Myst. TW games are not meant to be the best graphic designed games in the world, they have a strategic engine and personaly i prefer the AI working better and less flashy effects. This is just not the purpose of such games imho.
Did Assassin Creed appeared?
Your post is entirely negative and critical, quess you've already decided it's going to be crap and you won't be buying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
How many games out there have this type of sea battles with up to 40 ships in the detail CA will deliver along with a campaign map and land battles?
Why should they have included them in MTW2, these things take time to develop, they said they were not ready to do so, grief it's going to be another year or so before it's released.
What do you mean the graphics don't look so great, they look decent to me and there's 12 months to go, more than afew people are wandering if their PC's will run it.
I wouldn't mind some of these many better games you mentioned, strategic warfare one's I presume you mean for a revelent comparison, could you list them for me, I'm such a dumb-ass myself, I can only think of Imperial Glory as a reasonable comparison and IMO it was fairly poor to look at.
Hi Galapagos,
Good news! The CA have confirmed that there will be approximately fifty factions in Empire, although only ten have been named. You can read this announcement here. Don't worry though, the CA should announce them soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
The graphics don't contribute everything to a game. For me at least, graphical effects are a nice addition, but other factors such as immersion and depth are much more important and can make or break the game itself. After-all, in a game purely comprised of fancy effects and eye-candy, once all the graphics have been seen there is nothing left to interest the player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
Forget him guys, he's just a damn spammer.
Well when i judge a game i take a look at all points of the game.First they have anounced only 10 playable factions.I think they could have done better.Second i can't see big improvements in Total War games after Shogun and Medieval appeared and i think i can say this will be like Rome and Medieval.From what i see CA is doing this games only to obtain money and not trying to take them to a whole different level like Shogun and Medieval were.Total war games were very nice , but i can't understand why so many people are still playing Starcraft.A lot of people playing a game means that the game is very good.More people played starcraft than all Total War games.That means Starcraft is better than all Total War games.And now that Starcraft 2 will appear i can say that all startegy games will have a serious competitor.
Well i will buy this game no matter how bad it is because i am a fan.But CA is dissapointing.
Hi there everyone
Firstly a definite number of "playable" Factions hasn't yet been fixed upon. 10 is probable.
Secondly what has to be remembered is that every faction that we make "playable" has to be have text (events, names, unit descriptions etc) and art assets (unique units, event pics, intro, extro sequences etc etc) created specifically for it. Then each faction that has been made "playable" has to be FULLY tested many, many, many times before we ship the game.
Each faction has to be tested for technology issues, crashes, balance issues etc. In the end phase of development this has to be done every time we create a release candidate version of the game. The more factions, the more time the game has to spend being tested, being played from start to finish.
As you can see that takes up a heck of a lot of effort in terms of developer time.
Most games have less factions and only cover the equivalent of either the strategic campaign side or the battlefield side of our game and many of their units are identical. Empire on the other hand will have the best 3d naval battles you have ever played :yes: , 3d Land Battles and a Campaign game that is very different from the previous TW games.:sweatdrop: :dizzy2:
Also remember there are months to go before we are finished :)
Testing is key, everybody hates bugs and bad balance. Actually a lot of us hate historical inaccuracies as well. Make this a revolution CA.
By the way, what kind of testing processes to you use in developpement ?
I mean of course besides the unitary testing ever developper does.
I dont want to sound too critic, but for exemple in M2TW the two handed bug and the shield bug where massive bugs that should have been seen before a release, and when you look at it, it still have impact today, creating very difficult unit balance.
Do you have automated testing processes ? Do you use testing tools ?
Re reading your post, it seems to imply developpers are also responsible for testing, dont you have specific testing and more important qualification teams ?
(An interested (not game)software developper)
Forgot to say, good post IS.
I suppose it would be kind of difficult to come up with 50 different (and I mean DIFFERENT) factions, wouldn't it? I prefer a game with only 10 playable factions anytime if it gives me 10 different gaming experiences, instead of 50 times the same thing.
I dont know if you use betatesters anymore but you used to once upon a time. Have the players test the game, listen to opinions from them regarding balance and so on and correct the outright bugs they might find. Saves the time you need for perfecting a lot of other things such as the multiplayer lobby, chat interface and so on. Hopefully you have allready done these things though and allready listened to the community about this :)Quote:
The more factions, the more time the game has to spend being tested, being played from start to finish.
As you can see that takes up a heck of a lot of effort in terms of developer time.
Regards
/Kalle
Also, make sure to take into account the RTW experience. Version 1.0 had a much deeper experience for the main playable factions. This was not because CA can't, or don't want to, fill the rest out. It's a matter of limited resources and priorities.
Personally I'd rather have ten fully developed and well thought out factions than thirty thin skeletons.
Yeah, I see. You really lost all credibility criticising ETW when you directly compared Starcraft with the Total War series. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
Starcraft... three factions, linear campaign, resource gathering, let alone the style of play...
TW... none of the above!
Galapagos is a known troll. Please do not feed him.
Ah, didn't realise that.
But if that's the case, why is this topic still even open? Essentially, in its entirity it'd feed a trolls self-importance.
I don't mod this forum, so I can't. If I did, it would be.
