Medieval2 ~:cheers:

[Lord_Morningstar]

I wouldn't put too much stock on what these early reports say. 'Train of artillery' could mean anything. For those of who who followed AoM's release, you might remember the Gamespot preview that referred to Greek 'oeltasts'.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Train of artilery? Maybe they meant "training of artilery" and then this is not very informative, as torsion machines were also called artillery. On multiple rings of walls - if the last ring is early modern fortification then having older rings inside is perfectly historical.

[Wandarah]

Stand up for yourself, you mindless consumerist drone. They aren't making their games for themselves, they are making games for YOU. For YOUR money. YOUR time. It's all about YOU - not what they want to do with their time. YOU buy their products, so THEY WORK FOR YOU.

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Mindless consumerist drone? Seriously?

Anyway, they're obviously not making the game for you. Since you dont like it for the reasons you've given. They're more likely making the game for people that dont give two hoots about the historical accuracy and would rather have an excellent, fun, engaging game.

I hate to tell you this, but the historical accuracy crowd aint making them the money.

Besides, thats why you're able to mod the game. To make it what you want.

[Jebus]

Look, I really don't mind them making a battle-game only. I really don't - because that's their niche. Fine by me.

Again, I don't mind them simplifying history either. A lot of people just want to kill pixels and not read any text - fine by me.

But *if* they want to include something - albeit medieval empire management, politics, religion, or even certain unit types, then they at least have to implement them *correctly*. Simplifying I can live with, distorting I can *not*.

If a movie relating to historic event is made full of falsums, people cry havoc. If a book is written on history that's full of errors, nobody will buy it. Yet, if a game is made about history that's full of falsums, the vast majority of people don't seem to care one bit. It puzzles me, it really does.


Also, I woulnd't assume a priori that 'there's no money in the history crowd'. Paradox Interactive, for instance, is making good money by producing incredibly complicated history-buff games. WITHOUT the lies.

[Ajantis]

I was looking forward to this but now all these negative comments have made me think... well this sucks. im sad :(

[Shigawire]

Mindless consumerist drone? Seriously?

Anyway, they're obviously not making the game for you. Since you dont like it for the reasons you've given. They're more likely making the game for people that dont give two hoots about the historical accuracy and would rather have an excellent, fun, engaging game.

I hate to tell you this, but the historical accuracy crowd aint making them the money.

Besides, thats why you're able to mod the game. To make it what you want.

Really? If they're making the game for people who "don't give two hoots" for historical accuracy, then I have a special proposition for them. Why don't they just make the game entitled "Balthazar Total War", with special units like Dumbo the flying elephant? Obviously, nobody could criticize them because they were making a game not based on reality. But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.
As Jebus said, they can simplify all they want. But if they cannot make the game without including their nonsensical gleeful ideas which require a tremendous distortion of historical facts, then I feel they might as well go make a fantasy game.

This is very much the reason I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA. But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently. Another great example of this perverse hybrid between history and fantasy is this game:

Lionheart

The game begins with you (a descendant of King Richard) being accused of heresy and escaping prison to Barcelona.

The game commences with a character generation sequence, using the SPECIAL system from 'Fallout'. Lionheart allows you to choose a human or three of the human-esque hybrids on offer as your race. These three hybrid races (Demokins, Sylvants and Feralkins) all provide different statistical advantages and disadvantages for your characters abilities and skills. An example of this are the Feralkins - Strong and good at fighting, but lousy at magic.

Here you see an example of how an unsuccessful game designer can come up with the brilliant idea of mixing the namesake of Richard the Lionheart in the game, to sell a story. A story based on monsters and goblins apparently.


I really think game designers are underestimating the crowd nowadays. The audience is becoming more and more educated, and harder to please. It's no wonder these game designs with absurd mixes of history/fantasy die out in the long run.

[Lord_Morningstar]

What a lot of people forget is that RTW is comparatively historical. I have never seen a game that distinguished between hastatii, princeps and triarii, nor a game that included the Seleucid Empire as a playable faction, nor a game that made an attempt to model phalanxes as RTW did. Granted, the portrayal of the Egyptians and many of the Barbarians was way off, but considering the alternatives, RTW is pretty good as far as realism goes. After all, EB is being based on RTW, not Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Civilisation, ect. As such, I don’t quite get it when people start comparing spear warbands or legionary cavalry with wizards or spaceships.

