Page 4 of 5 First 1234 5 Last

Well, indeed and let me tell you that THAT is a major hurdle and problem.

Think of all the plaudits and praise heaped upon MTW2 by player and reviewer alike and then consider that we, essentially, KNOW that they all played a game in which the AI was generally acting like a snail in mid-winter.

How then do we, putting ourselves in CA's shoes, regard the future when the "awesome" AI comes in to play

"Good God Sir! We'll frighten all the gamers away!"
"It will be too hard!"
"Dumb the AI down!"

To say CA hasn't improved the game from the original Shogun is patently absurd.

But, to say that the battle AI has never been as good as the one in Shogun would not be an overstatement. But then again, there were so few units that it was probably reasonably easy to program.

Personnally, I would say that MTW VI with Medmod 4.0 loaded was probably the best Total War game there ever was. And MTW2 isn't close, yet.

Ok, my last post seemed to offend a few people and that wasn't the intention, so I apologise. My original sentence before I edited had read:

"There's too many that accept mediocrity [in the Western World]" then just before I submitted I thought I'd generalised too much so deleted the last part. In essence this didn't help.

Anyway, I guess the message I was trying to convey was that in the computer gaming world people are becoming more accepting of unfinished or deadline-driven semi-polished work. And what's worrying is it's us, the consumer, that's paying the price. Now, some may well say M2TW is a finished product and in a sense they could be right - after all it works. It loads, and at least on my machine, doesn't CTD. Great. But is that now the standard by which we judge products in the modern age? Is that the stall we're setting out? Have we come to accept as customers that this is now the norm? It would seem so from some of the posts here and at .com. People get slated if they compare other lines of work against the gaming industry, as if it's become such commonplace nowadays that it's now readily acknowledged and accepted that buggy software is ok to release. Even worse, it's expected. I admit I may be shallow here in expecting more, but we shouldn't forget that in terms of TW this is now the 4th title, and the second from this game engine.

My fanboysim comment was related to Shogun's post of at .com. In it he simply stated there would be update on the "news" regarding the patch at the end of this week or beginning of the next, something we were told 2 weeks before. I don't personally blame him for informing us, it's never been a personal crusade (pardon the pun) against the CA team and it's better to have communication than none at all. And for that matter I read it and thought fine, no comment. BUT... What followed was a tirade of "wehays, yehars and excellents" lol. It made me laugh. In effect, we'd been told nothing new and yet there was an instant appeasement amongst the masses. If only it was as easy to do the same in my line of work.

So, bringing his back on topic and back to M2TW, I've played the game for a whopping 4 days in total. Not much I admit, but in that time I've experienced all of the following:

1. Passive AI.
2. Defunct siege AI when attacking. I've had at least 5 battles where I've had to let the timer run out as the AI armies inanely stumble around my castle or remain stationary outside.
3. Massive performance slowdowns during sieges (fps from 50 to less than 1) where the only solution is to abandon the battle.
4. Two-handed weapon infantry having no affect on cavalry.

If one person can note these in 4 days, what surely could a QA team do?

I'm not going to mention in the list above inquisitors, buggy cavalry charge, merchant income resetting upon reload, poorly defended AI settlements, and no AI invasion of the Americas, because all of theses are things I CAN live with. I don't really have high expectations, but I do expect a challenge and an ability to do the basics when it comes to AI. At the moment each time I enter a battle, particularly a siege defence, it feels like I'm exploiting the strange AI idiosyncracies. Maybe people haven't noticed the siege bugs because they're playing on M/M or easy and are always doing the attacking - who knows?? In fact, the AI's actually alright on defence. I play VH/VH so I regularly get the AI siege assaulting me.

I really would be interested to know how you deal with items 1-4 above?

Regards

Actually Shogun is referring the patch as an update.
So he is saying that this week or the next there will be news about the patch, not news about the update about the patch.

Heh, yeah I know, I said "In it he simply stated there would be update on the "news" regarding the patch...."