Poor graphics? What lies you spin! The graphics are amazing, incredible, divinely inspired works of art!
Sorry Zerathule, I can't go in to in depth description of our processes. I might breach an NDA.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerathule
But ...Every developer (programmer, designer or artist) has to test any work they implement in game and ensure that it doesn’t cause immediately noticeable issues/bugs. While we are at it we will let others know about any bugs we notice elsewhere in the game. That obviously doesn’t catch every bug or possible breakage that may be present or possible. :no:
On a regular basis a build of the game then gets passed to a dedicated group of game testers :whip: who check for basic stability (A lot of testing is manual but soak tests, tests for simple crash bugs and performance issues are automated.) The build then goes on to the much larger QA dept. for a thorough going over.:smash: (Again testing is a mixture of automated and manual.) All identified issues are then passed back for action.:embarassed: This procedure is repeated many times during the dev process, with much more intensity as we approach release of the game.:whip: :sweatdrop:
Again even this process doesn't catch every single problem that might possibly occur. :oops: There just simply isn't the manpower and time to give the game the kind of thrashing it gets out in the wild world of customer game play.
If you think that many hundreds of thousands of people (in the UK alone) get to play the game, many for more than 30-40 hours of gameplay time, in just the first few months after release. That's a lot of stress testing.
That's compared to perhaps 150 people at CA and Sega who are in some way involved in the development of the game. You now see how something you guys might find some time after release can get missed?
If we could apply unrestricted resources to testing, we would, but there really isn't the resource available if we want to get the game out in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable cost to the customer. It's not an ideal world unfortunately. Obviously we do try our best to fix (via patches) post release bugs.
Hope this is enough info for you?
But Sidekick, I'm sure there are people who would want to work for CA even for a really small fee, people who really enjoy your games and want to make them better. I'm talking here about forumers...
Why don't go with them?
oh I do like to see the occaisional troller roasted...
I am guessing that people in dedicated group of game testers know a bit more about game making and testing than regular forumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
And about squishin all bugs there is. Theres no way to get rid of all bugs. Every single commercial program have bugs. The thing is to get rid of most of bugs. Its like if you have infinite time to find those bugs you will be able to get all, but if you have limited time there will be always some bugs around. (Its like 1/x , http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/1overx.gif )
I am using strong(?) regression testing with my 3D engine project. It does of course use more resources than conventional testing methods, but it will kill most of bugs. (Everything that get implemented will be tested just after they were implemented. 'Strong' because I use all my testers to test all new features.) Usually this type of testing is overlooked(!) by companies. Because of this number of bugs is increasing in final products nicely.
Still I have to say that CA didn't do a good job with MTW2. I did play few hours without even testing in mind and came around lots of bugs. :/
(Or maybe its just that I know what to look at? ;) )
It is true that you can't make a proper comparison between StarCraft and TW but you talk about StarCraft in a condescending manner (or so it appears). Yes... 3 factions, with near perfect balance + human opponents to keep the game endlessly replayable (sorry, AI will never match a brain (especially TW games to date :))) The campaign isn't really that linear if you immerse yourself in the storyline (i.e. the books that were published in relation) but it is true that the campaign is rather boring. But how many people that play StarCraft do you see playing the single player campaign? I would imagine close to none since about 1998 with the availability of battle.net. I don't know, maybe I read into that wrong but I've seen a lot of Blizzard bashing on this forum and it irks me because their games in comparison to others are resoundingly better. (resource gathering... buildings mines, planting merchants... sounds pretty similar)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
:rolleyes4:Quote:
Originally Posted by skuzzy
Have you actually ever played a TW game? Or do you just turn up at random forums and start pimping starcraft?
I've played all the TW games since M:TW, and thanks for labeling me a troll, I appreciate it, and hardly do I ever boast about StarCraft... I have just noticed a trend on these forums for anti-Blizzard sentiment without proper analysis which seems like TW elitism. The resource gathering in StarCraft is automated for the most part so comparing it to clicking a construction button that increases trade goods thus increasing that city's economy is pretty much the same implementation although it would appear different to non-programmers I assume?
I just dont think anyone else on here sees any similarities between RTS clickfests like starcraft, C&C etc to total war. You might as well say half life 2 is a better game - its a valid opinion but it's meaningless, like saying you prefer apples to cruise liners.
Maybe i do prefer apples to cruise liners? It's a valid issue we should discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Already noted, that wasn't the point of the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by skuzzy
Hello, sorry I trod on your hobby-horse. If you can point any moment where I was condescending about Blizzard and/or Starcraft I'd be most grateful. Far as I can see all that my post contains is a short list of the most obvious differences between the TW series and Starcraft, both of which I consider brilliant in their own right; it's you who seems to have negative associations in connection to, I quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by skuzzy
That's not condescending. This post is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Well I can say that starcraft is a better game than all Total War games.It's more entertaining.But have a look at this http://compactiongames.about.com/od/.../tp/topRTS.htm
Obviously they are insane...
Starcraft is legendary for it's multiplayer modes. The game is fairly well balanced, the races are unique enough to feel different, and the community is still fairly strong. Overall, a great game.
Comparing Starcraft and a TW title isn't even really worth discussing. The games are just too different.