Overall, my standards for historical accuracy are often fairly high, especially in movies (I refused to see King Arthur). However, I am willing to cut game designers some slack. It’s harder to make an interactive model of a period of history that lets you play (and enjoy) it from all sorts of angles than it is to simply show it in a book or film.

[Shigawire]

Lord_Morningstar: Why "cut the designers some slack"? What possible purpose does this behaviour serve, other than sycophanticism?
I can understand they are humans. But they are also paid professionals who ought to be able to cope with criticism, and to take it to heart.

I think M2:TW will either astonish us, disappoint us, or most likely both at the same time.

But what I want most is more moddability. I think CA/Sega has everything to gain from that, business-wise.

[Wandarah]

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

I dont think you have to follow any set of rules when you're designing a game. I think thats sort of the point. They use real life history as source material, that's it. Theres no contractual obligation for them to make it exact - indeed, thier mainly there to make a game they think would be most enjoyable, for most people.

Maybe you feel it's irresponsible, if so, I can understand that - I just dont think that it *matters* all that much. I think people that give a damn, will be inspired to go and find out anything that they wish to find out.

Anyway, it's going to be an incredible game if you ask me.

[Shigawire]

I don't mind them the freedom to design the game they want to make.
I just generally mind the nonsensical mixing of 90% real history with 10% utter fantasy, it's just unnecessary when at least 98-99% reality does not take that much more effort, and I see no evidence for this being any less fun - following CA's very own mantra. "Realism and fun can go hand in hand"

I agree with them, but I don't think they are consistent in following their own words and mantras.

It wouldn't take that much effort for example to properly reflect the Ptolemaic kingdom. Even the gauls.. and the efforts seemed very halfarsed. "generic Barbarian infantry" etc.. it's names like that really make me immersed in the universe..

I think we are on the wrong page here, because these inaccuracies were not ENTIRELY due to "design freedom", they were largely due to laziness or sloppiness in the research department actually.

[Ypoknons]

Yes, Lord Morningstar has a valid point that RTW has come a long way from most games in showing, fundamentally, that even vaguely historical games can be sucessful in the mainstream (one that isn't based on WWII, that is ). But I think we must put pressure on CA to make the best game they can, that our voices should be heard and that they should be radical. CA bashing, the attitude that CA is somehow making crap, is totally senseless. CA lobbying, in the original Europa Barbarorum spirit (before it became a mod), can only lead to good things because it makes CA think that the fans want more history, and I believe, based on past experience, that CA can deliever, that though they might screw up a game in other areas, making more historically accurcate graphics and factions, perhaps even gameplay mechcanics, is within their realm. Partially EB contributes to this feeling because they have shown that it is possible to have interesting historical units, even if, in a mass market game I would use English names for the units because inability of most english game players to take the to understand ancient Greek and ancient proto-Germanic and therefore pass up on a otherwise great game outweights the needs of the linguists (whose goals are laudable). Heck, it's not even english players, Chinese players have a hard enough time learning english names, and French names would just confuse them more, never mind Byzantine Greek and Arabic etc...

[Lord_Morningstar]

Lord_Morningstar: Why "cut the designers some slack"? What possible purpose does this behaviour serve, other than sycophanticism?
I can understand they are humans. But they are also paid professionals who ought to be able to cope with criticism, and to take it to heart.

When I say ‘cut some slack’ I don’t mean ‘be satisfied with an inferior product’. I’m talking about allowing them to stretch history a little in some places for reasons of balance, creating variety, not having too many units, ect. I don’t think that this justifies the Egyptians from RTW, but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet. The majority of the potential market wants a game, after all. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t cool to be able to set up an accurate battle of Agincourt, just that these things can be taken too far.

Ypoknons raises a good point, though, about constructive criticism vs CA bashing. I see a bit of the latter on this forum – people going out of their way to find fault with any decision CA makes, and then exaggerating the faults that they find (“Chosen Swordsmen? Why don’t they just go all the way and include Jedi Knights!”). All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.

[King of the dutch]

Simplifying I can live with, distorting I can *not*.

Again Jebus. What is wrong with M:TW II?

If a movie relating to historic event is made full of falsums, people cry havoc. If a book is written on history that's full of errors, nobody will buy it.

I don't think you can proof that at all. Look at KoH, King Arthur, troy, alexander. I didn't hear anybody on those (in general not on this forum.)
Whats that book again. The Davinci code. The one that sold like millions. And that was historicaly accurate? hmmmm. 'nobody will buy it' ?

