Was Medieval 2 rushed?

**foop** · 12-07-2006, 10:43

As many people have already said, all games are rushed out of the door these days. Things are getting so complex that it would take forever to iron out all of the bugs (and the bugs created by the fixes and so on). In my (limited) experience of software development, these days you end up saying "Well, it doesn't actually kill the user, lets do a code freeze for release" at some stage.

Having said that, the fact that CA announced a "day zero" patch pretty much on release of the game suggests that they were forced to ship before they'd fixed everything to their satisfaction.

**gardibolt** · 12-07-2006, 16:40

Originally Posted by foop

"Well, it doesn't actually kill the user, lets do a code freeze for release"

I'm not sure they're actually quite THAT considerate....

If they could kill the user, they probably would.

**darsalon** · 12-07-2006, 18:07

Originally Posted by gardibolt

I'm not sure they're actually quite THAT considerate....

If they could kill the user, they probably would.

With some of the customers I've got to look after at my place I willingly would

Anyway, onto the topic. How I look on it is that you are never going to get a perfect product out of the door and you simply make the best of things in making sure that the real glaring bugs don't slip through. Inevitably though they do. Customers are essentially advanced beta testers in that respect in finding the bugs. It's not necessarily right I acknowledge but, it's the best compromise in order to get a product out the door to make money for your company without having too much of a time lag in paying out for development costs without that money being brought back in from the customers.

In Medieval's case I certainly noticed the screwed up Billmen not attacking cavalry. Bit annoying as in the original Medieval an heroic Billman won the Battle of Agincourt for me once taking out the French commander in the first 30 seconds of the combat (morale being calculated as it was back then I then just had the herd the french off the map). The passive AI one I've noticed to a lesser degree. For gameplay purposes I've found these things annoying but not game killing so I'm prepared to put up with them.

Same with most people, as long as the bugs are fixed without adding any more bad bugs then I'll be fine with it. Sure we all want the perfect product but given the fact it's a complicated beast I can accept, to a degree, if there are flaws in it.

So yes, I'm a real sit on the fence type

**Slicendice** · 12-09-2006, 19:34

Rushed? Yes of course. The game isn't complete but it's on shelves before Christmas. That didn't happen on accident.

I used to get really ticked about developers releasing games that weren't finished and sometimes not even playable. Nowadays I'm older and wiser and it's easier to download patches which install themselves. Remember the good ole days with Windows 3.1 where you had to find the directory to install something after you downloaded Winzip to unpack it? Aaaah nostalgia!

Would I have liked the developers to have done more testing so as to present to it's loyal customer/fan base a completed polished product? --Of course.

Am I going to cry and moan and say nasty things about the developers because, they are money grubbing whores who were more interested in cashing in on Christmas game shoppers rather than make us wait a couple more months until they worked out all the bugs? Heck no!

I'm having fun right now and when they patch the game it will be refreshed again and I will play it some more.

**Gorm** · 12-07-2006, 18:26

I came across analogy that compares computer programming to bridge building. With a bridge, if there is a flaw, you can usually pinpoint it to one area of the bridge and can usually see it. With a program, flaws on line 20052 can afffect line 100034523 but you often cannot see the relationship between theses lines as well as you can see a physical object.

Code today is often of the same complexity of a Boeing 757, but we can't often see that a flaw in the cockpit can affect the toilets or the baggage compartment (which is how programming can affect seemingly unrelated items).

And because of the complexity, it is often more apparent when things get published that the thousands (or even millions) of users become de facto "gamma testers". Look at all the updates for Microsoft products!!

I am enjoying this game inspite of the flaws. They may be annoying, but I am confident that most will eventually be addressed. This is by far the most addictive game I have played in a great while. And sometimes those flaws are actually features of the game that reveal the true nature of the Middle Ages (like alliances are not forever, and sometimes a mad king ascends the throne).

Let us all be patient as the developers fix the known bugs and give them credit for a wonderful game. I would rather have a flawed product than no product at all.

**Barry Fitzgerald** · 12-07-2006, 18:42

Most agree MTW2 needed more time in develpment..

But the real issue is that it is the least advancing Tw game of the series so far..and the only one to re-visit medieval ere..again. Sure MTW was great...it just ever so slightly dampens things when you have a re-hash..albiet looking real good.

I think what bothers most is that 2 years on from RTW..and using pretty much the same mechanics..there are so many issues..which shouldnt be there at all.