Trouble is I am fast losing interest! Hate to say it but I sit here now thinking...shall I bother to play MTW2? I did the same last night..and came away a bit colder still.....

Pretty worrying for a TW fan...I mean I played them all to death...but now I feel as if CA have left it too long to at least tackle some of the major issues...

Sure they will get it sorted no doubt..but by the time they do....let's just say rightly or wrongly ist impressions do kinda last. Maybe that isnt fair...

I never thought I would lose interest in a TW game so fast....I want to say it is the best thing ever...and it rocks...but I just can't. When your fans start losing interest...then there is def a problem.

Nice strawman, but I didn't claim that, while I was responding to someone who did make a certain claim.

Can't quite understand the fuss. THe patch will come when it will come. C'mon guys it's the gaming industry, just call TF2 or DN:Forever into mind.

I encountered some of the "faulty" aspects of the game, the passive AI in face of a larger army only three times. I have huge fun playing M2TW and for the last weeks invested every waking hour in building my empire.

Sure, a patch would be nice and it will come sooner or later. At the moment when encountering a buggy issue, I just include it into my gaming experience:

Passive AI? Ah, it's that damn newbie general, paralyzed to death by the sight of my mighty army.

Defunct AI in sieges? Only encountered it once, enemy units strolling aimlessly through Paris and thought: "Ha, they should have brought a map getting lost in the city. And their guys sitting out of the gate are just cowards thinking: 'The others will do the fighting, let us chill here and enjoy the view'"

Campaign AI not accepting ceasefires though on the brink of extinction? Those arrogant bastards don't deserve my pity, let's crush them.

I am a fan of TW since the first day of Shogun and there surely has been a fair amount of dissapointment regarding after-release-support, but hey, imho it's still one of the best games out there, one of the three games I would take to a deserted island ("what do you mean we have no electricity?!?").

Barny Bangs, if the burning desire to play does overcome the frustrations I know lie ahead then that is indeed one of the better ways (if not the only way) of dealing with the problems!

1. The (Battle-) AI has been passive on several occasions but not too often to be annoying. I usually engage it with missiles first and it reacts with missiles. I sometimes have to initiate the battle with arrows when being the defender.
2. The AI so far has done reasonably well in sieges. I've seen the AI sally with Cav to destroy Art, retreat out of range when I sally. What it does wrong is that it often aborts all siege gear when one breach is made in the wall. I've not seen the stumbling around and the waiting outside.
3. I've had that since I recently developed gun powder units. Every siege with gunpowder units is a lagfest. I was able to improve it by turning down AA to *2 from *4. But still, it's not good. The cutscenes when a wall is crumbling almost kill the battles for me but not always. Don't know what the problem is.
4. No experience.

What I find most annoying is that I don't understand the battles. I'm playing on very hard and even with vice-infested inferior generals I always win. My Italian Spear militia wins melees against everything. The only battles I loose are when I take 4 mercenary units against a full stack. I'm still waiting for the announced uber-AI that is supposed to give us trouble on VH. Since CA has admitted that that build hasn't made it into the gold version I'll wait. But in the meantime I've a hard time to figure out what's going on the field.
If you have time please check out this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73675

R'as

The most annoying bugs to me are actually 2:

1) Passive AI: play Byzs with a lot of horse archers and you win on vh without even a melee fight on most battles. This a game breaking bug as with the right units you can win without efforts.

2) AI unability to make naval invasions: some island regions are never threatened by the AI. Once you have control of England you can just keep small garrisons there to prevent rebellions and use your forces on the continent as no danes or russians will ever sail to your lands. And rebels will just stay stationary waiting for you to have the time to slaughter them.
Plus this can be exploited in infinite ways to prevent other factions to reach victory conditions. Just place some ships on the landbridges around Constantinople and no crusade will ever reach Jerusalem. This also is a game-breaking bug as it negates the competition.

So I'm sorry but while knowing Xmas is near and the game was rushed, I'm now in the condition to have a new game in my hands without the will to complete it because at every battle or at every move on the strat map I'm thinking "Am I exploiting the bugs too much?", spoiling any fun out my gaming experience.

