FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

[Productivity]

I wouldn't group engine problems and gameplay changes with intentionally problems. If you don't like the engine. Why don't you learn how to program and make your own game.

Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?

Then we'll ridicule you on all the engine problems because obviously all programmers are perfect and if something happens it's because everything was put into the engine intentionally.

Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.

Have you ever designed a game ground up? Control your passion would you?

No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.

Do you think if you yell at them and blame them for everything, that they'll be inclined to help you? It's not like they want people disliking the game.

Well I'd be happy to be civil with them if they started actually treating us like customers, and not like their slaves - to me it seems clear that somehow it has got into their mind that we WILL buy a Total War game regardless - I'm not going to play by those rules, games get bought upon their quality.

[Barbarossa82]

It's great to see people discussing history with such dedication and passion. The only thing that disturbs me about this thread, and many others, is the level of implied certainty which is carried with many historical assertions.

History is not a particularly blind or speculative field of study when compared to other disciplines, indeed it is awash with evidence. The problem lies in the fact that the aggregate effect of this evidence is conclusive about very few things, and some of it is flat contradictory. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is interested enough to contribute to a discussion like this, but I have noticed a new and worrying tendency to upgrade what is really conjecture (sometimes very well-supported, very reasonable, very plausible conjecture) into hard fact.

This, I think, is based on two problems with the way that history has been presented, problems which are much less apparent in an academic setting but which inevitably emerge when the subject is popularised. And by popularised I don't just mean turned into trashy TV, I mean turned into the kind of history books which you and I go and buy or read, however serious and in-depth they may be. Both problems stem from a desire to arrive at a firm conclusion about what happened, not an unreasonable desire one might think but one which needs to be implemented in the right way.

The first issue is the apparent disappearance of critical analysis of primary sources. At university, I - and I'm sure many of you - was taught never to uncritically accept what any primary source says. That doesn't mean you reject its usefulness, it merely means that one must take into account the writer's background, his or her "agenda" or "bias" with respect to the content, and perhaps most importantly his or her capacity to have actually known what he or she was talking about. Sometimes, the manner in which the content is presented is more historically significant than the content itself. Many of the heated debates whch have sprung up on these boards over time spring, I think, from a tendency to regard contemporary sources as holy writ, such that the citation of a classical author's account of a certain event/person/object is regareded not merely as another interesting piece of evidence to add to the deductive process, but as conclusive. Thus, to give an exaggerated caricature: "Tacitus said the Britons fought with spears - so that chosen swordsman unit it TOTALLY UNHISTORICAL DAMMIT! GOD I HATE THIS GAME! DAMN YOU C.A.!!" What tends to get lost is the fact that Tacitus (for example) received the overwhelming bulk of his facts second-hand, without the advantages of photography or telecommunications which today's reporters and historians enjoy. And look at the number of glaring mistakes our media make about things that are happening right now, under their noses - only the other day one of our broadsheet newspapers described Iran as an "Arab state" on its front page! Now this absolutely does not mean that Tacitus (for example) is to be disregarded as a provider of historical evidence; indeed contemporary sources remain vital pieces of evidence. But we have got to re-learn how to receive and integrate his data critically. And that means accepting that sometimes he (for example) got it wrong, misinterpreted, bought a hoax, applied a gloss, and committed all the other little slips that we all do.

The second, related tendency is to be found in archaeology, again brought about as a result of the otherwise welcome popularisation of the field. This is something which has been going on for ages in the field of art history:
Stage 1: artist paints picture. It means something. He doesn't leave a handy written explanation.
Stage 2: When work exhibited, Critic sees painting. He doesn't know what it means, but, based on his experience in the field, he writes "in my opinion, it is likely that (artist) intended to allude to the horrors of fascism". This is a perfectly reasonable and plausible interpretation.
Stage 3: Author writes book about painting, reads Critic's summary and prints: "This paintng is a powerful allegory of the horrors of fascism, cunningly contrived to convey this effect." Book is then serialised on BBC4 and paiting as allegory of fascism is earnestly presented to the public as a known fact.
Substitute "ancient Briton burying broken pot in ground" for artist, archaeologist for critic and historian for author/presenter, and you see what I mean. Interpretation hardens into "fact" as it is passed from one person to another until it ends up being cited as a final, determining settlement of an argument on boards like these.

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that Rome Total Realism should be replaced by Rome Total More Plausible And Better Supported Conjecture. Before anyone bites my head off, I recommend they do what I did and sit down with an old person to watch/read a historical account of something within their living memory, for example World War II. You'll quickly start to read history more critically.

