When did Creative Assembly become a symbol of evil?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Graphic
I don't recall this petition. What did it call for, was it pre or post release? Link? Whatever it was, you still seem to assume their decision was born out of arrogance, greed, or indifference. Did they specifically state "Sorry, couldn't care less"? I highly doubt that. Have you considered that they didn't have time to implement all the suggestions, that they didn't have the resources to do it, or couldn't get the thumbs up from their corporate overlords?

That petition was the reason why CA banned petitions and essentially closed the door. It was in all intents and purposes a reasonable amalgam of suggestions from a large part of the MP community, members of which have been pioneering in finding how the game works and bugs and conversely making suggestions as to rid of the swipe bug for example that benefited the SP game too. There are other incidents too which i feel is prudent not to discuss.

It seems that you are predisposed to excuse CA, so i don't know what you might make of their response to that. My personal estimate is that their response wasn't really good for that episode and for a few others.

Originally posted by Graphic
I noticed those bugs shortly after I started playing. They were annoying but it really didn't hamper my enjoyment of the game (ruined gameplay? now there's that hyperbole I've been talking about ).

It ruined gameplay since the match-ups were entirely distorted - if that's not ruining for you, then i arrest my case, sorry.

I guess you suggest that gameplay is fun when the player is not able to estimate what will happen in a melee because of the bugs present and does not have a trully decent anti-cavalry unit (making cavalry invincible and flanking maneuvers obsolete). I guess there are as many ways to have fun as there are people but talking about hyperboles? What else could be possibly wrong to mess up tactics for you, i wonder?

Originally posted by Graphic
I'd like you to point out a couple examples of games at 1.0 level that didn't have glaring bugs, you'll find that the vast majority, if not practically all of them, do. It's not unheard of.

I am sorry but this is irrelevant to me. It might be relevant for people that buy TW games, play them for a bit, leave them out and then play other games, but i play TW mostly.

On top of this older TW games were worked on by much smaller teams at about the same period of time and were having proportionally much less bugs. Ever since RTW, the number of bugs has increased probably ten-fold and most of them were interfering with the gameplay. Its a clear indication that the standard has droped and that deadlines and sales are taking over good gameplay and quality.

Originally posted by Graphic
It's been patched since then so I'm not going to continue to hold a grudge against them.

Neither do i, since i don't play M2TW.

Originally posted by Graphic
I was specifically referring to the campaign map AI. MTW's map was just aesthetic, it could have played out exactly the same if it was just a bunch of staggered squares. It was actually incredibly simple. Move unit to adjacent square. Something happens that is randomly determined. End of AI.

No it wasn't neither random neither simple. It was working well on the strategic level as it was well whithin the capabilities of the AI, that in all probability is the same (or very similar) as the one in the RTW/MTW engine.

CA IMO didn't move to the pseudo 3D map because it was more realistic or more complex or was giving better performance. It moved in all probability because this kind of representation (with the kiddy animated giants) was more familiar to the common RTS players and would attract younger SP players. CA staff have "hinted" clearly their aims to make the game "accessible" to 12 year olds and you can find the interviews for this in youtube.

CA succeded in their aim and the fanbase increase multifold since RTW came out despite the fact that there was a concensus among the community that the tactics were really degraded. The criticism for degrading the gameplay for exchange with visuals was ignored with an iron ear by CA during RTW - they denied even the obvious at several occasions (the obvious being that they had changed direction).

Originally posted by Graphic
You don't see how that's more complex?

Yes i do - now please point that out to CA too, that insists on using this map despite the fact that the strategic AI can't handle it. Players praise the pseudo 3D map (see post above) despite the fact that it ruined the strategy in the game as the AI isn't tuned with it. Its called bad design - but people will still stick to the newer version because it flattered their eyes and now they can't go back.