I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA. But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently

It's based on myths. Come on who cares. That game doesn't claim to be historicaly accurate. (i they do i will take this back )

I have never seen a game that distinguished between hastatii, princeps and triarii, nor a game that included the Seleucid Empire as a playable faction, nor a game that made an attempt to model phalanxes as RTW did.

agree

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

You can't base a game on historical reality! There is none. (We don't know it at least) You can try to come close to the image that we have created of the past.

but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet.

True. Although when a friend of mine told me there were helmets there that were 200 years off i thought hmmmmm.....then i thought what gives. When i'm playing a battle its Not gonna be a torn in my side. I'm not gonna notice it even.

All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.

I agree. If want to be taken seriously it doenst help if you bash everything CA announces. I wouldn't listen either.

grtz kod

[Foot]

If want to be taken seriously it doenst help if you bash everything CA announces. I wouldn't listen either.

Yet CA did not listen to the EB team when they wished to help with the historical accuracy of the barbarian factions and what we ended up with was headhurlers, screaming women and Bull warriors (though I never really met up with them in game). I'm not a historical genius, or even any kind of history student, but I do know that such units are just taking the piss. If CA want to be taken seriously then they shouldnt start putting in Graal Knights (or whatever they were called).

The question they have to ask themselves is which have been the most successful mods, those that have tried to increase realism or those that have tried to decrease it.

Real history is so much more interesting than the creative minds of a few games developers. For a start there were a lot more creative people in history. And thats why 'Foucault's Pendulum' is a much better book than the 'Da Vinci Code'.

Foot

[Shigawire]

When I say ‘cut some slack’ I don’t mean ‘be satisfied with an inferior product’. I’m talking about allowing them to stretch history a little in some places for reasons of balance, creating variety, not having too many units, ect.

For reasons of balance? What's balanced in RTW?
Variety? What's varied about "generic barbarian #41"?
I really don't see the connection here.

I don’t think that this justifies the Egyptians from RTW, but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet.

I don't think that would cause anyone to go on antidepressants.

The majority of the potential market wants a game, after all. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t cool to be able to set up an accurate battle of Agincourt, just that these things can be taken too far.

I haven't seen it taken too far, yet I've seen the exact opposite taken too far.

Ypoknons raises a good point, though, about constructive criticism vs CA bashing. I see a bit of the latter on this forum – people going out of their way to find fault with any decision CA makes, and then exaggerating the faults that they find (“Chosen Swordsmen? Why don’t they just go all the way and include Jedi Knights!”). All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.

I wouldn't react that heavily to the "chosen swordsmen" who are actually not that unrealistic.

But who qualifies for the "nutjob" label? My money would be on the people who are satisfied with "screeching women", "flaming pigs" and "head-hurlers".

[Dux Corvanus]

Train of artilery? Maybe they meant "training of artilery" and then this is not very informative, as torsion machines were also called artillery. On multiple rings of walls - if the last ring is early modern fortification then having older rings inside is perfectly historical.

A train of artillery is an Early Modern Age military term referring to an organized assembly of gun pieces destined to put a fortified position under siege.

About multiple rings of walls, they were usually made on purpose -so that secondary line walls dominated the exterior ones and could help in their defense. When a city built a larger wall around was not usually to add another wall to defence, but to allow city growth, since the old ones were now not large enough to encircle the whole city, and exterior buildings and citizens were without protection. Inner older walls were usually demolished to allow new housing and streets, and because of the construction materials being reused -building walls was a very expensive matter. The existence of another smaller but mightier citadel or military keep inside the town was common, tho. That was usually where the city garrison was quartered.

[Ludens]

Look, I really don't mind them making a battle-game only. I really don't - because that's their niche. Fine by me.

Again, I don't mind them simplifying history either. A lot of people just want to kill pixels and not read any text - fine by me.

But *if* they want to include something - albeit medieval empire management, politics, religion, or even certain unit types, then they at least have to implement them *correctly*. Simplifying I can live with, distorting I can *not*.

I agree. However, this spirit of "M:TW II will be crap and CA are jerks" is not going to improve things. We should indeed point out flaws and provide constructive criticism to the designers, but this torrent of criticism on an unreleased game is not constructive at all. Yes, I am frustrated with the previous game as well, but I think you are demanding to much if you expect the game to accurately portray military, economical and social factors of the middle ages. None of the previous games did, but leaving them out entirely wouldn't be historically accurate either, so we are going to end up with a compromise. If that is not to your liking, than perhaps you should buy another game. It is a design decision, not a flaw.