@ Jambo

I overreacted. Your post was actually well thought out compared to the whining that had me so frustrated. Even the complaints that were legitimate were repeated over and over and over again. I should have taken it all out on you.

This has been a major gripe of mine for years, but I think the situation's getting better instead of worse.

One reason console games all but drove PC games from the market was simple reliability. The big reason was price, but a contributing factor was that you could put a PlayStation game into any PlayStation on your continent. It would play. PC game? Maybe, maybe not. It could depend on your video drivers or your sound card. Compatability problems abounded. It was clear to anybody who could read that PC game companies had developed a clear attitude of "let customers find the compatability problems." Worse, that turned into "let the customers finish the game." The problem of releasing half-baked games grew to be an industry standard. I think my favorite review of all time was for "Destroyer Command," a PC companion to "Silent Hunter II". I was very, very interested in that 2002 game. Then I read this at GameSpot:

You get the picture. The review went on quite the rant about the prevalence of this practice.

To keep the market share they have left, computer game developers have had to release more finished games. Now the fact you can patch these games is a selling point.

Here's my main point: You're going to shelve this game until they fix the problems. If you're quite sure all the problems have been found and clearly identified, fine. Or if you think "Fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on you," that's understandable.

However, the changes of RTW were sprung on us. The gaming press was wowed but the fan base revolted. Forget blogs and other bones SEGA might throw us. The fact is that the biggest complaints about RTW's tactical battles were unit speeds and kill rates. Those have clearly been addressed. Players on this forum have said the AI was improved in the Beta version too, and then spoilt by a last-minute change to address issues raised by players.

Going from getting no attention at all before RTW popped out of the cake and yelled "Surprize" to going to too much attention, to the point you're changing programming when you really shouldn't, is a trend I'd like to at least not discourage.

It is logically inconsistent to complain about games that are not finished, then refuse to participate in the finishing process. Nobody's demanding that you participate. You may believe that you've been suckered enough and that CA can't or won't fix long-standing issues. Fine. My attitude is that I have nothing to lose. Fine. Everybody has their opinion. I just don't like being called a settler for mediocrity when I'm actively — even if forlornly — trying to get something fixed.

Heck, the decision to go back to Medieval: Total War was a clear scurry to try and mollify the core.

Finally, I must say that many of the complaints listed (not yours) are simply not bugs. Since I can't raise this claim any more without giving specifics, I'll use the example of billmen.

The idea that every unit has a counter and that every unit is a stand-alone counter to something else has become dogma. The willingness to come up with good mixed-unit combos has died. Billmen are an example of this. Some knight unit charged a unit of billmen, the billmen died and shouts of bug began.

I read about this on the forum. Sure enough, it proved out. I put a unit of Irish Kern skirmishers in front of the billman, and drew the billmen out in a two-rank line. The knights charged, meleed with the skirmishers, got charged by the billmen, got mauled and left the large majority of their companions dead on the field before running away. I was satisfied with this result, which I believed to be acceptably historically accruate.

CA on the patch and the charges: http://totalwarcommunity.blogspot.com/

There was a rather long period where the PC game industry came accross as either a bunch of idiot savants that were good "code monkeys" but had no real clue how the market actually worked or were driven by merciless budget crunchers that didnt give a hot damn about the consumer.

I agree with Mr. Thompson, above, that this trend has been changing lately. I'm sure there's bugs in this game, heck, has to be a bug if there's code. Some of what is being talked up as bugs might well be design decisions that got made out of necessity that folk will just have to get used to. Every new game has an adjustment period where players have to square away preconcepts with the new reality.

The bugs most folk have been yelling about, I've not noticed. That might well be because I just dont look close enough though. There's a few design elements that I'd rather were done differently, such as unit speed (I prefer it a bit slower, for example) but that's just personal taste and I'm pretty dang sure that before too long, someone's gonna have a mod out that has everything just right :)

What got me in the mood to say nice things about this game here now was something I noticed while playing last night.