You try to say that CA is sort of innocent and in a sense is true. If RTW has been slandered and ignored sales - wise then they would be singing a very different song, i'm sure. Now though, they know that their games will succeed as long as they aim at streamlining them (take the depth out), visualising them (improve appearances) make them accessible (not too complex, not too difficult) and generally aim for breadth instead of depth; so they'll keep on the same track. I agree with you: its not really their fault.

Noir

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Read the manual (page 22)

Special thanks
......
Also to all those fans that make the Org a thriving cummunity. ........ and all the modders that have helped build a thriving community!

They listen to us and thank us. Of course they are human beings making mistakes. I for my part like the game. I am spending hours every day playing it. I have my moments of banging my head against the wall after a CTD, after a stupid decision of the AI, After.... But I have done that with all the games that I have played including Civ I to IV.

I really like this game. I think that some people simply have to many expectations of what is possible and what is fixable and especially how soon it is possible. Most improvements will probably come to light in Empire.

[Red Spot]

personally I dont know CA so cant say I like or dislike them ...
I do however know I like the main titels they released

Fact that CA let Sega implement such an intrusive CP-system is no reason to start a flame-war, but than again I can also understand that people who bought their games, often at full price, can feel rather insulted by such actions.

I can tell you I have ~€200,- worth of games I bought full pice cause I wasnt aware of the possible implications of some CP-systems and like what those developers made before.
So I'm paying to get my perfectly fine running system molested??
Thats how CA/Sega treats all of us, fans, paying customers, comprimising our systems for their income ...


G

[Mr Frost]

...Fact that CA let Sega implement ...

That would be like me saying "...fact that you let Damon Wayans make another movie..." .
The only realistic way you could have stopped him would have involved breaking the law several times , though in that example it would be justifyed .

Developers almost never have any control over copy protection . If C.A. were to insist , they would probably not be able to get a big enough producer to compete in the current games market .

How the hell were they to stop Sega ? They weren't even informed according to Caliban and Pallamedies . Should they have hired spys {illegal , called industrial espionage} and even if they had and thus found out what Sega was planning , then what ? Hired mercenaries to force them {obviously even more illegal} ? Mafia thugs ? What ?!

The only one who had any real say in the copy protection software was Sega . Blame Sega .
If you want to stop games from being produced with harmful or needlessly intrusive "copy protection" then target the producers , not the developers . Targeting developers who have no real say in the matter is a waste of time .

Of course , if you just want to Kvetch and take shots at someone because it makes you feel good , then keep doing what you're doing .

[SpencerH]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

[alpaca]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

Uh-oh, I see the water already retreating hundreds of yards from the shore

[Nikos_Rouvelas]

SEGA owns CA. There is no point in blaming CA for anything other than the poor quality of the gameplay.

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

[Mr Frost]

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? ...

That is like saying "If you think that chicken tastes terrible , then why did you buy it ?"
Don't get it ? How would you know the chicken tastes like fried cardboard without eating it first , which in the real world requires you to purchase it , and the skin tastes good .

Game demos don't let you get a true feel for a full s.p. game {campaign in T.W.} nor do they give you a true idea of the M.P. experience .
Also , unlike Kentucky Fried Cardboard {I think they use artificial seagulls wrapped in chicken skin} , M2TW can be modded extensivly into something very different gameplay wise .

[SpencerH]

If you think the gameplay is poor then why buy the game? Just play another game like Civ AoE or Europa Universalis. Personally I think they all pale in comparison to TW but thats just my opinion.

I bought the game in the hope it had moved back to the fine tactical considerations that made the TW series great and away from the RTS-like focus that arrived with RTW. That is not the case, IMO. If anything, M2TW has moved further from the original games than RTW. It's hard to come to those conclusions without actually trying to play the game though.

I'm currently playing CIV4 BtS which I think is the best game since the original concept - even better than Alpha Centauri.

AoE, hmmm? Maybe it's not obvious but I'm not a fan of RTS (see above). I've played many but stopped when Shogun came out.

EU was Ok, just not my cup of tea.