Now, if CA would team up with Paradox and produce a hybrid game...

But who qualifies for the "nutjob" label?

You misunderstand the point. If all the realism-fans are going to do is complain about how craptastic the game is, CA is not going to listen to us. After all, whatever they do, the game is never going to be accurate enough for us.

[Dux Corvanus]

If all the realism-fans are going to do is complain about how craptastic the game is, CA is not going to listen to us.

As far as I know, CA has never listened to us, at least about historical advice matters.

After all, whatever they do, the game is never going to be accurate enough for us.

Indeed. But that is not the point. I'm realistic: I don't expect miracles. Technology and entertainment have limits, you can't do something in such scale. It's only that I expect them to do something MORE accurate than the previous ones, instead of doing something LESS accurate than the previous products. That's my problem with CA: their technological progresses run inversely with their position about history. MTW was more complex than STW, and, tho rather simplistic and with important misses, still respected History in general terms. When RTW appeared, I greeted the new look with enthusiasm, but my hopes of the game being, at least, as historically informed as the previous ones, were disappointed. Instead, I had a strange mix of historical research and utter, ridiculous fantasy -that was unnecessary and didn't improve fun or gameplay at all.

That's my fear. I expect MTW2 to be AT LEAST AS GOOD AS MTW, or preferably, better. But what I've seen till now, leads me to believe that CA goes on the same path initiated with RTW: mixing a superficial Hollywood-like resemble of History with pure show, in order to appeal and attract the traditional arcade and RTS player, which will still prefer Warcraft III to it. And we'll end having Merlin throwing fireballs from among the ranks of the English longbowmen in Agincourt.

CA can't compete with Blizzard or Microsoft in their own terrain, but doing so, it's going to lose its position in this narrow niche market, the one where they were masters since the days of STW.

BTW, there are plenty other ages of History still uncovered by CA: from Bronze Age to modern war. That they choose Middle Ages again suggests they lack a bit of imagination, or don't want to make much effort to make a different product than BI. Looks like they're doing a -fully priced- medieval mod of RTW, with some new things and improvements.

And I miss Aragon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ooh, nice. What is it with you guys saying Rome can't be played without mods. Of courrse you can play without mods, thats what I do all the time.

MTW2 will likely not have all the individual moves and visuals it promises now, just as the customised units got cut from Rome, but it will still be a good, fun game.

[Ludens]

Dux Corvanus, I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that it is unrealistic to expect more historical accuracy when the developers have (in my mind) already shown to be disclined to go beyond the superficial. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is. Bashing them will not change that.

[the_handsome_viking]

It's cool the way you can upgrade your soldiers in the game and that they will have different skins depending on the upgrades, and that does add a deal of accuracy in the sense that the more wealth heaped upon a unit, the better the equipment they could afford.

[the_handsome_viking]

Really? If they're making the game for people who "don't give two hoots" for historical accuracy, then I have a special proposition for them.

In fairness, most people care about historical accuracy, they just usually don't have the free time to spend on aquiring vast amounts of historical knowledge.

Why don't they just make the game entitled "Balthazar Total War", with special units like Dumbo the flying elephant? Obviously, nobody could criticize them because they were making a game not based on reality.

HAHA.

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

In fairness to Creative Assembly, they do hire historians to give them details on the time period they are dealing with.

As Jebus said, they can simplify all they want. But if they cannot make the game without including their nonsensical gleeful ideas which require a tremendous distortion of historical facts, then I feel they might as well go make a fantasy game.

They did, it was called Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, Didn't you see the magical sparkles?

This is very much the reason I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA.

When I first heard about Spartan Total Warrior, I wen't to look for screen shots for the game, and I saw what appeared to be someone with the ability to shoot lighting at people, and then said "this is what happens when SEGA gets control of something", but that said, Spartan Total Warrior does look like good harmless fun.

But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently. Another great example of this perverse hybrid between history and fantasy is this game:

If you were a Spartan, wouldn't you like to be commemorated with a video game that depicts Spartans as magical super warriors that can beat up thousands of men at once with easy and shoot lighting out of their nipples?

Here you see an example of how an unsuccessful game designer can come up with the brilliant idea of mixing the namesake of Richard the Lionheart in the game, to sell a story. A story based on monsters and goblins apparently.