[antisocialmunky]

Ah hold up here - this argument is oft used but it's based upon bad logic. I through my purchase have paid CA to program the engine. I don't like the engine so I complain. CA has delivered to me a product which at best barely falls within tolerances so I complain. If you pay someone to do something and they do a sloppy job do you complain, simply because you couldn't do better?

Ah no again, nobody is ridiculing them for not getting it right the first time. People ridicule them for not accepting the errors in the engine (how long/how much effort did it take before the save/load was accepted as a bug?), and for not correcting proven issues with the engine.

No I haven't - on the otherhand I've never designed a house from the ground up. I pay people to do that, like I pay CA to design a game from the ground up. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that none of the doors open in said house.

The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.

If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.

Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.

I appreciate you probably spend your days frustrated and wacky, unsupported theories inspired by popular culture which have germinated in your students' heads, but with respect, you shouldn't fall back on the source as the be-all and end-all of historical inquiry.

Hey, I'm just saying to keep an open mind. Hell, look at black holes, no one thought they existed because there was no evidence, that's not to say that they were wrong in believing so. As long as there is reasonable doubt in something, there's room for positive speculation. Do you think in 2000 years if someone dug up information about the use for C4 plastic explosive, that it'll detail Marines in the Pacific Theatre in WWII using it to heat coffee? Probably not. What I'm saying is that you should keep an open mind. Just because someone says something, it doesn't the only truth.

Seriously, why doesn't someone just freaking build one and experiment with it?

What I'm saying about a potential use of a wagon with a repeating ballista is as a supressive fire unit. Yes, it's main purpose would be a fire and move weapon(which you could mod easily if it uses the HA logic), but to say it was used in every single instance as a sit and shoot weapon is silly. What if people or cav were chasing you over flat terran. Would you not have the guy on the ballista shooting at them since you have no time to stop? What if you were skirmishing?

That's where I'm coming from, I'm not saying that BI super sniping donkey wagons are right, but I'm saying it's stupid to think that just because it was meant to sit and shoot doesn't mean it wasn't capable of moving and shooting. A moving shooting penalty really needs to be a coded for horses and chariots.

On a side note from what I've seen of Replica Roman repeating ballista, their range didn't look too spectacular. They were more like crossbows than the lesser cousins of the heavy siege ballista that's seen in Gladiator. The bolts were only about 6 inches long, though this could have varied depending on model.

[Productivity]

The bugs you point out are NOT as simple to correct as replacing the doors. These bugs is like someone buying an old house in California that won't withstand earthquakes and being angry that it isn't earthquake proof. Well poot. The only way to fix that is to rebuild the house yes? Alot of the big problems would take too much time to fix because it would require parts of the engine to be rebuilt. Plus, it's a comercial project with deadlines. If you've ever worked on comercial projects, you know that you can rarely deliver everything or go back and fix things. This is because the cost to benefit of functionality ratio is going to be too big. It's simply not practical to rip out half the engine and rebuild it if it doesn't seriously hamper the fuctionality of the final product.

I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.

If it was a few guys doing this in their spare time like the Click and Create game community or Free Game Community or the RTW modding community then you could probably get 80% of everything fixed. Even then, there would still be limits to fixing a old game and just making a game from scratch.

How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?

Basically, alot of the problems aren't worth fixing in this generation of the TW engine and is better left for TW4. If you find the game unplayable, then goto your local gameshop and trade it in for Empire Earth 3 and wait for TW4.

Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.

[KSEG]

I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.



How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?



Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.

Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
"Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.

[Productivity]

Well I have to say their "new approach" is working well for them.
RTW sold over million copy over world and every major review magazines/sites gave it a gold award.
"Lose of trust" of several hundred gamer isn't going to do anything.

I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.

CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.

This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.

In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.

Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.

This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.

Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.

So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.

[KSEG]

I've posted on this before, this doesn't surprise me.

CA had a niche in the highly tactical war game area. They're moving out of that, trying to reach into the traditional RTS area. As they do this, they move away from their core, reliable base, and into a far more volatile market of the standard RTS market. There they are going up against the big RTS guns - AOEIII etc. where they won't survive. They've got one round of sales, because it's something new, but it wont hold. They've moved out of what they are good at in pursuit of a quick dollar, but it won't hold.

This is similar to what happened to the Tribes series. In Tribes (1) there was a game which appealed to very few - but to those it did they loved it. It was too complex, too difficult for the average gamer, but those who did play were extremely loyal to it.

In Tribes 2 they created a game was dumbed down too appeal to the mass market (hey jetpacks! cool). They moved out of their niche, and tried to get into the standard FPS niche. And yes, it did sell well, but later, when the average gamers moved on, the core following was still there, but extremely dissapointed. The trust of the core had been lost, and they weren't goign to swallow another attempt like that any more.

