should more graphical effects be added to the game?

[neoiq5719]

There´s no doubt that fixing bugs and improving AI is a must BUT apart from that, are we looking for a bit more of realism in this game? Someone told me that ppl are more for the playability and fun rather than graphical effects BUT cant we have both?
What do i mean by more graphical effects? Well the main feature at that time was brutality so why cant we see some of those BUT ONLY once in awhile otherwise the overuse of it would become like the game, boring.
Why no see during a battle a head or a limb cut off? why not see holes on the ground or burning trees from missed cannon shots? and other things like that just to beef up the game.
The implementation of those things would be a modding or an actual progamming?
what do u guys think?

[LegioScythia]

Its a strategy game it isn't much about graphics , plus if it had that sort of effects it would be impossible for many of us to run the game properly because of the system requirements.

[Furious Mental]

Burning forests and grass would be nice, also because it happens to be an actual battle tactic. Personally I wouldn't count on dismemberment ever being included in a TW game since it is the sort of thing that might push it into a more restricted classification.

[Shahed]

You will see better GFX in the TWs of the future. That's a guarantee, they're not going to go backwards, GFX has become a major selling point for this series.

[FactionHeir]

You will see better GFX in the TWs of the future. That's a guarantee, they're not going to go backwards, GFX has become a major selling point for this series.

And sadly so.

[TevashSzat]

Being able to burn down forests would be awesome since you can turn those pesky jungles in the Americas into grassland

[Shahed]

One can successfully argue that this GFX depth has come at the expense of game detail. It takes a lot of time to do all those GFX.

As always I'd like to see both.

I want to see cinematic battles, play my game on a large screen, like an interactive movie. I don't want it to be some shallow chick flick (sorry girls ;P), I want a deep, meaningful, accurate, realistic and entertaining game.

The key word is depth.

M2:TW has depth but it's unfinished, you must mod the game to really see it's potential.

It is possible to market to both markets.

[Atalus]

i think a nice forest fire would get rid of those pesky hidden archers so well

[Zenicetus]

Being able to burn down forests would be awesome since you can turn those pesky jungles in the Americas into grassland

Burning a forest isn't so easy in the tropics and sub-tropics, with frequent rain and soaked trees. "Slash and burn" agriculture is used in some of those areas, but the key aspect is the "slash" part... cutting down the trees first, then burning. It's pretty labor-intensive, not something you'd do as an ad-hoc battle tactic, I don't think (is there any historical record of the Conquistadores doing this? Maybe I'm wrong).

Anyway, regarding graphics... as someone else mentioned, I think each new major TW release will keep pushing the graphics envelope, following the overall trend in PC games. I know hardcore strategy gamers don't always like this, but it's a requirement to stay ahead of the consoles and the other PC gaming companies.

One direction it go, is just showing larger armies on the field. I think that's likely in future TW games, although I hope it's coupled with much more flexible camera and command controls, to handle the larger armies and wider zoom/pan range.

Another possibility is showing more blood 'n guts, although I doubt CA will do this. The game does seem a little too sanitized to me. If I were designing the game and had total control, I'd ramp it up a notch or two, without going all the way into exploitative and unrealistic levels of violence (i.e. limbs flying and fountains of blood with every sword hit). There should be more wounded soldiers crawling around too. In this game everyone either lives without showing much sign of injury, or dies very quickly. A real battle isn't that "pretty" and idealized. But I doubt CA will ramp this up very much. They're probably already right at the edge of what they can get away with, and keep their current rating.

One area that could stand some major graphics enhancement is the settlements and cities. Too many look alike, with different factions all borrowing the same generic models for buildings. Also, the cities feel dead without seeing any civilians running around. I know that in reality, many would have fled the city (although not a castle), or would stay behind locked doors during a siege. But surely there would be at least a few people peeking over the rooftops, or milling around somewhere. The cities just feel totally deserted. I'd like to feel like I'm defending people, not just stonework. On the attacking side, I'd like to get a glimpse of the people that are about to become my slaves, or be put to the sword. Somehow these cities and castles need to come alive. That also means allowing players to view their settlements in-between battles, like we could in RTW.

[RickooClan]

Days ago i have started a game on MTW with France on GA mode. I really love the GA mode and smarter AI on the battlefield. But i have never realize the units was so "toy" alike.

It is hard to switch back once you have been playing on better graphical setup.

[Forward Observer]

I wonder if CA could market the usual sanitized version of the game to get the general audience rating, but then later sell a downloadable patch that would add blood and gore. I'd probably buy it----Nah, I guess the rating board might see through that, and force Sega to do what Rockstar had to do after the "hot coffee" scandal.

Still, I read where they are going to add moats in the expansion, so I would assume there will be other graphical enhancements. I just hope they can pull it off without putting the graphical requirements beyond the reach of my already strained P4 CPU and AGP style GPU.

I know years ago my old P3 500 mhz system ran Shogun just fine, but started to choke with the Mongol expansion just because they added such items as road dust behind marching troops, but then it's just like Rosanna Rosanadana used to say: "It's alway something"

Cheers

P.S. Personally, one enhancement that I would like to see is a way to have better intellegence and therefore a better choice of the ground I am going to be fighting on in a battle. I can not fathom why they would leave the battles in mountainous regions to chance events where sometimes either you or your enemy is placed on a ledge of a mountain with no way up or down. What commander in his right mind would ever attack in that sort of situation.

[Ars Moriendi]

There's a lot more to be done in the battlefield realism department.