I have a fair decent system and have all the video options up to highest. Game runs fine, even in large battles with huge units. That's not what got me in a good mood regarding the 'bugs' issue tho.

What did it was when I had all my units committed to the fight and some horse units running about and nothing "selected" so no green blobs. I had the camera scrolled out about mid way and...I swear, for a minute, it was like I was watching a movie. The graphics were just that sweet that all the little guys running around looked like real people.

What's got me a little bit sad atm is that this might be about as far as this TW format can go without real big changes. I mean, how many more ways can this be done and be worth doing? Once its all working and polished and pretty, (it cant get a hella lot more pretty than it is already), it'll just be a change of unit cards and unit names and scenery with a different historical "back story" but just more same o' same o'.

Anyhoo, sorta back on topic...yeah, I'm sure there's bugs but none seem to have bit me yet, at least not that I've noticed. I'm glad there's folk out there that are good at finding those sort of things too.

There's a whole lot that's been redone and reworked and rethought in this new game, finishing moves, mix and match body parts, refigured physics, etc etc that will take some time to get all right and proper. I'm glad I get a chance to play it in the meantime though, because I'm having hella fun with it, just as it is.

I cannot agree with Doug....

It simply is not acceptable in my books to release a game or any other software that is riddled with issues, and not finished properly. A distinction needs to be made here...I don't expect perfection..bugs and balance issues are expected to a point..

But be seeing an AI army spend most of the time sitting and waiting to be attacked..or coming under heavy arrow/arty fire, and doing nothing...isnt my idea of a challenge.

You mention billmen...but I have tried every strategy possible to get them to be effective v cavalry..and they are not. Billmen carry a bill which is a spear combined with an axe about 7 yo 8 feet long..with a hook on it..it was a major part of the english army, and it was effective against infantry and cavalry. In the game it isnt...meet the cav...watch your billmen die. It is a problem. It needs fixing.

There are plenty of bugs..and plenty of balance issues..and to deny this is to fly in the face of what is reality.

Put simply the game is spoilt..and pretty much unplayable to me in its present form. Sure you double click on the icon and it loads..it looks cool when the men fight..but that is it. Campaign AI is half asleep and feeble, so is battle AI...unit hang back problems..timer problems..

Need I carry on..the entire page would fill if I listed every issue. And most of them are bugs...not gameplay choices. And those that are deliberate designed by the program writers..show little playtesting and balance.

I am not here to rubbish MTW2..but it has to be said..as bugged as RTW was..as many complaints of too fast...not good enough AI..it played in its ist release..a lot better than this!

I still have no had a single AI siege on the battle map against me...armies retreat most of the time, those that attack run off shortly afterwards...is this TW heaven? Not for me it isnt...

It's just my opinion, but it's rooted in the history of Swiss halberdiers, Barry. I admit to not being nearly as familiar as I should be with English Billmen in history, but the Swiss had a weapon at least as good as the English polearm, and were veteran fighters. The Swiss went to the pike -- although never totally abandoning the halberd, which became a support weapon -- because of the high casualites they were suffering, particularly whenever they left the mountains.

Also, the passive AI bug is exactly the one slipped in at the last minute in a misfired attempt to address playtester issues and is expected to be slipped out. Finally, as the target of two Crusades, I wish the campaign AI was drowsy.

Well being honest I take no pleasure from not being happy....not at all.

It is as if we are playing different games...I am concerned by this....even playing at different levels..different factions...historic battles..custom battles...I am just not getting good AI...

Sometimes I don't seem to be getting any!

As for the billmen v pikemen area...it is true that the english didnt follow what the rest of europe was doing in this respect...I would say that it doesnt indicate that pikemen are not better...but that the bill suited english training and tactics more than the other weapons..if it isnt broke..don't fix it would be my thinking.

As for the exact reason for the AI passive bug..I wouldnt know if that is true...it may well be. With a game like this it does need extensive playtesting (which we are all now doing!! lol)...

