Dev blog #3

[gollum]

Originally posted by kayapó
I actually am very found of constructive discussions.

As far as i can tell from your two above posts your interest is platonic.

Merelly picking appart the text and taking quick jabs like this is a "who has the last word" game doesn't really come out as being fair.

i can see where you are coming from, but this is hardly the case after what you have posted. This is a fan site and as such arguments should come from a fan's point of view; your point of view was placed (at least in the two posts you made above) with the developer; one who has been consistently singing the same marketing tune for 5 years now and delivering very little of what was promised as far as i am concerned.

As such, saying that "its all about money in the end" (apart from confirming what i've been saying all along), sounds terribly wrong to me.

Even though you totally ignored the main idea behind my posts I'll respond to you.

The idea behind your posts was too screamingly obvious i'm afraid to be ignored. Thank you for your response nonetheless.

What I personally do with my own money and time is actually not relevant for this discussion at all but if you must know I would never buy a game from a big published like Sega right off the box. I actually only bought ETW when I read the forums and comments on how 1.4 was going. I am very happy with my purchase and while I do find annoying glitches in the game it has payed up to its price more then enough

I'm happy for you. However for me and apparently many others, ETW wasn't worth even a quarter of the price paid yet irrespective of version.

That said, and what actually matters, is that people read the CA blog and don't even try to understand what he is saying, pretty much like you basically ignored my whole post to just take potshots at it. It is so much easier to just point the finger isn't it?

No it isn't and for the proof of it notice that i didn't rush to respond in your first post - your second one however that basically said that people that make arguments against the official line because they have reasons and evidence to believe they were tricked one more time should basically let it go for the financial well being of CA.

Not to mention that you seemed quite happy to being the typical basher of bashers, a type of forumite that i got to know pretty wellover the years. The last refuge of people that get in that mentality is calling other's posts and arguments bashing and making a case for maturity and "constructive" criticism.

If you are around here the years your regitration says you are, you should know that what i am on about is nothing knew. Its been like this for a long time now for a certain part of the fanbase; CA had tons of feedback and "constructive" criticism before RTW from the core fanbase.

They went though and made Rome as accessible to the mainstream as possible; this is hardly "making the game for hardcore fans"; its the same kind of white lie that Mr Simpson bangs on to this day. They did it because theyknew that once their fanbase was expanded, the people that came in with Rome would "silence" the "whinners". They would have to go along or drop out. All this, is hardly "designing for the hardcore fanbase".

As such i feel compelled to underline the fact - only to be called names by "mature" people such as you, whose "maturity" disallows to say anything that might go against the official line. No emotional attachment is permited, after all this is a product right? Well for accoutants and bosses yes; for me the fan, no. It is a hobby, something that i do to challenge, enjoy and entertain myself. Cold market logic destroys the "love of the game". Well if CA is unable to make games that radiate such a thing and are addressed to people that seek such a thing, they should at least come out and say it. "We are designing for the maximum profits possible and hence we couldn't care less about what our core fanbase wants because we have to make the game accessible to all". Had Mr Simpson said that, believe me, i wouldnt have bothered to say a word here.

And for the proof of the argument listen not to me, but to yourself:

The way I see it, nothing good can come out of the senseless bashing that goes on most cases like this. There is hardly anything constructive that comes out of these discussions.

Originally posted by econ21
The other weaknesses are secondary. The ahistorical stuff is an irritant but so long as the series permits mods, it can be overcome. The battles seem to have improved from the nadir of the RTW Trebia demo - they have slowed down, allowing more tactics, and the AI seems to be gradually recovering to its STW/MTW competence.

Being ahistorical is indeed irritating and secondary, however i disagree with you about the battles. M2TW was just as bad (if not worse) than Rome as was its AI (as CA itself has confirmed). The only thing that was altered was marching speeds and melee times. Both were too slow, in particular melee was made the way it was most likely due and for the new unit animations that killed off unit match ups, since melees took ages. Even if you matched units incorrectly, they would fight for long times making effectively flanking the dominant winning tactic. This gave the advantage to the side that was coming to the battlefield with the most units, which was, you guessed it, the player in the vast majority of cases.

Charges were so strong that in mp limits were set in the number of cavalry units that players were allowed to bring while in SP all cavalry armies trounced the opposition. Charge casualties even from light cavalry versus heavy infantry were more than 50% on impact. So i am not exactly sure for what tactics you are talking about, except i you are reffering to the click behind pikes exploits and the like or the rush on rush tactics and armies that were king in that game.

ETW has undoubtedly potential and the batllefield balance is no doubt far better than RTW/M2TW, but still quite some way apart from STW/MTW. I am not sure about the AI, although it has its moments other times its completely clueless. To be fair he has to deal with a situation where almost all units are hybrids (missile/melee) and the TW AI was always at a disadvantage in using those ever since time immemorial, not to mention artillery. It would seem that although effort has gone in too it, CA chose (as it would typicaly do) prematurely to go into a gunpoweder era as far as the battlefield AI is concerned.

Originallyposted by Beskar
What is worse is all these reviewers giving the game 10 out of 10... what game were they playing?

The same game they always play: $$$

Most large publishers, editors and record companies have a network of "affiliated" media, which they basically own or can strongly influence. Game reviewers are no different than record reviewers, movie reviewers, book reviewers etc. They know better than biting the hand that feeds them. And for the "deniers", this is no conspiracy theory; its how the system works and i got to know it and see it firsthand - this is why the quality driven and core fanbase conscious Mr Simpson decided to blog as he told us himself. 67% average user score on metacritic against 90% from reviewers - this provided me with more fun than all CA games together past RTW.