Severed limbs and pools of blood. Bodies piling so high they become obstacles on the battlefield. Spears stuck in the ground, arrows in the chests of unlucky warriors, swords, broken shields and pieces of armour, all over the place. Abandoned banners. The wailing of the injured, crawling on their hands if they don't have feet anymore. Executioners with a mallet and a spike, putting the knights out of their suffering. Riderless horses running arround, maddened, neighing. Supply trains and camp followers. Cooks, smiths, servants, priests and whores. Trenches and spiked pits. Holes in the ground where the cannonballs have fallen. Mud and swamps, with men stuck waist high and fallen horses trying to get up. Smoke and dust lingering in the heavy air. Carrion birds crowing, circling above the feast. Prisoners prostrated or kneeling, hands above their head, in submission. Civilians fleeing before the pillage the burning and the rape. Dogs, chickens, cows and pigs running around. People shouting orders, crying their pain, laughing at the losers, talking, cursing at each other.

I want all that in my game. Oh, and a million dollar supercomputer to run it all

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

There's a lot more to be done in the battlefield realism department.

Severed limbs and pools of blood. Bodies piling so high they become obstacles on the battlefield. Spears stuck in the ground, arrows in the chests of unlucky warriors, swords, broken shields and pieces of armour, all over the place. Abandoned banners. The wailing of the injured, crawling on their hands if they don't have feet anymore. Executioners with a mallet and a spike, putting the knights out of their suffering. Riderless horses running arround, maddened, neighing. Supply trains and camp followers. Cooks, smiths, servants, priests and whores. Trenches and spiked pits. Holes in the ground where the cannonballs have fallen. Mud and swamps, with men stuck waist high and fallen horses trying to get up. Smoke and dust lingering in the heavy air. Carrion birds crowing, circling above the feast. Prisoners prostrated or kneeling, hands above their head, in submission. Civilians fleeing before the pillage the burning and the rape. Dogs, chickens, cows and pigs running around. People shouting orders, crying their pain, laughing at the losers, talking, cursing at each other.

I want all that in my game. Oh, and a million dollar supercomputer to run it all

you need a girlfriend then you'll get all that

[The Spartan (Returns)]

M2 needs HDR duh!

about blood and decapitation etc.

TW would sell more as an rated T/12+ than an M/17+,18+ game.

if you want all that blood and limbs falling off play Spartan: Total Warrior or wait for the next Total Warrior game (prob after the expansion)

but im sure adding some blood spurts in the fighting (like they did with arrows) wont ruin the rating.

[Zenicetus]

P.S. Personally, one enhancement that I would like to see is a way to have better intellegence and therefore a better choice of the ground I am going to be fighting on in a battle. I can not fathom why they would leave the battles in mountainous regions to chance events where sometimes either you or your enemy is placed on a ledge of a mountain with no way up or down. What commander in his right mind would ever attack in that sort of situation.

Yeah, that's one of the most jarring and unrealistic things about the game... the way you're thrown into a random tactical situation with every battle. Aside from the isolated case of bridge crossings, there's no sense of planning your army's movements for terrain advantage ahead of the battle, or avoiding bottlenecks and traps. Or setting traps and ambushes yourself.

In my idealized version of the game, the strategic map would look basically the way it does now, but you could smoothly zoom in all the way to the tactical level, the 3D icons gradually being replaced by what you see in the battles (hey, if Google Earth can do it....). This way you could scout territory ahead of your army, or see how the enemy has positioned itself. Maybe that last part would only apply if you had a spy in their army, or very close by. I think this would add a great deal to the game, although of course it means massive amounts of terrain coding instead of just generating randomized terrain for every battle. So I'm not holding my breath for it... not least, because the AI would have to be able to take advantage of it, otherwise it would be a massive player exploit.

In the meantime, maybe CA could just generate some extra randomized terrain surrounding the roped-off battle area, and give us (and the enemy) some time to maneuver for best position before entering the actual "combat arena." That might go a little way towards eliminating that feeling of "how did I get HERE??!" at the start of every battle.

[todorp]

Personaly I would prefer to have a better AI than more graphics. In my view the graphics is very good already.

[Bijo]

should more graphical effects be added to the game?

Hellll no. Unless for some reason the game runs as fast as it does now -- or even faster -- due to some kind of.... "magical code"

If there's anything that should give a bit more immersion, should be changed, should be added to -- graphics are okay enough -- it should be the sound, if y'ask me. While graphics are important, they are naturally superficial: sound tends to go more into the direction of the sub-conscious, if ya know what I mean, as people usually pay more attention to the graphics - carefully crafted sound can have LOTS of influence on people, more than graphics. But combined: ooooo

And it's the combination in this game that isn't so well done, methinks. To be blunt: the graphics are reasonable, and the sound is mediocre.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

oh yeah! M2 NEEDS ambient sound.
i can't even hear cannons, gun shots and fighting from far away.

[Quickening]

Hmm I always loved the sound in the game.

Yeah Id bloody love severances and gore galore but as others have said, decent AI and pathfinding comes first.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

OMG i just realised that if you upgrade weapons of some units they actually look different (the weapons), how cool is that...

[RickooClan]

OMG i just realised that if you upgrade weapons of some units they actually look different (the weapons), how cool is that...

That works on armour as well. You can see padded leather armour added onto the militia or archer units after upgraded!!

[crpcarrot]

Being able to burn down forests would be awesome since you can turn those pesky jungles in the Americas into grassland

Rainforests are not something you can burn very easily if it is included it shouldnt be possible. although they are called rainforests they are actually jungles with lots of moisture and humidity

on topic. although better graphics are nice i am not too bothers about it. i'm rarelyzoomed in enough to actually see any action and i'd rather they spend that valubale development time on improving AI, diplomacy etc.

the problem with graphics is since it is the most visible part of the game it is the first thing that will get fixed. how many grpahical errors were there compared to all the other bugs??