Multiplayer is the future

[Angel of Deception]

Wow! One of my old accounts is still here! Neat-o!

Thanks Zeus. BTW are you buying?

[d6veteran]

SP is okay the first couple of times, afterwards it is repetitive and boring, no matter how good it looks.

I join the thousands now playing Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War and soon Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth and World of Warcraft. These companies, Relic, Blizzard, THQ and EA are focused solely on the MP community, where I am and want to be.

I agree! As good as the sp game is ... after a couple campaigns it does start getting repetitive and boring, and that is when I start playing the online portion exclusively.

As for going to DoW or BfME ... the problem for me is that those games involve resource collection and building units real time. They aren't the tactical battle simulators I am looking to play. So besides the TW series, what other games provide a tactical simulator style of play online?

[ElmarkOFear]

The only game that even comes close to the TW series in tactical battles is the old out-dated Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It also had its limitations however. First: you could not purchase your armies, but only play historic or random battles online. Secondly: It was not a close combat type of game, since it was mostly cannons, guns and cavalry/with guns. Thirdly: The most you could play was a 2v2 without major lag.

The above game is what first attracted me to STW MP. It allowed you to purchase your army, it had close up combat, and you could play 4v4's without game-killing lag (Well for me as host that is).

There really are not any recent games similar to TW when it comes to realtime battles, which gave them a nice niche. However, with RTW they are closely approaching the mainstream and losing their uniqueness. It is the way of the business world in general and not of just CA/Activision.

GILJAY: Thank you for the comments. I do not have any bad feelings towards you guys. I think it is very nice for you to participate in these discussions and respect you very much for this. I am more angry at the major decision-makers who hide behind the actual hard-working CA employees (such as yourself, Ritchie and the programmers). They make business decisions without actually knowing and/or experiencing what made the initial games in the TW series so great. They are trained to measure progress, spending, and personnel issues, but have no real education in the customer relations side of the business. I know, since I have gathered quite a few degrees in my 42 years, and spent half my career as a mid-level manager and the other half as a skilled-trades person (Of which, I make considerably more money in the trades). I also know that you and the gang, would have wanted to make the game great for both the SP and the MP community, but had to give consideration to time, expense, and other matters, which these "business types" decided were to take priority.

It is a shame I live so far away from CA's offices, or I would drive by and take you guys out for a drink or two (on me.) You have given me 4 years of great entertainment and I have made many friends from playing your great games. If any of you ever decide to visit Kentucky for the Kentucky Derby, let me know, and I will put you up for the week. Might even fire up the still and show you what real Moonshine is like. :) My motto is: "If it has a label on it, it "ain't" worth drink'n!"

[Sp00n]

Ground Control 2 has no resource gathering and neither does Panzers, Panzers I particulary like, but only bother if you love WW" and Tanks.

Sp00n

Niether are like the Total War series but both are better than Rome online.

[Felix Iuvenis Invictus]

I think I've said this before regarding SP vs MP.

Some like play with themselves, and read magazines about it.

But others do the real thing. And once you have tasted it, you never want to go back.

[Sp00n]

The only game that even comes close to the TW series in tactical battles is the old out-dated Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It also had its limitations however. First: you could not purchase your armies, but only play historic or random battles online. Secondly: It was not a close combat type of game, since it was mostly cannons, guns and cavalry/with guns. Thirdly: The most you could play was a 2v2 without major lag.

The above game is what first attracted me to STW MP. It allowed you to purchase your army, it had close up combat, and you could play 4v4's without game-killing lag (Well for me as host that is).

There really are not any recent games similar to TW when it comes to realtime battles, which gave them a nice niche. However, with RTW they are closely approaching the mainstream and losing their uniqueness. It is the way of the business world in general and not of just CA/Activision.

!"

Check out the Imperial Glory website Elmo my old friend at last another developer appears to have copied CA, will it be any good though remains to be seen.

Panda I may have moaned in these forums about Rome but its only because of the passion I feel for the game and ill also like Elmo thank you for over 4 years of great online fun, I loved your last 2 games and played them more than any other pc game ive ever bought, ive never understood why no developer has copied you guys.

You have put lots of effort into Rome, Sorry though I just hate the new control system in Rome the SP game rocks but as you and your team well know the MP sucks you wouldnt be getting any critisism if you made the MP half decent I doubt that more than 5 of you even tested it.
Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. You mention Warcraft and how you cant understand why so many people play it and I agree but its way more polished than Rome MP.

If you go and look at the forums for Imperial Glory they are asking the future players about all aspects of the game including MP, I dont recall you guys asking many questions here during Rome development.

Once again thanks for Shogun and MTW but before seeing reviews on your next games online content I wont be buying it and many will just download cracked copies and not buy it at all.

Bear that thought in mind.


MizuSp00n

PS Most of the critism here is about online play as this is a community site, Rome isnt a good online game its ok, compared to your last 2 games its poor.

[AMP]

Imperial Glory has good graphics and dose remind you of totalwar in a way, but i like swordplay. to much gunplay can get boring for me.. i hope i'm wrong for i will try the demo when it comes out and give the game a chance.

warcraft3 is easy to understand why so many play it online. just play the game online for yourself and you can see. look at all the features and support for the game.. tons of it. i've only stopped playing it cause it's not my type of game. i like commanding armies of swordsmen, cavalry, spearmen, and archers. i'm not a fan of the teching up, building, and reasource gathering, i like that stuff for campaign and always hope for a mp one.

sp isn't something that a whole lot of people can play over and over again. i'm sure most people only play it once or twice and problay over a long period of time. the ai is to easy to walk over and it just isn't nearly as fun as playing against a human online. why is it so hard for some people to see that?

combine warcraft3 features, rtw graphics, mtw/stw controls/gameplay, a mp campaign like rtw's, and you have yourself a winner!!!!!!!!

[Sp00n]

Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. .

Do I need to say anymore.

Sp00n

No longer an owner of Rome Total War(sad but true).

You practiced Elmo and it made you better at getting your allies killed.