I can only imagine that CA got a bit behind their schedule..and there was not adequate time to do heavy playtesting...which is odd considering the project was probably started before RTW was released...

the game is very good with some glaring flaws, sometimes the battles are tremendous, sometimes they suck, the campaign ai is a huge improvement, having an alliance for 50+ turns and you border them is quite an achievement over rtw, the campaign ai is obviously better, but when the update comes out soon and the patch is here, it will always be a great game.

Holy warzone batman. This thread is in desperate need of some

My perception on a few of the issues raised here. I will prefix this by stating that in no way do I intend to insult or disrespect anyone, nor do I intend to insinuate anything about anyone, OR personally attack anyone, if somehow I do I sincerely apologize in advance. There are a couple of points I agree and disagree with, and I will be dealing with them instead of specific folks and their posts. Attack the issue, not the person.

First, the issue regarding the game being incomplete at launch. I still firmly believe this. A couple more weeks in the oven and it probably would have been much, much better. As someone pointed out, this is simply the way the gaming industry is going, driven by deadlines and "shareholder value" minded management, this is becoming the norm. The fact that sometimes people say "that's just the way it works, suck it up" or something to that effect is another big problem that's evident with the consumer base as well. Folks, don't lower your expectations. We're paying for a product and we expect results. Someone mentioned bugs ship with games, this is completely true, this has always been a common industry standard, the problem is that it's becoming more acceptable to ship with serious bugs. That and releasing what many simply perceive as an incomplete game. Someone related this to a car. Would you go and buy a car expecting it to be completed afterward? "Yeah the back seats and radio come later!" What about food? You go to a restaurant and order a $200 steak dinner. "You only get the salad and bread tonight. Gotta come back in a week for the steak!" I expect a product that's complete with rich features (as touted by the publisher prior to release), and free of major/minor bugs. Some trivial ones are to be expected, but not the scope of what I've been seeing. Yes, there are many of us who understand quite well the software development process and it's nuances. No, that doesn't mean we're going to accept what some of us believe are incomplete games without a fight.

Second, the issue of bugs themselves. Several people have mentioned that they feel some bug reports are not really bugs, but matters of taste. This I completely agree with, but not at the scope that has been implied. Most all of what I read that have been reported as bugs, are simply bugs. Few have been matters of taste, and there are some which we just don't know if it's a bug or if it's intended to function that way. I have two examples, one is the beloved inquisitors. We simply cannot know if this is a bug or not, because we do not have access to the game code, and CA hasn't said anything afaik. They could be intended to be that powerful, if that's the case then yes it's a matter of taste. However, it could also be bad code making them much more powerful than intended, in that case it's a bug. We just can't know as we're not the developers. Enough people have complained, so whichever, it warrants CA's attention, and since it could be a bug, it should be left as one. Second, someone else mentioned hillmen, and the two-hander bug. This really is a bug, which I've verified a few times. Two-hander weapons will NOT attack cavalry. They'll receive a charge and yes slaughter quite a bit of the cav charging, BUT if you watch after the charge, none of the two-hander infantry will attack. This is clearly a bug. Now that we have sapi to keep track of the list, I think he's been doing a great job of compiling it. Again I completely agree that some stated issues are matter of taste, but again there are some that we just don't know, and it should be left as such so CA can attend to it and if needed, fix it.

Third, about the reporting and discussion of bugs and matters of taste. It's understandable that some are getting tired of hearing about it, in some ways so am I. Several folks mentioned this as "giving CA a break". With all due respect, I will do so, and I will absolutely not do so. I'll address the positive aspects of the game last, to end on a good note, but in terms of stopping discussion or input on bugs or feature requests, etc, I will absolutely not do so. Bug discussion does a number of this; first it helps clarify the problem or perceived problem, and more often than naught there have been new discoveries that help clarify the situation long after it's initial discovery and confirmation. More information is a good thing. Second, we must keep the focus on these. This by far is the most important. I'm sure those of you out there who are involved with or deal with project management will support the fact that if problems are left to lie, or are "swept under the table" so to speak, or focus is lost, invariably they will not get fixed as people move on to other things. Now, I've seen a number of references to "whining" in general about bugs, and yes I'll agree there have been a few instances where people just whine in general about something and don't contribute in a constructive manner to the overall discussion. However, there are are large number of active threads and posts dedicated to discussing bug mechanics, where talented folks are trying to understand as much about the issue as possible, so that we as a group can communicate these to CA in a polite and effective manner. The "whining" in general I definitely agree and would like to see it stop. Constructive bug and feature discussion, never. This must go on.