Heh.

I really think game designers are underestimating the crowd nowadays. The audience is becoming more and more educated, and harder to please. It's no wonder these game designs with absurd mixes of history/fantasy die out in the long run.

Of course, the internet is at the forefront of the information revolution and because of it the esoteric knowledge that ultimatly supports the existance of elite groups is starting to disappear, and the average joe is becoming more educated and his tastes more sophisticated.

Historical accuracy is a selling point without a doubt.

[Seydlitz]

Well, I'm studying to become a Games Designer, so there is a few things I'd like to point out here!

"Why don't they take our suggestions"

Mainly since the game is mostly finished after the press release. I'm pretty sure they read a bunch of the suggestions, but it would be very risky if CA used them.

Why? Since by press release, all the design documents, models, concept sketches have already been done. And these things cost money! Here in England, a game designer or artist is payed 20-40 pounds an hour. If we assume each model takes only three hours from concept stage to fully modelled and textured, that would mean each model costs at the very least 60 pounds (But probably over 100 pounds at the end). They'd quite literally be throwing thousands of pounds out of the window if they were to remake them all.

What would they say to their Publishers if the game goes over budget, or isn't a big hit? "Yeah, they weren't historically accurate, so we had to throw out a bunch of models and units we spent a crap load of money creating?". You must remember now a days each game costs a publisher 2-10 million pounds to make. These are quite large sums of money! While at EB we can discard bad models with no economic consequences, most game developers literally can't afford to. Why do you think CA suddenly switched over to a much bigger publisher like SEGA? They probably thought the Activision budget wasn't high enough, or Activision couldn't afford to give them all the money they needed.

It is more likely that your suggestions make it into the next generation, which so far seems to be true. M2TW dosn't look as gay colored as RTW looked. And it is reintroducing many things that were in MTW which nobody had copmlained about, and which I missed in RTW (IE. princesses, priests, etc.).

"But it is so Historically innaccurate!"

It is. History though, is a subject that currently has 0 value in the widespread community. Especially in the yonger generations, who are going to be the future consumers and producers of video games. I have yet to meet one person in my class with ANY interest in ANY area of history yet! 70% of them are Final Fantasy fanboys, 30% are Metal Gear Solid Fanboys, and almost everybody is obssesed with Manga and anime. It is quite a sorry sight, and I can assure you that very few games with a good historical grounding will be coming out in the future (I'll try my best to make some though! )

Besides, few people know more about History than what they learn in High School. Thich is sadly very little. Nothing is done in basic education to remove that hollywoodesque feel to history. You will never learn in history class that the early Roman legions were divided by wealth in to Velites, Hastati, Princeps, Triarii and Equites. Most High School history teachers don't know that themsleves. Most people think that that Gladiator is 300% realistic. Anything more than what CA did might have been to complicated or in depth for most people to understand without a lot of reading. And for a successful game, reading is bad! Nolan Bushnell figured that out with the first arcade game, Copmuter Space. It was too in depth and complicated for almost everybody and the result was it failed catastrophically. PONG on the other hand, was such a big hit since it was simple as hell.

Honestly, if your average gaming Joe saw a Ptolemaic army with Pezhetaroi, Companions, Agemata, etc. he would most likely be "OMG this is GHEY. I'm playing Egyptians, not greek. And they said this game was accurate? GHEY more like it"

"Why the Middle Ages again?!"

Since the money lies in the Middle Ages, since that is the period of time which catches most people's imaginations. Few people can tell you what types of weapons and armour Alexander's companions or the Ptolemaic Agemata wore (Most people would just stare at you blankly if you asked them that. They'd think you were nuts). Everyone can tell you that a knight wore either chain or plate armour, a funky helmet, had a coat of arms, a big horse and charged around with a lance.

In the age of the X-Box 360, the PS3 and the Nintendo Revolution, CA has to come up with something that looks good primarily, and also in a timeframe which will attract the attention of the masses. And what better than a Medieval battle simulator, with all the blood and gore?

I know, personally I can't wait for this game!

- Seyd

[Helgi]

Love The screenshots for Medieval 2, but I'm going to take a wait and see, given what, Vanilla R:TW was like. Let's hope this was not rushed.

[Greek_fire19]

RTW was unplayable? Really?

