Short hands-on with Shogun 2 at RockPaperShotgun

[Barkhorn1x]

The Preview hands on version of the game, journalists are playing, is not the final code. Game balance and code tweaks are still occuring. There are beta testers who are members of the Total War community testing the MP version of the battles as we speak.

Well, this is good news. And believe me I want TWS2 to be great. But in the case of the AI you must admit that - in the past - promises were made and not really acheived. So I am like a guy from Missouri here; don't tell me how great it will be, SHOW me.

Finally, as another poster pointed out in some thread or other; it is getting to be very annoying reading yet another preview/mini-review that gushes about how great the graphics are. Yea, I get that, CA does great graphics. But graphics do not by themselves keep a game on my HD. We need a a Diplomacy AI and Strat AI that makes intelligent moves and does not do bizarre things. We need a TacAI that can manage units on a battlefield holistically and effectivly and not commit units piecemeal. We need sieges that work well without pathing issues.

Perhaps all of that is in there now and CA is tweaking and polishing minor pieces. If that is indeed the case you would never know it from the previews/reviews I've seen to date.

[DthB4Dishonor]

Agree with Kocmoc that CA having community members as testers is encouraging. What makes me optimistic (perhaps naively) is that for the first time that I can remember MP is getting a big portion of the attention. The Multiplayer Campaign and the progression of Generals traits leads me to believe that MP isn't a distant 2nd or 3rd priority as it has been in the past.

I dare to dream.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Well, this is good news. And believe me I want TWS2 to be great. But in the case of the AI you must admit that - in the past - promises were made and not really acheived. So I am like a guy from Missouri here; don't tell me how great it will be, SHOW me.

Finally, as another poster pointed out in some thread or other; it is getting to be very annoying reading yet another preview/mini-review that gushes about how great the graphics are. Yea, I get that, CA does great graphics. But graphics do not by themselves keep a game on my HD. We need a a Diplomacy AI and Strat AI that makes intelligent moves and does not do bizarre things. We need a TacAI that can manage units on a battlefield holistically and effectivly and not commit units piecemeal. We need sieges that work well without pathing issues.

Perhaps all of that is in there now and CA is tweaking and polishing minor pieces. If that is indeed the case you would never know it from the previews/reviews I've seen to date.

Of course I can talk until I am blue in the face about improvements, but as you say the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
We think we have put a lot of good work in to making sure the game is an enjoyable experience that doesn't cause the frustrations you may have experienced previously.
I'd like you to buy the game on release, because it is good fun to play, but if you want to wait for others to report back before buying that is an option.
Showing you it's a great game with or without images is hard. As has been shown by the reception by some of the battle reports. Some folks will only see the bad or be suspect of the way the evidence was produced.
We have run community events in the US and elsewhere for fans to come along and play the game. Those are a means of us showing the community what we have done. I am going to one in Europe in the near future that is being announced at some point soon.

Thanks for your continued interest and feedback

Jamie

[Barkhorn1x]

Thanks for your continued interest and feedback

Jamie

Thank you for coming here to post and share your views. One thing is for sure at this point; I will be d/l'ing the demo next week.

[andrewt]

I'm not sure why CA keeps on promising better siege battles in every game in the series. I think a better approach would be to change the game rules to have more open field battles and less siege battles. Personally, I will always prefer and enjoy open field battles compared to siege battles no matter how much improvement sieges get. Not to mention most of the most memorable historically important battles were open field battles, not siege battles.

Siege battles will always be harder to implement and code AI for. I'm not saying ignore it because it's a part of the game but something tells me that spending more time trying to change the ratio of open field to siege battles is a better use of resources.