Do You Still Play TW?

[gollum]

Occasionally and with intervals of TW inactivity that keep getting longer. STW and MTW with a passion and up to this day, although i have played RTW too for quite a bit with home mods and mods back in the day.

M2TW i played the little that was needed to get me convinced that it wasn't worth my time.

ETW had potential but in the state it was released and most importantly the state it was left in, is a disaster without precedence. Any little hope remaining that CA could win me back vanished with that.

Its not so much the work they do as for whom they do it for; i am certainly not among the fans they aim their latest games at, and unfortunately it seems that is true for many other orgahs too judging by viewings and participation in teh Parliament. Apparently the .org is disassociating slowly but steady from TW, which means essentially that it is the only tw mainstream fansite not frequented by fanboys.

And yes, for those disenchanted with TW and looking for a good SP experience, i too suggest to give a try to Paradox games. Its not that they are the best thing that happened after sliced bread, but that PI gives actually a thought to the people who play regularly their games as opposed to the phantom "casual" gamer, both in terms of design/concept as well as long term execution.

Patching policy is top notch and goes on for years; Crusader Kings (2004) received its latest (beta witch means there are going to be more) patch 2.1 last automn/winter (2008). CA in comparison has left MTW to its fate in terms of compatibility with newer systems despite indication that there is still (relatively) strong interest in it, and despite the game still being sold in retail (with "Vista Compatible" stickers on!).

In addition the direction Paradox games evolve into through patching, takes into account what forum frequenting fans ask/suggest. It really makes you feel so much better, to not being treated like an idiot, as opposed to CA; the .com is infamous for its "kind" moderation in full knowledge (and perhaps even support) of CA that drove a number of dedicated and knowledgeable long term TW fans away to other fansites like here and the twcentre.

In any case if NTW becomes a flop, as it will most likely deserve, CA may turn even more mainstream or drop TW altogether. From many respects this will be fair, perhaps catharctic even. If you keep piling up lie upon lie year after year, it will come back and haunt you someday.

[Ice]

I'll play EB2 when it's released, but currently don't play any TW Games. I didn't even buy ETW.

In other news, I've started playing starcraft again. Talk about an underrated gamed. Ten years after it's initial release it is still fun to play.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Ice
Talk about an underrated gamed. Ten years after it's initial release it is still fun to play.

Its actually far more fun to play now due to the multiplayer scene which Blizzard supported and listened to. Starcraft was conceived as a fairly standard RTS and on release was a little better than that. It was by listening to the people who played the game competitively and patching for balance, while ironing glitches and bugsout that Blizzard brought the game to the standard it is now, that is the first pc game for which there is a University Course:
http://www.counterfeitculture.com/ne...rse-is-a-hoax/

Shogun:TW had far better balance on release in my view and a numerous, very enthusiastic and competent MP scene that was used for its skills as long as CA deemed it necessary and subsequently abandoned to its fate as CA turned its scope on the civilisation/historical buff SP crowd.

The same happened with the second generation of mpers that came about the time of RTW and were treated in RTW:BI, that for many of them was the peak of the series in terms of competitive mp gameplay.

STW also had a better pacing than Starcraft that did not prohibit people that didnt want to put up with vast amounts of micromanaging practice to still become fairly good at it; in that sense it was far more accessible than Starcraft ever was.

CA lacked the vision to play to the strengths of their work, namely the superb battles with the realistic parameters/factors, good gameplay with excellent pacing, controls, environments and atmosphere and instead watered it down by inflating the SP part and destroying the superb battlefield gameplay in the name of accessibility and 3D graphics.

TW is now to the point of being a hybrid of hybrids. It suffers from a lack of focus, and part of the bugginess of the new releases is probably due to the spread of resources that such a state of affairs in the design department requires. On the other hand such an approach brought them the vast commercial success they are so proud of.

Sadly, the buggy, unstable mess that was Empire reminds me that inscription in Scrooge McDuck's Money Building (the Money Bin!): "it was built with your money"

http://thescreamingfish.com/wp-conte.../money_bin.png

[Hooahguy]

i really liked ETW and im waiting to get my laptop back to play it again.

[Viking]

I played the Seleucids well beyond the 50 province requirement some months ago, and prior to that I played M2TW extensively. Haven't tried anything related to ETW. Currently not playing PC games at all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Currently not playing PC games at all.

I hear that a lot. The same goes for me. I don't spend even half the time playing games that I did ten years ago.

I assumed this was just a case of me maturing. But maybe games are less interesting nowadays?

Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Louis VI the Fat
Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.

I think that it depends if one wants to play games that take ages to learn and to master or just games that take ages only to master.

At least this is the case with board games. For example, one game i really like is Bruce Harper's "A World at War" that is basically the designer of Advanced Third Reich and Empire of the Rising Sun (hex and counter) Grand Strategy Games about WWII (http://aworldatwar.org/).

(By the way for those that are into this kind of thing you can now find opponents to play against via email by using the Warplanner - a tool that incorporates everything needed to PBEM (http://www.warplanner.com/).)

The game is really good and deep, as on top of the good design it has evolved through a lot of playtesting eversince the initial versions were released decades ago. However, you need to learn by heart an extensive and complicated set of rules in order to appreciate and enjoy the game in all its aspects: tactical, logistical, planning, grand strategy that take too much time and dedication.

On the other hand of the spectrum there are games like chess, that take an afternoon to learn but a lifetime to master - the player is introduced into each successive layer of the game from tactics/material considerations all the way through to strategy/position considerations, and is expected to integrate this into a coherent playstyle - essentially it is like learning a language.

TW is of the tradition of a relatively simple board wargame, with the added advantage of having the CPU to do the many chore tasks that are necessary for such a game, that revolves around the superb tactical battles.

As such, as long as the strategy map was used as a means to give a context to the battles essentially being a support element, TW was really refreshing as each layer was acting as a brake from the intensity of the battlefield or the thoughtful concentration of the strategy map.

However the strategy part eventually took precedence and evolved into a gargantuan Civilisation inspired affair, with poor playbalance and even poorer AI - a cheap version of a Paradox game - while the battles acted as a Hollywood style cinematic brake in full 3D, perfect for promo videos and screenshots, but full of glitches and bugs in actuality. Micromanagement also shot through the roof making the game exremely tedious after the first 10-20 turns or so, since additional features were added by the ton.

One problem with pc games is that the players and developers publishers want them to be ephemeral products that last a short while most of the time - hence there is no reason to improve them with time - its far better to make a new game and sell it again, rather than developing to perfection a single game.

Another is that there is a certain amount of specialization within certain genres - the games are addressed to people that have played similar games before and want more: more features, more factions, more scenarions, more weapons...generally more.

This indeed makes games hard to get into - and the worse part is that after you managed you realise that the gameplay was full of holes that the player can exploit.

EDIT: For those interested in such a thing, there are plans for a pc version of "A world at War": http://www.gamershell.com/news_18660.html

[Viking]

I hear that a lot. The same goes for me. I don't spend even half the time playing games that I did ten years ago.

I assumed this was just a case of me maturing. But maybe games are less interesting nowadays?

Most strategy/simulation games are just too big, eat up far too much time. And arcade ones have become so complicate and realistic that the 'pick up and play' element is gone. I find myself spending most time playing games that are ancient.

Don't know about that, half of the reason is that I am currently stuck with a laptop only, and that I am [supposed to be] a busy student. Personally I find many new games enjoyable, just not been playing any the last months. Hopefully, I'll be able to play some during Christmas when I have access to a stationary.