Here are a list of review scores at the time:

Gamespot: 9.1
Gamespy: 4.5/5
Eurogamer: 9/10
IGN.com: 9.4/10
AVault: 4.5/10
Gamerseurope:9.5/10
Gamingillustrated.com 96%
ferrago.com: 89%
PC Gamer: 92.0%
Computer Gaming World: 90.0%
The average customer review of RTW on Amazon is 4.5/5, despite, if I remember correctly, an attempt by a group of disgruntled fans to lower it by giving it 1 star because it wasnt realistic enough, or whatever.

Obviously, yes, you can say: 'yes but the poor reviewers were just dazzled by the pretty pictures, they gave it a score before they realised how awful it really is'

But obviously that's not true. Lots of pretty games get low scores because they play like crap.

People act like they were betrayed by CA. In fact we were spoiled by CA, they gave us a game that allows us to depict huge, beautiful battles across epic scenery and use (by and large) realistic tactics to win them. If CA had never done that what would we have? Same old RTS's?

People here moaning that MTW2 Will never be exactly what they really really really want is like the kid who wants a chocolate chip ice cream who cries when he only gets a honeycomb ice cream. It's petulant and silly.

Obviously CA owe us something, I paid £35 for Rome, after all. On the other hand, I would have gladly paid £35 for a game with half the scope of RTW. CA are visionaries, and it really annoys me when people bash them.

[Krusader]

RTW was unplayable? Really?

Here are a list of review scores at the time:

Gamespot: 9.1
Gamespy: 4.5/5
Eurogamer: 9/10
IGN.com: 9.4/10
AVault: 4.5/10
Gamerseurope:9.5/10
Gamingillustrated.com 96%
ferrago.com: 89%
PC Gamer: 92.0%
Computer Gaming World: 90.0%
The average customer review of RTW on Amazon is 4.5/5, despite, if I remember correctly, an attempt by a group of disgruntled fans to lower it by giving it 1 star because it wasnt realistic enough, or whatever.

Obviously, yes, you can say: 'yes but the poor reviewers were just dazzled by the pretty pictures, they gave it a score before they realised how awful it really is'

But obviously that's not true. Lots of pretty games get low scores because they play like crap.

People act like they were betrayed by CA. In fact we were spoiled by CA, they gave us a game that allows us to depict huge, beautiful battles across epic scenery and use (by and large) realistic tactics to win them. If CA had never done that what would we have? Same old RTS's?

People here moaning that MTW2 Will never be exactly what they really really really want is like the kid who wants a chocolate chip ice cream who cries when he only gets a honeycomb ice cream. It's petulant and silly.

Obviously CA owe us something, I paid £35 for Rome, after all. On the other hand, I would have gladly paid £35 for a game with half the scope of RTW. CA are visionaries, and it really annoys me when people bash them.

Hmm...if I hadn't known better I'd say you were paid by CA to behave like a fanboi

Personally, I never trust reviews. PCGamer gave Deux Ex 2 - Invisible War a good score, even though it had some flaws. And I remember two magazines (one being PC Player, now deceased mag) giving Tiberian Sun 10/10

I think Medieval 2 will either be a good game, based on history with believable units and a simplified economic system and so on, OR just simply RTW set in the medieval period with prettier graphics and just as restrictive modding capabilities. It's either going to amuse me or disappoint me. BI for example is a game Ive only played 4 hours total.

And I hope the modding capabilities in Medieval 2 will be far better. People seem to forget that RTW mods were only possible, because a certain Vercingetorix created some set of tools that made it possible to extract the .pak files. The "things you don't like you can just mod out" mentality is a bit "dangerous" as it seems people expect it to be so easy to make MODs.

I think many people also felt cheated with RTW, because of fantasy units & historical accuracy, restrictive modding ability (even though in interviews CA said "moddability" was RTWs middle name) & worse AI (both campaign & battle) compared to MTW. Others again are nigh impossible to please

And before I round off...
I've also seen some people a bit angry at CA' for 'betraying' them. Meaning it was the fans who bought STW that made MTW possible and CA thus a bigger name in the gaming industry and just as the MTW game and success made them a bigger name again and getting them a bigger fanbase.
I think some are afraid CA will become more mainstream and make the games more like Warcraft3 and betray their original fanbase who bought STW & MTW because of the type of RTS games they were, something similar to other game companies and publishers. A good example is Deus Ex 2, which heavily upset the DX1 fans, by being completely different from the original. Very few DX1 fans (at least among my friends and on forums) seem to like DX2 half as much.

