Dev blog #3

**antisocialmunky** · 11-04-2009, 14:03

Yeah, that seems to be tainting all his throughts. 'Sega won't support another TW if it keep getting bad reviews.' Though it really should say 'Sega won't keep supporting CA if their quality control is lacking.'

**Fisherking** · 11-04-2009, 14:22

Remember, they send it on to Sega for a final QC approval.

So what does that tell you?

**Richard Sharpe** · 11-04-2009, 14:29

sounds like the voice of a company with series issues, both internally and externally. I wouldn't invest in any sort of business venture with them at the moment I'll tell you that.

I am thankful they gave me four previous enjoyable games. Even more thankful that creative and dedicated modders existed to change those good games into various masterpieces.

However, its sad to see the king of the herd fall. Oh well, had to happen sometime.

**Beskar** · 11-04-2009, 15:53

I will say one thing. Stop completely bashing RTW and M2:TW. While there are some gameplay elements which needed improving on, they were very good games.

R:TW was the game that got me into the series, and I enjoyed it and still do.

While I admit many mods made the games more fun, like EB, Lands to Conquer (I love the diplomatic system of that), etc. The developers should take ideas from these.

As for historical accuracy, it doesn't completely have to either, by the very definition of a Total War game, it evolves Ahistorical. It is a snapshot of a certain period of time then you model it from different angles, etc, that is what makes the game fun.

That is the rant at some of the kill joys, now at the developers.

Stop accusing the hardcore fans of everything, E:TW had some serious errors, from constant CTD and major flaws in other areas. Seriously, quit it. You released a shoddy product, you can blame Sega, but you did, accept it and move on. In E:TW, you also promised many things which were simply not given, such as the developers kit and the multi-player campaign in any shape or form.

What I have said ages ago and what you should do, is fix the errors, do what must be done, then release the developers kit and allow the community to make the game a great game.

**gollum** · 11-04-2009, 16:59

Originally posted by Beskar
So completely bashing RTW and M2:TW.

Your opinion is worthy of respect, as is though mine.

No doubt you feel targeted because you believe that:

While there are some gameplay elements which needed improving on, they were very good games.

and because...

R:TW was the game that got me into the series, and I enjoyed it and still do.

My point of view comes from a certain part of the fanbase that started playing TW well before RTW arrived on the scene. I dont claim to be "enlightened" or "superior" or the "true fan" or anything, and i try to offer factual evidence wherever possible and available for what i say and imply.

As far as i am concerned "joy killers" should have been people who liked the gameplay offered by RTW/M2TW; but this is making it personal and i firmly believe that such an approach does not have a place in the .org because it polarises things uneccessarily - people are who they are and like what they like; my resentment and critique is with the developer, not with anyone else. You feel like praising CA for their games past RTW because you sincerely like them, please go ahead; i just feel like criticising them though, because i sincerely dislike them. Calling names and branding people though isnt particularly wise or just.

Different parts of the fanbase enjoy different things, and disagreeing as to what we like and dislike is by no means excuse for making it personal, for example i respect econ21 and enjoy reading his posts, despite squarely disagreeing with him on a number of things.

As for historical accuracy, it doesn't completely have to either, by the very definition of a Total War game, it evolves Ahistorical.

No it doesnt - it evolves in an alternate history path that isnt necessarily the one that took place, as history could and can go down various different paths depending on various factors and outcomes of key events (battles, political reforms, power structures, leader personalities, social structures, economic conditions etc). Modelling history means modelling the forces that control its dynamics and check the simulation for this; it does not mean forcing it to behave as real history did - this would be a recreation and not a simulation. Many people commonly brand alternate history paths "ahistorical" and then try to shut off people who mind historical plausinility with the argument that the game would be "ahistorical" anyway as you do here. This is false.

In that context, i talk about historical plausibility and not accuracy per se, because although history could have taken different turns there are also limits as to what could have happened set by the technological, cultural, political and other conditions of the period the simulation is set. Modelling such conditions properly as boundary values for the problem is also part of making a good, historically respectful simulation.

This has nothing to do with the "standard" historical accuracy complain relative to the shade of light in the viking helmets being wrongly depicted in Denmark during spring time Sunday afternoons in 1087AD. You just misunderstood the point.

**antisocialmunky** · 11-05-2009, 02:51

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Remember, they send it on to Sega for a final QC approval.

So what does that tell you?

Great, Sega tests another one of their myrian game for a few days while the dev team has several years of not being satisfied enough to give it to their friends.