Fourth, about the patch. It's been a bit long in coming, yet I do have high hopes for it. The main thing I wanted to address here is communication from CA. Shogun recently posted a bit on the blog about the patch, and about the charging mechanics. Without commenting on those, that post I felt was actually pretty good. It was one of the first *real* bits of solid info we got from CA on a topic that's been widely discussed, to me this confirms that they're listening. I'd like to see much more like this, *real* posts with *real, solid* pieces of information. Not "the patching is coming shortly", but "the patch is coming next Tuesday." Being noncommittal and vague is not too endearing to me, and to quite a few others as evidenced by the tone and content of posts in this thread. We want solid, tangible results and information, not empty statements just to make it look like a publisher is actively paying attention. "Yep we know about bugs, stay tuned for a patch!" is something that I throw in that category, there's nothing tangible to be said. If they'd like to demonstrate real concern and attention to the matter, acknowledge a few big bugs publicly. Tell us what you're doing with or about them in a few words. And last of all, give us some FIRM dates on patches and make good on them.

Lastly, about the game itself. This, like almost everything else I've said, is simply my perception and beliefs. I think M2 is good fun, and I've never said otherwise. For me though, it's got a number of game breaking bugs and "missing features" or "balance issues", to the point where I shelved my campaign until the first patch. Right now I'm only playing custom non-siege battles and multiplayer. Am I disappointed? Yeah. Do I still think the game is good fun? Absolutely. It's possible to be positive and simultaneously critical about the game in a polite manner. From what I've seen, for the most part others in the forum who are critical of the game are so in a polite and constructive manner, with the few to-be-expected exceptions.. Regarding fanboyism and rabid pessimism, I've seen a fair number of what I regard as both in this forum, I don't think we'll ever be rid of those types. My response to each would be, this game is not perfect and has some real problems, dismissing those are immature and counter-productive to the fanboys, and to the eternal pessimists, don't be jerks when you post about the game and at least substantiate your beliefs. It's perfectly valid to love or hate this game, as long as you can substantiate and support your opinions, and not dismiss the views of others. Regarding the subject of "giving CA a break", meh... I've already stated numerous times I like the game. BUT I am not going to relent on the issues of bugs and feature requests, again the focus must be kept on these.

Whew, there went my lunch break.

OK, GROUP HUG EVERYONE!!!

Some of what appears to be contention or baseline disagreement might be in what different folk thing of when thinking "bug".

There was once a game that I waited for with great anticipation. That was Ubisoft's (iirc) production of Pool of Radience 2.

I had loved playing the old SSI version of PoR and really looked forward to the new version.

That game shipped with what I think of when I think "bug". If you tried to uninstall the game, it wiped your hard drive. That pissed me off, alot.

When considering bugs in this current game, I haven't run into anything yet that I would consider a bug or simply haven't recognized them when I did come across them. The passive AI? Hell, in nearly every battle I've fought, I have to scramble to get the first shot off. I aint saying it aint there, only if it is, I haven't noticed it. Cav charge? explained to my satisfaction, and when I go by what they explained, it seems to work as advertised. Billmen? dont know, aint tried them, aint needed them.

Why am I bothering to even post in this thread? Donno, bored I guess. I'm pretty sure I'm not spamming for post count, at least.

Seriously though, I am glad there's folk out there that know a bug when they see it and are willing to take the time and effort to report them to the rest of us and to keep the developers feet to the fire in demanding quality. I'll gain by your efforts, and in the meantime, like I said above, I'm having a hella good time playing it as is.