Consequently, Tribes Vengeance was an attempt to move even further into the mass market, at which point it got beaten around the head by the big players.

This will probably happen with TW, think about it, those million sales haven't actually bought a lot, the new gamers who thought it looked cool to play haven't been held (I can name at least four of my friends who bought the game, but have given it away because it is too complex) - they liked the demo, because it's set up for you to win, but when you start having to look after your own flanks etc. then it all just gets too hard. In dumbing it down to attract the people above (who have allready abandoned it) they've alienated the core who are going to be hard to regain.

Now they are in the position where they can't easily go back to their old market, because the trust just isn't there, and if they try to attract the average gamers again, they are going to have to dumb it down to standard RTS level, at which point they are goin to go up against Age of Empire III etc. If they think they can win that battle, well good luck to them, but they are not going to.

So yes, they may look ok now, but come back in three years and see how they feel, being stuck out in the wilderness with the EA Games etc. to contend with - they chose to leave the safe house of the niche they were in, they won't be welcomed back in unless they prove themselves again.

I have to say that is a wishful? thinking.
First, Tribes and RTW is a totally diffarent game, so it's not a fair comparison.
Second, by the tone of your voice, it sounds like you are hoping CA is going to fail. Is this true?
Third, You say old "Royal" supporter has left, but you forgot the fact that new TW fans was also created by RTW, and whether really all the old fans has left is questionable.
I for one been playing since the time of STW yet I love RTW, and I know some people who says the same.
Fourth, You claim new TW games won't survive against games like AOEIII but why are you so sure?
CA doesn't make games to "win" other games, they make it for profit.
As long as they make a profit, they will survive.

[Productivity]

1. Yes Tribes is a different type of game - so what? The player dynamics were the same.


2. No I don't hope CA will fail - well not particularly, I am ambivalent about them - I wouldn't particularly care either way at the moment.


3. I addressed this earlier - the new fans are fickle. Out of the ~20 regular gamers I know well, I and one other played TW games - a reasonable proportion of the others liked RTW but in the end gave up because it was not the standard sort of game. It's like why there are/were more people playing CS than Raven Shield, more people playing Battlefield 1942 than Ghost Recon. Games which try to be more realistic than the mainstream will allways have to be content with being in the shadows. Those who move out of the shadows inevitably fail as the 'fun' realism features wear off, and the tiring realism features begin to annoy.


4. I'm so sure because I've been playing games/watching the game industry for 15 years and I've seen many (probably hundreds now) try to do it and fail. If you want more detailed reasons, they can be summarised with one. Money. Actually they may do it - Sega owns them now, so they should have financial weight behind them - but if they do, it will hardly be the Total War series as you know it.


5. (yes I know there isn't a five, but treat it as your last paragraph) - Yes all they have to do to 'win' is make a profit. To make a profit you have to have high sales. Clones of original games rarely have the sales of the originals.


You say trust isn't important? I say it is if you are a small developer trying to work with a small market. If they are looking at a large market, well trust isn't so important. But there are big dogs out there who view that as their own market, and if you start trying to eat into it, they'll respond.

[antisocialmunky]

I know all of that, don't treat me like an idiot. However, the fundamental argument still stands. Just because I can't repair the door myself, does not meant that I can't say the door isn't workign.

You started out saying that we should not complain because we couldn
't do better. Yes I couldn't do better. That does not preclude me from complaining. I pay CA to do this because they can do better, but that does not give them a right to put out sloppy work without me complaining.

God help you if you ever contract someone who reads these forums to do work for you, they'll spend five seconds doing something, then say they are done. When you complain they will tell you that until you can do better you can't complain.



How exactly does this support your orriginal argument?



Well for a start this may be true. However it is a very short sighted approach. If CA wants to treat us the way you have described, well CA can. Just when they finally realise that we are not going to buy their product due to the way they treat us, then they will start to regret us.

For a business, trust is one of the most difficult to acquire assets. I trusted CA before R:TW, now my trust measure for CA can be approximated to zero. It's their choice how to run it, I'm just telling them what the effects are.

I'm not saying you shouldn't complain. I'm saying that you shouldn't make unrealistic demands from CA. They aren't making games tailored specifically to you or the people in this forum. Yes, it pisses me off that the game is rather unpolished in some aspects, but do yu really expect them to go back 8 months and redo a whole segment of engine? If you were part of the company dev team would you rather spend time and money on 8 months of redoing a whole segment of engine and force fitting it into the code and graphical engine interface of an old game or would you rather spend 8 months improve that aspect of engine after ripping off all the now cumbersome RTW baggage for the next generation TW? It's just not feasable economically, unlike someone making a mod in their spare time. Hell, just wait for TW4 and mod it to RTW2.