So yes in a way it was rushed...

**rc5924** · 12-07-2006, 19:13

I think the game was rushed. I believe it is primarily SEGAs fault as well. I remember when I played Rome, it was freaking awesome. The immersion, having primarily to do with the opening cinema, was GREAT. I felt like I was the leader of a family with aspirations to become the emperor of Rome and therefore the ruler of the known world.

Then Barbarian invasion came along, and I learned it was about the last years of the Roman Empire, the rise of the Barbarians (Saxons and the Germans for instance) and the continuation of Byzantium, or the Eastern Roman Empire. So I was like this is connected to Rome, it has to be great. So I go and buy it, I notice the big SEGA when I start it up, click on the Eastern Roman Empire, and nothing, THERE IS NOTHING. There were no opening cinemas in that game, and when I won there is just a bunch of what looks like ghost soldiers with whatever color banner you were playing as, all generic, all unexciting. For whatever reason I had to uninstall Rome, and I never touched Barbarian Invasion again, I played through my first campaign, and started a few more without finishing. Needless to say I was dissapointed, I felt like I was playing Rome with different colors, hell, the RTR mod was better than BI IMO, and it was FREE.

So I get Medieval 2, after months of waiting, boot it up, and the openers are okaaaaay, at least they SAY something different for each faction, but I dont like how generic they are, and what happened to the unit descriptions? To the building descriptions? Theyre not half as long as those in Rome, and the building descriptions are pretty close to carbon copies regardless of what faction youre playing. What happened to the Immersion? To the historical references? I dont think I need to mention the bugs, alot of people have already done that, and at least I hear attempts are being made to fix these, but I dont think theyre going to release a patch that includes new opening cinemas, or building or unit descriptions that include more depth, like saying something else for a Catholic than Orthodox church. I dont know, perhaps Rome spoiled me, but I expected an upgrade in this department from that game, not a downgrade, perhaps I should have taken my hint from the bright blue letters and the experience of barbarian invasion.

**unknown_user** · 12-07-2006, 19:34

If you want to see a game that was really rushed, check out Black and White 2. A game that had such potential, and enemy AI was essentially non-existant. They were struggling to get it working, and EA forced it to release, so they had to give the enemy all scripted reactions, instead of a decent AI.

That was definitely reason for the community to be upset. This? No. They recognised that there were a few bugs that need to be fixed, let us know, and promptly fix it with a patch. Yeah, maybe they were rushed on a few things, but it's pretty much par for the course by now.

**Xaziv** · 12-07-2006, 19:40

All EA games are rushed, so yeah...

**econ21** · 12-07-2006, 20:45

Originally Posted by rc5924

For whatever reason I had to uninstall Rome, and I never touched Barbarian Invasion again, ..., hell, the RTR mod was better than BI IMO, and it was FREE.

Not sure about the "hell". If you are into the historical wargaming side of TW, then to say RTR is better than game X is rather like saying Muhammed Ali was better than boxer Y. EB and RTR are both superb mods that knock the spots off most commercial games. However, they would of course, be nothing - literally nothing - without RTW.

Off-topic - if you like RTR, I'd encourage you to try Goth's All factions mod for BI. It does an RTR-style makeover on BI. It's superb and really does justice to a compelling time period.

**rc5924** · 12-08-2006, 09:24

Originally Posted by econ21

Not sure about the "hell". If you are into the historical wargaming side of TW, then to say RTR is better than game X is rather like saying Muhammed Ali was better than boxer Y. EB and RTR are both superb mods that knock the spots off most commercial games. However, they would of course, be nothing - literally nothing - without RTW.

Off-topic - if you like RTR, I'd encourage you to try Goth's All factions mod for BI. It does an RTR-style makeover on BI. It's superb and really does justice to a compelling time period.

I would have liked to have gone out and bought RTR then BI, just because BI had no immersion, and lost the historical background than the original Rome had. Like when I read a unit description it was really a description, of how they fought, where they originated, and how they were used in a famous battle (possibly all this information) but when I played BI, that seemed to have lost its importance, and the same with M2, its just not as in depth as Rome was, and im not the kind of player that will play a game for hours if the game doesnt draw me into it, I play games to have fun doing the things I will never be able to do, like commanding a faction in medieval times, or fighting in WWII. Im not going to spend days upon weeks just doing stuff in a game because its there, I want to BE there!