[O'ETAIPOS]

A train of artillery is an Early Modern Age military term referring to an organized assembly of gun pieces destined to put a fortified position under siege.

About multiple rings of walls, they were usually made on purpose -so that secondary line walls dominated the exterior ones and could help in their defense. When a city built a larger wall around was not usually to add another wall to defence, but to allow city growth, since the old ones were now not large enough to encircle the whole city, and exterior buildings and citizens were without protection. Inner older walls were usually demolished to allow new housing and streets, and because of the construction materials being reused -building walls was a very expensive matter. The existence of another smaller but mightier citadel or military keep inside the town was common, tho. That was usually where the city garrison was quartered.

I havent read the interviev and I was sure they wouldn't ever use "train of artilery" in it's proper sense.
I knew what train of artillery means... feeling so stupid


still we dont know if they are mentioning artillery in general or gunpowder part.

I know at least some cities that had both medieval city walls and artilley fortifications in front of them.
In XVII century even those fortificatons could be built in kind of rings - both "holland's schools" and "old-prussian school" (may be wrong term, as I translated this from my primary language)

[Wandarah]

Historical accuracy is a selling point without a doubt.

RTW is the biggest selling TW game. Yet contains the most amount of 'historical fantasy'.

Personally I find the indignation of the '*snort* not accurate enough!' crowd to be hilarious. Some people seriously need to lighten up.

[King of the dutch]

Quote:
Besides, few people know more about History than what they learn in High School. Thich is sadly very little. Nothing is done in basic education to remove that hollywoodesque feel to history. You will never learn in history class that the early Roman legions were divided by wealth in to Velites, Hastati, Princeps, Triarii and Equites. Most High School history teachers don't know that themsleves. Most people think that that Gladiator is 300% realistic.

An interesting point. I am (studying to become) a high school history teacher myself. But tell me, what use is it to a high school kid of lets say 'practical level'
(no not dumb they just hate reading) to know that the romans actually divided their armies like that? ('knowledge' provided by CA btw). In fact, what's important about knowing that alexanders troops were armed in that way? To continue why should there be such an emphasis on the ancient period in general. All parts of history are equally important. Given' the time i (we) have in school to teach numerous subjects i fail to see the significance of the info you just provided. The 'hollywoodesque nature' of history is (by myself) employed to enhance the subject. Which basicly means i exaggerate a little. (no i don't purposly distort history, on the contrary). Don't forget that if you're not on eof 'us' history lovers the subject is quite boring and all about dead people. We live in the now come on. If you apply this to CA then i don't find it surprising they employ a less specialized version of history. I agree it shouldn't be wrong though but for a game a little artistic freedom is (imho) not so bad.

grtz kotd

btw:
manga is wicked (and some is even historically accurate)

[Lord_Morningstar]

I have concerns about MTW II, but they’re mostly that the game will simply come across as a pretty RTW mod. The only thing that’ll stop me from buying MTWII would be the game being too similar to RTW. The changes from MTW to RTW were very significant – the whole new campaign map system, unit movement, sea transport, cities and city levels, the massive step up in battlefield graphics, the Senate and Civil War system, ect. I don’t expect such a big step up from RTW, but I’d like a game with a different look and different feel, and some new features. My other concern is that it’ll be boring – I’d like to see more plot and story elements so that I’m not just taking cities for four hours. Both of those concerns are to do with gameplay first and foremost. It could be perfectly historical, but if its unoriginal or dull it won’t be a good game.

Also, some people are making it sound like there’s two alternatives – one is the accuracte depiction of 39 different types of Parthian cavalry and the other is Marvelous Magical Mighty Mystics of Mazda armed with +3 enchanted swords of slaying. CA will most likely give us something in the middle.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not defending the Egyptians or screaming women from vanilla. I’m certainly not defending the way that the Egyptians could overrun the Middle East every time, which was both unhistorical and dull (I lost count of the number of units of Nubian spearmen I destroyed in my Pontic campaign at about eighty). Also, while I felt that BI was superior to vanilla, the generically named units got on my nerves pretty quickly. My issue is with the people who claim that RTW was unplayable because of them, all gameplay considerations aside, and who are looking for any and every excuse to say the same thing about MTWII. My other issue is with the people who expect CA to make historical accuracy their number one criteria for every decision that they make, with fun gameplay an optional extra.