Is there a thread on billmen in particular? Now I'm curious about whether the depth of formation is a problem. I had no problem with billmen in two ranks, but have only tested them in custom and in conjuction with skirmishers.

I'm also curious about whether billmen should be left on open formation. What little I know about the actual, physical use of a polearm is that room was needed. Spears and pikes were better in close formation.

Isn't the BIG question....

Didn't CA use beta-testers/game-testers on M2TW?

How is it these "testers" missed generals aging 1 yr/turn while the game progresses at 2 yrs/turn(not really a BIG deal) or the uber-peasants(which IMO would have shown itself eventually) or the front line only charges bug or the myriad of other bugs that currently exist!

@ Doug-Thompson

Billmen have absolutely no problems while charging; they kill perfectly. It is only when they attempt to melee with cavalry that they do not attack. They literally stand right around the cavalry units, sometimes blocking, very rarely hitting once or twice, before getting massacred.

See https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72875

Thanks. After reading the complaints on the linked thread, that may explain a lot.

Obviously, I got the results I did because the billmen were effective in charge and the battle didn't last very long. Meanwhile, the Irish Kerns kept fighting and some kept throwing javelins -- masking the ineffective melee of the billmen.

At least that's the only way I can think of where all this would be logically compatable.

I'm still curious to know if closed or open formation makes a difference.

Regarding generalisations, I guess both sides are guilty to some extent. Many will label any non-positive thread as a post created by a "whiney cry baby" and not only is that infuriatingly condescending, it's also counter-productive. Essentially, we the customers are turning on we the customers! Granted, there are the threads which usually start with something along the lines of: "ZOMG - tHE GAme's A^&^%, CA you Suxxors" and yes, this does no favours to anyone and should be dismissed quickly. But likewise, the same goes the other way where some are falsely labelled as fanboys for simply enjoying their product...

Whacker summed up the rest very eloquently, so I've not much more to add.

@ Barry Fitzgerald

I've been shown the error of my ways on the billman problem. Open formation, clicking attack again, trying to withdraw and charge again. Nothing gets these guys to fight after the first charge.

Obviously, the billmen I used the first time appeared to work because the battle didn't last long after the first charge.

Regarding beta testing, I know Firaxis had many prominent community members on their testing team for Civ IV. True fans who clearly provided useful and excellent feedback. Civ IV is so solid.

In terms of an fps, BF2142 used an open beta to test for bugs, exploits and gameplay. Not all were obviously found by final release, but the game was released in a fairly enjoyable state nonetheless.

I've been on beta teams for CA patches since the days of Shogun, but this isn't something they appear to endorse anymore, sadly. Maybe one day, CA will release the source code (as Firaxis did by releasing the SDK for Civ IV) and the community will help drive the process along for them. This has worked so well for Civ IV that a guy called Blake even had his improved AI incorporated into an official patch!

Erm, that isn't a bug, its how they intended it to be.

I think the main debate here is between three different positions, all of them completey agreeable but still different:

1) The game has a wonderful look (true), it's fun anyway for me, I can play it for some hours and have fun even if the battles are so easy to win.

2) There are some bugs but the potential in the game is incredible (true) so just be patient and we'll have a great game in our hands.

3) Damn, I would have liked to struggle in this battle to win not just looking at some stupid horsemen in heavy armor to be decimated by my peasant archers without even raise a lance. It's no fun! Look the crusade won't pass if I place a ship there on the landbridge and the AI won't ever use ships to land in the Holy Land... how can I use a legitimate strategical naval blockade without exploiting it? It's no fun again! Esc-esc-altF4-play something else or watch tv.

I myself usually switches from the 3 above different moods depending of what I would like to play in that moment. Right now I'm experimenting some modifications on the campaign to keep my interest alive because I think and hope the patches will give us a really great game as the potential is enormous.

Still next time I will wait some months before to buy a new game, maybe I could have some bargain discount plus a decent playable game through patches. Lesson learnt.

Page 4 of 5 First 1234 5 Last